GC Gender Studies academics

[Doyoumind]

I've been pondering this and wondered if anyone who knows more than me can answer.

I know of various vocal GC academics - philosphers, scientists, historians etc - because although I don't always get involved on these boards as much as on other MN boards I read them a lot and I use Twitter to keep an eye on what's going on.

I know of the likes of Sally Hines. IABU to think that out there in Gender and Women's Studies there must be some GC academics? Have I just missed them? Are they all 'TWAW' or are they there but unable to speak out?

TIA

A lot of us can't speak out. I was subject to doxxing & students trying to get me sacked. Took me 6 months to get my research back on track, and colleagues thought I was terminally ill.

But I've been wondering about trying to set up a national network of GC academics for support and solidarity, so we can start to speak out more freely.

It does seem like Gender Studies, and Women's Studies for that matter, are dominated by a very particular perspective, and I imagine that a lot of GC people get weeded out early on.

Thanks for responding. I can't imagine what it's like to have exactly what drew you into that career shat all over. I feel for you.

Even in Women's Studies though Goosefoot? That still exists, doesn't it, or is it always Gender Studies nowadays?

I happened upon a senior Gender Studies academic from my nearest uni on Twitter and that's what got me thinking in the first place.

I'm not sure how many are Women's Studies now or if they've changed their name.

I know my one friend who did WO at university, about 20 years ago, said that even then in her department you could see the writing on the wall with the direction they were going.

This may be a bit of an aside, but I have been thinking that maybe what the current situation is showing is that there may have been some real deficit(s) in 2nd wave feminism that need to be looked at again, that allowed these new ideas to take hold so strongly, because I think some of them originated in some way in the Women's Studies departments.

My thought is that some of the ideas around gender, social constructs, and the ideal of abolishing gender might be the problem, or some of the medical side - some 2nd wave stuff got away from the scientific question too much, and I think became almost invested in suppressing or denying physical/brain differences on ideological grounds. And even as a more-or-less Marxist myself, I think it became too focused on the status of being oppressed as being what determines the value of your opinion or voice rather than philosophical rigour of any kind (cause that's and science are just patriarchal, right!)

It's a bit like many Marxists after the fall of the USSR, not to mention all the nasty stuff that went on there in the years before that, had to re--evaluate their approaches. Which was not a bad thing in the end, it was good for them in terms of their ability to refine their ideas.

Agree re the Oppression Olympics stuff, although I see this as more 3rd wave feminism rather than 2nd wave with organisations expecting women to spend 5 minutes apologising for their colour/ sexual orientation/not being trans/class before they can get to the point and how seriously your point is taken depends more on which boxes you tick than the validity of your argument. mad.
Very like the Maoist cultural revolution.

Yes, they've taken it up full force. It's a danger though whenever you talk about systemic oppression, without giving a lot of care, to where you see and describe that system. When you start to talk about patriarchy, or racism, as an explanation rather than a description, I think it leads to that kind of use of oppression as a means to power.

I’m a GC academic, in a social science discipline. We have an overarching problem of hyper fragmentation in the field. No one has, primarily, the time to critically engage with others work anymore.

Those of us who are more scientifically based (who seek to evidence base our claims and conduct empirical research) are naturally more GC, as definitions of basic concepts as well as attempting to build on prior knowledge are key to what we do.

Philosophers and theorists and those who engage in non-replicable research (primarily ethnographic or other, similar, qualitative methodologies) tend to be more voguish in my opinion, and here the idiocy of third wave feminism has taken hold.

No one can refute the private horrors of personally experienced victimhood, no one can double check your evidence base as it’s personally conceived, and if you can come up with a new issue .. you’ve created a new field of which you are the expert.

Sadly, very few women’s studies courses or departments about anymore. Gender and queer studies have largely taken over.

Upzadaizy. That sounds terrible.
I was under the impression that there is some kind of network. I remember it being mentioned on twitter at the time 50 academics wrote an open letter to the guardian. And more recently I spoke to a jouralist who mentioned a network of academics and journalists who talk about this sort of thing. I have no other info though.

This is a good example of how some gender studies academics operate. When the public is no longer buying the misogynistic anti-science crap you’re peddling, smear those who disagree with you by branding them “far right”:

mobile.twitter.com/alisonphipps/status/1135490080745955330

Obviously part of the methodology for her “research” involves muting GC people on Twitter and embracing the echo chamber. I’m embarrassed for her. And I’m embarrassed this this is the bar which allows someone to gain a professorship. With people like this (and they are numerous in the social sciences) there is no rigour, no intellectual honesty, no understanding of academia as anything beyond a vehicle for trendy activism, no matter who might get harmed in the quest for one’s cynical career progression.

I was under the impression that there is some kind of network. I remember it being mentioned on twitter at the time 50 academics wrote an open letter to the guardian.

Yes, this is it:

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/16/academics-are-being-harassed-over-their-research-into-transgender-issues

Oh good grief, those bizarre, ignorant smears about GC people and the ‘far right’. Whatever happened to doing actual academic research? You know, the objective kind? Is academic work just paid political campaigning now or have just I been really naive this whole time?

Is academic work just paid political campaigning now or have just I been really naive this whole time

Some of it definitely is pretty much that, yes. It is a particular issue with younger people coming into the profession. The last time we advertised a lecturer post, there was a notable proportion of applications from social justice warrior types, which did not happen when we’ve recruited in the past. Luckily my colleagues are sceptical about the compatibility of this kind of activism with intellectual rigour and will prioritise the latter.

I don’t see that in my department GCAcademic. But I do see it in university admin which is committed to promoting a pretty narrow form of ‘diversity and equality’ and seems to be very well funded too.

Oh yes, the "diversity" bods are certainly a big problem. They are generally too bovine to understand the broader contexts of the issues they're dealing with, and are susceptible to lobbying from groups which use the magic word "progressive". Organisations like Gendered Intelligence easily convince them to sign away female employees' and students rights and protections. Meanwhile the diversity in identities comes at the expense of what diversity in a university should really be about, which is diversity of viewpoints.

A lot of this is coming from university admin but also external certification schemes such as the Stonewall Diversity Champion brand and Athena Swan. Universities pay money and agree to certain conditions so they can say that they're great, inclusive places to work for. If Professor Phipps is so interested in 'following the money', maybe she could research how much money universities pay for this sort of thing? Most of Stonewall's income comes from fees, not grants, if I remember correctly.

But coming back to the original question, I think GC gender studies academics just keep their views very quiet ... or lie.

It's not my discipline but the stuff that I have read, written by smart people, is just mind-bendingly absurd. Women are raped in war because they are discursively constructed as the weaker gender ... right ...

Sally Hines and Alison Phipps are two of the worst ones because they consistently insist on smearing GC feminists. But there are many more who take a nasty tone- the new GS of the UCU and her mates are good examples. Lots of ‘ugh’, ‘wow, that’s problematic’ and ‘that’s...gross?’ If someone dares talk about oppression of women.

I also saw this the other day. It’s a prime example of how this idiotic theory actually makes it impossible to point out sexism because how can you ever know how someone identifies unless they tell you? Academic makes what’s actually a good point but is then forced to backtrack (and agree with someone who calls himself Stranglewank Hitman) in order to confirm her adherence to the ideology. Point about sexism in academic publishing totally lost.

twitter.com/sharoncowan22/status/1133504341808209925?s=21

The problem is not with 2nd wave feminism but with the lack of it. 2nd wave encourages assertiveness, critical thinking and consciousness raising.
Neoliberalism has taken over as superficially, it appeals to both the far left and right.

Womens rights are not ours to own. We only have them on loan, and there are far too many people eager to give them away.

Twitter doesn't help, and my view is that academics should feel free to ignore anonymous accounts. I note, though, that the academic who was admonished by Stranglewank Hitman describes herself as a 'queer feminist', probably why she felt she had to apologise. Deborah Orr, the Guardian journalist who had a GC awakening recently, is a 'womanist' now. Better option?

Yes, Phipps's "I'm coming to get you" tone is nasty and intimidating. It's kind of sad, she is probably a nice person IRL.

Ugh, don't get me started on Athena Swan and its lack of understanding that it's sex and not gender that's a protected characteristic

I think virtually all, if not all, Women's Studies departments have now either been rebranded or subsumed into something else, whether sociology or otherwise..

....and I think became almost invested in suppressing or denying physical/brain differences on ideological grounds

Yes, this is definitely my feeling. the focus became far too much on equality and 'sameness' rather than on equal value in spite of difference.

Which was not a bad thing in the end, it was good for them in terms of their ability to refine their ideas

Again, yes! I feel there is a need to use this unfortunate opportunity as a springboard to recalibrate.

Academic makes what’s actually a good point but is then forced to backtrack (and agree with someone who calls himself Stranglewank Hitman) in order to confirm her adherence to the ideology

The best thing about that is that Stranglewank Hitman is a (rather sick) spoof account, but the academic seems not to have been able to distinguish that from the genuine TRA article.

(At least I hope it's a spoof, otherwise I'll be the academic who can't tell the spoof from the real thing!)