This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason men aren't responding to the name change is, I think, because most men are smart enough to know that in the minds of most of the people who organize and teach those courses, gender behavior is still framed in context of conditioning men to be brute oppressors and conditioning women to be docile doormats.
Thus, the best impression male students will get is that they are only "half-guilty" for their oppressive behavior, because while they may be responsible for acting it out, they're not responsible for the attitudes. However, by that token, if men are half-guilty, then women are doubly innocent, because they are neither responsible for their own attitudes, nor does the brainwashing compel them to engage in any sort of oppressive behavior.
Still no real equality there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 28, @07:06AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
From the article:
"The main reason we want to propose a change to the program is because we want to project more accurately our academic mission,"
'the objective of the Women's Studies Program has been to examine gender, which constructs the lives of both women and men. As a result, the name of women's studies can only be regarded as one aspect of what is researched and taught. '
I suspect that the name change has nothing to do with being more inclusive of men, but is rather an an attempt to further establish feminist theory as the sole interpreter of gender study.
The name 'Women's studies' implies there can be such a thing as 'men's studies', whereas 'gender studies' as a title--and the claim to teach 'how gender constructs the lives of women and men'--gives the appearance of being all inclusive; this way the claim can be made that there is balance and that men are included--even though the only point of view taught will be feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|