It is the goal of Women’s/Gender studies to allow a bridge of legitimate understanding between, in our admittedly and overtly patriarchal society, men and women. It is the tool by which the injustices of our (men’s) bias may be illuminated and constructively corrected. This is no small process. It is the rewriting of history as we know it, and as it rewrites history within the perspective of the disenfranchised it will, I think, prove incredibly difficult, if not impossible, due to the repression, and more often than not, eradication, of the texts of these unheard voices. All of this I appreciate and understand.
Having said that, and though I know that this is a Women’s Studies course, it seems instantly hypocritical that the text assumes that the reader is a woman. I understand that a great deal of the goal of this course is to, in fact, empower women where they ought already be empowered, but are unfortunately not. But is not an alternative, and arguably equally important, goal of this course to inform and present the legitimacy of these arguments to a male audience? I must further put forth that I appreciate that our text book was written for an all female student body; and while I’ve no doubt, based on the editing and “pass it on through”, processes of our standing institutions, that the arguments are not only valid and legitimate, but absolutely factual, I can’t help but notice the absolute infiltration of commentary by the author and her opinions. If the text was written for an all female student body, then so be it, it was/is appropriate for its intended audience, but is it truly appropriate for a more broad audience? Men included. Could not the text be edited to be more inclusive of all peoples or, if that be insulting to the author, then should not an entirely different text be used? I will not use the terms, “mankind”, or “all men were created equal”, etc. as I appreciate the bias and inherent ignorance of these statements, but if I am to take these steps to support and further the enlightenment of a truly equal future, I feel I should be rightly insulted when a collegiate course takes liberties in backtracking and justifies it by coming from the other side of the fence with the claim of grass is greener.
If this blog is a bit… forward, I apologize. I am deeply excited about the prospect of this course and the many challenges that I can already see that it will present. However, when I am asked to post my feelings for a class, I will do exactly that and will not coat it with anything other than my legitimate feelings. I will go further to say that, for what it is, the book is well, and whats more, intriguingly written. I am simply offering a commentary from a strictly male perspective.