Silly Lawsuits, but More Importantly: Gender

A few days ago, Roy Den Hollander, a lawyer who has filed a series of misogynist lawsuits, came out with this gem: he has filed an antifeminist suit against Columbia University for offering women's studies classes, arguing that Columbia uses federal funding to support a “religionist belief system called feminism.” Now, part of me would like to dismiss this as the silly lawsuit it is, but sometimes such trivial things are important for us to reexamine the larger issues at stake.

As an undergraduate at Columbia, the debate on women's studies and on adding women writers to such classes as Literature Humanities (the great literary works from Homer to Woolf-- one of two female authors in the series) and Contemporary Civilization (the great philosophers-- from Plato to, well, Woolf once again, this time the only female writer), reared its head from time to time. In navel-gazing online college forums, such as Columbia's The Bwog, where commenters are anonymous and misogynist remarks rampant, the debate ran along these lines: someone starts off with a misogynist remark, someone asks why there aren't men's studies if there are women's studies, someone else points out that the past two thousand years were "men's studies," someone else ignores this somewhat cogent remark to take the opportunity to make a few jokes about "boobs" and other funny female body parts, and someone else rounds it off by saying that it is all moot as humanities majors are generally wasting their money on unemployable skills.

High-minded stuff, for sure. The point being that even those who try to get past the boob jokes are unable to articulate the purpose of women's studies beyond a call for balance. Which makes me think maybe the trivial isn't so trivial. Maybe it's time to rearticulate some of the values of women's studies. But more importantly, perhaps it's also time to make a wholesale change over to Gender Studies, which would undermine the whole of the lawyer's invidious accusations. Because in the end, with courses not only called "Feminist Texts" but "Gender, Culture, and Human Rights," and "Sexuality and the Law," and an institute called the Institute for Research on Women and Gender (IRWAG), that's what we, and Columbia, are really talking about.

Gender studies is very much the evolution of groundwork laid out by Women's Studies. While we now recognize that inquiring into women's role in society is imperative for an understanding of power dynamics and social relationships, we also recognize that it is just as important to understand how definitions of masculinity may shape men's approach to women, each other, and themselves. Even more so, we see that there is difference within difference: that seeing the world from a gay male perspective overturns traditional notions of maleness. The theory behind women's and gender studies goes further to a better understanding of class and race. We are no longer shackled with a simplistic grouping of "working class" as a faceless mass of singular experience, recognizing that women's and men's roles differ significantly within that group. We recognize that citizenship may also be defined along gendered lines (historically, women give their reproductive systems and males their lives to the state--but how does that definition change now that women are also on the battlefield?)

The intersection of race and class helps us to understand that women are not one "sisterhood" of victimhood throughout history, that women are actors in the past and today--both the perpetrators and the perpetrated--divided along lines of racial, ethnic, economic, sexual differences. Even at the seemingly strict dichotomous line of "body," we can overturn a male/female divide by recognizing that women have experienced their bodies differently throughout history: those who have reproduced, those who haven't, those who have undergone forced sterilization, and so on.

Ok, but enough of Gender Studies 101. What's the practical application? Well, a little thinking about gender might lead you to question a few things. For instance: Single sex public education, Gender testing at the Olympics, The effect of birth control pills on your love life, and to bring us full circle: Diversity in academia.

But maybe I'm jumping the gun of the whole Gender Studies thing. Is there still a place for "Women's Studies" (single gender) in today's colleges?

--Kristen

Hillary Studies, Post-Primary

Well, the primary race may be over, but our fascination with Hillary--with the prospect and reality of a Hillary--has really only just begun. I find myself eagerly tracking the post-mortem analysis, hungry to make sense of it all. If you see any particularly interesting analysis out there, please to send it along. Just a sampling of what caught my eye over the weekend:

Clinton's Real Victory
6/7/08
Washington Post: As someone who trains women across the country to lead across all sectors, it has been easy for me to see, firsthand, the impact of Clinton's candidacy...

Clinton Bloc Becomes the Prize for Election Day
NY Times: Now that a would-be first female president is ending her quest for the White House, the race is more about women than ever before...

And lastly, this letter of gratitude, from Ilana Goldberg, head of the Women's Campaign Fund (thank you, Purse Pundit!):

Dear Hillary -

I say this to you almost daily, but since it's normally to you on the TV screen, I thought I should find a way of saying it where you might actually receive the message: Thank you.

Thank you for what you have done. For your sheer tenacity, strength, and stick-to-itiveness. Thank you for working so hard every day when you must have been exhausted. For showing us what leadership looks like: doing something well, with grace, in good times and bad. Most of all, I thank you for not quitting.

Your many supporters will tell you what your race means to them and history will write what it means to the world, but it also means so much to me and to the little world I live in. I thank you on behalf of the women who have been so special in my life:

For my daughter - who is, as of yet, just an idea in my mind. But I imagine her one day reading the story of this historic campaign. I am so grateful that the story she will read will be of a complete campaign, with the biggest numbers possible - states, votes, and delegates. That story will show that our first woman presidential contender was truly competitive - nearly won competitive - and show a little girl her own vast possibilities in this country. Thank you for giving her a history worth reading.

For my mother - who is one of those women who work tirelessly to support her family, worries over rising healthcare costs and frets that her grandchildren may not have social security. She's always been passionately interested in politics, but never before found a politician who she felt saw and understood her. She'll be 65 next year and she wrote the first political check of her life to you. Thank you for validating the day-to-day concerns that she faces.

For my grandmother - who was, as it was noted at her memorial, "a woman ahead of her time." I think of her every time I see one of your senior women supporters who were born before women first got the vote and were out on the streets filled with hope that they would inaugurate one in their lifetimes. Thank you for showing them that their efforts to make women loud and proud actors in American politics created real change.

For my best friend - who would listen to me talk about just about anything in the world for hours - except politics - until you started to run. Little by little, day by day, she became more engaged in your campaign and what it meant to the country and our place in the world. She started out reading your emails and went on to lobbying her husband and friends to change their votes. Thank you for awakening an incredible woman to her role in the political process.

For my former junior staffer- who did not necessarily believe that sexism was still an issue alive and well today. She watched pundit after pundit behave in ways that even she could not deny were ... crude. Then she saw it pass as kind of acceptable. And then she saw it happen again and again. Finally, she took up her pen and now Chris Matthews and the MSNBC brass know her name ... well. Thank you for reminding her of how much work we all still have to do.

For me - who has been, at times, described as direct, forward, forceful, pushy and a few other choice adjectives. Thank you for helping make the world a little safer for aggressive, ambitious women. Because isn't aggressive just one way of saying "she gets things done" and isn't ambition just another word for "dream?" Thank you for pushing for my dream - and that of so many others - to elect a phenomenally talented and capable woman to lead our country and change our world.

As you promised from the outset, you have, and will continue to, make history.

Thank you, for all us.

Sincerely,
Ilana Goldman
President, Women's Campaign Forum

COMING SOON: New Book on the Block

I'm a little slow getting back here today, but just wanted to post a heads up on an anthology I just learned about and will be talking about soon. It's called Feminist Coalitions: Historical Perspectives on Second-Wave Feminism in the United States, edited by Stephanie Gilmore, Asst. Prof of Women's Studies at Dickinson College. Sara Evans wrote the forward. The book comes out June 2. More soon!

Iron Maidelach, American Jewess, and More

Last week was Jewesses Who Rock (literally) Week on Jewess Blog. Check it out! And speaking of, this week marks the 113th anniversary — ("centennial + bat mitzvah!") — of the launch issue of The American Jewess, the first English-language publication directed to American Jewish women. Writes Rebecca Honig Friedman with backup from the Jewish Women's Archive Staff:

Published between April 1895 and August 1899, the magazine covered an evocative range of topics, from demands for synagogue membership for women, to Zionism, to health and fashion tips, to the propriety of women riding bicycles.

The phrase “American Jewess,” in the 1890s, described a new type of Jewish woman — one who could fully embrace the possibilities of both the religious and national aspects of her identity. The American Jewess set out to explore the challenges and possibilities inherent in this new identity, proclaiming that “never before, in the history of Judaism have its women more energetically devoted themselves to reviving the noblest elements of their ancestral faith.” Thanks to the Jewish Women’s Archive—in partnership with Hebrew Union College, Brandeis University Libraries, and the Library of Congress—the archives of The American Jewess are available online — in search-able, browse-able form.

Tres cool.

EVENT: Fear of Flying at 35

If this isn't the coolest sounding conference: "Fear of Flying: Can a Feminist Classic Be a Classic?" On March 28, Columbia University will host a half-day conference at which speakers will revisit Erica Jong’s novel, assess the status of women’s writing and feminism in today’s literary scene, and suss out the possibilities of subversion open to contemporary young women writers. I'll be at WAM!, or else I'd be here.

For those in need of a refresher, 35 years ago Erica Jong's first novel, Fear of Flying, broke from conventional expectations and freed other women writers to write intelligently and openly about sex. It became an international bestseller. ("Zipless fuck" anyone?)

So Columbia University’s Rare Book & Manuscript Library acquired a large collection of Erica Jong’s archival material in 2007. And so the Rare Book & Manuscript Library will join the Columbia University Institute for Research on Women and Gender and the Center for Research on Women at Barnard College as sponsors. I love it.

Speakers include novelists Min Jin Lee, author of the national bestseller Free Food for Millionaires; Aoibheann Sweeney, author of Among Other Things I’ve Taken Up Smoking; literary and cultural critics Nancy K. Miller, Distinguished Professor, Comparative Literature and English, at the Graduate Center, City University of New York, and author of But Enough About Me: Let Me Tell You About My Memoir; Susan Rubin Suleiman, C. Douglas Dillon Professor of the Civilization of France and a professor of comparative literature at Harvard, and author of Subversive Intent: Gender, Politics and the Avant-Garde; Shelley Fisher Fishkin, Director of American Studies, Stanford University, and author of From Fact to Fiction: Journalism and Imaginative Writing in America; and journalist Rebecca Traister, staff writer for Salon.com and a founding contributor to Broadsheet. The afternoon will culminate in a conversation between Erica Jong and Columbia professor and novelist Jenny Davidson, author of Breeding. “Fear of Flying: Can a Feminist Classic be a Classic?” is open to the public and will be held at the Social Hall, Columbia University Union Theological Seminary, 3041 Broadway at 121st Street, in New York City, from 2:00 to 7:00 p.m. A reception will follow.

EVENT: Intergenerational Panel at the New School

When Ann Snitow calls, I jump. And so, I of course said YES to participating on a panel at The New School in celebration of Women's History Month. Ann is coeditor of The Feminist Memoir Project and a founder of New York Radical Feminists (circa 1969), the group that brought us the Miss America Protest that put women's liberation on the map, and so much more. The panel, "Feminist Generations/Feminist Locations: The Continuing Vitality of Feminist Thought and Action," will take on the state of feminism across generations. Joining me will be:

AI-JEN POO of Domestic Workers United
MEREDITH TAX of Women’s World
(a founder of Boston’s Bread & Roses – 1969)
ANN SNITOW of Eugene Lang College and New School
(a founder of New York Radical Feminists – 1969)
CLEOPATRA LAMOTHE of Women of Color Collective, Lang
ERICA READE of Moxie, Lang College Feminist Club

When and where, you ask?

THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 2008
66 WEST 12TH ST., ROOM 407
6:30-8 PM

For more info, please contact Soraya Field Fiorio, fiors393@newschool.edu.

GUEST POST: Obama v. Clinton--Back to the Future?

WOMEN'S HISTORY MONTH GUEST POST: With 1st-wave feminism on my mind this morning, I'm thrilled to bring you a guest post that connects current goings-on to the past, by May Sinclair PhD, author of Infamous Eve: A History. May asks, "Are Clinton and Obama giving us an opportunity to re-live a version of the events that surrounded the 14th and 15th Amendments?" A California Real Estate Broker, May earned her doctorate in the Philosophy of Metaphysics soon after her 50th birthday. She's an award-winning author, has written extensively about ancient disciplines connected with symbolism, and teaches private workshops on Dream Interpretation and Analysis from a Jungian perspective. She is someone I seriously hope to meet in real space one day! May blogs at My Thoughts on History. Here she is! - GWP

Back to the Future?

Is the grand Universe offering us an opportunity to deal with a lesson in our history not previously understood? Are we re-living a version of the events that surrounded the ratification of United States Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments? Those events greatly concerned and involved two of our most important historical figures. Elizabeth Cady Stanton is the woman responsible for initiating women rights in this country and Frederick Douglass, who was born into slavery, is a major figure in the effort to release the United States of America from the horrors of slavery. They worked closely together, but in July, 1868 they had to face the fact that their primary objective of freedom for all did not survive when the legislators of the day banned together to block the powerful union of women and black people to only offer males the vote.

The 14th amendment said: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The idea was to make sure freed slaves were not prevented from voting, but it only gave franchise to males rather than all citizens.

But then the Supreme Court case of Minor vs. Happersett allowed the individual states to determine which males got to vote anyway.

The cause of the amendments failure:
-1. The rights of women were not included.
-1. The Federal government did not prevent the individual states from initiating voter qualification laws like literacy tests and pole taxes.

Are we being beguiled into allowing the seemingly towering objective of gaining the highest office in the land by either a black man or a woman to deflect away from the primary objective and divide us so that no one really gains anything and those of us in this country who love it and care about equality are again torn apart in an attempt to undermine the power women and blacks exhibit together?

May Sinclair can be reached at infamouseve@msn.com.