academe

I’m way excited to introduce GWP readers to a new regular blogger, Leslie Heywood. On a personal level, I’m thrilled to have Leslie on board because she was the one who first kicked my ass into gear when I expressed a desire during graduate school to write nonacademically. She made it ok. Better yet, she published me. (Leslie, with Jennifer Drake, edited one of the very first third wave feminist anthologies, Third Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism, and I will be forever grateful to her for encouraging me down the road I am currently on!) So please join me in a warm welcome to prolific author, scholar extraordinaire, athlete,, mother of two, Leslie Heywood! Leslie’s monthly column, Gender Specs, will bring you the latest on gender analysis in evolutionary psychology and other sciences. Here’s her debut post – enjoy, and let us know what you think. -Deborah

After years of working on third wave feminism and women in sport, I got very interested in, even passionate about evolutionary approaches to language, culture, the body, and gender. From a gender perspective, however, the field is sometimes not a pretty place. It still tends to be dominated by a core set of assumptions based in a particular kind of Evolutionary Psychology (EP). It’s enough to send a good feminist screaming in the other direction away from any kind of evolutionary perspective–and in fact it often does.

But there are things about an evolutionary perspective I find very compelling, just not those things associated with this particular brand of EP. So I was very excited when a Newsweek article came out that voiced some of my concerns. On June 20, 2009, senior editor Sharon Begley wrote a feature article, “Why Do We Rape, Kill, and Sleep Around?”, that articulates some of the main issues and problems inEP. Although is not representative of all work done in evolutionary studies, EP has nonetheless received a disproportionate share of media attention, perhaps because of the number of hoary gender chestnuts it claims to support “scientifically”.

While many insiders will point out that Begley misrepresents the field of behavioral ecology, and some less reactionary forms of evolutionary psychology (see evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson), she questions some of the biggies that still stand in some circles, including these:

1.that rape is an adaptive strategy, because it allows men to spread their genes around more (an adaptation is anything that contributes to the evolutionary baseline of survival and reproduction)

2. that men will abuse their stepchildren because their stepchildren don’t have their genes

3. and, my personal favorite—in terms of mate choice, women prefer older men with resources, men prefer young, fertile women with no brains. Or whose brains are irrelevant to their aim, which is reproducing their genes.

It all comes down to the question of gender difference. Are there innate gender differences based in biology? Is there a “mothering instinct”? Do fathers want less to do with their children than mothers? Are there “male brains” and “female brains”? Do men only want much younger women whose looks signal fertility, the much-cited waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7? Do women only want older men with resources? All of these assumptions make me shudder. All of these assumptions are contradicted by my experience, and though I might be an “outlier,” I think those who don’t fall smack in the middle of the Bell Curve are still important to the overall analysis about “men” and “women.”

I have never wanted an older man with resources: I wanted to make the money myself, and I prefer someone younger, and hot. I never wanted to “mother” in the sense of being the primary caretaker (although I did want children, and have them), vastly preferring the provider role, and think many men make just as effective primary caretakers as women. It’s a personality thing, and like everything else about gender, I think where a given individual falls on the spectrum occurs on a continuum between the stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. Some women make better providers, some men make better caretakers, and if the statistical aggregate tends to clump around the stereotypes, does that make everyone on the spectrum who doesn’t clump there—a large amount of people overall—mere (in the language of statistics) outliers, “noise” that ignored by the data’s interpreters?

This is an important question, because according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, a third of working women in the United States earn more money than their husbands, and that number is increasing: 32.4 percent in 2003, up from 23.7 percent in 1987. Given that families are more and more reliant on two incomes, and that women now have more education, this upward trend should continue. According to the most recent U.S. census data, young women are more likely than men to have graduated from high school and have a college-level education, especially at the level of bachelor’s and master’s degrees. Men still get more PhDs, but the number of PhDs relative to the overall population is what a statistician would call “noise.” (In 2003, for instance, slightly more than 40,000 people in the U.S. earned a doctorate, far less than one percent of the population). But more than thirty percent of the population—women whom ostensibly chose men as life partners who make less than they do—is not statistically insignificant.

So what are some of the EP assumptions, more specifically, that I think are a problem given these statistics? These are the accounts that tend to explain all social phenomena through reference to particularly gendered aspects of physical morphology, the forms of living organisms. Perhaps the most widespread and influential is that expressed by Robert Trivers’ parental investment model (1972), which argues that there is a differential investment in parenting between sexes because of the relative reproductive investments or costs each sex makes or incurs. Human females, who face higher levels of parental investment because they have roughly 400 eggs/chances to ovulate/reproduce over the course of their lifetimes versus the virtually unlimited number of sperm and chances men have, incur much higher reproductive costs and are therefore much more “choosy” or “restrained” when making decisions about with whom they will mate. Stereotypes regarding female passivity and male activity, anyone?

Therefore, this theory claims, there is gender-differentiated mating behavior in terms of the kind of characteristics each sex seeks in long-term mates, which is where my hackles most rise. Given the asymmetry in parental investment of the two sexes, females prefer older men with economic resources for long-term mates, whereas men prefer younger women who exhibit the signs of maximum fertility and health, signs linked to things like youth, breast size, waist-to-hip ratio, neotonous features such as big eyes and full lips. As evolutionary consumption researcher Gad Saad puts it, “two universal and robust findings are that men place a greater premium on youth and beauty whereas women place greater importance on social status and ability to acquire, retain, and share resources. The reason for this pervasive sex difference is that mating preferences cater to sex-specific evolutionary problems” (The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption, 63).

Oh, those sex-specifics. They will get you into trouble every time. What do we do with gender difference if it leads us to this particular place? What different accounts of difference might we raise?

-Leslie Heywood

Image cred: Slate

Last week National Academies Press released findings from a new research study on the status of women in science and engineering that signals some great progress. It was commissioned to look at how the numbers change when women apply for tenure-track positions as well as their advancement on campus from assistant professor to fully tenured professor.

The key thing to remember is that the report is a snapshot report for the years 2004-2005. But the snapshot taken is one of change:

If women applied for positions at RI institutions, they had a better chance of being interviewed and receiving offers than male job candidates had. Many departments at Research I institutions, both public and private, have made an effort to increase the numbers and proportions of female faculty in the sciences, engineering and mathematics. Having women play a visible role in the hiring process, for example, has clearly made a difference. [PDF]

Since 2001, the National Science Foundation through its ADVANCE program has invested over $130 million towards finding solutions to the problem of underrepresentation of women faculty members in science and engineering and that includes the hiring and promotion process. Very simply put, ADVANCE teams around the country have come to the conclusion that unconscious bias towards women from men and women has hindered the hiring and promotion of women faculty in STEM fields. This means that gendered expectations come into play. Is there evidence of children in a candidate’s life? Bonus points for the man, negative for the woman. Look at the support letters: Are women described with weak words and men with strong ones?

One very simple trick to increasing women in an applicant pool (any applicant pool, I tell conference and panel organizers this too) is when you are speaking with a contact about potential job candidates to ask specifically, especially if none are named, for women and people of color. I continue to be amazed at stories from members of search committees who have been on the phone with a friend who still names only white men, but then remembers that there are women and people of color in the larger department.

Interesting though is the finding that the mere presence of a woman chairing the search committee will mean that women will apply for that position. We don’t have enough women to chair each search committee out there, so we need to do a better job asking women to apply.

An increase in women in the pool, getting interviews and offers, and doing just as well as men in terms of promotion should be a reason to celebrate. A lot of hard work has gone into getting to this point (which is not an end point, by the way), so why are some grumbling about discrimination?

The Chronicle noted the findings and a polite discussion about meritocracy and advantages that women receive, to the detriment of men, is happening. Seriously? Let’s look at the numbers from the study:
• Women account for about 17 percent of applications for both tenure-track and tenured positions in the departments surveyed;
• …there were no female applicants (only men applied) for 32 (6 percent) of the available tenure-track positions and 16 (16.5 percent) of the tenured positions.

Women applying for academic positions are in a very small pool, thus the higher proportion of them being hired is a sign of progress. In biology, where 60-65% of undergraduates are women and 45% of PhDs go to women, men still receive 66% of the academic position offers at Research I institutions.
I know that it can seem threatening that the shift is happening, but the shift is happening towards balance, towards equity. And even with these shifts happening, I still hear people describe the Latina hired in Chemistry as “Outstanding!” meaning she didn’t get this because she’s Latina, we just took the time and rolled up our sleeves to find that outstanding Latina with an amazing research plan. When we can get to the day when we report that of the last 10 hires at Your University we had 5 women, 4 people of color and leave it at that, then we’ll really be getting somewhere.

The deadline to propose panels for the 2009 National Women’s Studies Association conference in Atlanta is Feb 15, 2009 (my 40th birthday!)  And among the themes this year is this:

Theme 5: Women’s Studies 40 Years Later: Where Are We Going, Where Have We Been?
Because 2009 marks the 40th anniversary of the establishment of the first WS program in the U.S.  So this occasion marks a pivotal moment in which to reflect on the state of the field and its practices, past and present.  Some questions to start mulling over, from the call for proposals:

• How are the histories and origin stories of WS as a field and of feminist theory as a body of knowledge (differently) documented, narrated, and conceptualized?
• Who claims WS, presently and/or historically?  Who disclaims it, presently and/or historically?
• How has feminist theory been reconceptualized?  What ‘counts’ as feminist theory in WS?
• Has the feminist subject been adequately reconceived?
• What do we name ourselves and why?  (e.g., feminist studies, women’s studies, women’s & gender studies)
• What are some difficulties within WS cross-generationally?  What are some sites of connection across generations?
• How has the WS curriculum changed, and how does it still need to be transformed, particularly the introductory course (Intro. to WS) and the Feminist Theory course?
• Are there ways in which WS functions simultaneously as a site of social control as well as a site of resistance and transformation in the academy?

More: NWSA invites all of those interested to submit proposals for panels, papers, workshops, and performances that represent the wide rage of intersectional and transnational scholarship in the US and beyond.  Proposals must address one of their five themes.

Read about the other four themes, and download the complete CFP by going here.

We just had to do a full-on review of Mama, PhD here at GWP (better late than nevah, we say!).  And I just had to post this trailer.  Because I laud authors who get savvy to using new media, and because, well, as an aspiring Mama PhD (got the PhD part, still working on the Mama part), I just can’t seem to get enough of this book.

Hello again, Girl w/Penners!  I’ve been sequestering myself this fall as I finish work on a book of my own but I am very glad to jump back into getting the word out about some of the amazing new books that explore the realities of contemporary women’s lives.

You know that feeling when you sense a new book, acquaintance, or connection is going to be deeply important to you and you’ve stumbled onto something that will be profoundly affecting? That’s how I felt when I first saw the title Mama, PhD— putting together two terms that aren’t usually seen in conjunction – which is, of course, the whole point of this collection. Its rich collection of essays explores how these two topics mesh (and more often crash and contort).  By the time I finished reading, my book had as many underlines, post-its and corner-turned-pages as any of my graduate school texts and I daresay had far greater an impact.

The contributors in this book, edited by Caroline Grant and Elrena Evans, break the seal of silence that suppresses the intense difficulties and institutionalized prejudice that academics who want to be more than just a “head on a stick” – but rather a whole person, including a maternal body – experience. And the pressures that result for women as their likely prime childbearing years meet squarely with the ticking of the tenure clock is intense.  The book’s contributors, from a range of academic fields and even generations, outline in often poignant and sometimes excruciating detail how they are forced to choose between career and family, or find creative, often exhausting, and most likely just plain lucky ways to tie the two together.

more...

Pssst…please pass it on!

Thinking in Public
A Workshop for Engaged Scholars

Instructor: Deborah Siegel, PhD, author Sisterhood, Interrupted and Only Child; creator of the Girl w/ Pen blog

Description:  What does it mean these days to be “an engaged scholar”?  For many it means writing for and engaging with a public wider than one’s peers.  This workshop is for the academically-inclined writer who wishes to extend her reach, the researcher who longs to write something other than grant proposals, the professor or administrator curious about blogging, the scholar who dreams of publishing a commercial book, a magazine article, an op-ed.

In today’s competitive marketplace of ideas, thought leaders increasingly desire a voice in the popular sphere.  Often, academic culture puts restraints on how, what, and where scholars think they can write.  For a variety of reasons, academically-trained writers often find themselves unprepared to address a broad public.  Many are taught to subordinate themselves to their topics, yet taking a public stance means putting yourself in your piece—and more.  To write for popular media in today’s publishing climate, you must be able to craft engaging, accessible, non-technical prose that appeals to an audience far outside your area of expertise.  These skills can be learned.

Thinking in Public is a hands-on, on-site workshop covering the how, what, and where of reaching a wide public through the written word.  These full and half-day trainings are designed to help researchers, scholars, and policy “wonks” bridge the translation gap and is tailored to meet participants’ needs.

Among topics covered: techniques for de-jargonizing and enlivening prose; the importance of narrative; common pitfalls; why “making it pop” is not equivalent to “dumbing it down” or “selling out”; overcoming internal hesitations, institutional scorn, and other obstacles to broader engagement.  Participants are encouraged to come with findings, perspectives, or ideas for stories they aspire to turn into popular books, non-academic articles, or use as platforms for a blog.  The workshop will help jumpstart individual projects, demystify next steps, empower, persuade, and inform.

more...

At the gracious invitation of the wonderful and savvy Renee Cramer (see her prescient GWP post, “This Bridge Called Barack”, from February), I am giving a workshop at Drake University on Friday on the topic of being an engaged scholar. Engaged, as in, with a public outside of the academy. As always, I’m encouraging folks to try to FRAME issues in public debate rather than simply react when others do the framing for us, and rely on shoddy evidence to support their claims.

And so I thought I’d ask GWP readers who have had experiences “crossing over” from a more academically-inclined universe to more “pop” or public writing and speaking.

• What have you learned from your experience circulating in a more public realm?
• Any advice to other scholars who wish to do the same?

And if you have not (YET!) done some of that crossover activity but want to, what holds you back?  Please tell me, in comments.

Wow — some very cool authors speaking on the radio together tonight. Tune in to City Visions Radio, 91.7 FM, KALW or online at www.cityvisionsradio.com at 10pm ET to hear Mama, PhD: Women Write About Motherhood and Academic Life coeditor Caroline Grant in conversation with Mary Ann Mason, author of Mothers on the Fast Track: How a New Generation Can Balance Family and Careers, and Joan Williams, author of Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do About It.

You can participate too.  During the show, call in with your questions and comments to 415.841.4134 or email feedback@cityvisionsradio.com

A quick hit on a new study: The Clayman Institute at Stanford University has produced a report exploring hiring and retention issues for dual-career academic couples, and how they differ from those issues for faculty in other kinds of relationships. The full report is available for download here.

See also: Mama PhD–the editors of which will be here in NYC next month! Deets:

Monday, October 20th , 7:00 PM at Bluestockings Bookstore
Tuesday, October 21st, 7:15 PM , KGB Bar

Last week I gave a blogging workshop at the University of South Carolina Upstate, where I also did a talk. And I’m thrilled to share that the feminist group on campus has now launched their blog! I love their description:

“UPSTARTS IS THE ONLINE VOICE OF UPSTATE FEMINISTS, A STUDENT-DRIVEN ORGANIZATION ON THE CAMPUS OF USC UPSTATE DEDICATED TO COMMUNICATING IN CLEAR AND ENERGETIC TERMS THE RELEVANCE OF FEMINISM TO TODAY’S COLLEGE-AGE WOMEN AND MEN.”

Yesssss! And a hearty welcome to you from all of us here at GWP.

Keep an eye out for these upstarts. They are utterly setting the world on fire down there.

Kudos to Faculty Advisor Dr. Lisa Johnson, President Andrea Miller, Vice President Lindsay Harris, and Secretary Candace Lamb, pictured left. And for those of you who know Lisa (editor of the stellar anthology Jane Sexes It Up), check out her new hair. You can’t tell from the picture, but she’s got a blue streak running through it. Made me want to come back and do something funkier with my hair!