“What’s in a name?”

Department of Gender Studies.

Studies of Women and Gender.

Women’s and Gender Studies Department.

Department of Gender and Women’s Studies.

Shakespeare has had us believing for centuries that “That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” But how true does this hold in naming an academic department? As someone taking her first WAGS course this semester, I did not expect the class to be gender-balanced. I knew before the first day that the class would be overwhelmingly female, and I had no problem with that. My fellow female students and I  should learn about the societal structures that so often lead to obstacles for women. But so shouldn’t men? My class is made up of 27 women and 2 men, but the men participate with equal frequency as the rest of us. They do not seem to shy away from topics that might implicate men in female subordination. This has gotten me thinking: if it isn’t the material of a WAGS course that intimidates male students, what could it be? Could the simple fact that the academic department begins with the word “women” really dissuade more men from studying the implications of gender in various settings? Would the department seem friendlier if it was simply called “Gender Studies” ? Perhaps specifying “women” makes men feel that males aren’t affected their gender. After all, mathematics departments nationally share the same name. The department of English, too, is uniformly named nationwide. Maybe male students gather that it must be significant that departments studying gender emphasize different aspects in their names. Whatever the reason, it is important that more men begin studying gender relations critically. If a simple name change could lead to that outcome, the results could smell all the more sweet.

Controversy over the Violence Against Women Act

As Democrats push to reinstate the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, Republicans argue that the introduction of the measure comes at a very convenient time.  As the New York Times reports, “The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence. ” Republicans, however, argue that the expansion of whom the measure protects weakens the protection of the originally intended beneficiaries. Moreover, contend conservatives, Democrats have chosen a politically charged moment to push the Violence Against Women Agenda -having just suffered in the contraception debate.

Models without makeup?!

French women are  celebrated globally for their Mediterranean beauty and model good-looks. Maybe it’s the sunshine or maybe it’s the red wine, but photographers the world over seek French models. Emphasizing this point,  French Elle featured a number of European celebrities sans makeup or even…Photoshop. As frightening as it may be so confront a woman’s face before she has concealed, rouged, and glossed herself, the April 2009 issue was  a smashing success. Could readers actually like women in their organic state?  Women are constantly flooded with messages to “enhance natural beauty” and “highlight” their best features. This gets to be a little confusing when “natural” becomes synonymous with “you need this product.” Readers commend editorials like this one for being revolutionary or challenging those of us without hair and makeup teams to face the world bare-faced. I have to ask, though: why is it that not altering oneself is trailblazing?

Rush Limbaugh.

It had to be brought up here. How could it not be brought up here? After Georgetown University Law student, Sandra Fluke, spoke about the negative impact that the Catholic university’s insurance policies have on women’s access to  contraceptives, Rush Limbaugh went too far -even for Rush Limbaugh. Said the conservative radio talk show host about Fluke’s call for substantive access to contraception for GU’s students:

“What does that make her?…It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”

Not only is Limbaugh clearly uninformed about the realities of oral contraceptives, he alters the course of the conversation entirely. The argument moves away from the conflict between a public health issue and the Catholic stance that any contraception is immoral, to an abrasive attack on women’s sexuality altogether. Let us temporarily dismiss the fact that women use The Pill for medical reasons other than the prevention of pregnancy -including the prevention of uterine and ovarian cancers and the regulation of menstrual cycles.  Even if one ignores these facts, it would seem that Limbaugh’s argument against allowing women access to birth control punishes female sexuality, while allowing men frequent -if unprotected -sexual intercourse. Women are seen as having “so much sex that they can’t afford contraception,” which effectively suggests that women alone should be responsible for securing contraceptives. This line of thinking suggests that oral contraceptives are the only option for the prevention of pregnancy -essentially leaving men out of the conversation altogether.

“The Home of the Moan”

An article in The Amherst Student, entitled, “Amherst Afterglow: Home of the Moan,” discusses masturbation and celebrates it as a vehicle to understanding one’s own sexuality. The article delineates the benefits of self-pleasure. For example, the author contends, knowing one’s own body lends itself to “reaching one’s sexual potential with a partner,” as well as serving as a “normal and healthy release of energy.” The article advocates incorporating sex objects into masturbation and argues the importance of foreplay in reaching orgasm, whether alone or with a partner.

Despite the seemingly controversial nature of the “Home of the Moan” article, not many public comments were left online in response to it. The few comments that were left were quite brief and almost dismissive of the article’s arguments.  It would seem that perhaps masturbation remains a hush-hush topic on college campuses, despite that ” 88 percent of males and 71 percent of females between the ages of 18 to 24 have masturbated at some point in their life.” It is possible that embracing masturbation as a way to understand the workings of one’s own and one’s partner’s sexuality, might actually open the door to more satisfying sexual experiences for all.

Revival of the Amherst Men’s Project

Kudos to the socially conscious men on the Amherst College campus. After a few quiet years the group, The Amherst Men’s Project, is being revived. Aimed at involving men in the prevention of gender-based violence, often perceived as a “women’s issue,” The Amherst Men’s Project aims to increase awareness of the impact of sexual assault on men’s lives. Members recognize the heavy burden of sexual assault that victims, usually female, often carry alone. Supporting the survivors in their lives -their mothers, grandmothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, girlfriends, and friends -the group invites men to speak out and make change.

Writes  the Amherst Men’s Project:

“Not all men are rapists. But 98% of rapes occur by men. How do you wanted to be represented?”