Speaking of folks who see me as well-intentioned and misguided, I received a long email from a woman I’ll call "B in New Hampshire" yesterday. In polite but passionate terms, she questions whether men should be teaching women’s studies:
My personal reaction to hearing about men teaching in
WS is saddness and then anger and then a sense of one
more defeat. Feminist studies as an academic
discipline has become watered down in title to womens
studies and then nearly made invisible with the sugar
coated gender studies which tries to include every
conceivable topic other than direct feminist studies.
I would be insulted and feel quite disrespected that a college or university would think
so little of women studies as a formal site of study
to offer a Women’s History class and have it taught by
a man. You say in your site you do acknowlege you
bring your maleness into the class. I appreciate that
but it does little to legitamize the situation in my
eyes.
I do acknowledge that having a man teaching women’s history to a class filled with women (and always at least one or two other men) is problematic. I know just how important it is that young women have feminist role models who, in both their work and their private lives, can live out feminist principles. But higher education is not just about providing role models! It is about the principle that knowledge itself has no sex, and that all human experience is equally worthy of study by all human beings. When we limit the teaching of women’s studies to women, we send the message that this subject is not, somehow, worth the time and attention of male academics. This does not mean that a male teacher confers a legitimacy his female colleagues do not — though some students may perceive it that way. But it does mean that it is immensely counter-productive to "ghettoize" (I use that term carefully) an academic discipline by suggesting that only some folks can teach it.
Below, my Thursday Short Poem from Audre Lord makes clear that merely "being a woman" does not guarantee compassion or empathy with other women! Women of color in the feminist movement have spent years having their concerns marginalized by their white, upper-middle class sisters. What makes a wealthy white woman more qualified to teach her Latina and African-American sisters than, say, a Latino man — or for that matter, a white man? Feminists who insist that the oppression of sex transcends racial and economic discrimination do a colossal injustice to the experiences of both men and women of color. My point is simple: if we are going to take a teacher’s sex into account, we must also take his or her race into account — and that sets up a slippery slope towards the extreme Balkanization of academic disciplines.
But I don’t mean to trivialize B’s real concerns. I am aware that for some women, having a male instructor is problematic. I would never want to be the ONLY professor at the college teaching women’s studies. This semester, we will have four sections of women’s history; I will teach one and the other three will be taught by my female colleagues. I am happy to have students transfer from my class into one of my colleagues’ classes, should they wish to have a woman professor.
B also asks:
When you were hired for the course was there any discussion of the conflict presented by having a male faculty member teach the course?
I first started teaching women’s history at PCC when one of my colleagues went on maternity leave at the beginning of the spring semester, 1995. I liked the experience so much, I asked for my own section for the fall, and was given it. The division chair at the time was a woman, and she took considerable heat from the female faculty members who taught the other sections of the course. It was one thing to have me "fill in" for a semester; another to have me continue to teach the class year after year. We had some fierce and public disagreements back then about a man teaching such a course — but over the past decade, as my evaluations have come back semester after semester, my colleagues have either accepted the situation or decided to keep their concerns to themselves.
B goes on:
I do believe there a few men who may have authentic
feelings toward women as a gender and may want to help
in our fight, however, for men to co-op the term
feminist male is yet another insult. It is useless to
get into specific instances of incidents, mine
personally or the uncountable ones that fill history
from all over the world, but do let me say that i have
spent the last 20 years observing on a daily basis the
impact men have on women just by listening and
watching and reading and talking in daily life. At
gas stations, supermarkets, movie theaters, schools,
restaurants, on the street, in my home, in my friends
home, in literature, music, art, and film and
magazines there is an unfathomable record of
injustice that has reached women physically, socially,
economically and politically.
B and I disagree about the use of the term "feminist male". But I am aware of how troubled many are by men’s appropriation of the term "feminist", and this is why I, like many of my brethren, use the term "pro-feminist." And make no mistake — I am aware that men do have a profound impact on women!
I know that I have male privilege in the classroom. Because I am a man, few of my students assume that my course will be a "man-bashing" course. (Some of my men’s rights advocate critics are convinced it is, but none of them, to my knowledge, have sat through a single lecture.) Where my female colleagues are assumed by students to be "pushing an agenda", I, as a supposedly objective man, am considered more "fair." I’ve heard these comments over and over again, and I am saddened by them. But what should I do with this privilege? I can acknowledge it and withdraw from the classroom, leaving women’s studies to female professors. But how, exactly, does that help things? How would my quitting further the legitimization of gender work? I think it’s better to stay in the classroom, while openly calling attention to that unmerited assumption of objectivity that so many students have about male professors.
I’m convinced that feminists and pro-feminists can, in good conscience, continue to disagree about the role of men in the women’s movement. But after a decade of instructing dozens of sections of women’s history at PCC, I do believe that neither my biology nor my acculturation are bars to effective teaching of historical and contemporary feminist issues. But as always, I welcome alternative views.
Frankly, I can’t get overly worked up about men in the feminist movement. I’m too practical-minded not to want a little of that male privilege working for us.
Amanda, I’ve noticed a real generational divide on this. The feminists who seem most troubled by the presence of men in the movement tend to be older. Younger activists tend to have a more inclusive world-view. On the other hand, older women just may be bolder about getting in my face from time to time!
As a male who has feminist theory on my teaching competencies list (haven’t taught it yet as a stand alone class, had 2-3 weeks devoted to it in an issues class), I’m rather obviously with you. But in my neck of the woods, it isn’t really controversial. Two of my main graduate faculty are prominent feminist theorists; they’ve encouraged me to develop this teaching/research interest. The women’s studies department here only has a handful of core members, and I think they’re all women (but I they did, IIRC, make an offer to a man, but he took another job), but many of the courses they offer are taught by men in other departments.
There is a potential ackwardness to it, I’ll grant, but it doesn’t come close to the ackwardness of (for example) when we’re reading about race, civil rights moveement or something, and all eyes in the room dart toward, then away from, the one or two black students (typical number per class), and they sit silently, obviously feeling pressure to say something for all the wrong reasons. My point is, teaching is going to have ackward moments. They’ll be more plentiful and perhaps difficult in these kind of situations.
At the end of the short unit of contemporary feminist theory I taught, which went very well as an upper division academic seminar, but discussion remained at a pretty abstract, non-personal level, I gave a mini-lecture on how I used male privilege to make that happen. It was one of those teaching moments where you could look around the room and see all the lightbulbs going on–sort of a meta-male privilege! But look, first and foremost, I want to be a good teacher, so I’ll play with the hand I’m dealt.
I also take issue with the dissing of the title gender studies. It seems to me that’s what women’s/feminist studies has always been. It wouldn’t make sense to study the history of racism in the US without paying any attention at all to white people.
I think you’re right about the generational difference; older women in the feminist movement have experienced more outright hostility, including from men supposedly in the ‘movement’. They’re old enough to remember when people (including women) were laughing at the very idea of Women’s Studies.
The battles are still there, but the nature and location of the battles are different. The memory is still raw for some of the veterans.
I should also note that in my 11 years of nominal adulthood, I’ve been around feminists–scholars and activists and friends–pretty consistently. My role in these various activities (and that of other men) has never really been controversial. Obviously, some tasks and positions shouldn’t be taken on by men, and usually which ones those are are determinable through a bit of common sense. And part of common sense in this case is being aware of male privilege, and the role it plays in various social situations, and making a reasonable effort to adjust my behavior accordingly (In a practical sense, about 80% of that is shutting up and listening when my first impulse is to talk some more). So I take umbrage to B’s thoughts about the proper role of men in feminism, but I’m pretty sure most of my feminist friends and colleagues would too.
Could easily be a generational thing.
On the use of the term feminist, I’m sorry, but I’m going to continue to use it unapologetically, without the male modifier, every bit as comfortably as I call myself an anti-racist, without the modifier white, until I’ve seen a good reason not to. It’s a damned outrage that men (or women!) calling themselves feminist is controversial and not absolutely normal expecte (like, for example, anti-racist).
I’d like to apologize for my abuse of the english language in my previous post. I’ll try very hard to avoid apologizing for things I do unapologetically in the future.
Women in their late 40s-early 50s remember when the concepts of feminism, women’s studies, etc were derided by male experts, and the competency of female experts was considered nil. Men told us what we were supposed to think and feel and do, and it was a big improvement when women said “dammit, I feel this, I think this”, not parroting what the men decided was acceptable. Hard as it is to remember today, this was a novelty.
This reminds me of a moment in a short-story class I took when I was an undergrad at Wellesley. I don’t remember how it came up, but one student said to the class, “Don’t you ever have those mornings where you wake up and think, ‘I’m a woman at a women’s college. I feel so empowered!’”
The rest of us stared at her blankly. “Uh … no.”
It’s obviously very important to some feminists to have these all-female spaces free from the influence a man might have just by being there. Having spent four years at an all-female college I don’t see what the big deal is, but clearly some women really need it.
I don’t like the idea of making it the sine qua non of feminism though, basically for the reasons you state. What is the long-term strategy here? Is the solution really to hide out from men and their mysterious superpowers over the female psyche?
B would have really become worked up had she attended my alma mater. I had a Sociology teacher who knew of my interest in Women’s Studies, and he encouraged me to get the uni to work up a special plan for me. So, I went to the department head, and was presented with a list of a combination of sociology, history and *home economics* courses that I could take to get a minor in said studies.
B, Hugo’s class is what this East Texas chick calls progress.
QUOTE The Cassamia “What is the long-term strategy here? Is the solution really to hide out from men and their mysterious superpowers over the female psyche?”
I have to say that doesn’t sound very empowering to me. I get the humor and truth in what you are saying though. To say that there is a male privilege in just our presence gives us guys a lot of power we don’t really have. Stranger and stranger.
What do you think the reaction is, as a teacher of these classes, from the female students to a male student? I have been curious about these classes myself, and I was wondering if there was maybe some material I could read at the local library that would a Prof. such as yourself would suggest?
I’m seeking truth and peace, and willing to look at all sides. I am very cautious of information from either side due to the fact that there are so many zealots and people with grudges/agendas.
Please do not take offense to any of that. If I offended any where please let me explain before anything gets taken the wrong way.
Robert, there are countless books out there, and I’ll try a future post of a reading list for you.
The male privilege in “just our presence” comes from assumptions that others make about men and that we make about ourselves. We are, merely by virtue of being male, assumed to be more rational, logical, and intellectual. We also are free from the socialization that has been forced on to so many young women, the socialization that teaches them to be compliant and quiet rather than vocal.
Two things:
First, I think it’s extremely important that sexism and feminism be issues taken up by men. Sexism will persist unless women and men oppose it together. That means men must actively oppose sexism — and for that reason, men should be studying and participating in discussions of feminism. The occasional postcard-essay of “Good luck! Best wishes!” is just not going to cut it.
If men are going to take feminism seriously, it would stand to reason that at least some academics in the field should be men.
I’m not crazy about the expression “male privilege,” since I believe that men actually suffer a great deal because of sexism, if not nearly as much as women. However, it’s hard to miss all the little markers of male dominance in daily life, so I suppose I must accept the term.
Second, a few years ago, when I joined a socialist group, we generally only used “feminism” to describe non-socialist opponents of sexism. This led to a lot of unnecessary confusion and hostility, alienated good allies, and I think referring to principled opponents of sexism as “feminists” a lot more clear. Fortunately, I think most of the members of my socialist group came to the same conclusion.
Well, I’d like to think I’d get in your face about it. After all, we virtual met after I threated to kick you in the shins. As for the generational thing, I think a lot of men in my generation were raised to take women’s opinions a little more seriously than previous generations. I really don’t have nearly the amount of experience that older women do in being run over by men my age on every subject, including feminism. Not to say that it doesn’t happen; it happens nearly every day. But I wouldn’t even say that gross sexism is a problem in 90% of my encounters with men. I’m sympathetic to both sides, really.
Hello, I would like to thank Hugo for taking the time to repond to my inquiry and to do so in a cordial manner. I am B (Bella). I would like to respond to your post with a question I forgot to ask and a couple of comments. Is there a roughly equivalent rate of women educators teaching in the evolving men studies courses and if so is anyone writing articles that are available?
I was struck by your comment that knowledge has no sex within academia. I like it in theory and it is what i want to believe about institutional education I but don’t think it is always carried out in practice within colleges and universities. I think the histories of many educational institutions old and new would present ample examples. Even most recentlly with Harvard Unviversity president making the usual comments on womens “inate lack of abilities” in science and math and their most confusing new school policy on not investingating sexaul assault unless the person can bring in a witness or evidence.
I find these comments from the president of one of the most influential schools around to be very discouraging.
I do not think having a woman teaching womens studies is throwing the class into the ghetto. I do not think you have to experience everything in life that someone else does in order to educate or be in the role of a teacher. Obviously that just cant be done. I do understand empathy, participation to the level you can and actively enacting a way of thinking and living be that in your personal or professional life. And I certainly do not think being female alone makes you any more sypathetic about feminism. If you were teaching Latino Male history to a class of prodiminately latino males and you were a white rich female dont you think a few students would ask what was up with that at some point? So I do not see why my asking a similar question within women studies is viewed as something an old feminist would ask. Contrary to the assumed I am not in my fifties only in my early thirties. I ask my questions, and i feel valid in having my opinion, based not on the sole accounts of books or first generation feminists stories but on my own personal daily experiences that come from men and from women. There are a host of women studies basher books and articles written by women on the market that call it a joke and and say it is not a discipline to be studied and say it is dangerous and harmful/ Their comments read similar to the ones you would find on the manpower site. I am not as well read as many of the posters on this site but I do try to read a bit and I do not see alot of other programs of study being treated this way. And yes, I do know all programs have their problems but there does seem to a be a rather vile hatred geared to women studies.
I think it was Camassia, apologies if i am wrong not sure if posts signs are the name above or below sometimes. I am not hiding out from men or their mysterious superpowers. I do not think they are that mysterious nor do they have superpowers.
But the intellectual community does at times (historically and present day) have a tendency to think they have super powers and are immune from carrying the effects of life and their specific genders, and the ideology of institutions and or race into the classroom. If knowledge has no sex in academia why would a male teacher “legitamize” as you said, Hugo, any class particularily a womens studies class. Clearly it is at issue.
And by the way, I am not a middle class or wealthy feminist with all the answers. I am a low-income person with alot of questions. (sorry for such a long post again many thanks for everyones comments i appreciated hearing what you had to say)
I would rather take a Women’s History class from a man that could present a balanced and truthful treatment of the subject, than a class from a pro-feminist woman pushing her own one sided political agenda.
If only women should teach women’s history, should then only Latinos teach Mexican history, and Chinese teach Chinese history? What then to do with the survey classes that teach a variety of cultures? Who is “qualified” to teach those?
The ancient history that I teach to my 6th graders is filled with the heroics of MEN like Alexander and Caesar. Should I then be unqualified to teach this because I am a woman?
There certainly are plenty of women teaching men’s studies, largely because at so many institutions, Bella, we have the Gender Studies departments you decry. I assure you, the feminist and pro-feminist work done within them is superb, better by far than what was being done when I was an undergrad in the 1980s.
I don’t think you’ve understood, with all respect, what I meant by “legitimize.” I don’t believe that men teaching a course legitimizes it! Far from it. Rather, I am aware that in the minds of some students, male professors are WRONGLY perceived as having greater intellectual credibility. I do think a subject can only be legitimate when folks are allowed to study it — and teach it — regardless of their race or sex.
To some extent, we all teach from our own life experiences. No one woman has sufficient life experience to be able to relate to all women; no one man has the sufficient life experience to relate to all men. In college, we are pushed — and we push others — to empathize with those who are least like us. That’s essential work.
Anne, I hate to break it to you, but I teach my course from a pro-feminist standpoint…
But your comment proves the very point I was trying to make to Bella about the presumption of male objectivity!
Anne may I ask why you assume a feminist has an agenda in the classroom but a man doesn’t? teaching is agenda knowledge is agenda
you demonstrate my point
You imply a feminist can teach with passion as teacher but not as a feminist teacher and she can do so as long as she does not challange the pc fashionable feminism. As you are teaching sixth grade there is a very distinct difference in the administrative and academic set up. You are encompassing a wide vareity of information for an overall study assessed by levels 6th grade, 7th grade and so on. In college and universities programs of study are specifically designed for the historical and contexual elements of the program antrhopology, latino studios, dance, yes they encompass other areas for the liberal arts or required faces but in a designated program there are emphasis that are core to the primary area of study which is meant to carry the student into either a professional or personal career of specific study. So yes questions are raised to who teaches what.
Bella
So Hugo, are you saying that you do not teach History with objectivity?
Why should any history course be taught from a biased point of view? There are two sides to every story, and yes history is usually written by the victorious. But it is any teacher’s responsibility to provide a balanced view of the subject.
This reminds me of the recent cinematic fiasco of “Alexander the Gay”. Clearly, the makers of that movie had an agenda; and as a result, those of my students who (sadly) went to see it will remember Alexander not for his triumphs on the battle field but for his conflicts in the bedroom.
Similarly, if your student’s receive the “pro-feminist” view of Women in American history, then aren’t you somehow diminishing their right to an objective, non-biased curriculum whereby they can analyze the information and draw their own conclusions about how to interpret the past?
If he were a woman and said he taught “objectively”, would you believe him?
When you ghettoize someone, you make it hard for them to get out. I want feminists to influence every corner of academia, and if it helps to have men in feminist courses, then good. I don’t want there to be fuel for the belief that only men can teach history, literature, etc. because most of the achievements in the past were done by men. (Or by women and stolen by men, but that’s another story.)
To answer Bella’s question… I never said that I assume a “feminist has an agenda in the classroom, but a man doesn’t”.
I simply mean that I would rather hear Women’s History from an OBJECTIVE man than a BIASED woman. There is not to be any assumption that I was referencing anyone in particular!
And I am well aware of the differences in the structures of middle schools vs. colleges and universities. (duh!)
Anne, are there limits to objectivity? When I invite a Holocaust survivor to speak on World War Two, should I also invite a neo-Nazi to give a counter-story?
Objectivity is, in its purest form, morally neutral. Good teachers are moral advocates, not disinterested computers dispensing information.
Now Hugo… you are taking a very extreme example to try to illustrate your point. But my answer to your question would be yes- bring in the other side of the story -if for nothing else- it should help you prove your point.
Good teachers are moral advocates - but be careful whose “morals” are you preaching. This world has many different views in it, and a good teacher would present as many as possible.
I hope you don’t really believe (as you make it sound) that being objective is synonymous with being disinterested. Nothing could be further from the truth. A teacher who cares enough to empower their students with the tools to think critically is by no means just a computer dispensing information!
Anne, “disinterested” is very different from “uninterested”. The former is considered a virtue, the latter less so. And if you would bring a Nazi into your classroom, I fear for your students. IF you consider that responsible pedagogy, then the gulf between us is too wide to have ongoing dialogue.
Interesting discussion—I have to admit that having been raised to identify as feminist, I was shocked by the idea that men should not identify as feminist. I’ve simply never heard this.
Personally, I use the label to describe myself not to trumpet my tolerance or passion for equality but because it’s like a giant “kick me” sign for when I’m wrong. I’ve had women close to me sit me down when I said something insensitive and say, “You’re a self-avowed feminist, how can you think something like this?” Anything less than that label strikes me as a wishy-washy name for me to take—I want to be held to the standard everyone should be held to. Put me in the “why isn’t everyone a feminist?” camp, I guess.
As for gender studies, opposition to that term strikes me as misguided. Not only is gender identity at the root of many of the problems women face in society, but it’s also at the bottom of the things homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgendered people face. I understand preferring the term “women’s studies” because it highlights how much more problems women face as a result of gender issues than men, but it excludes a lot of people who face just as many problems as women. The argument can be made that gay men still enjoy male privilege and lesbians fall under the broader feminist movement, but trans folks get lost. I don’t want to be part of a movement that excludes transgendered people, consciously or otherwise. That’s what I see as the strength of the “gender studies” term.
B: If you were teaching Latino Male history to a class of prodiminately latino males and you were a white rich female dont you think a few students would ask what was up with that at some point?
B, maybe someone would raise a question, but really, this sort of thing happens all the time at the modern university, and it’s generally no big deal. I can think of a half-dozen similar scenarios off the top of my head at the schools I’ve attended and taught at. Part of the last 30-40 years in the University is the story of a white male club opening it’s doors to a bunch of new people. Upon arrival, those people said “hey, what about our history/literature/culture/etc? This is all interesting, valuable, worthwhile stuff and you’re doing your disciplines and your universities a disservice by ignoring it!” For the most part, the initial response varied from lukewarm to hostile (academics may be politically liberal, but they’re a remarkably small-c conservative bunch), but over time, more and more people have responded to those questions by saying “you’re right! We shouldn’t have ignored that stuff, and it is valuable and interesting. I’ll start studying it and teaching it now.” If that’s appropriation, well, OK, but really, that’s the definition of success in academia–to get others to take your ideas seriously and build on them.
Hugo, I totally support and endorse your feminism and your students are fortunate to have a caring teacher. Feminism is not just for women. And I agree, you shouldn’t be a male feminist, just a feminist. And I am not a woman scientist, just a scientist.
I know there is a conflict for a lot of women in considering that men can be part of the movement. As a women faculty in science (one equally dismayed by Lawrence summers’ lunacy and delighted at his embarrassed effort to remove foot from mouth), I am annoyed at male AND female colleagues who “don’t get it” (and there are a LOT of women who deny it) and delighted at men who “get it”.
And “it” is, we have a ways to go in the complicated area of recognizing that men and women have important differences, but are capable of similar contributions.
To me, REAL feminism isn’t based on women denying or disparaging men, but meeting men as partners and equals. Are we different? Hell yes! Good thing, too. I LIKE men, I LIKE what I learn from men, I LIKE male presence in my life. that doesn’t have to be sexual, and we can enjoy the difference without sex being involved. (After all, I’m a happily partnered lesbian. And I’m VERY happy being a woman, thank you.)
We learn not just from people who look like us or think like us, but people who don’t look like us—who may actually think JUST like us. I don’t get the conflict, we shouldn’t be fighting with our brothers.
In my field, there aren’t many women. I mostly work with men. I have a lot of (male) colleagues who crawled out from a rock, but fortunately I have some wonderful (male) colleagues who meet me professionally as an equal, and enjoy and celebrate our differences. They aren’t afraid of liking women, but they are nothing less than wonderfully masculine.
Kinda like our host, here. I like you a lot, Hugo, and I am glad you are on our side.
I’m just amused that one has to be careful not to expose students to the dangerous notion that men aren’t superior to women, but merely equal.
chris - you are right to say gender is one of the elements at the root of many problems in regard to women in society. And yes transgendered people need a space socially and academically as do gay and lesbian and so on. Feminist and women have worked unbelievably hard to create an academic space for their history and their debate, politics, arts and the possiblities of their future. But is it right to try to tent all these issues under feminist studies and, or womens studies? How far can the tent keep expanding and not lose sight of the originally contested areas that feminsits were dealing with. yes lots of the issues overlap as they should. You said you feel right to call yourself a feminist and any other word be wishy washy. that is how I think of Feminist studies. Lots of administrations and pr for schools try to play down feminist scholarship and do use gender studies as a term to appease those who woould be offended at feminist or women studies. Language is very important to and while gender studies does help to be more inclusive it forces womens studies to give something up that was a long and hard fight to get to be named as a academic discipline by some school who origin would not even let women study anything because they were not able to be students. Direct feminist study can also get lost under that expanding tent and become only a fraction of the study.
have not seen a motion to meld African American Departments into the American Studies Departments. They are listed as seperate departments. Yes feminsit can connect and be a part of all the other studies of isms and it should be but doesnt it make more sense to start expecting all the departments of academic study to bear the burden of housing, advocating and educating gender and race and class to make it part of how we live and how we teach and learn. It has not in the past so I do not think it will in the future but that is exaclty why feminist and women studies and latino studies and gay and lesbian and transgender studies and so on were created in the first place.
If femnist studies and, or womens studies are meant to house all of these disciplines i fear it will be trammpled down and eroded underneath a monstrously high pile of needy new disciplines within the education system.
And if I may say that you find it odd that someone would not consider a man a feminist we have different experiences. I respect your right to refer to yourself as such but I do not believe men should co-op the phrase. I think it shows disrespect to Feminists. In my life I have only experienced men who degrade feminists notions some to the point of threatenting and occasionally inflicting violence as a response to any of mine or my friends encouragement of our own feminism and of incorporating it into their lives. I have met men who are wonderful human beings but men who I have personally discussed or tried to relate with on feminism by speaking it or trying to live it have been extremely negative and have left harmful lessons from my attempts.
bella
Amanda - how sad you find all this merely “amusing”
Hugo - the dictionary definitions of “uniterested” and “disinterested” both contain the same word… indifferent. While disinterested could also mean free from bias (which would then as you say make it a virtue), I hardly think that the wording of your original comment made your intention clear. And by the way, I never used the word uniterested either.
And if you think I was speaking realistically instead of hypothetically (regarding the Nazi), then indeed the gulf is too wide for us to have an ongoing dialogue on this subject. If the only way you can make an argument is to take the most extreme example and twist words around to attempt to misconstrue someone’s meaning and label them the “bad guy”, then this is far from my ideal of a civilized discussion.
“Objectivity is, in its purest form, morally neutral.”
-Hugo, what does being objective in your lectures to your classes have to do with being morally neutral. Can’t you simply present both sides to history (whether it be war, politics,etc) without trying to make some sort of moral judgement? Is that really your job?
And would it be wrong in a class about Women’s history to present the facts from both sides of the table? Why do you feel the need to label yourself a pro-feminist? Its as if you hope to create some kind of myth that whatever comes out of your mouth must be the “gospel truth” because you are a known sympathizer to the suffering of women.
I think we need to distinguish between objectivity and fairness. Fairness is pretty much a requirement for all teachers all the time. Objectivity is a much bigger challenge. Your post uses the phrase “both sides.” There are two? What are they? What about all the other perspectives? If you teach a class where all information is viewed from one narrow perspective, and you’re intolerant of criticisms of it, that’s not fair. If you choose one or two perspectives to focus on, you look at their strengths and their weeknesses, and so on, well, that’s fair, but it’s not ‘objective’. I’m currently designing a course called the concept of power. When it’s designed, I’ll have a course in which we’ll examine 3-4 different schools of thought on the concept. I’ve got about 8 different schools of thought on my list. I’ve got to cut it in half. Here are the criteria I’ll use to do it. 1) I find the theory interesting and compelling. 2) I expect students will “get it.” 3) They provide good contrasts and comparisons with each other. 4) The readings available to me to assign are accessible and of appropriate length and format.
Are these “objective” criteria? I have no idea. I don’t know how to answer that question. Will my course be fair? Yes, I hope so.
Objectivity is a chimera. Fairness is a much better goal. After all, any presentation of history, issues, topics, stories, etc., is necessarily going to be selective. Journalists often use “objectivity” as a cover for simply presenting he-said-she-said kinds of stories that don’t actually assess the facts of the various positions. Fairness would require asking a couple of questions to test the statements, yet that’s not often done.
As a lawyer, I’m necessarily an advocate, and I want to present evidence and arguments that support my position. And I have to deal with any argument or evidence that doesn’t support my position head-on. I don’t make any claims to objectivity, yet what I do is similar to what someone teaching a class or writing a news story does when they present a thesis or an angle and use facts or argument or quotes to support it.
But is it right to try to tent all these issues under feminist studies and, or womens studies? How far can the tent keep expanding and not lose sight of the originally contested areas that feminsits were dealing with.
Why not? I’m sure people who started areas of study that would naturally fall under other areas in the past want to protect their turf, but a lot falls under history or business or whatever. I’m sure the more you keep studying gender as a construct, the more you see how many areas of life and history and society it affects.
I agree very much with zuzu’s comment above, especially the first paragraph. Reporters do try to present both sides, but the lack of analysis often gives marginal positions far more weight than they otherwise would have had. If I were at home, I would cite some links here discussing this issue, but I am not, so I do not have those links readily available.
I also wanted to point out that I do not believe that it is possible for anyone to be truly objective. Nor is this only my individual belief, but rather part of social theory and this idea is very useful in feminist scholarship. People try to be objective, but can never really achieve it. The questions a scientist chooses to research, for example, are often shaped by unconscious bias. And this belief in and claims of objectivity can lead to more faith in the authority of science and any particular study than is merited.
These sorts of bias are easily recognized in research of the past, such as the racist and sexist biology and medicine of the nineteenth century. But these biases still inform research done today, yet the truth of the conclusions of this research is often unquestioned.
For these reasons, I not only do not believe anyone can be truly objective, I also think false claims of objectivity are harmful. It is better for us to always question and analyze what we are taught for ourselves, rather than assuming our teachers are both objective and the absolute authority on their subject and thus merely accepting everything we are taught as fact.
ZuZu - I am very very aware of how gender affects nearly all areas of life and history. That is why I am so irritated in the first place. Within the hollowed halls of academia feminist have fought and fought to carve out a tiny little space for feminists studies because the sacred institutions of education failed to incorporate it in all other areas of study. You suggest that its absolutely ok to have Feminists studies become an umbrella for a multitude of other disciplines. Why do feminist have to bear the burden of every grieved group who lacks a deparmtent. Yes we empathize and encourage their fight and will actively participate with them in their struggle and in making sure they too get a department however that does not mean feminist should give up the only little spot on campus they have. I do not advocate that feminists “hide out” or only stay within its own corner. It seems naive to think educational institutions are sacred places there is a whole more indoctrination thant education going on in alot of them. And it also does not mean feminist are not being inclusive because we think there should be
an academic space for us. And mind you that even within that tiny spot it is cut down in slivers because of the distinctions betweens different feminists the “mtvfeminism” of a majority of teens and twenty somethings and the post feminism advocates who both seem to thing women never really had problems in the first place and seem to want to ride the coattails of feminist fights for choices then make their choice to be part of very the system that feminists are fighting against, then you have the camille paglia faux feminists and if the “male feminists” fraction wasn’t hard enough to deal with now and there are transgender men who mock women and feminists by assuming that because they
purchased a female form they too KNOW what it is like to be a woman and to BE a feminist. Do they know hate and violence as and identy struggle as a concept and as part of thier lives YES they do. Can they sympathize with feminists -can they be wonderful humans - absolutley!!!!!! But can a man truly know the complexity of living life as female and the very real and injust history (past and living history) of women and particularly feminist. No, I do not believe a men can do that. Would I like to believe it, yes. do I see evidence of it, honestly no I do not see it.
Bella
B, what’s wrong if I’m amused by people who think that mere exposure to the idea that men and women are equal will cause the Earth to crash into the sun? Yes, it’s sad. But sometimes we got to laugh, or we will lose our minds.
Amanda contrary to your notion I do not believe the earth wil crash to the sun if men are “equal” But equality and feminism is earned and worked for not just appropriated or co -opted by men ( and women) when it suits them. It is life long commitment and one can not seriously look around this world and say all is equal. (by the way I am not to fond of the human race in general we( and I mean women and men) have royally made a mess of the world.
You can laugh if you like, if fits our culture of those who think caring about injustices is trite. Ironic you feel you will lose your mind if you don’t laugh at peoples convictions I feel I will lose my mind if I don’t hold on to my convictions in a world where everything is just a big joke.
B
You suggest that its absolutely ok to have Feminists studies become an umbrella for a multitude of other disciplines. Why do feminist have to bear the burden of every grieved group who lacks a deparmtent.
No, I didn’t. What I suggested was that feminist studies are actually under the umbrella of gender studies, not the other way around. Feminists, queer theorists, transsexuals and men’s-studies types all have at root the challenging and examination of gender roles and constructs in society. In that way, they are similar to a history or political science department with subspecialties like Middle Eastern History and Uses of Propaganda.
Sounds like you’re defending academic turf more than you’re defending the advancement of the academic theory.
B, it’s time for me to confess a bit of ignorance. I’ve only been affiliated with Universities and Colleges that have Women’s studies programs or Gender studies programs. As such, I don’t really know how a feminist studies department would differ. You seem to imply that these departments are too broad, and feminist studies is more specific. However, you also note that gender impacts many/all features of modern life, which suggests to me that women’s/feminist studies should be broad. So I’d be interested in hearing what you understand “feminist studies” to be, and how it differs substantively from “women’s studies.”
Also, I’d be interested to hear your answer to this question. If you think men shouldn’t be called, or call themselves feminists, do you also think that white people shouldn’t call themselves anti-racists? If not, what is the difference?
Of course, a compromise as far as the name of the department goes is what was done at my alma mater (Rice University, if anyone wants to know): my degree is in The Study of Women and Gender. I asked the head of the department about the name once, and she said that they wanted to keep “women” in the name to honor the work feminists had done in getting women’s studies recognition as a discipline, but they also wanted to include gender because they did not feel you could study women without studying gender as a whole.
B, my point is I’m a feminist. I’m not accusing you of anything. I meant bringing up women’s station, not men’s. I don’t think all is equal, but it should be. Sorry if I somehow misled you.
I posted this in the wrong section so I am reposting it here - hopefully that is allowed.
“This is why I’m such a strong advocate of same-gender accountability groups. Men need other men with whom they can open up — first to validate the reality of their own hurt, and then to call each other to account for their own role in what brought that hurt about. If there’s one thing that both the Maoists and the Promise Keepers got absolutely right, it’s that regular and rigorous self-examination in small, same-sex accountability “cell groups” is a prerequisite for real transformation.†Hugo
“In my own life and work, I value the feedback I get from women around me — but some of that feedback needs to be processed in a male-only setting.†Hugo
Interesting in light of this thread - Bella
Bella, I absolutely believe that we need same-gender space. I’m not convinced, however, that the classroom ought to be that space. I think colleges and universities must not practice that kind of exclusivity; I think church and non-profit organizations that focus on gender issues ought to.
There is a time for building alliances across the sexual divide, if you will, and a time for creating safe space with your own gender.