New York Times printed an article recently, January 9, 2011, titled "The Study of Man (or Males)", you can find the whole article here http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/education/09men-t.html?_r=1&ref=sociology. This article is very interesting because it points out the imbalance between a major in Women's Studies and the very fact that there is not a Male Studies major. In the article it says, "Male studies, largely the brainchild of Dr. Edward M. Stephens, a New York City psychiatrist, doesn’t actually exist anywhere yet. Last spring, there was a scholarly symposium at Wagner College on Staten Island, intended to raise the movement’s profile and attract funds for a department with a tenured chair on some campus. A number of prominent scholars attended, including Lionel Tiger, an emeritus anthropology professor at Rutgers, who invented the term “male bonding,” and Paul Nathanson, who specializes in the study of misandry, the flip side of misogyny. Both are on the advisory board of the Foundation for Male Studies, which Dr. Stephens founded last year."
I had not even thought about the fact that there is a major in Women's Studies, and none for men. The article then goes on to explain the differences between what would be Men's Studies and what would be Male Studies. There is a difference, (even though you may not think there is:) and it has to do with the sociological focus in the studies. "But the biology vs. culture argument has been going on for years, and the male studies movement is less an expansion of that debate than a response to a specific crisis, the nature of which both sides agree on: academically at least, young men are in trouble. Starting in grammar school, they lag behind girls by most observable measures, and the gap widens through high school and college. If males go to college at all, that is. College enrollment tilts at almost 60-40 in favor of women, and once enrolled, women are more likely than men to do well and to graduate." Interesting. Who even knew that this tilt was going on?
Professor Tiger believes that by the time girls get to college, there is a Darwinian component to the achievement gap: women are aware of the divorce rate and the likelihood that they may raise children without ever marrying in the first place. “They’re studying for two,” he explained. “Guys just don’t have that sense, that inwit. That’s biology at its most essential.” Professor Groth, Professor Tiger and Dr. Stephens all seem at great pains not to say anything critical about feminism or women’s studies. “I don’t think male studies has emerged from acrimony,” Professor Tiger insisted. And yet the male studies movement appears to be animated at least in part by a sense that feminism has gone too far on campus and the women’s studies departments are too powerful. Professor Tiger and Dr. Stephens like to recite by the sheaf statistics showing how much more resources are being poured into the study of women and their problems than into men and their plight.
The article ends with a circumstance to show give a little more credibility to their research. "Last semester, Professor Groth taught a course on the psychology of men; of 30 students, all but five were women. “I asked everyone, ‘Why are you taking this course?’ ” he recalled. “The boys didn’t say anything. The girls all said, ‘We want to understand the guys better.’ ” It is interesting, to me, to see that this is indeed taking place. As I look at my classes and see the placement of males and females in majors, I wonder if there is a gender role that they are trying to fall into place with, or if they really do want to study business or human development? Has anyone else noticed this shift of feminism becoming too strong or other related issues?
I took a women's studies course a few semesters ago, and we discussed this very issue--why is there so-called "women's studies," but no "men's studies"? One student in the class brought up an interesting point--that the history of the university has been focused on "men's studies," since the university was originally a males-only institution. The student in my class pointed out that as long as universities have existed, they have studied the relationship between man and the environment, man and God, man and the universe, the mind of man, etc., etc.
ReplyDeleteAt first I agreed completely with this student. Now, however, my opinion has changed a little. I do agree that for a long time, the university was a place for males to study males in relation to any number of subjects. Now, however, as you pointed out in your article summary, the balance has shifted and females are the majority population in universities. The balance is not 50-50. Similarly, the academic balance is not split equally between the genders.
I think it is true that more weight is given in gender studies to women. My theory behind this imbalance is that scholars are playing "catch-up" when it comes to women's studies. For centuries, women got left behind, and I think many academic communities are trying to compensate for past losses in the study of women. However, I think now that--as this article seems to suggest--the pendulum is swinging the other way and now men are being left behind in the gender studies balance.
In an ideal world, I'd like to think that we'd study gender from an integrative perspective rather than separating men and women into completely separate camps. While there are extremely important distinctions between men and women, I think that those differences often overshadow the many similarities between men and women. I think these gender similarities deserve just as much academic attention as gender differences.