What’s in a name?
Is it, “That which we call a rose?” Or, “Bee to the blossom, moth to the flame?” How about, “A history of structural and psychological oppression wrought with prejudice and inequality to capitulate only through ongoing and relentless insurgent pressure?”
Or, maybe it’s just a name.
Queen’s University has become the latest school to change the name of their “Women’s Studies” program to “Gender Studies.” And some people, such as Toronto Star columnist Catherine Porter, aren’t celebrating the rechristening.
Recalling her time as a student at McGill University, Porter writes:
I’d spent the summer flipping through the course catalogue, stomach down on my bed. There were all the history and English literature courses I would end up taking, the descriptions filled with names including Plato, Charlemagne and Shakespeare.
Then, turning the page, I saw the word that was missing elsewhere — woman. It was empowering.
It still is.
I’m very glad to hear Porter had a fulfilling class selection experience, but I’m more pleased to see universities shifting with the times. If that means swapping “women” for “gender,” so be it.
While I will explain why I’m in favour of the name change, I don’t seek to examine the merits of a women’s/gender studies program, nor do I wish to undermine the history of enormous struggle heaved by the women before me to bring society where it is today. But “today” is just what I’m going to focus on. And, in my opinion, “Gender Studies” is the more appropriate and relevant program title for contemporary study.
I’ll start with the obvious. To properly understand the role of women in society you have to understand the role of men. The history of one gender can’t be contextualized in a vacuum. “Gender Studies” better encompasses that idea; it is simply the more correct term. Furthermore, I think the name change will entice a greater breadth of student applicants. Those who have studied feminist literature know it often goes beyond the study of women, incorporating theory on many other forms of oppression (such as religious, racial and ethnic). “Gender” speaks to a wider audience. It is more inclusive (yes, I’m using that word) and doesn’t reek of an “us” versus “them” dichotomy.
Which brings me to some of my more general views on gender politics. (I’ve touched on some of these ideas in previous posts, but I’ll reiterate.) To be frank, I applaud dropping the “women” from “studies” because in doing so, I think it purges a very unnecessary proverbial “crutch.” Women want to be treated equally, right? So why call for special attention? To be perceived as equal, women need to present themselves as equal. After all, men are disadvantaged too, just in different ways. Women don’t need to victimize themselves by calling for special consideration. I think to do so is to insult all the progress we’ve made.
What a luxury it is to have these nomenclature debates. Nellie McClung, Jessie Gray, Dorthea Palmer wouldn’t believe.
I want my achievements to be successes for me as an individual, not as a woman. But if I keep reminding you how disadvantaged I am as a female, you’ll never see it that way.