Are any of you radical feminists?

(Sorry, meant that to jazz.)

Totally agree.

Some people think of it as part of preparation for life beyond the thesis, where the work itself may matter less, for going to the job interview where the old twat across the desk is thinking 'oh feminist' and asking shit questions in order to get their favoured candidate's marxist analysis of the 14th-century fishing industry supported (sorry, little bit of personal bitterness there). I don't, but dealing with such criticism and negotiating the boundaries of personal belief (often hidden) and academic work with colleagues is a shitty part of the life we've chosen. If it's confidence destroying though, it's failed. To an outsider I would suggest that much faith is being shown in your excellence and resilience by having the conversation, that you are being treated as a colleague not a student here, however inappropriate that feels. I would only risk such a conversation with someone I thought truly excellent.

Congratulations on supervising MA theses, you must be very exceptional indeed if allowed to do that before PhD obtained, another sign of your supervisor's ultimate confidence in you.

Of course, whether academic success should be on the basis of 'last person standing' is another matter.

There was a good article on the f-word about feminism on campus which expressed my broader reservations-feminist thought academically great, but suggestions it might be used
politically no way

Sorry to hear that and for my ignorance. This sounds very like a conversation I had with my supervisor at the same point. She was pushing me very hard to write an explicit defence of method which I felt unneeded and unnecessary, putting her own reservations on the line, and hinting darkly at failure. When I started supervising myself I contacted her and asked why she'd changed at the end, her answer was she was focussed on viva defence and was trying to give me confidence in myself by showing that she liked my work but fundamentally didn't agree with me, that I was my own scholar now and should expect this battering.

I think, however, I'm guessing the motives of a bit of a cock (or a good teacher on an appalling day) here. If you're writing up and have got this far, you should be able to progress with him (but you should also talk..)

God, the things we do to each other by hiding stuff constantly.

That's sad. But it really is none of his business what approach you take.

I think the idea that it's ok to be a little bit feminist (after all, it makes the department look nice and inclusive and frees up everyone else to do 'sensible' work), but not too feminist, is quite a common one.

But I am just a great big cynic.

jazzicatz also doesn't mention the extent of her relationship with him-has he worked with her before. 'Pushing to breaking point' is a crap but not uncommon method of assessing students who are otherwise unknown quantities, especially when ther eis little written work in place.

Should note I can get away with a lot because I'm a historian. I send my students off to look at some relevant sources and comment on them. The proof of the theory is whether it works and illuminates, not whether it can be abstractly defended, and the source work is valuable even if the original framing doesn't work.

Yeah, I have a bad habit of double-posting.

I do know what you mean, exactly. But I've had some incredibly sweeping criticisms from supervisors (eg., 'this is pointless, delete it'), but it is so easy to differentiate these remarks made in a helpful contexts, from bullying. Your students might not tell you they know the difference and might accuse you of being harsh - but I bet they do know, really!

Enjoy reading the proposals.

and LRP too, I hadn't read your last post.

LRP

I agree with you about 'grilling' though, very bad term and practice. Thank you for making me think-I'm reading this year's crop of MA and PhD proposals as I write this and may handle some of them a little differently now.

I think the problem from my end is that the first part of a PhD is anyway a process of grilling-the student will read more widely and find that material and ideas contradict or don't fit with what was intended. Somehow, though, that organic process needs speeding up in order to ensure timely completion and avoid wasted work. You also need to ensure students are willing to respond to that criticism, even if to refute it, it's an essential part of making an original and sustainable contribution. It is, however, possible to explain this and any reservations, to be intellectually aggressive and personally decent, yet achieve the speeded up 'grilling'. But it's not pleasant for students, or for supervisors, who (if they're like me) walk a perpetual tightrope between building up resilience and setting the work in context and discouraging the very enthusiasm, intellectual courage and originality which make the experience worthwhile to us too. I hope, one way or the other, jazzicatz sorts it out and goes on to have a glorious career.

I think even when students complain amongst themselves that the supervisor is being hard on them, they can tell the difference between someone who is trying to help (like you), and someone who wants to shut down the student's work.

My current supervisor has just told me my chapter is pretty flimsy, she's not convinced by my arguments and she's unsure about how the whole thesis will fit together. It is hard to hear but it's also perfectly obvious that she's trying to help. It doesn't really sound as if jazz's experience is like this.

LRP

Glad I can be of some help. There are real problems of communication in this process. Last year, for instance, I found myself vigorously defending a student's MA approach (using modern theories of sex workers to examine medieval prostitution) to her second supervisor and internal examiner, yet being very hard with her, often passing on their criticisms. I tried to make it clear that I was doing so to aid the process, to ensure her passing by developing answers which would satisfy at viva, but I'm certain she didn't feel like that. There is also no reason why supervisor and supervisee should agree-my own supervisor was very much a 'historian who focussed on women' and was quite disparaging of any attempt on my part to use feminist thought, but she offered unflinching support despite her reservations when she felt my approach would not lead to failure. And I'm afraid that far too many academics have been brought up on a confrontational approach-didactic method disguised as bullying-and might sometimes need to be reminded that this is not a universally good way of teaching.

But jazzicatz relationship with her supervisor has, at this point, failed and needs restoring. It might be that they can discuss this (why are you being like this, how far is your personal disbelief going to affect the thesis) and resolve it, and that he is surprised to have caused such problems, or it might not be. He needs to think about his responsibilities and supervising style. Were I taking her on from there, though, I would stress to her that WE need to work out answers to his points about what radfem leads to if we are to defend the piece at viva. This doesn't mean making her abandon them, just locate and justify them within other approaches. Tedious for anyone to do, but very much part of the game-you write the radical stuff in the field changing first book, not the thesis that lays the research base for it.

Actually, what adela says is making me think: jazz, can you/have you asked him straight out to clarify if he is arguing in order to make you justify yourself, or because he fundamentally disagrees with this argument and thinks it has no place in the academic literature of your subject?

If the former, maybe he is just being aggressive to get you to explain yourself. If the latter, he's out of order.

I am uneasy when people say they grill their students in order to teach them. It is sometimes just an excuse for bullying.

Jazzicatz-
I don't know what funding you have in place and how much it ties you to an institution, but ffs change supervisor. If you don't feel is critique is aimed at the content of the work or geared towards successful completion then go no further if you can help it. Talk to him first to explain why and to see if the relationship can alter, but walk out if you need- your contribution to the field is at stake.

I really think you do, otherwise you are just co-opting someone else's oppression. To say men can hold views which would be described as feminist, can ally with a feminist movement (even if the consequences would be personally costly), yes. To use the f-word as an identity, definitely no. Non-feminists can think feminist things.

You don't have to be a woman to be a feminist.

I'm a man, so can never even be a feminist, much less a radical one. But experience of looking after children, being supported by and supporting women who do, makes me wonder why everyone doesn't start wearing a Fuck the Patrix T-shirt the moment the Bounty pack arrives, seems no other way of explaining the manifest oppression of mothers and children all around me. And I probably agree, however much I try simply to change what is there, that ultimately you can't build anything truly better unless you knock the whole bloody mess down and start again. I'd be first against the wall come the revolution, but maybe my spirit would see a better world.

I'm also an academic, and am concerned by this thread. The seminar leader defending free speech is shit-seminars are professional environments, not laddish aggression sessions. Sue him-most academics are sued unjustly, be good to have one up against the wall fairly for once.

On the PhD supervisor there are explanations (I'm not defending, just saying there are) which are not ideological. I've seen supervisors do nothing but put a line through work and say 'go to library', others whose students always leave the room in tears (a female colleague of mine was particularly guilty of this-believing women needed more toughening to survive) and others who are all sweety nice but ineffectual. It's a complex thing to do-it demands an understanding of who you are dealing with, a negotiation of intellectual and personal difference, and being the critical eye, yet no special training at all is given. I've always grilled my students very, very hard and aggressively on framing even when I agree with them (in fcat more so when I agree because I need to be sure they are not trying to please) because if the framing is not believed in by the student then work will be wasted or the project be abandoned. It may be your (young) supervisor is doing this but failing to explain it at a basic level. Or he may just be a cock, I've no idea, but you need to ask and seek alternative supervision if not.

The main issue with Marxism is that although the works of Marx are very good at describing how economic systems work and how they should work if people want a fairer society, Marxism is ineffective because it is very poor on explaining how we are going to ethically travel from an unequal society to an equal one.

Marxism has been criticised for this by other Left wing groups since Marx invented it, and this debate runs through the history of left wing thought.

Marxist academics are often very good at making out that to critique Marxism is to accept Capitalism. It is just a straw man argument. I think you should read around Left Wing economics other than Marxist economics, and look at economic ideas that could be developed from a feminist perspective.

As there has never actually been a Marxist state, making sure that we move towards equality in a way that is ethical is more important than stomping all over people (women) in our efforts to arrive at some kind of utopia.