Common Spea

vol.2,no.5

Women’s Studies at Swarthmore: A LongWay To Go

This Spring semester, Swarthmore offered an unusual number of
courses addressing the question of women. The three were Robert
DuPlessis’ Women, Society and Change in Modern Europe, George
Moskos’ French Feminism (a special topics course for majors) and
Representations of Women’s Identity, team taught by Mary Poovey
and Jeanne Marecek. Despite this seeming abundance, however, the
demand for such courses far exceeded the supply. This was most
evident in the case of Representations, which received applications
from over 75 students. Having originally intended to limit enrollment
to 25, Professors Poovey and Marecek realized that this would have
meant eliminating two thirds of those interested, and opened the
course to a total of 57 Swarthmore students.

One reason for this overwhelming response to courses focusing
on women is that Swarthmore only offers three such courses on a
regular basis (Joy Charlton’s Sex Roles Power and Identity, Mary
Poovey’s Images of Women in the Eighteenth Century Novel, and
Jeanne Marecek’s Psychology of Women.) Though other courses on
women are offered occasionally, they are usually taught by visiting
professors and are only a one—time opportunity. This makes it
difficult for students interested in feminist scholarship to have any
flexibility in scheduling courses, and renders it virtually impossible
for them to major in Women’s Studies. Swarthmore’s one Women’s
Studies major was able to fulfill requirements only by transferring the
three applicable credits she had earned during her semester at Mills.

Another reason for this great demand for courses cn women is that
female students in particular find that their experiences, both
personal and intellectual, are simply not represented in the courses
they take. Though not all intellectual thought is gender-specific, the
experience of men in this society has been fundamentally different
from that of women. When women are taught to understand only
male experience, in an institution which provides them with few role
models, they are cut off from a whole range of opportunities for ways
to think and act. Studying women means studying the gender system
responsible for this disparity between masculine and feminine

the newsletter
of t the
Alice Paul

Ng Women’s Center

of women and the study of other subjects, which would be
destructive to both. Nevertheless, a Women’s Studies Program
would greatly benefit students now struggling to integrate feminist
scholarship into their academic programs. As a long—term goal, a
Women’s Studies program is necessary to provide students with the
guidance, structure and institutional support they now lack.

In the meantime, students interested in the new scholarship on
women must partly rely on their own resources. One option is to
make use of the Women’s Studies courses coordinated by Paula
Meyhew at Haverford and Bryn Mawr. Surprisingly, few students
draw on the wealth of scholars at these colleges. If this reflects
nothing more than a transportation problem, it should not be
difficult to improve shuttle bus services. Another approach is to
encourage all professors to include feminist analysis in their courses.
Students can choose to write papers on some aspect of the subject
covering women, for example, and include a bibliography for the
professor’s information. They can also make note of pertinent book
or articles they come across and arrange a time to discuss these with
the professor. Finally, students must inform departments of their
needs, providing input on decisions about who will be hired or asked
to return.

Some departments are extremely responsive to student demands.
The Religion department, for instance, took student response to
Demeris Wehr’s course,Women’s Perspectives on Religion
seriously; Professor Wehr will be returning to Swarthmore in the fall
of ’83. Some professors have also taken their own initiative in
expanding Swarthmore’s curriculum. In addition to Joy Charleton’s
Sex Roles, Power and Identity, two new courses on women will be
offered this fall: Professor Murphy’s Women, Society and Politics in
America,and Female Voices, Feminine Wiles, taught by Mary
Poovey. Though they are not yet established permanently in the
curriculum, such courses may represent the first small step toward
fulfilling Swarthmore’s growing demand for scholarship on women.
There is, however, still a long way to go.

-Eliza Newlin and Holly Scheider

perspectives. Understanding the political and power systems which Sea :

have molded both male and female behavior is a necessary first step

toward any kind of social change. As one professor put it, “If there’s sam
any hope for the future, it will come from educating men about

women and women about men.”
Clearly Swarthmore needs more regularly taught courses

addressing the question of women. But there is a distinction @&
between courses which treat the issue of women in passing, and §

those which make a feminist analysis their central focus. Though Jag
some professors may devote a few days or even a week to “the

woman question,” this just perpetuates compartmentalization, and

the trivialization of women’s experience. Though ideally this S&

question would be integrated into every subject, courses specifically

designed around the study of women must also be available. #\§

Women’s Studies courses also provide students with crucial
exposure to feminist scholarship and methodology.

In addition to offering a body of Women’s Studies courses ona &

regular basis, Swarthmore should introduce a Women’s Studies

program into the curriculum. Before such a program can even be {S¥
considered, however, the necessary courses must be in place. &
Otherwise a program runs the risk of marginalizing scholarship on jag
women even further, creating a false dichotomy between the study i