Out of Touch: Why Gender Studies Should Not Be Required
“Either he’s the Bitch, or I’m the Bitch.” It’s a phrase that has certainly made its way around campus. Attributed to Mr. Devin Kelly ’12, the phrase was a discussion point in his senior seminar English course on gender, and has become the catch phrase for the gender studies requirement discussion on campus. The notion is that the term “bitch” has a negative female connotation that men seemingly flee from. This helped frame the discussion of why Wabash men should be required to look into issues and definitions of gender and identity.
After Dr. Warren Rosenberg’s talk on Why Wabash Needs a Gender Studies Requirement, the question still remained. In a packed Center Hall 216, students were asked to hear the case, and then discuss the implications and voice questions. The talk essentially examined why gender studies is a good thing, and should be included in the curriculum. However, it neglected to entertain reasoning on why gender studies should be compulsory for all Wabash men, besides the fact that Wabash is an all-male college that does not explore the subject enough. The talk also leaves open the question of possible implementation strategies for such a requirement.
While Wabash is a college that clearly changes lives, we must examine whether this happens in the classroom or whether it is a result of critical thinking outside the classroom. I would argue the latter. Advocates for this requirement claim that there would not be an inherent bias pressed upon students, yet they also claim that there would be a degree of bias within the readings. A large point that was discussed at this talk was the fact that all Wabash professors have an agenda to bring to the table. Certain professors will have certain perspectives that shape their approach in classes. However, the question that remains is which perspectives will be presented within the gender studies requirement, and which will be discussed with less prevalence.
In the current system Wabash men can choose certain courses to take, which professors they want, and what area of exploration they feel is necessary. They can choose a class which they feel tackles the issue of gender most eloquently. In fact, there are 27 courses to choose from that can go toward the current gender studies concentration at the college. In a gender studies requirement, this is not the case. Students may be forced to look at a specific agenda when selecting courses: one in which the end goal is to break down traditional gender barriers.
An angry gender studies advocate might ask, “Why would you not want to break down traditional gender barriers and roles?” The response is simple: I would like to see traditional gender roles less traditional. I do think more women should work and be breadwinners in the family, and perhaps more men stay at home. I do think that men should not be afraid to express themselves, and not be afraid to be “the bitch.” I might even think that we should reject the notion of “the bitch” altogether! This line of thinking reflects the opinion of hundreds of other Wabash men who have not taken a gender studies course. In fact, our society as a whole is more gender conscious than they were a century, half century, decade, or perhaps even 5 years ago.
Wabash men are a step above. This student body has already explored or is currently exploring their gender and identity on their own time (isn’t the Enduring Questions course meant to help freshmen explore identity and gender?). We do not need another required course to replace or ‘enhance’ our personal thoughts or actions in regards to gender—especially in a field of study that has become prominent only recently! In a gender-conscious world, most Wabash men already have a progressive mindset when it comes to gender and sexuality. This is why so many Wabash men find themselves taking one or more of the college’s 27 gender courses that already exist. Yet, even if a Wabash man does not take a course on gender, it is completely out of touch to think that he is unfit or will not explore his identity outside the classroom.
Therefore, why is it so important for advocates to push a gender studies graduation requirement into the Wabash curriculum? While different advocates have different positions on the issue, it is worth asking the following questions. Why is it presumed that Wabash College has been long overdue for a gender studies requirement? Is this an alternative route to channel the over-and-done-with coeducational debate? If gender studies at Wabash College are strictly for Wabash men to explore gender, why does it have to be more than an elective course or area of concentration? With these questions in mind, it is necessary to compare the structural models of C&T, Enduring Questions, and Freshman Tutorial to a proposed gender studies requirement. If the college were to implement a gender studies requirement, it would legitimize the course to the level of EQ or Freshmen Tutorial. A required gender studies course would be a semester, as are the current required courses. Are we prepared to compare the legitimacy of a gender studies course to that of Freshmen Tutorial, Enduring Questions, or the late C&T (may God bless it)? These questions are critical, but also crucial when determining the roots of gender studies.
The “Gender Studies is about Wabash men exploring their own gender” reasoning only goes so far when there is a required course that explores identity and gender, Enduring Questions. In addition, 27 other elective courses address the same subject. Therefore, Wabash men want to know why the current modes of exploration are not enough, and what other agenda is at work in this push for compulsory gender studies that would affect all Wabash diplomas, moving forward.
More importantly is the argument that Wabash men need a semester of gender studies to assist them in the real world and life moving forward. Many students would be offended to know that there is a perception that most Wabash men have been over-compensated with masculinity during their time at the college. This then translates to the idea that, as a college, we should sensitize these brute men and teach them how to feel confident and comfortable with their gender and with other genders. The implied end result is that if we don’t do this then bad things could happen to them if they make such blunders in the future.
The reoccurring theme of feminism has been prevalent in this counter-argument. It is completely understandable that feminism is overused in the argument against gender studies. Yet, it is completely false for gender studies advocates to pride themselves on a class requirement that is not feminist. The issues will come up and the result will be feminist readings. Perhaps men will be able to examine themselves, and become more comfortable with their own masculine side as a result of the proposed requirement. However, the core ideology is that students can choose to take a course on this matter now (and many Wabash men do), as opposed to being corralled into requirement distributions with high demand (what will most likely happen if the college decides to make this a requirement).
Mr. Reed Hepburn ’12 formed a clear argument around why a seminar-style gender studies classroom setting is the right place for this discussion. A senior seminar has limited occupants, as well as advanced coursework and in depth discourse. For Mr. Hepburn and his fellow classmates, the discussion has been fruitful. He claimed there has even been debate against feminist agendas at times. However, this would be completely out of the realm of possibility with a new gender studies requirement. 900 students being forced to take a course that deals with gender over their four years here will simply become a logistical nightmare. The current 27 courses (and their current rate of offering) will not be enough to accommodate all Wabash men in a small seminar class size of less than 15. Therefore, we would be asking faculty to reteach these courses in higher frequency, leading to a possible reduction in other distribution courses being taught. A small number of professors wanting to reteach these courses more frequently will be in limited departments at this college, and will have a greater stake in wanting to expand gender studies at the college.
In addition, there would need to be additional courses developed to accommodate the surge in students taking the course. What might this new coursework be composed of? Clearly, it would most likely be lecture format as opposed to discussion format to accommodate larger numbers of students taking the course to fulfill a distribution. I would argue that the feminist and/or LGBT approach would be a popular choice to begin structuring new courses with. Again, these courses would interfere with Wabash men discovering what sexuality or gender actually means to them personally through outside-the-classroom critical thinking. In addition, is it not true that we discover what we need to know in regards to sexuality, gender and identity from personal relationships with family, friends, and coworkers?
In final reflection, Wabash College does not need a gender studies requirement. It’s very clear that an all-male student body is one of the primary factors in driving the push for compulsory gender studies. Perhaps it’s a legitimate factor, but why is it a driving factor? In addition, this requirement assumes that Wabash men exploring gender, identity, and sexuality on their own time in their own lives is not enough. Why is critical personal reflection and development not enough? Lastly, it will be a logistical nightmare to implement. In the end, all departments in the college will most likely not have a stake in the gender courses being taught, unlike the case of Freshmen Tutorial or Enduring Questions. As a college, we need to discuss the cost-benefit of a student taking a whole semester to bypass another valuable course (perhaps for their major or area of interest), in return for fulfilling this requirement. Wabash College is a place to change lives. Personal, social, and identity development should be attributed to Wabash men thinking critically about themselves. A compulsory gender studies course should not interfere with this process.
Related posts:
