THE EVOLUTION OF AMERICAN

WOMEN'S STUDIES

Edited by Alice E. Ginsberg

TRIUMPHS, CONTROVERSIES, AND CHANGE:

WOMEN'S STUDIES 1970s
TO THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

Alice E. Ginsberg

Can we conceive of a future in which oppositional gender

categories are not fundamental to one's self- concept?

(Alcoff 1988, 287)

This chapter, which provides a historical and chronological overview of the evolution of
women's studies over the past 40 years, is meant to provide context for the reflections that
follow. Divided by each of the decades, it is not meant to be an exhaustive history of women's
studies but rather a "snapshot" of how the field evolved as it interacted with issues in the
women's liberation movement, American politics, and social change, as well as in the academy
itself.

It is important to note, however, that changes in the field did not fall "neatly" into the decades,
nor did different programs evolve in the same way at the same time. Many significant
questions-such as: whether women's studies is or should, in fact, be its own discipline;
whether women's studies pays adequate attention to differences among and between women;
how closely women's studies should be tied to feminism and the active quest for women's
equality outside of the academy; what women's studies should be called; what is the role of
males in women's studies, and so on-were present from the beginnings of academic feminism
and are still present today. These are pervasive questions in the field. Thus, many of these
issues are brought up multiple times within different decades as they faced different triumphs,
controversies, and/or change.
 2
Women's Studies in the 1960's/ 1970's

When Women's Studies was born in the mid-1970s, politics

was its midwife.

(Jean Robinson, 2002, 202)

The first public meeting of my women's liberation group in

the mid1960's was held in the "Ladies Room" of the
Pennsylvania State University (PSU) student union building
.... When the university denied us a meeting room, we
marched down the hall, crossed out "Ladies" put up
"Women," propped open the door, and proceeded to have
our meeting in the outer restroom area.

(Farley, 2000, 265)

Women's Studies courses began to appear in colleges and universities in the late 1960s. The
first official women's studies program was at San Diego State University in 1970. As the first
quote above suggests, women's studies grew naturally out of the politics of its time-mainly the
women's liberation movement, the Civil Rights movement, the movement for gay and lesbian
equality, and the protests against Vietnam War. From its very inception, Women's Studies had
a very clear purpose and that was to transform the university so that knowledge about women
was no longer invisible, marginalized, or made "other."

It was also explicit within the founding that studying women in an academic setting would
directly help make positive social change in the rest of the world for women and other
oppressed groups alike. In other words, theory and practice were to go hand in hand. As
Marilyn Boxer (2001) has noted "From the beginning, the goal of women's studies was not
merely to study women's position in the world but to change it" (13). As likewise noted by a
women's studies student in Caryn McTighe Musil's The Courage to Question (1992), a
collection of case studies of women's studies programs across the country:

That's the big difference in women's studies [from other disciplines]:

there's not only the opportunity to argue, but there's almost a challenge
to do something about it. (117)

Finally, as opposed to the title Female Studies, which was popular in the early foundations of
the field, the advent of the title Women's Studies was significant in that "the apostrophe
blurred the differences between studies by, about and belonging to women" (Boxer, 2001, 13).
For the first time, women were not only learning about themselves, but were actively creating
and owning knowledge based on their own personal and political experiences.

As the second quote above suggests, however, Women's Studies was not welcomed into the
university with open arms. It was not unusual for programs to form around meetings in
bathrooms and broom closets. Myra Dinnerstein (2000) recalls:
 3
During the three years we fought for a program we accrued an
education, not only in feminist politics, but in university politics,
becoming aware that understanding how to make our way through the
system would be a necessary prerequisite to our success, not only in
establishing the program but in its continued success. (2000, 294)

In the 1970s many women's studies courses and events were advertised through flyers,
mimeographed newsletters, and by word of mouth. Weigman (2002) has noted that when
women's studies first began to bloom in the early 1970s, feminism in the U.S. academy was
not so much an "organized entity" as a group of courses, many of them listed on bulletin
boards and/or taught for free. Also, in the early years, there were rarely funds for
administrative/staff positionsmuch less full-time and/or tenure track appointments. In fact,
many Women's Studies scholars worried that their association with the field would reflect
poorly on them and derail their careers in their various disciplines (e.g., they would not get
tenure).

It has also been said that when women' studies first entered the university "merely to assert
that woman should be studied was a radical act" (Boxer, 2001, 10). It has noted that since
most of those teaching women's studies classes were appointed in other disciplines, women
professors did this work mostly on their own time, as an additional set of tasks to what they
had been hired to do.

It was also difficult for scholars trained in a traditional discipline to do the interdisciplinary
work required of women's studies. For example, a historian who specializes in women's
history might have felt very uneasy teaching about new investigations into women's
psychology or the sciences as a women's studies introductory class or as a women's studies
theory course might require. (As I explore later in this essay, the emergence of women's
studies graduate work, particularly the Ph.D., may change this dynamic, as a new generation
of scholars will be trained in a new kind of "discipline.")

Moreover, those who are brave enough to venture outside their areas of specialization are
often looked upon, as Aiken et al. (1988) have remarked:

... at best as neophytes-stereotypical tourists who cannot speak the

language of the field they presume to examine and who overlook
nuances and complexities apparent to the natives; at worst as
dangerous trespassers, or colonizers seeking to explore territory of
their own. (142-143)

Aiken et al. (1988) further note that "the language of `scholarship' is inseparable from the
language of power," that is, "who owns the discourse becomes inseparable from questions of
ownership of all sorts" (143).

Despite these challenges, students and faculty alike were determined to introduce this new
area of study into the academy. And this involved more than simply adding courses with
"women" in the title, or token readings by and about women in the syllabus. It meant
rethinking the very structure and foundations on which these disciplines were built. This
meant asking new questions and providing answers from a variety of perspectives, identifying
new sources of information, using new research methods and pedagogical practices, new
 4
categories of analysis, and new means of evaluation. In other words, it was not just a question
of what was taught, but how and why it was taught. How and why were women and other
marginalized groups excluded in the first place? How must we rethink the dominant
assumptions of the field if we no longer predicate it on male history and perspectives? When
we genuinely address issues of gender, race, class, sexuality, and the like, in what ways must
we also change our theoretical assumptions?

Indeed, many students of Women's Studies took courses focused on women without the
benefit of an Introduction to Women's Studies course or a feminist theory class. During 1971-
1972, Feminist Press founder Florence Howe and Carol Ahlum researched the state of
women's studies and found few similarities among the more than 800 courses they reviewed.
As late as 1978, Howe called women's studies an "eclectic smorgasbord" (1997, 29). Du Bois
(1983) has similarly suggested that taking courses from many different disciplines is likened
to a jigsaw puzzle in which one believes that eventually they will see the whole picture. Yet
creating Women's Studies has been as much about the process and purpose o f putting the
pieces together as it is about the resulting image.

Perhaps summed up most simply, "A syllabus is not an agenda" (Boxer, 2001, 220). Women's
Studies needed to define its mission with the academy without alienating the critically
important work being done toward women's equality outside the academy. It also needed to
secure a place for itself within the academy where it was not dependent on the "charity" of
other departments to offer courses with women in the title. In short, it needed to claim its own
agenda.

Today, most women's studies programs offer degrees in women's studies and have Web sites
with mission statements. Yet in the 1970s, it was still not entirely clear to those outside the
field as to what women's studies was and what it was trying to accomplish (ranging from
home economics to a radical feminist overthrow of the government and rejection of the
American family). The overt "politics" of feminist theory and pedagogy stood in stark contrast
to the idea that academic knowledge was purely "objective." Women's Studies was viewed
with great suspicion, which would increase significantly as it came of age in the 1980s.

Later in this essay, and throughout the reflections that follow, the question of whether or not
Women's Studies should be its own discipline-despite its inherently interdisciplinary nature-
will be addressed in greater detail. As we jump from its early beginnings in the 1970s to
present day, this question has still not been resolved. Indeed, one of the potential contributors
to this volume immediately questioned its working title Women's Studies: The Evolution of a
Discipline, noting that there is still no agreement on the subject of whether women's studies
is, in fact, a discipline in its own right. This very question was the focus of the first meeting of
the National Women's Studies Association (NWSA) in 1979, suggesting that it has not been an
easy one to answer.

Many Women's Studies programs and feminist scholars have resisted the term "discipline"
both theoretically and practically. Indeed, I've seen Women's Studies referred to as
multidisciplinary, intradisciplinary, nondisciplinary, antidisciplinary, neo-disciplinary,
transdisciplinary, cross- disciplinary, critical interdisciplinary, intersectional, intertexual, and
pluri-disciplinary. I've also seen Women's Studies referred to as an "interdisciplinary
discipline," and "interdiscipline." The question of how to define Women's Studies remains,
 5
and indeed has become even more problematic with the advent of Women's Studies graduate
degrees. (Again, this will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.)

Yet in the 1970s, the challenge was not so much whether to create a new discipline, but how to
get Women's Studies recognized and funded by the university, period. As more and more
colleges and universities embraced Women's Studies, they were faced with a lack of meeting
space, administrative and academic staff, and opportunities for conferences and sharing of
syllabi and pedagogy. There were few opportunities to share work across programs in
different academic settings, and it was not uncommon to find academics reinventing the
wheel as they struggled to gain legitimacy in their individual settings. Moreover, many serious
Women's Studies scholars worried that the field was a "fad" and that, as Gloria Bowles (2000)
has reflected:

In 1978 I initiated a new seminar, Theories of Women's Studies. This

was the thinking behind it: I had regarded women's studies as a
temporary pursuit. We'd all go back to our disciplines eventually. (152)

The forming of a Women's Studies community was critical because despite the fact that these
programs had many different histories and designs, Women's Studies programs have faced
many similar questions and debates, as they closely paralleled historical changes in education
and politics across the nation. I believe the word "evolution" is an important word because it
suggests that Women's Studies did not exist in a vacuum, but closely paralleled changes
throughout social and academic politics. It also suggests that programs influenced and
learned from each other. During this time the field grew exponentially with the development
of multiple women's research centers, special interest groups (SIGS) within larger educational
organizations, and its own national association (NWSA)-a very important contributor of
resources, conferences, and networking. There were also numerous new important journals
such as SIGNS, Feminist Frontiers, Feminist Teacher, Women's Studies Quarterly, SAGE,
and, more recently, online list-serve discussions (also to be discussed later in this chapter).

Women's Studies began and persists today mainly due to the hard work of students, teachers,
administrators, funders, and other key stakeholders who strive to keep knowledge about
women from being marginalized or invisible. Indeed, Nancy Topping Brazin (2000) recalls in
the early days of the field that:

Female graduate students in the English department took their own

initiative in creating a women writers course called Literature and the
Feminist Imagination. They designed the course, selected the texts, and
asked me to teach it. Although the graduate advisor actively
discouraged students from signing up for it, the course filled with thirty
students. (62)

Nonetheless, women's studies was and remains a special kind of study, as it struggles to
maintain a direct connection to the women's movement and to promote broad social change.
It has been noted that if women's studies is the "academic arm" of the women's movement,
that arm is in a sling. Women's studies was, and is, a central part of the academy at the same
time that it continues to challenge and critique it. A tricky position to be in.
 6
Despite its rocky beginnings, however, women's studies thrived in the 1970s. "A hundred and
fifty new women's studies programs were founded between 1970 and 1975, and another
hundred and fifty were founded between 1975 and 1980" (Boxer, 1988, 73). This period of ,
growth coincided with numerous national policy-oriented and grant programs designed to
ensure equity for women's education at every level, for example, the passage of Title IX- a
federal law making sex discrimination in schools illegal-and the Women's Educational Equity
Act (WEEA), which funded research, professional development, and a variety of resources to
schools to bring attention to gender equity issues. In 1978, Congress included educational
services in the Civil Rights Act designed to eliminate sex bias in school and society. This was
followed in 1980 with a similar effort by the federal research agency known as the National
Institute of Education (Sadker and Sadker, 1994, 36). The Fund for Improvement of
Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) also funded a comprehensive evaluation of women's studies
programs, which eventually became The Courage to Question, edited by former NWSA chair
and longtime women's studies scholar, Caryn McTighe Musil.

Unfortunately, the 1980s, while a very fertile period for women's studies, were also subject to
a conservative political backlash that women's studies had to weather. In addition, during the
1980s there was, and continues to be, a strong critique from women of color and other women
who did not fit into the dominant definition of "woman." Another challenge in the 1980s
involved the emergence of new feminist theories that were often at odds with each other. All
this made the 1980s a particularly difficult yet exciting and prolific period for women's
studies.

Women's Studies in the 1980s

Does a particular course foster a relational understanding

of race, ethnicity, class, gender, and sexuality? Specifically,
does it help students understand the significance of these
categories? Does it identify how they operate individually?
Does it identify how they operate in conjunction?

(Silver, 1992, 162)

During the early 1980s, women's studies courses and programs grew at a rapid pace, with
many colleges and universities offering interdisciplinary-based certificates and minors in the
field, as well as the creation of many women's studies departments that offered fullfledged
B.A.s. These programs, however, were severely attacked over the course of the decade in the
face of the growing conservative nature of American politics under the Reagan administration.
Many programs lost the bulk of their already modest funding and support, and many policies
written to support equal rights both within and outside of academia were widely questioned.
Those that survived-such as Title IX-have been under constant critique and should not be
taken for granted. According to Weskott (2002):

These attacks served to a link academic feminists to the objects

demonized by right- wing Christians, as in Pat Robertson's now (in)
 7
famous fund raising-letter, "The feminist agenda is not about equal
rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti- family political
movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their
children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
(297)

Pretty harsh words, indeed. Conservative critics both within and outside of the academy
complained that women's studies "warped" the curriculum rather than transform it in a
positive manner; that it was filled with "thought police"; and that it was totally focused on
being "politically correct." By this it was meant that instead of being a legitimate source of
knowledge about women in society, such programs silence discussion and debate.

Actually, during the 1980s, women's studies was undergoing an intensely self- reflective
period as it grappled with the issue of how to identify the concept of "women," which had
largely been defined as white, middle-class, heterosexual, Christian, educated women of
privilege. To be clear, questions about differences among and between women were already
present in the late 1960s and 1970s-both in women's studies and in related subjects that
offered courses on women. For example, Toni Cade Bambara elected to teach a Black Women
Writers class from her home after she was "prohibited" from teaching it in Spellman's English
department. Students actually attended and took the course for no credit.

Yet questions about identity politics and women's diversity became more prominent, more
troublesome, and more divisive in the 1980s. Women of color, black feminists in particular,
noted that Women's Studies did not adequately include them or address their experiences and
concerns. Many felt alienated to the point of wanting to create a new discipline or minor:
Black Women's Studies. The term "woman of color" was also critiqued, as it suggests that
women are either "the norm" meaning white, or the "other" meaning of color. And, of course,
there are many differences among women of color.

Moreover, women's quest for equality with men is similarly complicated. As bell hooks has
written: "Since men are not equals in a white supremacist, capitalist, patriarchal class
structure which men do women want to be equal to?" (23). Though black women have been
very vocal about their resistance to embrace feminism-as many believe that it is a largely
racist movement that supports white women and renders black women as "other"-it is
important to note, however, that it was not only black women and women of color who felt
excluded from women's studies. What of woman who were "white" but still suffered from
multiple axes of oppression-such as lesbian, bisexual and transgendered women, Jewish
women, working-class women, and the like? Issues of ethnicity, nationality, language,
religion, sexual preference, social class, and other differences among women were also points
of contention as women's studies was largely the province of professors with little knowledge
of or training in facilitating discussions about such difference.

The very definition of "woman" was now at stake. As will be explored in this chapter, and in
the rest of the book, the issue of differences among women has been a critically important part
of the development and evolution of Women's Studies. And it is important to note that,
similar to the notion of "add women and stir" that suggests a quick-fix recipe for integrating
women into the disciplines, dealing with the issue of difference within Women's Studies
could/ can be equally shallow. As Johnnetta Cole (2000) has self-consciously noted:
 8
My course Black Women in America, one of the earliest such sources,
would today be evaluated as woefully lacking in sophistication. In
those days, there was a tendency in all Black studies course to do what
I used to call the Wheaties approach, that is, to identify the great
figures in Black history and ask, in essence, why they were not on the
front of a cereal box as were the white heroes. (330)

Just as feminism focuses on hierarchies of power between men and women, it must also look
at the ways in which different groups of women are privileged in relation to each other. These
questions were pervasive in the 1980s and are still highly relevant and controversial today
despite a raised consciousness about cultural diversity throughout academia. It has even been
suggested that women's studies needs nothing short of a "radical transformation" that,
ironically, would reject the idea of gender as a primary category of analysis.

This may indeed be a project for the twenty-first century, as other scholars (e.g., see Judith
Lorber in this book) have also suggested that we cannot think about gender as an essentialist
category, that is, in isolation from differences among women. As bell hooks (1997) has noted:
"When we cease to focus on the simplistic stance `men are the enemy', we are compelled to
examine systems of domination and our role in their maintenance and perpetuation" (25). I
will come back to this quandary at the end of this chapter.

Despite widespread criticism and lack of adequate funding and support, in the 1980s,
women's studies programs offering concentrations and minors were becoming more common
and degree-granting departments were also growing at a rapid pace. As these women's studies
became an actual department, and in many cases became more like a discipline, it was clear
that it needed more organization. If women were going to get a B.A. in women's studies, they
needed some sort of set of core courses- naturally an introduction to women's studies, but also
at least one course in feminist theory.

Feminist theory came in many different flavors: liberal feminism; radical feminism;
psychoanalytic feminism; cultural feminism, Marxist feminism/socialist feminism; standpoint
epistemology; modern and postmodern feminism; and postcolonial feminism, to name a few.
It is beyond the scope of this essay to describe each of these theories, yet the important point
to be made is that, though full of interesting ideas, much of this theory was/is very difficult to
understand, even for seasoned academics, much less for beginning students and feminist
activists outside the academy. Moreover, many women's studies teachers were/are hesitant to
teach feminist theory classes because they are trained in a particular discipline and do not feel
comfortable teaching theory from other areas of expertise.

There has also been a stigma against "male" theory, as it has historically been used to oppress
women. One teacher, for example, was very surprised when she walked into her first feminist
theory class and not only found the students hostile, but "they were likely to accuse theory of
being an active intimidation, manipulation, domination, hyper-rationalization, the evasion of
feeling-and at the root of it all-an irredeemable maleness" (Cocks, 1985, 172).

The use of feminist theory was and remains a contentious issue in women's studies. The
theoretical debates that emerged from both women's studies and the women's movement
marked the tension between essentialism and constructivism, between the idea that women
are "essentially" (e.g., born) different from men (beyond simply biology, in their ways of
 9
thinking and interacting with the world), and the idea that different cultures and
circumstances foster and create such differences.

Two seminal women's studies theory texts that came out of the 1980s sparked a great deal of
debate: In a Different Voice: psychological Theory and Women's Development by Carol
Gilligan (1982), and Women's Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind
by Belenky et al. (1986). Translated into nine languages and with 600,000 copies sold, In a
Different Voice was a huge success and is still used in most feminist theory courses today. As
the titles suggest, this books explore ways in which women and men are fundamentally
different in their development, life experiences, and perspectives. Gilligan's research
concluded that women act with an "ethic of care" and engage in "connected knowing,"
whereas men act with a focus on individual rights and justice.

In Women's Ways of Knowing the authors found a similar dynamic, noting that women were
generally "subjective" or "connected" knowers who see truth as a result of one's personal
experiences in the world, whereas men tend more toward "separate" knowing in which they
make meaning strictly based on reason and disregard personal experience entirely. In both
cases, these books underscored a notion of women's difference from men that was and
continues to be contrasted with a notion of sameness and/or equality.

These books were both highly praised and widely criticized. While supporters noted that it
was important to genuinely include women in research studies, and to be open to the idea that
they are, in some respects, different from men, critics believed that the books simply
underscored essentialist notions of men and women, without considering other important
differences based on race, class, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, and so on. These texts, and
others like them, remain important signifiers of the overall question of what unites and
defines the category of women. Can we talk about "women" as if they are a cohesive category?

The common answer is no, we cannot. All women are not alike and the male/female
opposition is not as tidy as one would think. In some circumstances, for example, black
women may find they have more in common with black men than white women. Likewise,
lesbians may feel more aligned with gay men than heterosexual women, and so forth. Perhaps
most importantly, it needs to be acknowledged that women are not only oppressed in multiple
ways, but that they can and have even been oppressed by, and oppressors of other women.

Feminist historian Joan Scott (1990) has written extensively on the subject in "Deconstructing
Equality-Versus-Difference: The Uses of Poststructuralist Theory for Feminism." In this essay
she makes the point that we must get beyond the binary opposition of equity (or sameness)
versus difference. Her main point is that we must take each situation as a specific context
rather than make blanket statements about men and women. She notes, for example that:
"Political strategies . . . will rest on analyses of the utility of certain arguments in certain
discursive contexts, without, however, invoking absolute qualities for women and men" (145).
She is not denying that in many cases women and men respond and act differently, only that
"its meanings are always relative to particular constructions in specified contexts" (145).

Also, to a certain extent, the debate around using feminist theory has mirrored the origins of
women's studies in the academy. As noted throughout, women's studies was designed to work
hand in hand with the women's movement and other movements for equity and social change.
Yet, much of the theory coming out of women's studies programs was not only written in
 10
language inaccessible to most activists, it was difficult to see how the theory linked to actual
practice. Students and faculty agonized about whether university work had any meaning in
the "real world." Bowles (2002) has commented that: "From the beginnings of the field,
feminist scholars wanted our academic work to have an impact on lives of women outside the
academy .... in the 1980s, we agonized about whether university work had any meaning in the
`real' world" (458).

This fear was echoed by students too, as observed by Marjorie Jolles (2007) as she attempted
to get her students to go beyond the common dichotomy of theory/practice. She notes that her
students continually pondered whether feminist theory was accessible to those they believed
to live in "a space they conjure as outside the classroom," for example, the "real world," and
for whom they call "real women" (75). As Jolles notes, this comparison "obscures the many
ways they share the world with `real women"' (75). While Jolles is not denying class
differences among college educated women and those who have not had access to this
privilege, she does try to help her students to "consider that what they are doing in college is
not demonstrating only a love of ideas but a kind of labor-indeed a form of practice ...." (83).
Jolles continues:

The more they acknowledge their own participation in the university's

project of the reproduction of class identity, the more they can develop
a meta-stance towards the limits of the vocabularies and methods they
are learning, the more they cultivate greater class consciousness. It is
at this point that some are willing to admit they, themselves, are "real
women" and that life in the university is very much a part of the "real
world." (83)

While this realness must not be conflated with sameness, it is nonetheless important to
challenge the idea that theory is only comprised of thought in an academic world and practice
is merely action outside of the university. There are many overlaps here.

Many of these critiques of feminist theory in the 1980s continued into the 1990s and present
day require serious consideration. Does feminist theory drive a gulf between learning and
action, between the Ivy Tower and the community at large? Is most theory primarily jargon,
and even more so elitist-comprised primarily of research studies and analysis of the lives of
privileged educated white women? Is theory, as suggested above, mainly the province of
males? Can we even define what it means to be a woman? If there is no such thing as a
woman, what is feminism and women's studies without women? As described in the syllabus
of one feminist theory course offered at San Diego State University called Authority and the
Politics o f Representation in Feminism:

By the end of the course .... We will have explored the paradoxes in
feminist theory's simultaneous insistence that women be represented in
political discourse and practice, and its claim that "women" cannot be
represented within the terms of dominant discourse because they
cannot be defined.

The issue of whether women and men are fundamentally different, and if so, how to define
and address those differences, continues. In the 1990s that debate branched out from the
university to elementary and secondary schools. As the next section will explore, in the 1990s,
 11
women's studies began to expand its reach-both by focusing on girls and gender in K-12
settings-and by attempting to truly document and include the experiences of a wide diversity
of women-and men!

Women's Studies in the 1990s

Lowered self-esteem is a perfectly reasonable conclusion if

one has been subtly instructed that what people like oneself
have done in the world has not been important and is not
worth studying.

(AAUW Report, 1992, 67)

In the 1990s, women's studies underwent several important shifts, one of which was that it
began to focus much more readily on gender equity and girls' experiences in the K-12
classroom. This was due in large part to two publications: Myra and David Sadker's book,
Failing at Fairness: How America's Schools Cheat Girls (1994), and the American Association
of University Women's (AAUW's) report How Schools Shortchange Girls (1992).

To be clear, there were some scattered, yet very successful, curricular and professional
development programs aimed at pre-college students and teachers in the 1970s and 1980s-
most prominently the Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity (SEED) Project (still very
active today), The New Jersey Project, the Dodge Seminars, and The Piscataway Project.
Florence Howe noted that as early as 1974 the Feminist Press imagined and designed women's
studies texts for the high school classroom that they hoped would rapidly transform the
curriculum, but learned that this was easier said than done. In other words, it took a couple of
decades for schools to incorporate a lot of the exciting new material being developed in
women's studies, as this was not seen as part of the primary purpose and curriculum (e.g.,
reading, writing, and arithmetic), not to mention the political dimensions involved. This is, in
some ways, still true today.

Yet, with the publication of the Sadkers' book and the AAUW Report, the topic soon became
cause for discussion and debate in the popular media, on television shows such as Oprah and
Dateline, and widely read magazines like Time and Newsweek (as opposed to academic
journals). Throughout the decade many new programs emerged in public and private schools,
in all-girls' schools and coed schools, in urban, suburban, and rural schools. Similar to the
issues raised in the university, some of the issues of concern in K-12 education include:
whether girls and boys got similar attention from teachers; whether the curriculum included
the experiences and achievements of women- both famous and not famous; whether girls
were being discouraged from pursuing typically male fields like math and science; whether
girls were subject to greater levels of sexual harassment; whether girls suffered from greater
loss of self-esteem as they often felt silenced in the classroom, and many others.

In their book, the Sadkers tell riveting stories such as the use of textbooks that in over a
thousand pages devote only a single line to women's suffrage. They also note that when a
 12
group of students were asked, "Suppose you woke up tomorrow and found you were a
member of the other sex. How would your life be different?" While girls were at least open to
the idea, the Sadkers reported that "For boys the thought of being female is appalling,
disgusting, and humiliating; it is completely unacceptable." A number of boys even said they
would kill themselves (82). When fourth, fifth, and six graders were asked to write down the
names of as many famous women and men as they could in five minutes, "[o]n average,
students generated eleven male names but only three women's and they tended to be less
from the pages of history than from popular culture-such as Princess Di and Aunt Jemima"
(71). The Sadkers also noted that "Tolerated under the assumption that `boys will be boys' and
hormone levels are high in high school, sexual harassment is a way of life in America's
schools" (9).

The AAUW report echoed many of these same findings. Among the report's many
recommendations was that: "Support and released time must be provided by school districts
for teacher-initiated research on curricula and classroom variables that affect student
learning; Gender equity should be a focus of this research and a criterion for awarding funds"
(85), and, further that: "Teachers, administrators and counselors should be evaluated on the
degree to which they promote and encourage gender-equitable and multicultural education"
(67).

In a three-year professional development program for urban teachers, parents, and

administrators around gender awareness titled, Gender Awareness through Education
(GATE), teachers raised questions such as: "Do I point out how girls differ from boys, or just
encourage them without making a big deal of my perceived differences?"; "When we say it's
harder to work with girls aren't we saying something about ourselves?"; "How can we get to
know students personally without invading their privacy?"; and "How does being `powerless'
cut across all lines?" (Ginsberg, Shapiro, and Brown, 2004, 46). These are not easy questions
to answer, especially as these teachers taught in urban public schools with large percentages
of minority and disadvantaged children for whom gender was only one area in which they
were "oppressed."

AAUW went on to publish a whole series of reports about gender equity in public education,
including Girls' in the Middle written by Research for Action (1996)-which focused specifically
on girls in middle school settings. This report concluded that schools should take an
Educational Equity Inventory, which poses such critical questions as: Does your school have
"a sexual harassment policy"; "data that show student achievement by gender"; "forums for
dialogue across the various constituencies of the school"; "support in the school and the
district for adults who mentor girls"; and many more. Most schools did not have such policies
in place. It was also found that middle school was a particularly difficult time for students,
developmentally in general, and certainly adding questions about gender did not easily
resonate with students, many of whom were perpetually silent in class, and for whom feminist
pedagogy was a huge change in structure from the more tried and trusted "memorize and be
tested on" curricula.

In one GATE middle school, a science teacher asked her students to list seven male scientists
and seven female scientists and to write a report on one of each. The students couldn't come
up with seven female scientists. When asked why they thought this was, the boys answered: "I
think we probably didn't find more women because women are lazy"; "Women aren't fit to be
scientists, especially not a rocket scientist! It's too dirty for women and they're not strong
 13
enough anyway"; and "Girls have to spend so much time looking pretty that they can't spend
the long hours it takes to be a scientist." (Ginsberg, Shapiro, and Brown, 2004, 111-112).

Trying to introduce women's studies into the high school curriculum was equally illuminating
in terms of the resistance of boys to embrace feminist ideas. One teacher noted, for example,
that boys were so afraid of seeming feminine that they made crude comments such as some
women were even too ugly to be raped.

Despite boys' resistance to embracing women's studies curricula, raising issues about girls'
education nonetheless introduced a dialogue about boys' education. Newly stressed attention
to boys was evident in such as examples as the fact that The Ms. Foundation changed its
highly praised "Take Your Daughters to Work Day" to "Take Your Daughters and Sons to
Work Day," recognizing that men will not start treating women differently unless they see role
models of women in leadership positions, particularly in traditionally male fields. Likewise,
the follow-up to the AAUW report on Shortchanging Girls was titled Gender Gaps: Where
Schools Still Fail our Children-conspicuously leaving "girls" out of the title.

Especially in poor, urban schools with large minority populations, attention to

underprivileged boys is certainly a worthy pursuit. But, of course, one does not have to occur
at the cost of the other. While research suggests that there is reason for concern that boys-
particularly marginalized boys-are getting a quality, equitable education, it has become a sort
of contest between boys and girls as to who is more "at risk," rather than looking at the fact
that both groups can benefit from new teaching strategies and educational environments.
Moreover, as I will explore in the next section on the twenty-first century, there lay a danger
that females would, once again, be marginalized. It has, in fact, become more and more
commonly suggested- even by some feminists themselves-that we've "solved" the problem for
girls and women. While great progress has been made, we have a long way to go on this front.

Meanwhile, in the academy another prominent issue in the 1990s concerned the issue of how
to include sexuality studies in women's/ gender studies. Although it had always been a part of
women's studies and gender studies, it was mostly centered on two categories: lesbians and
gays. It did not include to any great extent bisexuals, transsexuals, or transgendered people.
In the 1990s came the development of what was to become known as "queer theory." As
Nancy Rabinowitz (2002) has noted: "[B]efore 1991 queer theory can hardly be said to have
existed, but by 1996 it was a common parlance" (2002, 178). According to Rabinowitz, one of
the reasons the title was not used widely in the past was that students did not want it on their
transcripts. And yet, as she also notes, queer is more inclusive than the label gay/lesbian, and
that "On the simplest level, the term provides an umbrella so that we don't have to keep
adding identities or resort to LGBT"W" (for whatever ....)." Rabinowitz concludes that "A
queer perspective would ... . problematize the subject of sexuality in general, and would reveal
structures of heteronormativity" (183).

Rabinowitz also raised the question of whether she, as a heterosexual, should be able to teach
courses on queer theory. This question has been posed more broadly, as to whether the
women's studies mantra that "the personal is political" means that if you have not experienced
something personally, you are not fit to speak about it, or challenge others views on it.
Sometimes referred to as "standpoint epistemology," women's studies professors are often
challenged by expectation that they will only teach courses on subjects with which they
personally identify. For example, only a black woman can teach a course of black women's
 14
studies. According to Arnie Macdonald (2002), who has written about this issue extensively in
"Feminist Pedagogy and the Appeal to Epistemic Privilege":

Because I precast the epistemic framework of the course through self-

evident experiential knowing, I effectively undercut my ability to
generate critical standpoints on the experience-based analysis of my
students who occupy subject positions that differ from my own. (114)

She also rightly points out that all students of a certain identity do not experience that identity
in the exact same manner, so, in effect, nobody can speak for an entire group. According to
Macdonald:

When one member of an oppressed social group claims epistemic

privilege, others often presume that all similarly situated people share
the same viewpoint. Ironically, this often has the effect of reinscribing
racist, sexist, homophobic, and classist ideologies. (119)

She suggests that students form communities of meaning that are not so much organized
around "identity markers" such as race, class, gender, sexuality, religion, or nation, but
instead by "shared experiences and ways of understanding and being in the world" (120). In
this framework, "students and faculty would decide for themselves which community or
communities they wanted to form or ally themselves within any given context" (120).

Thus, the personal is still very much political, but we (feminists/ women's studies students
and teachers) are not bound by the personal.

Also in the 1990s, the age-old question of whether or not Women's Studies should become a
"discipline" in its own right despite its inherently interdisciplinary nature persisted. Again,
this question was present from the early founding of women's studies, but in the 1990s it
became particularly controversial. Inherent to the question of whether Women's Studies
should be its own discipline are other questions, such as:

- Does making Women's Studies its own discipline risk ghettoizing it or does it
further validate it and secure its future?

- Does Women's Studies, like African American studies, urban studies, religious
studies, and other interdisciplinary fields, set out to critique the very notion of
disciplines and compartmentalization of knowledge?

- Is Women's Studies the only place where overtly feminist classes are offered?

- Have we given up on trying to "transform" the university?

- If Women's Studies genuinely becomes an integral part of other disciplines, will

there be no reason for it to continue on its own?

Also, as Jean Fox O'Barr (1994) has wisely asked: "What does Women's Studies have to offer
other disciplines in the academy? At what price to itself?" (282). In other words, if women's
 15
studies became a legitimate department within the university, would it still be able to retain
its close ties to the feminist movement?

So, should women's studies be its own discipline? The jury is still out. It is likely that the
question of whether women's studies should be a discipline will likely plague the field for
decades to come, however, also in the 1990s, colleges and universities began to offer more
graduate program options in women's studies. These included certificates, masters, and
doctoral programs. This development further complicated the debate around whether or not
women's studies was or should be a "discipline" in its own right.

Women's Studies in the Twenty-First Century

Should women's studies Ph.D. programs be concerned with

transforming institutional politics and values, both internal
and external, as well as the conventions of Ph.D. education
itself?

(Arenal, 2002, 190)

In the 1990s and the twenty-first century, women's studies remains a popular option, and
continues to grow as a field. Some women's studies classes have a waiting list as high as 200
students! The emergence of graduate options and online learning (both of which will be
discussed herein) are central factors in this growth. However, the field is still fraught with
questions raised throughout this essay, questions that will likely continue deep into the
twenty-first century, such as, how to define "woman" and what is the primary agenda of
structure of women's studies-if indeed there is a common answer to this question.

One of these questions that has not yet been raised in detail is the role of males in women's
studies. This is a role that is growing, as the field questions whether it even wants to remain
being called women's studies. In the 1990s and the twenty-first century, women's studies
programs have played around with alternate words such as "Female Studies," "Womanist
Studies," "Gender Studies," and "Sexuality Studies." Many programs have added gender
studies to the name, or dropped Women's Studies altogether in favor of gender studies alone.
In addition to the idea that gender is socially constructed, the change to gender studies
suggests that we need to be paying attention to the relationships between men and women
rather than focusing predominantly on women's experiences and knowledge itself. It has also
been suggested that gender studies is a more appropriate title because it is more inclusive of
gay, lesbian, and transgendered individuals. On the other hand, taking the women out of
women's studies poses some serious risks, the most obvious being that gender studies is not
necessarily feminist in nature, nor is it necessarily linked to the women's movement, as there
is no "gender movement."

Recently, Haverford College and its sister school Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania polled
their students, faculty, and administrative staff to vote for a name for their Women's Studies
 16
program, and to provide comments on why they voted as they did. Their choices were: 1)
Feminist & Gender Studies, 2) Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies, 3) Gender and
Sexuality Studies, and 4) Gender Studies. The name "Gender Studies" won by a significant
margin. Although most took the project of naming very seriously, a few people wrote things
such as "Just name it-nobody cares." And yet, there are reasons to care.

As will be raised many times in this book, controversies as to what to call Women's Studies
illuminate the ways in which the field has had to continually reassess its purpose, audience,
and subjects. As research will show, while still tied to its activist roots, the switch to gender
studies has been controversial, with many students suggesting that Women's Studies and
feminism-both focused overtly on women-is a relic of the past. Some key comments along this
line included: "I think the term `feminist' tends to scare off people," and "Feminism is an
obsolete term . . . . women today are no longer oppressed."

At the same time, questions must thus be raised: Does changing the name from Feminist or
Women's Studies to Gender Studies depoliticize its primary goals and work?; Does taking out
the word women make the department less threatening, more inclusive, and more
mainstream, and/or does it actually hold men accountable as gendered beings? Can there be a
women's studies without "women"? Is women's studies the proper place to study sexuality
studies? Does adding sexuality studies to the title make Women's Studies less essentialist
(e.g., men versus women), making way for transgendered individuals, and building an inviting
space for lesbian and gay students at the same time? Perhaps most importantly, what are the
implications of including sexuality under the rubrics of Women's Studies, but not (explicitly)
race or class?

These are no easy questions to grapple with, for sure. On a Women's Studies list- serve the
question was raised: "Does anyone know any good pieces on why it important to call the
discipline Women's Studies rather than Gender Studies, Women and Gender Studies, etc.?"
The response was widespread and I can only touch briefly on it here. One person responded:
"I fear a depoliticizing of feminist scholarship if we shift too far away from the study of
woman." Another wrote: "It's possible that by insisting on Women's Studies exclusively we
collude in perpetuating the notion that men don't have a gender, that they are a universal
`norm' studies in the `regular curriculum' while women are studies in this special area of the
curriculum." Yet another wrote that: "We need to destabilize gender at the same time we insist
that historically and politically a category or class of individuals called women have
systematically been oppressed." This is a worthy goal, but nonetheless a complex and most
difficult one to accomplish.

The question remains, can we have a women's studies without overtly focusing on feminism?
Zimmerman (2005) has written:

There is no women's studies without feminism .... Feminism is what

turns the study of women into women's studies. Gender studies might
or might not be feminist. Gay and lesbian, or sexuality studies might or
might not be feminist. Ethnic studies or cultural studies might or might
not be feminist. But women's studies must be feminist or it is not
women's studies. (37)
 17
The question of what to call women's studies has continued into the twenty-first century and
is not likely to go away any time soon, as students and teacher grapple with what it means to
engage in political discourse in the university.

These questions are even more complicated by the fact that graduate courses and graduate
programs in women's studies are now growing institutionally across the country. Such
programs include certificates, masters, and doctoral degrees, though many of them are
designed to be an addendum to graduate training in other disciplines. They are also titled in
many different ways, including: gender studies, feminist studies, women's studies, and
Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies. Presently, there are over 60 graduate certificate
programs in women's studies. American-based masters programs in women's studies went
from 6 in 1994 to over 34 in 2007. Between 1997 and 1998 the number of women's studies
Ph.D. programs increased by 50 percent (Davis, 2007, 272). In the twenty- first century, there
are still only a handful of opportunities to get a Ph.D., but this handful is growing. And they
are surprisingly very popular. At the University of Maryland, every year there are about 100
applicants to the Ph.D. program, of which only five to seven are commonly accepted.

While it is a very exciting development in the field, creating the potential for students who feel
passionately about women's studies to go to the next level and for a new generation of
women's studies scholars, truly trained to do interdisciplinary work, to be born, is not without
its problems. May (2005) has noted, for example, that the Ph.D. in women's studies "connects
to the field's ongoing debates around excess." By this she means "the alleged impossibility of
`doing everything,' of being accountable to multiple methods, constituencies, identities,
geographies, and activisms" (185). Davis (2007) has similarly noted that:

In asking whether or not women's studies Ph.D. programs should exist,

a central issue addressed by the 1998-99 debates was the disciplinary
capacity of women's studies to produce knowledges demonstrative of
the expertise and specialization required at the level of doctoral
training. (273)

As women's studies continues to be an interdisciplinary enterprise, a Ph.D. in women's studies

has the potential to radically change the way we think about the degree itself that has
traditionally been a way to delve much more deeply into a specific disciplinary content.
Perhaps for this reason, those institutions that do offer doctoral degrees solely in women's
studies, most often offer students a choice of two or three concentrations-such as: Language,
Literature, and the Arts; History, Psychology, and Society; Sexualities, Desires, and Identities;
Cultural Representations and Media Practices; Women in an International Context; Women,
Leadership, and Public Policy; Feminist Theory; Comparative Gender Roles; Women of Color;
Transnational Feminisms-rather than leaving the field wide open. In addition, many women's
studies, Ph.D. programs require a servicelearning component that links academic learning to
activism. One such program is at the Union Institute-one of the oldest institutions offering
graduate programs in women's studies-which requires an internship of 500 hours or the
equivalent of three months of full-time study.

There is also the pervasive question about what one does with a Ph.D. in women's studies, as
May (2005) and others have observed, that while many advertisements ask for
interdisciplinary teaching experience, they still favor hiring candidates with disciplinary
scholarship or degrees. On a women's studies list-serve the question is raised whether a
 18
particular student should go on to get a graduate degree in women's studies in spite of the fact
that her advisor has cautioned her that she will have trouble getting a job. While there is not
total agreement on the subject, other posts to the list-serve confirm that most academic
departments-even women's studies departments!are hesitant to hire candidates with women's
studies degrees (e.g., as opposed to specializing in the study of women within a particular
discipline.) One person wrote, for example:

...I now realize, having been on the job market, that having a Ph.D. in
WS is not all that I thought it would be. Traditional departments (my
other area is sociology/criminology) often demand a Ph.D. in their
discipline. They often view the WS degree with some suspicion .... I
have had interest from interdisciplinary sociology programs, but these
are few and far between.

This opinion, however, is not shared by everyone. Some argue, for example, that having an
interdisciplinary background is helpful in a job market that is highly competitive and in which
professors are able to teach a variety of courses. Such programs are growing, and hold the
potential to create a new model of women's studies, as a new generation is educated outside of
the traditional "disciplinary" model. Moreover, these programs have produced many
interesting and diverse masters theses and dissertations, a very small sampling of which
includes:

- "Passing the Talking Stick: America Indian Women's Voices Heard" (Dawn
Cicero, Fall 1999)

- "`Our Politics Was Black Women': Black Feminist Organizations, 1968-1980"

(Kimberly Springer, Summer 1999)

- "Beyond Race and Gender? The New Managing Diversity for Women: A Dual
Approach" (Jolna Karon, Spring 2003)

Finally, another development in the twenty-first century is the use of computers to facilitate
women's studies classes, discussions, debates, and even online degree programs! While
women's studies list-serves existed in the 1990s, they have grown rapidly and have expanded
to entire courses being taught online. Notes Whitehouse (2002):

All traditions of teaching are now challenged by new ways of thinking,

knowing and learning through the technology of innovation that
permeates our school system from Kindergarten to higher education.
(209)

The ability to offer women's studies courses and discussions online makes the field
considerably more accessible for working parents and others who find it difficult to attend
classes in person. It also alleviates questions of "time" that constrain the actual classroom, as
in the virtual classroom-while there still may be real-time discussions and deadlines-there is
the potential for greater flexibility overall.

Online learning has also been effective in creating communities to supplement university
courses and give voice to those who may be traditionally silent. Although girls and women
 19
have traditionally been discouraged from pursuing new technologies, the time has come for
this to change. Whitehouse (2002) define the characteristics of an online community as
encouraging active interaction and collaborative learning, dialogue, shared resources,
encouragement, and support (214).

It has been noted that such communities are student centered, with faculty acting as
facilitators in most cases. In one women's studies online course, the professor created a class
Web site that had a page called the Who's Who page in which students have a template for
talking about their personal experiences, politics, and interests. What is important about this
is that the page can be edited throughout the semester as "many students make changes in
their pages to reflect progress in their thinking" (Whitehouse, 2002, 218).

Perhaps more importantly, however, in online courses students who are apt to dominate class
discussions cannot as easily dominate asynchronous discussions, leaving more room for
normally shy students to contribute. One student wrote of the experience of taking a women's
studies class online:

I highly recommend the online courses! Everyone has a chance to

participate-in a non-threatening fashion. Sometimes people feel
inhibited in a classroom, but this format encourages articulation and
exploration of thoughts and ideas. You get to connect with people all
over the country (world) in ways you can't in a [face to face] class.
That allows different experiences and regional variations to surface,
which only adds to the curriculum.

Another noted:

Even though the class "meets" at the discussion board and not face to
face, each person's personality and individuality shows through ....
Each person responds to the readings in a unique way, adding new
elements to my learning process. In absence of a lecture, where only
one point of view is presented, we each are treated to the life
experiences and knowledge of each person in the course. You can't buy
that in a book. "Each one teach one" is an adequate description of WS
online graduate courses.

The interest of pursuing women's studies online has spread to emerging opportunities to get
online degrees, such as a graduate certificate offered at Southern Connecticut State University
(SCSU), one of the longest running women's studies departments in the nation. Students meet
over the summer for a required two-week residency on SCSU campus, during which time, as
noted on their Web site, "students take a course in Women's Studies Foundations and build
relationships with faculty and other Women's Studies students." The remaining credits are
earned during the academic year. It is stressed, however, that the two-week residency is an
important part of the program as "The onground component of this new certificate program
provides what is often missing in a distance-learning environment and helps the cohort forge
a sense of community, an important element in [the] women's studies classroom"
(http://www.southernct.edu/womensstudies/).
 20
This finding was actually unearthed in the 1990s, when Ellen Rose taught her first class in
Cyberspace. Groups of students from the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) and the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLA) enrolled in a classroom that met via teleconferencing
and email. According to Rose (1998), most of the class students were very unhappy, as they
came to the class with very different exposures to women's studies, to the technology involved,
and to each other and the teacher, who was based in Las Vegas. She described the email
process as a "war" (you say/I say) and emphasized students' discomfort with talking to each
other via a video camera. Indeed, for the UNR group (which had practically no prior exposure
to women's studies, as opposed to the UNLA group that was primarily comprised of women's
studies majors), the television screen was positioned in such a manner as it was literally, as
well as metaphorically, looking down on the students.

Yet even in the 1990s, Rose said she would do it again, only next time she would make sure
that the students had an opportunity to meet face-to-face at the beginning of the semester-
regardless of the costs involved. She also noted that if she were to use email again she would
do more "to make it an integral part of the course" (Rose, 1998, 128) rather than use it solely
as an opportunity for students to dispute differences.

As technology continues to expand, it is likely that options for online courses and degrees as
well as interdisciplinary discussions and debates will blossom. The caveats noted above will be
important, as online learning is a difficult task for those trying to teach using feminist
pedagogy. It will remain essential that the class feels a connection, and an accompanying
responsibility for each other's lives and learning, regardless of their differences in distance
and demographics.

In conclusion, one of the most pressing issues facing women's studies today continues to be
the issue of essentialism versus constructivism-that is, whether women are inherently
different than men in some respects or whether these differences are socially and politically
created. I mention this here again, because in the twenty-first century there have been a
growing number of scholars who believe that woman and, more specifically, gender itself are
not useful categories of analysis. Though this has the potential to fraction its relationship with
the women's liberation movement, Zimmerman (2002) has noted:

We will need to analyze the relationship between academics and

activism, between Women's Studies and women's movements, in light
of the social realities of the early twenty-first century, not our nostalgic
memories of the 1960's. (187)

Lorber in particular has written about this in her newest book, Breaking the Bowls:
Degendering and Feminist Change. As noted throughout the book, this means going "beyond
gender" by acknowledging the many differences among women based on race, class, ethnicity,
sexuality, as well as age, parental and relational status, physical ability, education, and
religion. Notes Lorber (2005):

This multiple perspective fragments gender, and breaks the hold of

binary categorization. I think that for feminists in modern Western
civilizations, going beyond gender is a needed step towards gender
equality .... (155)
 21
These questions will continue into the twenty-first century. Yet this is not a negative thing. As
Du Bois (1983) has rightly noted:

There is no question that feminist scientists and scholars will continue

to be charged with bias, advocacy, subjectivity, ideologizing, and so on.
We can expect this: we can even welcome it. If our work is not in some
way threatening to the established order, we're on the wrong track.
(112)

References

Aiken, S., K. Anderson, M. Dinnerstein, J. Lensink, and P. MacCorquadale. (1988). Changing

our minds: Feminist transformations o f knowledge. Albany: State University of New York
Press.

Alcoff, L. (1988). "Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism." In E. Minnich, J. O'Barr, and

R. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Reconstructing the academy: Women's education and women's studies.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 257-288.

American Association of University Women (AAUW). (1992). How schools shortchange girls.
Washington, DC: Joint publication of the American Association of University Women and the
National Educational Association.

---- . (1999). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children. New York: Marlowe and
Company.

Arenal E. (2002). "Implications and articulations: The Ph.D. in Women's Studies." Women's
Studies Quarterly, 30(3 and 4): 179-192.

Belenky, M.F., B.M. Clinchy, N.R. Goldberger, and J.M. Tarule. (1986). Women's ways of
knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.

Bowles G. (2000). "From the bottom up: The students' initiative." In F. Howe (Ed.), The politics
of Women's Studies. New York: The Feminist Press, 142-154.

---- . (2002). "Continuity and change in Women's Studies." In R. Weigman (Ed.), Women's
Studies on its own. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 457-464.

Boxer, M. (1988). "For and about women: The theory and practice of Women's Studies in the
United States." In, E. Minnich, J.F. O'Barr, and R. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Reconstructing the
academy: Women's education and Women's Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 69-
103.

---- . (2001). When women ask the questions: Creating Women's Studies in America.
Washington, DC: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Brazin, N.T. (2000). "The gender revolution." In F. Howe (Ed.), The Politics of Women's
Studies. New York: The Feminist Press, 57-68.
 22

Cocks, J. (1985). "Suspicious pleasures: On teaching feminist theory." In M. Cully and C.

Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching. Boston: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 171- 194.

Cole, J. (2000). "The long road through gendered questions." In F. Howe (Ed.), The politics o f
Women's Studies. New York: The Feminist Press, 327-333.

Davis, D.R. (2007). "A new wave, shifting ground: Women's Studies PhDs and the feminist
academy from the perspective of 1998." In H. Aikau, K. Erickson, and J. Pierce (Eds.), Feminist
waves/feminist generations: Life stories from the academy. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 270- 289.

Dinnerstein, Myra. (2000). "A political education." In F. Howe (Ed.), The politics of Women's
Studies. New York: The Feminist Press, 291-305.

Du Bois, B. (1983). "Passionate scholarship: Notes on values, knowing and method in feminist
social science." In G. Bowles and R.D. Klein (Eds.), Theories of Women's Studies. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul, 105-116.

Farley, T.P. (2000). "Changing signs." In F. Howe (Ed.), The politics o f Women's Studies. New
York: The Feminist Press, 264-275.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ginsberg, A., J. Shapiro, and S. Brown. (2004). Gender in urban education: Strategies for
student achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Guy-Sheftell, B. (2000). "Our mothers of Women's Studies." In F. Howe (Ed.), The politics of
Women's Studies. New York: The Feminist Press, 216-226.

hooks, b. (1997). "Feminism: A movement to end sexist oppression." In S. Kemp and J. Squires
(Eds.), Feminisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 22-27.

Howe, F. (1997). "The first ten years are the easiest." Women's Studies Quarterly, 25(1 and 2):
23-33.

Jolles, M. (2007). " `Real women' in Women's Studies: A reflective look at the theory/practice
dilemma." Feminist Teacher, 18(2): 74-85.

Lorber, J. (2005). Breaking the bowls: Degendering and feminist change. New York: W.W.
Norton and Company.

Macdonald, A. (2002). "Feminist pedagogy and the appeal to epistemic privilege." In A.

Macdonald, and S. Casa] (Eds.), Twenty first century classrooms: Pedagogies of identity and
difference. New York: Palgrave, 111-133.

May, V. (2005). "Disciplining feminist futures?: `Undisciplined' reflections about the Women's
Studies Ph.D." In E. Kennedy and A. Beins (Eds.), Women's Studies for the future: Foundations,
interrogations, politics. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 185-206.

Musil, C. (1992). The courage to question. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges
and National Women's Studies Association.
 23

O'Barr, J.F. (1994). Feminism in action: Building institutions & community through Women's
Studies. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Rabinowitz, N. (2002). "Queer theory and feminist pedagogy." In A. Macdonald and S. Casal
(Eds.), Twenty first century classrooms: Pedagogies of identity and difference. New York:
Palgrave, (175-200).

Research for action. 1996. Girls in the middle: Working to succeed in school. Washington, DC:
American Association of University Women Foundation.

Robinson, jean. (2002). "From politics to professionalism: Cultural change in women's

studies." In R. Weigman (Ed.), Women's Studies on its own. Durham and London: Duke
University Press, 202-210.

Rose, E.C. (1998). "This class meets in cyberspace: Women's Studies via distance education." In
G. Cohee, E. Daumer, T. Kemp, P. Krebs, S. Lafky, and S. Runzo (Eds.), The feminist teacher
anthology: Pedagogies and classroom strategies. New York: Teachers College Press, 114-132.

Sadker, M. and Sadker D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America's schools cheat girls. New
York: A Touchstone Book.

Scott, J. (1990). "Deconstructing equality-versus-difference: Or, the uses of poststructuralist

theory for feminism." In M. Hirsch and E.F. Keller (Eds.), Conflicts in feminism. New York and
London: Routledge, 134-148.

Silver, L. (1992). "Oberlin college: Self- empowerment and difference." In K. Musil (Ed.), The
courage to question. Association of American Colleges and National Women's Studies
Association, 157-177.

Weigman, R. (2002). Women's Studies on its own. Durham and London: Duke University.

Weskott, M. (2002). "Institutional success and political vulnerability: A lesson in the

importance of allies." In R. Weigman (Ed.), Women's Studies on its own. Durham and London:
Duke University, 293-311.

Whitehouse, P. (2002). "Women's Studies online: An oxymoron?" Women's Studies Quarterly,

30(3 and 4): 209-225.

Zimmerman, B. (2005). "Beyond dualisms: Some thoughts about the future of Women's
Studies." In E.L. Kennedy and A. Beins (Eds.), Women's Studies for the future. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press, 31-39.