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

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

The tyranny of Individualism and the '15 Minutes of Fame'.

Individualism is fine, but needs to exist within a context of community and commonly held values. Sometimes the group and society is more important than the individual.

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”

For those who insist that the binary is so passe, they don't half insist on maintaining it in every other walk of life.

You could probably tell their sex, but when has that ever affected anything in anyone's life?

Quote from 'Stranglewank Hitman'.

Yes I also think Stranglewank is a spoof. But it’s true what he says though. Any time you point out all male panels, all male journal issues, mansplaining, men being promoted over women, the answer is always ‘how do you know they don’t ID as women’? After all, IDing as a woman doesn’t require you to dress in a certain way, change your name or change your body. You can just claim to ID as female and bingo the panel is no longer all male.

The thing is that most of the woke female academics do frequently point out sexism and the problem with white men in academia but they engage in huge cognitive dissonance when doing so. That’s why, when this is pointed out to them, the only response they have is to block and label their critics hateful. I don’t know if they truly are dim or whether they realise on some level that what they are doing is not only illogical but also likely to be harmful.

Another favourite response to GC feminists from these people is ‘white feminism’. The irony is that they themselves are nearly all white, often middle-class, women, many of whom have never worked outside academia and have led a relatively sheltered existence where they have not have to deal with the full impact of patriarchy and misogyny.

I absolutely agree. I’d be very happy to stand corrected that my assumptions are wrong

....and a response from Sharon Cowan who calls herself an academic in queer studies and criminal law.

Yes indeed Justhadathought

See also cis/trans

repent, repent, repent

under his eye

it's the self-abasement that gets me every time. you lose all respect.

Another favourite response to GC feminists from these people is ‘white feminism’. The irony is that they themselves are nearly all white, often middle-class, women, many of whom have never worked outside academia

Yes! I often get the feeling that these women are mostly privileged and cosseted, and benefitting from the struggles of previous generations.They haven't felt the sharp edge - yet!

And criticising people for being concerned with "first world problems", when the critic has probably never left that"world" plus I thought discussions of the "third world" were now considered offensive as we all live in one world. It's just more virtue signalling to imply the critic always has his or her mind on more serious things and always eats his dinner up because of "the starving children in Africa"

The 'white feminism' accusation is difficult. Like so many wonderful things it comes from America, where there is a history of white feminists not standing up for their African-American sisters (for example in the fight for suffrage) and, I would argue, a much more deeply embedded racism in society (because the US is a colonial settler society and because of slavery on American soil). In Britain, we do live in a multi-cultural society (even if the vast majority of British people are white - think it's over 85%) and racism hasn't been eradicated in the UK, it is still blighting lives.

But it has little to nothing to do with the sex/gender question. Women who are black, Asian or from other ethnic minorities, will be harmed just as much as white women if the definition of 'woman' is changed and if women lose sex-specific resources.

I’m a GC academic and am struggling with the whole thing a lot at the moment.

The latest in my institution is an email going round raising the issue of inclusive teaching as a priority area in L&T over the coming years.

What’s that, you say? Well, the number one example was to open each tutorial by going round the room and everyone stating their preferred pronouns.

Coming to a university near you, just wait and see. This stuff will spread like wildfire.

I think it's difficult when you start claiming to represent or stand for something that is outside your own experience. Men claiming to be feminists, public school educated wealthy Marxists claiming to speak for "the workers" white women claiming to be working on behalf of black women all seem doomed to failure. We are all best at fighting for things that directly affect us.
I'm not a fan of the cultural appropriation trend that limits what clothing or hair style you can wear according to which box you fit in but there are some issues that affect all women and others where the section affected has to take charge. They can try and get other women on board E.g. "get the L out" had to be a lesbian led action but other women can support it.

Compulsory pronoun introduction rounds are not necessarily a good idea. Students may actually be struggling with their identity and feel that they are being put on the spot. There are very good non-GC arguments against 'pronoun rounds'. It's another one of these weird rituals that have been unthinkingly imported.

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.

Dear god that exchange was despressing. Stranglewank even goes on to claim that sex has never affected anything in anyone's life! And Sharon Cowen who is apparently a feminist, agrees with him!

We are all best at fighting for things that directly affect us.

I understand what you are saying with this, and I don't disagree, but at the same time, I kind of find it difficult to agree.

There seem to be just too many instances where individuals, because they are members of the relevant marginalised group, seem to be given a free pass to define and explain the situation in a way that is simply not really describing the situation, or is codswallop, or sometimes is even self-serving.

I mean, that's what's happened with some of the trans stuff, Mermaids and so on, hasn't it? The are the community who is living the experience so we are supposed to accept their narrative. And while some might say well, since it affects women we have to include women's experience, that is where this has gone wrong.

If some man pointed out that they were talking codswallop, like that unfortunate priest who clearly had no standing in any oppressed group or lived experience, he would be completely correct.

Hmm, somehow deleted a sentence, that should have read,

...since it affects women we have to include women's experience, that is where this has gone wrong, I don't think that is the only issue.

It really makes me see the danger of the no platforming #nodebate culture in academia. Usually academics with ludicrous unevidenced ideas get the ideas raked over and if necessary shown up (for being vacuous, man-pleasing politicking or whatever) via robust debate with other academics. But this relies on everything being safe to be out in the open and debate based on freely conducted, robust research.
It’s very worrying.

More on 'white feminism', an extract from A. Phipps's new book, can be found online:

"However, the white will to power also exists as whiteness intersects with gender inequalities and individual experiences of victimisation. White women – even survivors of sexual violence – possess and express it too. It is possible that sexual violence might intensify it: since sexual assault and rape involve a loss of power and control, regaining this is crucial to successful recovery."

Basically she is saying here that white (cis-het-middle class) women always remain privileged, even if they have been sexually assaulted. They are natural oppressors, should never be allowed to indulge in a sense of victimhood, should not avail themselves of the power of the state.

It all sounds very right-on but what does it mean politically? AP says: "we are not entitled to politicise our pain with no concern for what it might do". Even the most abused, downtrodden white woman is not allowed to ask for political interventions and remedies without thinking of others.

There is a lot of harmful potential in this logic. Raped, pregnant and want an abortion - think of others. Threatened by violent ex-partner and want a restraining order - think of others. Sacked from job and want to access employment tribunal - think of others. Would men have any truck with this?

Yikes. I also read the summary of Phipps’ book, where also she says that white feminists always roll out victim narratives to try to get their way basically. I don’t know where to begin with this. She is undermining the struggles of so many women and writing them off as attention-seeking (talks about the ‘white tears’ phenomenon too). I fully support intersectional analysis (its real meaning, not the TRA meaning) but what Phipps and her ilk seek to do is to gleefully silence and undermine women and their experiences, scoring woke-points along the way because she is apparently sticking up for racial minorities.

She does the same regarding sex-workers (who she often refers to as ‘whores’ in her cool-girl manner). White feminists apparently point to the experiences of those who have escaped prostitution and who almost unanimously point out how exploitative it is, which is sooo unhelpful because we only need to hear the voices of those who claim to want to be sex workers and whose only gripe is that their work is not given the status of any other type of work.

‘Feminist’ academia is fucking dangerous in this new era where it’s fine to totally shit on women, as long as you come up with a clever new woke angle (like ‘hey, let’s stop recording sex on birth certificates’). Then they scratch their heads when misogyny and sexual abuse remain at a high, including within higher education. Although we can’t really say that of course because of cis privilege/white tears/fragility.

Also, does anyone know what CCP is referring to here?

twitter.com/ccriadoperez/status/1136201115798781952?s=21

Sounds like something Phipps/Hines-esque...

Not sure what CCP is referring to, sounds awful.

Back to AP: that sentence "It is possible that sexual violence might intensify it [the white will to power]: since sexual assault and rape involve a loss of power and control, regaining this is crucial to successful recovery." gives you the permission to regard victims of rape as potentially dangerous oppressors, with the oppression being directed at racial minorities. It doesn't just minimise, it pathologises sexual trauma experienced by victims.

Lets be clear now:

‘Feminist’ academia is fucking dangerous in this new era

No, feminist and/or other 'CULTURAL THEORISTS' are fucking dangerous, as they are pointless non-contributors to the academy, engaging in non-replicable hyperbole with little relevance to societal structures other than the academy which employs them.

Here cultural theorist 'feminists/or non-feminists' need to display 'relevance' by pointing to all their tweets as proof of impact..sigh.

This battleground in British Academe between quant and qual research has existed since the 1970s in the UK, as far as I am aware, just the quanters dont tweet cause they are too busy triple checking the veracity of their work.

Check out lots of fantastic feminist research here, for instance:

www.feministeconomics.org/

Well, I teach feminist approaches to my discipline, set up a Masters in Women's Studies (although I don't think it's running any more), and publish feminist approaches to my discipline.

But I'm a good ol' 70s Women's Libber underneath it all, and teach about patriarchal structural inequalities, and the differences between sex and gender, and the distinctions between being male/man and female/woman, and masculinity and femininity (ie gender roles). There are some of us about still ...

Another interesting take at a conference I attended recently: cracking down on trafficking is actually racist and anti-immigration. Apparently the trafficked women love being in brothels because they feel at home and can speak their native language. Lots of woke middle-class women who would find even waitressing or cleaning far beneath them nodding along and agreeing how awful it is that the state engages in the brutal behaviour of trying to crack down on the brothels harbouring trafficking victims.

Interestingly, these same women have publicly complained about not having their Dr title recognised, of being mistaken for admin staff, of having been asked to do things outside their job description. Yet they will happily decry any efforts made to remove women from what is nothing more than pure exploitation (white feminism/whorephobia/white saviour complex).

Grotesque, Pota. What field (roughly)?