Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to an article printed Oct. 20: “John Wayne’s Masculine Identity Crisis.” I do not intend to critique the concept of male studies itself, as one of the interviewees, Prof. Matthew Sommer, has enumerated the basic issues already. Instead, I will focus on the problematic ways that the article itself was presented.

First, the writer made the choice to portray male studies as the antithesis, or opposite of, feminist studies. This is a dangerous dichotomy. “Feminist studies” is not, as is commonly thought, merely a renaming of “women’s studies.” It is, in fact, a field of thought that investigates society with intersectionality of oppression and identity as guiding principles. Feminist studies works against historically patriarchal, racist and generally privileging narratives in academe towards a more self-reflective and activist body of work. There is a reason the department is not called “female studies” — namely that feminist studies includes cisgendered men and trans individuals in its work along with explorations of other kinds of identity. And for another obvious point, “male” and “feminist” are not mutually exclusive labels.

The article also assumes that male studies constitutes a study of the masculine. Any broad work on male-identified individuals should examine masculinity and such gender constructs, but to conflate maleness and masculinity is ignorant at best. Furthermore, the writer presumes not only that maleness equals masculinity, but that masculinity equals John Wayne. I understand the cultural value of John Wayne as a hyper-masculine cowboy figure, but if one wants to paint an accurate picture of what studies of masculinity should really examine, John Wayne is an insignificant example, certainly not worthy of an article title.

The writer also seems to believe that male studies is filling a hole of some sort, that men’s lives are not currently investigated in other fields adequately. What does it mean exactly to investigate men’s issues? What exactly are these issues? Is it that men feel constrained by their gender roles or feel their masculinity is constantly threatened and in need of confirmation? This question is already under the purview of queer studies and performance studies. Do men of color feel the need to assert masculinity in the face of white-normativity? These issues are already investigated by critical race studies. Do men find that they do not have a past, traceable ancestors with whom to identify? History texts suggest the opposite. Certainly men should not be homogenized, and it is for this reason that the study of men’s lives is diffuse across disciplines. I will be so bold as to make the claim that very few experience oppression on the basis of maleness alone, but on the basis of some other identity that interacts with that male privilege: effeminacy, blackness, queerness, or class status, for example.

The article in question glossed over these key factors in its investigation, pursuing instead a superficially exciting title and conflict. I would even suggest that such ignorance of feminist work is symptomatic of why feminism continues to be necessary.

Janani Balasubramanian ‘12

Atmosphere and Energy