Theorizing Women’s

Studies Gender Studies

and Masculinity: The
Politics of Naming
Diane Richardson and Victoria Robinson
UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD, ENGLAND

This paper theorizes the relationship between women’s studies and gender
studies and will explore the increasing use of the category ’gender’ to analyse
sexual divisions and the related growth of gender studies courses. It will also
examine the creation of ’men’s studies’ courses and an increasing emphasis on
the deconstruction of masculinity within social theory. A number of questions
are raised around these shifts and changes. Should we welcome them because

they broaden the scope of theoretical enquiry, encompassing both female and
male experience, and further the institutionalization of gender issues within the
academy? Or should we be critical of such developments because they may lead
to a narrower political and theoretical agenda in terms of analyses of women’s
experience?

But if I wish to define myself, I must first of all say: ’I am a woman’; on this
truth must be based all further discussion. (de Beauvoir, 1949:15)

The dominant view of women’s studies has been that it is an approach to

knowledge which places women at the centre of analysis and discusses
women’s oppression in terms of the category ’woman’. This view has
been challenged in recent years by some feminists, in particular those
associated with post-structuralism and postmodernism, who have
pointed out that the category ’woman’ is problematic for a number of
reasons. For example, in using the term ’woman’ we are potentially in

danger of minimizing differences and diversity in women’s experience,

and not engaging with other social divisions such as ’race’ and sexuality.
Another challenge is posed by the increasing usage of the term ’gender’ as
a category of analysis and the associated setting up of gender studies

The European Journal of Women’s Studies © SAGE Publications (London, Thousand
Oaks and New Delhi), Vol. 1, 1994:11-27
11

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

12

courses. Although, as we will later illustrate, there is confusion over what

is meant by gender studies and how it does (or does not) differ from
women’s studies, broadly speaking the emphasis in gender studies is less
specifically on women’s experience (of oppression) and rather is con-
cerned with the analysis of both women’s and men’s experience. This is
not to say that women’s studies is not concerned with looking at men’s
experience, but that its reasons for doing so may differ.
Related to the development of gender studies, is the emergence of
men’s studies as a distinct subject area in the United States in particular
and, more generally elsewhere, an increasing focus on the study of men
and masculinity within the social sciences, arts and humanities.
At the first Grace’ seminar in February 1992, ’Women’s Studies-
Feminizing the Academy’, it was concluded that:
Although the issue of ’men in women’s studies’ has been raised in the past,
we suspect that the reality throughout Europe is that the subject has
insufficient status and inadequate funding in terms of senior posts and
potential advancement to attract men. Hence it is not a controversial issue
as the problem does not arise at present! (Grace, 1992: 10)

Can we still say this? What do the shifts towards gender and men’s
studies signify for the continued establishment and development of
women’s studies? Should we welcome them because they broaden the
scope of enquiry, encompassing both male and female experience? Or
should we be critical of such developments because they may lead to a
narrower political and theoretical agenda in terms of women’s
experi-
ence ?
This paper will explore the increasing use of the category ’gender’ to
analyse sexual divisions and the related growth of gender studies
courses. It will also examine the creation of men’s studies courses and

increasing emphasis on the deconstruction of masculinity within social

theory, and will show how these trends can be seen reflected in the
marketing of feminist research. It raises the question: what is the
relationship between women’s studies and gender studies? Are we to
assume, as some have done, that one incorporates the other? How does
men’s studies relate to women’s studies and gender studies? Are these
questions relevant to all countries, and in the same way? To what extent
does the future development of women’s studies depend on the answers
to these questions or, to put it another way, how important is the politics
of naming?
It is important to make clear at the outset that what we are discussing is
not merely a question of terminology. Rather, what we are attempting to
do is theorize the relationship of women’s studies to gender studies, and
also comment on the emergence of the study of men and masculinity, and
ask what are the implications of the increasing usage of the term ’gender’

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

 13

over ’women’? For example, what are the pedagogic issues raised by
these shifts? Are the teaching methods and ethics of women’s studies and
gender studies the same and if not how do they differ?
Having said that, we are aware of the linguistic difficulties regarding
how certain words may translate. The term ’women’s studies’, which was
originally developed within North America, is subject to a number of
competing definitions. Some, for example, have suggested that women’s
studies is research on women by women for women whereas others have
argued that it is research based specifically on the analysis of power
relations between the sexes, with the emphasis on the analysis and
explanation of the oppression of women. Though the term has been
widely adopted in Britain, it may not make sense to use it in other
languages. In translation to French, for instance, women’s studies
becomes either ’etudes f6ministes’ or ’6tudeslfemmes’ or études feminines’.
Similarly, the term ’gender’ has several translations in French.
In an international context the problems are not only linguistic, they
also reflect the differences in the development of women’s studies and
gender studies in differing countries. As Rosi Braidotti notes: ’In the very
choice of a name, therefore, we must be alert to the differences in culture,
religion, political and educational practices which may well make the
American model of Women’s Studies not applicable in Europe’ (Braidotti,
1992:23). For example, in the context of recent political and economic
changes many Eastern European feminists disagree with the focus by US
and Western European feminists on power relationships between
women and men, because they see this as potentially divisive at a time of

major social change. Thus they would prefer gender studies, as a more
inclusive term, to women’s studies (ENws, 1992). In our case, it is
important to acknowledge that we are writing primarily from a British
perspective, which has perhaps been more influenced by developments
in the United States than some other countries.

WOMEN’S STUDIES AND GENDER STUDIES: CHANGES

AND CHALLENGES

There is not one homogeneous viewpoint among British feminists on the

issue of naming women’s studies, although most would agree that the
use of the term ’gender’ to replace ’women’ has become increasingly

popular within the academy since the late 1980s. Some courses that are
clearly women’s studies are now called ’Gender Divisions’ or ’Gender
Issues in Contemporary Britain’, and a number of women’s studies
research centres have been called centres for the study of gender
(Zmroczek and Duchen, 1991:18). Terms such as ’feminist studies’,

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

14

FIGURE 1

Published by kind permission of Polity Press

’feminist’, ’anti-sexist’ and (dare we say it) ’patriarchy’ are also used less
and less frequently.
The shift away from using ’woman’ (as well as ’feminist’) in preference
to ’gender’ as a term is also evident in the naming of some new British and
North American journals such as, for example, Gender Studies, Gender and
Society, Gender and Education and Gender and History, as well as the growing
tendency for bookshops to rename women’s studies or feminist sections
as ’gender studies’. Many academic publishers, as a marketing strategy,
are also now beginning to use the term ’gender studies’ in preference to
women’s studies because they believe this will attract a wider audience
and lead to increased profits. Such marketing strategies are influential in

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

 15

FIGURE 2

Published by kind permission of Polity Press

shaping both academics’ and students’ perceptions of research and

debate within women’s studies and feminist theory.
The relationship between women’s studies and gender studies is
unclear (see Figure 3). Often these two terms are used interchangeably as
if they are synonymous (a) even though, as is discussed in this paper, it is
not obvious why this should be the case. Alternatively, they may be
collapsed into one category with no clear distinction between the two -
Gender and Women’s Studies (b). Women’s studies and gender studies
may also be regarded as two distinct categories of study (c); or they may
be conceptualized as two distinct fields of study in a hierarchical

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

16

FIGURE 3
The relationship between women’s studies and gender studies
(a) Gender studies =
women’s studies

(b) Gender and women’s studies

(c) Gender studies/women’s studies
(d) Gender studies
I
Women’s studies

relationship (d), with gender studies being seen as incorporating or

indeed representing women’s studies - for ’women’ read ’gender’. In the
latter case women’s studies is clearly under threat as a subject area in its
own right, in a way that is less apparent in (b) or (c).
Related to this, there is also some confusion over whether feminists are
arguing that gender studies should exist in its own right, but that we need
to carefully examine the relationship with and possible effects on
women’s studies’ progress and existence. (In other words, that gender
studies will be a useful academic discipline one day but not before the
establishment of women’s studies.) Or, whether the view is that, because
it depoliticizes relationships between the sexes, gender studies should
exist at all.
We also need to consider how different feminist theoretical approaches
may influence how the relationship between women’s studies and
gender studies is conceptualized. Will the teaching and research agenda
of women’s studies become defined by those women who, for political
and ideological reasons, are unwilling to move into gender studies?
Similarly, will theoretical and conceptual developments in gender studies
reflect only certain strands of feminism? These are important issues
which will inform the future development of feminist theory and practice.

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

The terms ’women’s studies’ and ’gender studies’ are sometimes used
seemingly interchangeably in British institutions for practical or strategic
reasons. This has led, in some cases, to ’gender studies’ courses having
the same curriculum as women’s studies courses. Sometimes the more
’scientific’ sounding term ’gender studies’ is used, even though the staff
running courses would have preferred to use the term women’s studies,
because of concern over getting courses safely through the system, as
’gender’ is seen as less threatening and less explicitly political than either

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

 17

’women’s studies’ or ’feminist studies’. In other cultures other non-

radical terms are used. As there is no such word as gender in the Hebrew
language, in Israel ’women’s studies courses are termed &dquo;sex differences
studies&dquo; thus offering equal space to male issues’ (Abrahami-Einat, 1993).
Others may actively choose to use the title ’gender studies’ for
intellectual reasons, because they believe that it represents both women
and men equally and thus signifies a more democratic course. Others still
would want to argue for gender studies on the grounds that in order to
’illuminate the ways in which societies have been shaped by the relations
of power between men and women’ (Gender and History, 1990) we need to
move away from a focus on women, to an analysis of men and

masculinity as well as women and femininity.

One could see the use of ’gender’ as a positive development, both
theoretically and in terms of establishing women’s studies within the
academy (albeit under a different name). Alternatively, we need to
consider how such developments might possibly undermine or super-
sede the research agenda of women’s studies, as well as decreasing the
amount of ’space’ for women in education in the context of what is still
often a male-dominated curriculum and institution.
For example, the emphasis on gender has been criticized by feminists
such as Mary Evans who argues that the category of ’gender’ is a neutral
term which implies that the ’interests of the sexes have now converged
and that the differences in life changes (not to mention economic
rewards) that exist between women and men are matters of choice’
(Evans, 1991: 73). She argues for the necessity of using the name
’women’s studies’ as it allows the focus to remain on sexual difference
’because asserting the category of woman challenges the classless,
genderless, raceless non-problematic person who is the perfect human
actor of a consumer society’ (Evans, 1991: 72). The concern is that sexual
inequalities/power relationships between women and men are no longer
central. The notion of gender has also been criticized ’both for its
theoretical inadequacy and for its politically amorphous and unfocussed
nature’ (Braidotti, 1992: 25).
How is the situation in Britain different from other European coun-
tries ? At a European Commission seminar on ’New Trends in Women’s
Studies’ in Brussels in March 1992, it was clear that whilst some countries
were concerned about the implications of the use of the term ’gender’ in

preference to ’women’s studies’ (for example, Germany), for others the

issue had not yet arisen (for example, Spain) and where it had it was not
necessarily identified as a problem.
It is also important to recognize that the use of the term ’gender’ has
changed over the past two decades - ’gender’ means something different
now. Twenty years ago researchers used the term primarily to distinguish
between biological sex and the cultural ascription of gender. It referred to

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

18

FIGURE 4

an individual’s gender-identity and gender-role. Nowadays, it is more

often used in the context of gender relations or gender systems, as well as
the study of the social construction of differences between the sexes.
Again, it is important to ask why these shifts in meaning have occurred. It
is, we would argue, not simply a case of redefining terminology in the
light of academic developments, but rather that such changes signify
political processes at work and shifts in power relations. Similarly, we
might add that the term ’feminist’ has also come to mean something
rather different in the 1990s from the early 1970s, at least within a British
context. Arguably, it has become a much more individualistic term than
being about political collectivity.

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

 19

The question of gender studies seems closely linked to the issue of

autonomy and integration. For those who would support the integration
of ’women’s studies’ into the mainstream, this may seem more likely to be
achieved through gender studies because, for example, of increased
chances of attracting resources, and that it is not as likely to be perceived
as a restricted field of study or ’minority group interest’. Others would

argue against integration and for the maintenance of women’s studies as

an autonomous subject. Lyndie Brimstone (1991), for example, argues for
the strategic importance of remaining at the margins in order to reduce
the risk of co-option within the academy and the marketing and
packaging of feminism into a politically more diluted form.

WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE STUDY OF MEN

TO THE STUDY OF WOMEN?

Apart from the concern that using the term ’gender’ can have a
neutralizing effect, making women’s specific experience more invisible,
subsumed under the general (and for general read male), there is also the
issue of whether’gender’ shifts the focus of attention in research activities
away from women towards men. For example, the back cover of Harry
Brod’s book The Making o f Masculinities: The New Men’s Studies (1987) states
that:

There has been a marked trend in feminist scholarship during the past few
years away from a focus exclusively on women to a broader conception of
gender. The study of men is a fundamental part of this trend.
How far has this study of men that Brod refers to become institutional-
ized ? In the United States there are courses labelled ’men’s studies’ in a
number of universities. The setting up of such courses is ironic given the
point Dale Spender (1981) and other feminists have previously made, that
until recently all academic study has been ’men’s studies’. In Britain this
new interest in men and masculinity has, so far, manifested itself

primarily in research publications and conference proceedings. Popular

culture also reflects and contributes to this shift in interest in understand-
ing the ’male experience’. There is apparently money to be made in
publishing books relating to masculinity and the ’men’s movement’. The
American writer Robert Bly’s book Iron John (1990) was a bestseller, which
prompted a host of largely American self-help manuals for men to
understand themselves and their feelings.
There are male academics who would now assert that ’issues of gender
and masculinity are now central to social theory, while in the early
eighties Marxism and feminism were’ (Seidler, 1992 : 20). Does this mean,

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

20

FIGURE 5

Published by kind permission of Routledge

therefore, that we no longer need feminist insights in social theory and,

by implication, women’s studies? Indeed, what is the relationship

between women’s studies and this new focus on the study of men and
masculinity? The American researcher Michael Kimmel has asserted that
’Men’s studies doesn’t seek to supplant women’s studies. It seeks to
buttress, to augment women’s studies, to complete the radically redrawn
portrait of gender that women’s studies has begun’ (Kimmel, 1988:20).
Others might argue that the very name ’men’s studies’ is a threat to
women’s studies, given that it assumes that women’s studies and men’s
studies are complementary, and that its existence before the security of

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

 21

FIGURE 6

Published by kind permission of Routledge

women’s studies is established will, ironically, put the focus back on men,
and resources may be diverted away from women’s studies. In other
words, a situation of institutional competition rather than academic
coexistence.
Some male researchers have recognized the politics involved around
naming the study of men and masculinities and prefer ’male dominance
studies’ and ’the critical study of men’ as an alternative title. This was a
major issue at the British Sociological Association’s Theory Study Group
Conference on ’Men and Masculinity’ in 1988, where men’s studies was

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

22

Published by kind permission of Routledge

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

 23

rejected as an appropriate naming of this area of study (see Hearn and

Morgan, 1990).
Routledge is a prominent mainstream publisher and leader in the field
of publishing works on gender and men and masculinity in Britain, and
therefore provides a useful case example of some of the issues this paper
raises. The fact that gender is emphasized over ’woman’ as a distinct
category is reflected in the cover design of their catalogue, which is called
’Gender and Women’s Studies’ and has a woman and a man on the front.
Routledge has two series on men and masculinity: ’Male Orders’ edited
by Victor Seidler, which appeared in 1991, and ’Critical Studies on Men
and Masculinity’ edited by Jeff Hearn, which was originally launched in
1990. It is interesting to examine the language used to publicize these
series. In 1993 the ’Critical Studies on Men and Masculinities’ series
described its aims in the following terms:

In recent years, and inspired particularly by important research in the field

of women’s studies, scholars have turned their attention to the study of
men. [The series]... provides a publishing forum for some of the best work

emerging in this new field.

Routledge acquired this series from Harper Collins, who inherited it

from Unwin Hyman. It is interesting to compare the text used to launch
the series, in 1990, with that in the Routledge catalogue. A number of
deletions have been made which, it could be argued, deradicalizes the
series from a feminist perspective. For example, in the first round of cuts
the following was left out: ’Overall, the attempt has been made to
produce a series of studies of men and masculinities that are anti-sexist
and anti-patriarchal in orientation.’ The 1991/2 Routledge catalogue
nevertheless continued to define the series as ’pro-feminist’, its task being
’the critique of men and masculinities’ stating that: ’Each volume in the
series approaches its specific topic in the light of feminist theory and
practice ...’. By 1993, though the series title remains the same, all
reference to feminism has disappeared.
The description of the ’Male Orders’ series, edited by Victor Seidler,
has also undergone a number of changes. Whereas in the 1991 publisher’s
catalogue the series is ’sympathetic to feminism’, in 1992/3 it merely
acknowledges ’the challenges of feminism ...’. There is no attempt to
explicitly identify it with the aims of feminism, as in the case of the series
edited by Jeff Hearn. ’Male Orders’ now ’... attempts to understand
male forms of identity, practice and association in the modern world. The
series explores how dominant forms of masculinity have helped shape
prevailing forms of knowledge, culture and experience.’ For a fuller
discussion of such trends in publishing feminism see Robinson and
Richardson, 1994.

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

24

FURTHER IMPLICATIONS OF THESE SHIFTS

To call courses ’gender studies’ is less likely to deter those students who
may have preconceived ideas about the ’bias’ of women’s studies and
think that women’s studies is of relevance for women only. In practice,
this has meant more male students taking courses. Similarly, as more
male tutors engage with/appropriate feminist theoretical issues, gender
and men’s studies are safer, less controversial places for them to do so in
preference to women’s studies courses.
What are some of the implications of male academics’ engagement
with feminist theory (acknowledged or otherwise) with regard to
women’s position within the academy? What is the relationship of the
study of men and masculinity to the development of women’s studies
and feminist research?
Joyce E. Canaan and Christine Griffin (1990), for example, are
suspicious about men’s move into academic feminism:
Is it a coincidence that TNMS [the new men’s studies] is being constructed
in the present context as a source of potential research, publishing deals,
and (even more) jobs for the already-well-paid boys holding prestigious
positions? (Canaan and Griffin, 1990: 208)

Whilst it may be too early to tell whether this is happening in Britain, in

the United States it would seem that it is already becoming a reality. For
example, the first chair in gender studies went to Harry Brod whose work
we mentioned earlier. (There are parallels here with current debates
about the development of lesbian and gay studies, and the concern with
the field’s domination by gay men.)
Why have male academics, instead of setting up a new area of study,
not fully taken on the traditional disciplines, as there is still much more
work to be done there regarding gender and masculinity, despite
traditional research being about men. It could be argued that most men
won’t do this because ’the new men’s studies’ is a more ’easy option’ for
them. To take on the traditional disciplines is harder than creating a new
field of study, like men’s studies, because there are less chances of
acquiring jobs, research funding and publications.
Others, whilst they may on the one hand welcome men’s studies as
potentially offering something useful for feminist research, have viewed
with suspicion current research trends in the study of men.
The themes and issues that are prioritized under men and masculinity/
men’s studies are primarily concerned with masculine subjectivity, in
particular father and son relationships, men’s feelings about their own
sexuality, male bonding, men’s response to feminism, and masculinity
and the media. Why not focus on research which would ’contribute to our

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

 25

understanding of how men gain, maintain, and use power to subordinate

women’ (Hanmer,1990: 37). For example, two areas that the study of men
needs to address and further develop are reproductive technologies and
genetic engineering and violence against women.
Related to this, it is worth noting that the focus in men’s studies tends
to be on research publications rather than on the use of research for
political and social change. Although some male researchers would claim
that the study of men and masculinity will yield new questions which will
’illuminate the conditions and possibilities of changing conceptions of
masculinity, if not also the conditions for the liberation of men’ (Seidler,
1990: 227, our emphasis). If this is the case, then it is perhaps our political
priorities as well as our research agendas which differ! As Jalna Hanmer
argues:

To conceive of the study of men to be about liberating men is to have little

interest in any area of social analysis that seriously critiques men as men, as
part of the problem, not just to women and each other but to society and our
continuation as a species. (Hanmer, 1990: 29)

As we have already acknowledged, women’s studies has had to

recognize that the category ’woman’ is problematic and that it can lead to
important differences between women being ignored. Will gender
studies or the new men’s studies engage with the complexities of, for
example, ’race’, class, age, disability and sexuality or will they be
marginalized as ’just another set of variables’ (Canaan and Griffin, 1990)?

SUMMARY

In this paper we have drawn attention to the way in which the terms of
feminist teaching and research in some European countries are being
moved away from discussing women’s oppression in terms of the
(problematic) category of ’woman’ to using gender as an interrogating
and organizing category and/or by focusing on men and masculinity. One
important question to arise from this is, ’Why such developments now?’
Is the tendency to redefine women’s studies as gender studies symptom-
atic of the more general trend towards the marketing and packaging of
feminism into a diluted and more widely acceptable form? We would
argue that it does represent a deradicalization of women’s studies, taking
the heat off patriarchy. If, as we have argued elsewhere (Richardson and
Robinson, 1993), a post-feminist age is far from a reality for most women
world-wide, then surely this is the last thing we should be doing. On the
contrary, at a time when more and more students are choosing women’s
studies, we need to develop strategies which enable us to use the power

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

26

and position we have attained and still challenge the academy with a

diversity of feminist approaches.

Are our arguments relevant for feminists in other European contexts?
This key question needs to be addressed further. In doing so, however, it
is important that whilst identifying commonalities within Europe, we
take account of the diversity of feminist analysis and practice and theorize
our differences. Only then will the debates about this evolving field of

study reflect the complexity of strategies and theoretical approaches to

women’s studies in Europe.

NOTES

1. Grace is a project on Women’s Studies in the European Community created

and managed by Les Cahiers du GRIF on behalf of the Equal Opportunities
Unit of the European Commission.

REFERENCES

Abrahami-Einat, Judith (1993) ’Cultural Differences and their Effect on Different

Programmes of Women’s Studies’, paper given at the KEGME/UNESCO
International Seminar ’Gender Studies Towards The Year 2000’, Athens,
2-5 June 1993.
Bly, Robert (1990) Iron John
. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Braidotti, Rosi (1992) ’Origin and Development of Gender Studies in Western
Europe’, paper given at the European Network for Women’s Studies
’Establishing Gender Studies in Central and Eastern European Countries’
Workshop, Wassenaar, The Netherlands, 5-8 November 1992.
Brod, Harry (ed.) (1987) The Making of Masculinities: The New Men’s Studies.
London: Routledge.
Brimstone, Lyndie (1991) ’Out of the Margins and into the Soup: Some Thoughts
on Incorporation’, in Jane Aaron and Sylvia Walby (eds), Out of the Margins:
Women’s Studies in the 1990s
. London: Falmer Press.
Canaan, Joyce E. and Christine Griffin (1990) ’The New Men’s Studies: Part of the
Problem or Part of the Solution?’ in Jeff Hearn and David Morgan (eds),
Men Masculinities and Social Theory
, . London: Unwin Hyman.
de Beauvoir, Simone (1949) The Second Sex (reprinted 1972). Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
European Network for Women’s Studies (ENWS) (1993) ’Establishing Gender
Studies in Central and Eastern European Countries’, Workshop papers.
The Netherlands: Ministry of Education.
Evans, Mary (1991) ’The Problem of Gender for Women’s Studies’ in Jane Aaron
and Sylvia Walby (eds), Out of the Margins: Women’s Studies in the 1990s
.
London: Falmer Press.
Gender and History (1990) ’Special Issue on Autobiography and Biography’, 2(1)
Spring.
Grace (1992) Women’s Studies in the European Community
, Grace Project Report
Phase 2. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
Hanmer, jalna (1990) ’Men, Power and the Exploitation of Women’, in Jeff Hearn

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015

 27

and David Morgan (eds), Men , Masculinities and Social Theory. London:
Unwin Hyman.
Hearn, Jeff and David Morgan (eds) (1990) Men , Masculinities and Social Theory
.
London: Unwin Hyman.
Kimmel, Michael (1988) ’The Gender Blender’, Guardian, 29 September: 20.
Richardson, Diane and Victoria Robinson (1993) Introducing Women’s Studies:
Feminist Theory and Practice
. London: Macmillan.
Robinson, Victoria and Diane Richardson (1994) ’Publishing Feminism: Rede-
fining the Women’s Studies Discourse’, Journal of Gender Studies 3(1): 87-94.
Seidler, Victor J. (1989) Rediscovering Masculinity: Reason, Language and Sexuality
.
London: Routledge.
Seidler, Victor J. (1990) ’Men, Feminism and Power’, in Jeff Hearn and David
Morgan (eds), Men, Masculinities and Social Theory
. London: Unwin Hyman.
Seidler, Victor J. (1992) ’Sobs for the Boys’, Guardian, 30 June.
Spender, Dale (ed.) (1981) Men’s Studies Modified: The Impact of Feminism on the
Academic Disciplines
. London: Pergamon Press.
Zmroczek, Christine and Claire Duchen (1991) ’What are those Women up to?
Women’s Studies and Feminist Research in the European Community’, in
Jane Aaron and Sylvia Walby (eds), Out of the Margins: Women’s Studies in the
. London: Falmer Press.
1990s

Diane Richardson is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociological Studies,

University of Sheffield, England. Her books include Women and the AIDS
Crisis (Pandora, 1989); Safer Sex: The Guide for Women (Pandora, 1989); and
Women, Motherhood, and Childrearing (Macmillan, 1993).
Victoria Robinson lectures in women’s studies in the Division of Continuing
Education, University of Shef field, England. She has recently published articles in
the field of heterosexuality, non-monogamy and the developments of women’s
studies.
They are both members of the Interdisciplinary Group for Women’s Studies at Shef field,
involved in establishing undergraduate and postgraduate degree level courses in
women’s studies. Together they recently co-edited Introducing Women’ss
Studies: Feminist Theory and Practice (Macmillan, 1993).

Downloaded from ejw.sagepub.com at RICE UNIV on May 18, 2015