Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Times article on academia

186 replies

SuperLoudPoppingAction · 15/09/2022 11:37

www.timeshighereducation.com/depth/researchers-are-wounded-academias-gender-wars

Does anyone have a share token?

OP posts:
SudocremOnEverything · 17/09/2022 12:50

This bit from that talk is very powerful, I think.

The framework goes as follows: The white man declares himself a woman, but he keeps his power and privilege, himself part of the ruling patriarchy. Then, he proceeds to erase woman to further possess her, what he sees as his—conquering her language, her organizations, and her spaces. He forces children to learn an ideology of madness, those who are then coerced and compelled into medicalization, including surgeries. Able to step into all of the spaces that he dominates, he forces us to see him as if he is a sexual and racial minority, constantly comparing himself to Black women. He exerts his dominion. Or, the white man identifies with Black trans-identified men, using the latter’s murder rate as his oppression by proxy. It is as if he puts his hands into a bucket of melanin, rubs it on his own skin, and then declares almost racial minority status for himself. But, of course, he maintains the convenient option to keep his power and his control to punish any whom he perceives as disobedient to his will. Misogyny becomes interwoven with capitalism and racism. As Black women, we have been very sensitive to and aware of the white man’s comparisons between himself and the Black woman in his consumption of us.

academicsock · 17/09/2022 13:06

lifelongaway · 17/09/2022 11:33

I was accused of being transphobic in a literary theory class for assigning an essay by Julia Kristeva, who is considered transphobic now because her theory is about the female body

Its not just shocking that anyone would make this accusation, but its utterly shocking that this could be given any seriousness. Whoever received this complaint should openly laugh and dismiss it firmly. Its ridiculous, misogynistic to its core. Its awful.

It didn't go further than the module convenor, who does work in queer theory actually but was fairly level-headed about the whole thing, and basically just reiterated to the student that this was foundational work, and also not everything is for everyone. I was only doing the one class, thankfully, so didn't have to deal with it afterwards, but it was a horrible experience during the class. It completely stalled any discussion, as nobody would or could speak up with a different view to the objecting student (who was trans, in fact). I did also get the 'reading pyschoanalysis is literal violence to trans people' line, and the suggestion that it was similar to reading Mein Kampf.

It is getting worse here. We don't have mandatory diversity training yet, though it is strongly encouraged (and it's 95% gender-focused), along with pronouns etc. Meanwhile, we have precisely one person of colour on the teaching staff.

NEWarONwomen · 17/09/2022 13:17

Yes Sudo, its the whole thing in a nutshell.

NEWarONwomen · 17/09/2022 13:26

It sounds very oppressive academicsock.

I wonder what will break this spell they're all under? It's bonkers

NEWarONwomen · 17/09/2022 13:42

By @ quizzfizz on twitter

You sound terrified. As if you have to perform a Maoist self-criticism for unknowingly fraternising with the enemy in case you are purged from the party. Which rather proves the points made in the article.

Times article on academia
NEWarONwomen · 17/09/2022 13:43

(In response to Phipps long 'apology' on twitter for being involved in the research.)

RoyalCorgi · 17/09/2022 14:21

Is there any way of reaching out to Laura? Because I'm guessing what happens next is emails to her department head calling for them to sack her.

I wonder if she's on MN. It wouldn't surprise me. If you're reading, Laura: well done. You did a brave thing. Stay strong.

EmbarrassingHadrosaurus · 17/09/2022 14:31

RoyalCorgi · 17/09/2022 14:21

Is there any way of reaching out to Laura? Because I'm guessing what happens next is emails to her department head calling for them to sack her.

I wonder if she's on MN. It wouldn't surprise me. If you're reading, Laura: well done. You did a brave thing. Stay strong.

www.city.ac.uk/about/people/academics/laura-favaro

LuftBalloons · 17/09/2022 14:34

It didn't go further than the module convenor, who does work in queer theory actually but was fairly level-headed about the whole thing, and basically just reiterated to the student that this was foundational work, and also not everything is for everyone.

It's quite extraordinary that students even need to be told this. I was doing a supervision with a research student the other week, who is hell-bent on using Judith Butler's ideas, despite them not really being suited to the thesis topic. I found myself having to say that Butler is not Holy Writ. I keep pushing them to Kristeva & Irigaray, who will be much more conceptually useful, I think.

We need to remind students that ideas and arguments are up for thoughtful, evidenced discussion in good faith (not the "it's just a debate" one sometimes hears).

RoyalCorgi · 17/09/2022 14:54

I just had a thought, which is that the new universities minister really needs to know about this and tackle it as a matter of urgency. Then I had another thought: who is the new universities minister?

Turns out there isn't one, at least not as far as I can see. Anyone else know any better?

NecessaryScene · 17/09/2022 15:14

Which rather proves the points made in the article.

As Jane Clare Jones put it:

TRA academics.

You have one way and one way only of demonstrating that Laura Favaro's conclusions are wrong.

Let her work be published and in no way try to block it or smear her or her reputation or her research ethics.

But they just can't help themselves. They're stuck in this loop where they have to continue perform to each other, even when they know the spotlight is on them and everyone else is watching in horror.

NEWarONwomen · 17/09/2022 15:22

If they don't the house of cards falls down.

The whole thing relies on them all agreeing with each other and cancelling the dissent.

Ergo, ideology.

ImNotAnExpert · 17/09/2022 15:22

Yep. Here's a sociology prof accusing the author of 'deception' and 'scholarly malpractice'.

twitter.com/nkalamb/status/1570753199971377153

'the university itself needs to be investigated.'

etc.

Highly unpleasant that this was always going to be the response - to attack the author. But it does perfectly illustrate her arguments.

ImNotAnExpert · 17/09/2022 15:23

'If the allegations by Allison Phipps are correct, and I have no reason to think they are not'

Absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.

ImNotAnExpert · 17/09/2022 15:28

Oh, I missed this part of his post:

'not only requires the retraction of the research findings, but also censure for the researchers.'

Witches! Burn them!

NecessaryScene · 17/09/2022 15:31

So the logic here is:

  1. "she decided our side was behaving badly"
  2. "therefore she's on their side"
  3. "therefore she's biased"
  4. "therefore her research must be flawed"
  5. "therefore her research must be withdrawn and she should be punished"

Am I following this correctly? I don't see there's any evidence apart from just following that train of thought.

ImNotAnExpert · 17/09/2022 15:38

I have checked. This is the only section that names/refers to Alison Phipps, and it's not talking about any interview:

'“Trans-exclusionary radical feminists” (Terfs), as they frequently labelled them, are part of nothing less than a “colonial [and] ultimately an eliminationist project” against people who identify as transgender or non-binary, some believe, as explained by Alison Phipps in her 2020 book Me, not You: The Trouble with Mainstream Feminism.'

It's referencing her book. So what are they all on about? She's not named in the article otherwise.

She is implicitly included in the section describing the views of 'trans-inclusive feminists' - but surely that's just factual and not a bad thing to say about someone? Bit puzzled where all this 'deliberate harm' and malpractise comes out of quoting five words from Phipps' book. Or am I missing something?

ImNotAnExpert · 17/09/2022 15:45

I think, Necessary, the accusation is that Favaro shouldn't have interviewed without warning that some of the questions might upset people?

'If CityUniLondon IRB read and approved a protocol that stated study participants would be NAMED and that emotionally traumatic questions would not be disclosed on the consent forms, the university itself needs to be investigated.'
'study participant was subjected to emotional harm that was not previously consented to'
'deception in the research process'

So this person's objecting to anyone being named in the published article.
And nobody apparently warning interviewees that questions might upset them.

IDK enough about academia to know if this is how they do things. Does everyone generally have to approach everyone with signs saying 'I am about to interact with you and this may cause you trauma'?

NecessaryScene · 17/09/2022 15:46

Bit puzzled where all this 'deliberate harm' and malpractise comes out of quoting five words from Phipps' book.

I believe the "deliberate harm" was talking to Phipps about things people had said to/about her on Twitter.

And the "malpractice" is pretending to be "trans-inclusive". (ie not wearing an "adult human female" badge?)

NEWarONwomen · 17/09/2022 15:49

From what I can gather it's the research interview - apparently she was interviewed and then asked not to be named. Now she's "horrified" her interview has been part of the research (though I'm unsure how/ why?)

Journalists do this all the time. Researchers do this all the time. Academic researchers do this all the time.

I don't understand how it's unethical.

NecessaryScene · 17/09/2022 15:49

Does everyone generally have to approach everyone with signs saying 'I am about to interact with you and this may cause you trauma'?

Maybe? Do you recall that thing about Helen Lewis the other day - the crazy person who was incredibly upset by receiving a message from her saying "Might we talk?"

This spawned an umpteen-tweet thread about "unethical journalism and bias and racism". Amazing read, if you haven't seen it.

twitter.com/chaedria/status/1569391345089007616

ImNotAnExpert · 17/09/2022 15:50

Same person also apparently approvingly retweets someone asking Prince Charles to justify his wage, as PC shakes hands with a crowd of mourners.

So it's okay to publically shout accusatory questions at a grieving person, but not okay to interview someone without first warning that the subject may be upset by questions?

twitter.com/Lowkey0nline/status/1570841842446667778?cxt=HHwWhMDUlaiV4MwrAAAA

ImNotAnExpert · 17/09/2022 15:52

Is that the one where the potential interview subject told Helen Lewis to 'fuck off'? repeatedly? Yes, saw that.

ImNotAnExpert · 17/09/2022 15:53

NEWarONwomen · 17/09/2022 15:49

From what I can gather it's the research interview - apparently she was interviewed and then asked not to be named. Now she's "horrified" her interview has been part of the research (though I'm unsure how/ why?)

Journalists do this all the time. Researchers do this all the time. Academic researchers do this all the time.

I don't understand how it's unethical.

Right. I don't either.

NEWarONwomen · 17/09/2022 16:02

Louis Theroux has made a life's living from allowing people to speak and share their opinions.