Assemble
a roomful of feminists to discuss the situation of women on
university campuses, and what do you get? A case study in self-righteousness
and intellectual hollowness.
Such
was the scene at Dalhousie University’s panel in Halifax,
Nova Scotia, in which seven feminist activists outlined the
steps necessary to overcome rampant campus misogyny. One of
the ideas put forward ‘several times’ and greeted
with applause, according to a report on the proceedings, was
that university policy should mandate female priority in all
classroom discussions.
The
panel was organized in the wake of the suspension of 13 dentistry
students over a scandal involving tasteless Facebook posts.
These included a poster promoting the use of chloroform as a
form of seduction, fantasies about violent sexuality, and a
joke about how penises are helpful to women.
As
has now become standard practice at North American universities,
the actions of these few male students, which seem to have had
absolutely no relation to any real-world violence, were eagerly
trumpeted as evidence of campus-wide gendered discrimination.
What
discrimination? Women are now vastly in the majority at universities
all across the continent, outnumbering their male peers at a
ratio of 2–1. In some disciplines, there are virtually
no men left. In those where women remain in a minority, such
as engineering, aggressive affirmative action programs are underway
to attract them. There are likely a variety of reasons for the
notable decline in male participation, but it is probable that
awareness of the preference for females and a disinclination
to experience both the subtle and not-so-subtle anti-male bias
of these academic environments are having their unsurprising
impact.
If
there ever was a time in the past half-century when institutional
sexism discouraged women from pursuing higher education, it
is emphatically not now. A myriad of programs and special scholarships
and bursaries exists to support women’s post-secondary
endeavors. Whole departments devote themselves to the study
of women, and most departments offer special courses on women’s
history, women’s cultural production, women’s participation
in war, women’s spirituality, and so on. Feminism has
so pervaded the academy that every subject, at least in the
humanities and social sciences, now emphasizes -- even prioritizes
-- women’s concerns, theories and perspectives. The vast
majority of instructors in these disciplines teach from a feminist
perspective; only a tiny minority would dare to teach as anti-feminists,
and any disparaging classroom remarks about women would bring
swift censure. Disparaging remarks about men, in contrast, are
commonplace and acceptable.
So
why the panel on misogyny in academia? It’s a big leap
to see the sexual fantasies of a few dentistry students -- swiftly
and harshly punished by the university administration -- as
evidence of any widespread campus culture other than, perhaps,
the normal sexual preoccupations of healthy young men. But feminists
do not make political gains by being tolerant or reasonable.
From the moment the Facebook fiasco became public, they went
into full-blown rape crisis mode, insisting that emergency measures
were needed to combat the stigmatizing and silencing of women.
That’s
how we come to a professor’s suggestion in all seriousness
that first-place in classroom discussion be reserved for women
by administrative fiat. The professor who put forward the recommendation,
Judy Haiven of the Sobey School of Business at St. Mary’s
University, already prioritizes women’s voices as an unofficial
classroom practice, and she thinks it should be extended to
all. Why? Because despite all the apparent gains women have
made, they are still hesitant to speak. And that must be because
of the insidious social conditioning and overt sexism that tell
them their opinions are unworthy.
One
would think that someone like Professor Haiven, with her prestigious,
well-paid job as professor of business management, who in herself
seems evidence that women are not held back from academic advancement,
would be reassuring women that success is possible for those
with brains and dedication. Not so. Despite the fact that women
now outnumber men in post-secondary achievement, Professor Haiven
persists in seeing disadvantage: women are “taking a back
seat” and not “taking a more active role [ …]
in running things,” she laments. Jacqueline Skiptunis,
the vice-president academic of the Student Union at Dal, has
taken an “active role” in student government but
agrees that much more is needed to promote women’s well
being. She has at times felt hesitant to speak, and “when
she did speak up, her statements were often questioned, and
believed only when a man agreed with her.”
There
you go. Incontrovertible evidence of pervasive contempt for
women in the halls of academe. What is so helpful about feminist
theory is the penetrating insight it provides into human realities
that might otherwise seem less than clear. Might it not have
been that the “questioning” Skiptunis experienced
was evidence of her colleagues’ unbiased respect for truth
and their belief in her integrity and tough-mindedness? Might
the fact that at least some men agreed with her show that men
valued her opinions and contributions? Perhaps her sense of
hesitation was coloured by general insecurity rather than by
any actual bias against her? Perhaps men also feel insecure
about their verbal contributions to discussion?
Nonsense.
Women know what their experiences mean, and feminist orthodoxy
dictates that they be believed.
But
some of the (risible) complexities of that orthodoxy were also
made evident by the discussion following Haiven’s suggestion
to privilege female voices. Judy Ashburn, a transgender outreach
coordinator for Halifax’s sexual resource center, one-upped
Professor Haiven by suggesting that black women should speak
first. Feminism has “come a long way” since its
early days, you see, moving to ever finer calibrations of victimhood
according to the theory of “intersectionality.”
Sure, (white) women are disadvantaged in relation to (white)
men, but they have race privilege in relation to black or brown
women -- and thus racialized women must have priority. But it’s
more complicated than that. Heterosexual women of colour are
privileged over their women-loving fellow warriors, so lesbians
of colour must speak before heterosexual women of colour (where
white lesbians fit in the hierarchy has been much disputed though
never absolutely determined; perhaps they may alternate in preference
with racialized straight women). And what about racialized women
with disabilities? To the head of the line.
In
our present climate, of course, Muslim women can claim far more
damaging and virulent discrimination than even disabled black
lesbians with mood disorders, so their position trumps all others,
especially if they wear the niqab or burqa. (In fact, a case
might be made that merely speaking first is not enough for these
victims of Islamophobia and that discussion be given over to
them exclusively).
Professor
Haiven may be surprised to discover that, far from reaping their
due reward for centuries of oppression, white women under the
logic of her theory may not be allotted much classroom time
at all, and may even have to spend most of it apologizing for
unearned privilege.
Two
jaundiced thoughts present themselves at this juncture, prompted
by my own experience of feminism and classroom gender dynamics.
The first is that, under the cookie-cutter dogma of feminist
ideology, it isn’t really necessary, or even desirable,
for all to have their (predictable) say. Feminism is so certain
of the uniform meaning of women’s experience -- all of
it neatly and ineluctably determined by identity categories
-- that all that is needed is one representative woman to speak
for each specified group to guarantee feminist coherence and
equitable coverage.
The
second jaundiced thought is that many women remain silent for
good reason. Having been nurtured and cossetted and praised
all their lives, protected from the criticism or questions Skiptunis
found offensive, given good grades and special scholarships
to help them into university, told that all opposition was a
form of misogyny to be outlawed or at least ignored, they may
never have developed the determination, resilience, or independence
of thought necessary to have meaningful contributions to make
to complex class discussions. Given their moment to orate, they
may well reveal, as teachers sometimes discover, that they have
nothing of value to say. And in this, their vociferous betters
have led the way.
also by Janice Fiamengo:
Manspreading
Saving
the Humanities
Don't
be That Feminist