Though I am somewhat opposed to Women’s Studies alone—as they have, at least in the past, done much of what the NP Ed. Board claims—I do think that the study of women and men is an important area of scholarship. More specifically in relation to the article, however, I must assert that the Ed. Board has gone slightly too far in their criticism of W.S. programs.
So, before I digress any further, allow me to clarify my thoughts, and thus clarify my writing: whether it is to the National Post, or to thoughtful (and thoughtless) readers everywhere, I hereby clarify my (rudimentary) understanding, and thus support of, the need for Gender Studies programs, and thus for human equality.
First and foremost, I believe that a new movement should be created to supplement feminism, to be more aptly titled “equalism”. Simply stated, though women have indeed been marginalized and repressed and what have you, many other groups and individuals have been as well. And, as I see it, the most redemptive notion that humanity needs to grasp is this: that we are all equal regardless of race, sex, creed or origin, and all deserve love, and respect, and safety.
If we define “feminism” in the same way that that the New Oxford American dictionary does:
The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.
Then indeed, I am a feminist, and a true supporter of feminism. If women are to be politically, socially and economically equal to men, then all people should be equal. Although this definition does leave the transgendered, yet again, somewhat out in the cold. That issue to be discussed at a later date.
The trouble, however, lies in the multi-faceted (and thus truly problematic) nature of feminism’s definition. To begin: many people, when faced with the dreaded “F’ word, automatically ascribe a negative connotation to the it. Unfortunately, feminism is the veritable glue to which many negative associations are adhered.
So, surprise that it may be, I actually agree with the NP Ed. Board… to some extent. The extremist tone of the article may not have been necessary, but the reminder of the equality’s importance merits a second thought in the very least. For any progress to be made, there must be challenge and struggle. As such, I believe that though many Women’s Studies programs go too far, a re framing those programs to be more equality-focused (and closer to Gender Studies programs) would be a step in the right direction.
Oh, but lest I forget: Many of the responses to the aforementioned article reek of that bra-burning, man-hating “feminism” that so oft drags the equality movement into the dregs. I think that an addendum of “what about equality?” would serve to be much more effective. If the writers of these responses want to read truly sexist publication, they should seek out of the penmanship of our dear friend from Calgary. I do have to give credit to “jackieg” for sharing Germaine Greer’s wisdom about our understanding of the patriarchy/matriarchy binary that is oh so damaging.
--- chRistie
