universities. However, Phase II was also marked by critical disagreements.Some agreed with leaders such as Florence Howe who wrote in 1982:
Te major thrust o the second decade will be toward directing the move-ment outward, toward “mainstreaming.” Despite a decade o new scholar-ship, Women’s Studies has so ar made little progress toward its “ultimatestrategy” o transorming the established male-biased curriculum.
Tis process o bringing about a gender-balanced curriculum was anattempt to “de-ghettoize” Women’s Studies and to incorporate it into therest o the academic enterprise. Te objective was to include eminist schol-arship and other new scholarship on women within all o the disciplinesby initiating curriculum transormation projects in diverse academic set-tings throughout the country. Curricular transormation was complicated,however. Gatekeepers (not always male) o the established curriculumcreated obstacles, but oen the more serious challenges were within theWomen’s Studies movement itsel. Some declared that the goal was to bal-ance, mainstream, and integrate Women’s Studies into the academic cur-riculum. Others rejected this as an “add-and-stir” approach and espousedradical paradigm shis that would “transorm” the institution itsel.
MostWomen’s Studies advocates argued, however, that it was not “either-or,” butrather “both-and.” Separate Women’s Studies courses, they believed, mustexist alongside gender-balanced courses within the disciplines.Despite the important, even transormative, work o the Women’s Stud-ies movement during both phases, many advocates, particularly women o color, were marginalized and increasingly rustrated by unexamined claimsabout a universal sisterhood in eminist theorizing. Lesbians critiquedinstitutionalized heterosexism and the relative invisibility o lesbian experi-ence within the emerging scholarship on women and gender. Black womencritiqued Women’s Studies scholars and curriculum integration projects ortheir relative lack o attention to questions o racial, ethnic, class, or cul-tural dierence in denitions o womanhood almost rom the very incep-tion o the women’s movement. Johnnella Butler, who co-directed the rstcurriculum integration project between Women’s Studies and Ethnic Stud-ies, asserted: “Women are separated rom each other by race, class, ethnicgroup, religion, nationality, and culture so that they appear to share moreo a common identity with men o their own immediate group than withwomen outside that group.”
One o the hardest-hitting critiques o the insensitivity o Women’sStudies to race, class, and ethnicity can be ound in the pioneering work o Black eminist theorist bell hooks, who declared:
published by the Feminist Press