Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Friends or Foes?
MARK J. JUSTAD
Vanderbilt University Divinity School
Nashville, Tennessee
Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Mark Justad, 3258 McGavock Pike, Nashville,
TN 37214 or mark.j.justad@vanderbilt.edu.
The Journal of Men’s Studies, Vol. 8, No. 3, Spring 2000, pp. 401-406.
© 2000 by the Men’s Studies Press, LLC. All rights reserved.
401
MARK J. JUSTAD
402
WOMEN’S STUDIES AND MEN’S STUDIES
403
MARK J. JUSTAD
men are dramatically more alike than different. While gender differences, particu-
larly biological ones, continue to hold our collective interest (and I see no necessary
problem with this), the fact of our sameness remains an odd “unsaid” in our discus-
sions of gender.3 And the fact that women and men share abilities, concerns, and
interests filters into our women’s studies and men’s studies scholarship and makes
the conversation between the two areas a logical and inevitable occurrence.
The second assumption that I hold regarding men’s studies is that it has the
potential ability for making men’s lives a part of the academic conversation in ways
previously avoided or excluded. Men’s studies draws the particularity of men’s
experience qua men into the arena in which men-as-universal-human (Man) has his-
torically had a starring role. Thus men’s studies renders problematic assumed mani-
festations of androcentrism in the academy by its very existence as a critical form of
inquiry. That is, men’s studies builds upon women’s studies’ success in drawing
female and feminist forms of knowledge into the academy by insisting that men’s
ways of knowing and doing are also ensconced in the particularities of being and
becoming gendered.4 This, of course, suggests that men’s studies is both an institu-
tional and a political ally of women’s studies and that it is to women’s studies schol-
ars’ advantage to view it as such.
My third assumption regarding men’s studies is simply that it is a good thing for
boys and men. Men’s studies can, I believe, play an important role in helping to
identify and move beyond the limiting and destructive expectations of hegemonic
forms of masculinity as they shape our individual life chances and choices. This is
something which women’s studies scholars and activists should celebrate. Why?
Because largely missing from the drive toward gender equality have been significant
efforts to articulate constructive models of male identity that are anchored outside of
our inherited understandings of masculinity. While the effort to liberate “from” has
been emphasized (what boys and men shouldn’t be and do), discussion of liberation
“to” has been harder to find. This is understandable given the history of patriarchy
and the energy of the women’s movement and feminism, generally speaking. How-
ever, it is now in the best interest of women and men, girls and boys, to include in
the discussion of gender the ways in which we can now expect boys and men to
think and behave as boys and men. Doing this can both help open up boys and men
to fuller lives and simultaneously promote more democratic relationships between
women and men.
My discussion has largely been about men’s studies and how women’s studies
scholars and activists might best understand it. I suppose it would be fair to say that I
have written a kind of apologia for men’s studies vis-à-vis women’s studies. It
occurs to me that some readers will consider this tactic unnecessary at this point in
time. First, some who are sympathetic to my arguments will be aware that others
have written much more elegantly and exhaustively on this same topic. Second, oth-
ers will find in my writing a kind of blind allegiance to feminism, which reflects
either an anti-male bias or a simplistic reading of feminism. I believe, however, that
the defining and contextualizing of men’s studies in relationship to the movement for
the full humanity of women continues to be necessary as we begin the new millen-
nium. Why? Simply because it has been the impetus of the women’s movement and
feminist theorists which have largely given rise to the men’s studies attempts to
404
WOMEN’S STUDIES AND MEN’S STUDIES
move beyond traditional forms of male socialization.5 Men’s studies should retain a
sense of what Catherine Keller (1986) calls a “compensatory gynocentricity” so that
our scholarship can, if at all possible, avoid the lessons of patriarchal history. This is
not because women are inherently superior, or because men are inherently patriar-
chal, but simply because we are charting new territory here and we have few guide-
posts on which to rely. Men’s studies is a relatively young area of scholarship and
must continue to seek out the voices marginalized by traditional forms of masculin-
ity in doing its own work. And because the voices of feminist resistance have been a
primary voice in this category, and if we want to seek out the full humanity of men,
men’s studies must continue to hold itself accountable to the feminist movement for
the full humanity of women.
NOTES
1. This does not mean, of course, that all groups of men engaged with rethinking
masculinity are, in fact, profeminist in orientation. Rather, what Messner seems to be
suggesting, and I agree with, is that at least on a rhetorical level, the current conver-
sations about masculinity (this is specifically speaking to the U.S.) occur within an
assumed social context in which equality between women and men is either assumed
or affirmed. This does not mean that the Promise Keepers, for example, exist to pro-
mote equality between women and men. However, even the Promise Keepers take
significant pains to let the public know that they, in their own opinion, are not anti-
women or sexist.
2. I assume that women’s studies can be characterized as committed to the polit-
ical and personal goals of the advancement toward the full humanity of women. I
realize, of course, that not all women’s studies scholars and/or departments would
agree on much of anything—including how to define feminism or what it means to
be a woman. I am, however, willing to go out on a limb and suggest that the goal of
equality between women and men remains a consistent and rather uncontroversial
marker of women’s studies scholars and departments.
3. Fausto-Sterling’s (1985) discussion of the overlapping bell curves makes the
point that the intra-gender differences in behaviors and characteristics are dramati-
cally more significant than inter-gender differences in the same areas. Women and
men are perhaps “opposite” when assuming heterosexual reproduction. We are not,
however, “opposite” in much of anything else. The notion of “opposite” genders
takes on an even less salient tone when the topic of transgendered individuals and
experiences arises.
4. I am not making the claim that humans are simply and finally limited by their
gender identity. Nor do I wish to argue for any necessary epistemological superiority
for women’s experience. Rather, men’s studies helps to draw the whole of men’s
lives into academic conversations and thus helps to remind us of the limited and con-
textual nature of all of our scholarship. Patriarchal assumptions regarding the univer-
sal aspects of (some) men’s experiences have, in part, remained in place because of
the ability to shield men’s lives from being considered gendered in the same way as
women’s. Men’s studies stands as a corrective to this blindness in insisting that men
attempt to speak and write qua men.
405
MARK J. JUSTAD
5. The women’s movement and feminism are, of course, not the only cultural
and intellectual precursors to men’s studies scholarship. The rise of social sciences
in this century, primarily psychology and sociology, have led to increased scrutiny of
the influence of cultural influences on gender and individual identity. And trends
within western philosophical discourse have brought the notion of a given and uni-
tary selfhood under serious attack as well. The end result of these and other influ-
ences has been to shift Western notions of selfhood to include for most of us some
sense that we, as individuals, are socially constructed beings. This shift in anthropo-
logical thinking has made for a much more receptive intellectual and cultural climate
for entering into thinking about being male.
REFERENCES
Brod, H., & Kaufman, M. (Eds.). (1994). Theorizing masculinities. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985). Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and
men. New York: Basic Books.
Keller, C. (1987). From a broken web: Separation, sexism, and self. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Messner, M. (1997). Politics of masculinities: Men in movements. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Minnich, E. K. (1990). Transforming knowledge. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Pollack, W. S. (1999). Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood.
New York: Henry Holt & Company.
Welch, S. D. (1999). Sweet dreams in America: Making ethics and spirituality work.
New York: Routledge.
406