32

I would like to know how other radfems navigate the current academic world of social science with all the gender ideology that is prevalent in it (at least it is in my field). I study criminology, and gender ideology kinda seems like an untouchable topic. When I wrote a paper on reproductive justice within the criminal justice system, I was advised by my professor to not use the words "woman" or "female". Any time I bring up women's issues in class, it is met by "well, how does this apply to people who identify as something other than cis?" Male violence is an extremely relevant thing to discuss, and discuss accurately, but so far, I haven't heard of anybody studying gender ideology in criminology and the harms that it poses for women. Perhaps because they know they'll be blacklisted if they do. Instead, everyone is focusing on "queer criminology" and how trans people are so oppressed by the criminal justice system by not having their gender feeling affirmed. There's kind of this implicit rule that nobody is allowed to question or criticize it.

In addition, "sex work" is also a hot topic, where everyone (at least at my institution) is jumping on the bandwagon of it being empowering and a social good, but I seem to be the only person against it and knowledgeable about the subject. Despite my multiple attempts at educating people about it, everyone still refers to prostitution as "sex work", and while the women in my cohort have not challenged my expertise in the topic (I've interned at several organizations that dealt with trafficking and prostitution), I had one man try to prove me wrong by sending me a John Oliver segment. Cue the eye roll.

Is this happening in other social sciences or is this limited to criminology/sociology? Have any of you women been successful at challenging it without being outright kicked out of programs or fired?

I would like to know how other radfems navigate the current academic world of social science with all the gender ideology that is prevalent in it (at least it is in my field). I study criminology, and gender ideology kinda seems like an untouchable topic. When I wrote a paper on reproductive justice within the criminal justice system, I was advised by my professor to not use the words "woman" or "female". Any time I bring up women's issues in class, it is met by "well, how does this apply to people who identify as something other than cis?" Male violence is an extremely relevant thing to discuss, and discuss accurately, but so far, I haven't heard of anybody studying gender ideology in criminology and the harms that it poses for women. Perhaps because they know they'll be blacklisted if they do. Instead, everyone is focusing on "queer criminology" and how trans people are so oppressed by the criminal justice system by not having their gender feeling affirmed. There's kind of this implicit rule that nobody is allowed to question or criticize it. In addition, "sex work" is also a hot topic, where everyone (at least at my institution) is jumping on the bandwagon of it being empowering and a social good, but I seem to be the only person against it and knowledgeable about the subject. Despite my multiple attempts at educating people about it, everyone still refers to prostitution as "sex work", and while the women in my cohort have not challenged my expertise in the topic (I've interned at several organizations that dealt with trafficking and prostitution), I had one man try to prove me wrong by sending me a John Oliver segment. Cue the eye roll. Is this happening in other social sciences or is this limited to criminology/sociology? Have any of you women been successful at challenging it without being outright kicked out of programs or fired?

11 comments

How the fuck is a criminology program jumping on to the sex work band wagon when time and time again study and study again it has been linked with human trafficking and female abuse

Jesus Christ

[–] SecondSkin 3 points Edited

Because criminology is dominated by men.

And those men who like to purchase women want to distance themselves from the actual big bad meany rapey men they study. So they redefine rape via prostitution to empowering sex work.

Can’t have everyone realising the problem is all men can we? Then women might push back.

I was advised by my professor to not use the words "woman" or "female"

You know someone should do a psychological study on the outright frisson certain demographics are getting from putting a red line through every mention of "women" "girls" and "females" in every press release, study, paragraph, news article, or scientific paper.

The unquestioning adoption and joy of pointing out the wrong words is quite a phenomenon

For real.

I'm honestly concerned about publishing papers because of the way the language I use may be policed by editors.

What you write here is odd but also not odd. My coursemate and I graduated at the same time (humanities, not social science) but she now works in law enforcement, and there, the idea of gender identity is given short shrift. It isn't all roses by any means as legal sex changes do present challenges to the data but the dominant position is that to class trans women as women or to not think specifically about women's issues and needs just distorts the data, especially where sexual offences are concerned. There's zero interest in 'queering' anything. On the one hand, that's fairly unsurprising given how academia has been so terribly captured by queer theory and gender ideology (I remember, it was this bad before I graduated...) On the other hand, it kind of is, given how many law enforcement agencies seem to be routinely weaponised against women by gender ideologues...

We both started in the 'be nice' position but TERFed out for different reasons...

It's not what you asked for but the difference between theory and praxis stands out to me a lot, and the world she describes when we do meet for coffee seems increasingly a breath of fresh air compared to what I see online.

Unfortunately, its not uncommon in the academic side of criminal justice. There's quite a bit of a rift between academics and criminal justice practitioners, where people in law enforcement disregard a lot of research because it doesn't reflect their "personal experience". But the American Society of Criminology has a Division of Queer Criminology, and one of my classes had a section devoted to "queer methods".

It's incredibly ridiculous.

I'm glad to hear that about law enforcement. Is your friend in a blue area or a red one?

Neither - we're Asian.

I do wonder if FOIA requests can show how committed to gender ideology the police really are, but perhaps that's too optimistic.

"well, how does this apply to people who identify as something other than cis?"

HOW can she assume everyone identifies as 'cis' ffs? That is nonsensical.

Once again, this brings to mind this near-quote from Princess Anne, "One doesn't have to actually like children to think that they shouldn't be beaten." It's from a clip of her in, I think, the early seventies, and I only saw it once, so it might not be exact, but it's pretty darned close, because it really stayed with me. I didn't stop laughing for days. You could just paraphrase by replacing 'children' with ' women'.

[–] SecondSkin 1 points Edited

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2022.818856/full

Is this any use op? It might need to be used with specific subject, but if it is so important to use this language correctly in reproductive care then why not in reproductive justice?

Equally Nordic model will have plenty to challenge sex work.(I’m an obnoxious pita but I’d be asking the professors if they are good with their daughters becoming sex workers) (I’d be thrown out these days obviously).

And ask how stats on crime can be collected accurately at the correct time.

(Previously I worked in residential social work, so not the same, but we had single sex units because the boys were violent and sex offenders, and because the girls were all victims of men. If theory changes then practice based on it changes. And safeguarding is based on material reality and on naming material reality).

You might want to watch Jo Phoenix’s case when it goes to court, and the outcome of James Esses when it comes out (which should be soon I think). Rachel Rosario Sanchez wasn’t successful I don’t think (unlike most of our other cases here which all have some successes iirc). But her writing is very good, so her articles might give you some ideas.