Negative reactions to academic concepts relating to society and culture

[schlumpy]

29 minutes ago, Ellener said:

Simone de Beauvoir had an open lifelong relationship with Jean-Paul Sartre without cohabiting together, as we have recently been debating in another part of these forums. She had many lovers of either sex and was accused of paedophilia and banned from teaching for a relationship with a 17 year old. Her last novel wasn't published until 35 years after her death because of social conventions she herself defied. 

Isn't this behavior in today's parlance referred to as "finding oneself through other people?" As I said, when things are going well human beings tend to get bored and foul the nest.

[Emilie Jolie]

2 hours ago, Libby1 said:

The debate is reduced to arguments about bathrooms and women's spaces....never the sort of deeper issues pertaining to being a woman in a cultural environment that has largely been created by men. 

Politicians heavily lurching to the right of the spectrum reduce it to that. Gender studies scholars have been researching transgender / non-binary / LGBTQ+ identities in a multitude of thoughtful, nuanced, engaging, sometimes thought-provoking ways.

This is the strange and sad irony in wanting to 'cancel' (or whatever) gender studies; it comes from a shallow mindset, driven by a profund minsundersting of what gender studies actually are, with no actual intellectual engagement with the discipline. Almost like a knee-jerk, automatic rejection on principle.

[TheStickisback]

2 hours ago, Emilie Jolie said:

You think gender and cultural studies as academic disciplines should be cancelled because you don't personally think there are multiple genders, and / or you don't support transrights?

Is this what you call a 'political ideology' and everyone being Marxist? You were very evasive in your argument - I assumed you had a more legitimate reason.

These are examples of gender studies papers:

-Rape culture, lad culture and everyday sexism: researching, conceptualizing and politicizing new mediations of gender and sexual violence

-Connell's theory of masculinity – its origins and influences on the study of gender

-How the methods used to eliminate foot binding in China can be employed to eradicate female genital mutilation

-Expressing identity: toward an understanding of how trans individuals navigate the barriers and opportunities of official identity

-‘Women are tired and men are in pain’: gendered habitus and mental healthcare utilization in Spain

-Gendered perceptions in Punjab, Pakistan: structural inequity, oppression and emergence

In Cultural Studies:

-Cultural Diversity in Online Education: An Exploration of Instructors’ Perceptions and Challenges [Teachers College Record]

-"National Socialist Black Metal:" A case study in the longevity of far-right ideologies in heavy metal subcultures

-Empire, emotion, exchange: (dis)orienting encounters of/with post-9/11 US cultural diplomacy

-Two logics of Chinese transnationalism: the case of gangpiao and Hong Kong

 

Which papers do you want to cancel?

 

The papers I had in mind that I have a problem with are more along the lines of linking levels of intelligence with race, which I find deeply disturbing.

 

Rape culture. Really? That makes it sounds like that plan on the movie Blazing Saddles. Intelligence and race i don't find disturbing unless you have someone like Stefan Molyneux talking about it. 

[Libby1]

3 hours ago, Emilie Jolie said:

This is the strange and sad irony in wanting to 'cancel' (or whatever) gender studies; it comes from a shallow mindset, driven by a profund minsundersting of what gender studies actually are, with no actual intellectual engagement with the discipline. Almost like a knee-jerk, automatic rejection on principle.

Looking at the titles of papers you supplied, I found the first page of this one:

Quote

Rape culture, lad culture and everyday sexism: researching, conceptualizing and politicizing new mediations of gender and sexual violence

It talks about the prevalence of rape myths such as that women enjoy being raped, that there are blurred lines surrounding consent and that this leads to low conviction rates.  I look at this from a legal perspective rather than a sociological one...and while I agree that some people express repugnant views about rape, I do not accept that this is the primary reason for low conviction rates.  I know this is a subject that is immensely triggering for people, and there's no doubt that certain judges have, in the past, made obnoxious and sexist comments in the course of rape cases.  This is a subject that brings out  very strong feelings on either side, and also some pretty vile, reactionary commentary about women at times.  Which compounds people's belief that the system is weighted against women. 

The sociological explanations I've seen for low conviction rates in this area tend to rely heavily on such commentary while paying relatively little attention to the onerous evidential requirements (and evidential problems specific to this particular charge) that make it so difficult to procure a conviction.   My experience is that if I even attempt to discuss this in any online context, the chances are high that a woman will step into the discussion and reference her own experience, or a close friend's.  It's a really fraught subject to discuss, and my guess is that most people probably don't want to go hopping around in that extemely raw, delicate area unless they absolutely have to (ie in the course of their work).  Or, in some cases, if they have personal experiences at the other end of the spectrum...ie having been accused of this sort of offence or knowing somebody who has been.  And those discussions are never going to go well.

Ultimately I believe gender theorists examine this particular subject area from a feminist perspective - and that this increases the probability of cognitive bias significantly.  The heavy emphasis on "there are low conviction rates because courts are misogynistic" can really worsen matters for victims, in my view.  Bad enough for a person to go through the nightmare of being the main witness in a rape case and to suspect that you didn't get justice because the court thought you were asking for it...without sociologists wading in and confirming those worst fears. 

It really isn't necessarily about jurors disbelieving the victim or thinking badly about them.  It's about that very high standard of evidence that has to be attained, that can take a lot of jurors by surprise.  We're told "believe all women"...and I absolutely agree that if somebody discloses to you that they've been raped, you should create a safe environment for them to discuss that, but when it comes to the criminal court, the need for the victim to be believed has to be balanced against the right of the Accused to a fair hearing..particularly given that the liberty of the Accused is at stake.  Again, because so many women have very personal and painful experience in this area, it's hard to talk about the rights of the Accused...but it's absolutely essential that the Criminal Justice System ensures that the Accused gets a fair hearing in the way that the Accused in any other criminal trial would.

The criminal court does not tend to be a place where victims of crimes will necessarily obtain a sense of justice being done...because ultimately, the victim is there as a witness, rather than as an opposing party.  If the Accused has money enough to make them worth suing, a civil court might be a more realistic forum to get that sense of justice.  Indeed, there have been quite a few cases where women who didn't get that sense of justice in the criminal case against their attacker turned to the civil courts and got justice there due to the lower evidential burden.  Which may be further evidence that it's less about the justice system being misogynistic, and more about the evidential difficulties involved in criminal cases.  

It's not about wanting to cancel gender studies, but when they overlap with areas like criminal law I think problems with cognitive bias and political agendas (eg having the goal of obtaining higher conviction rapes for rape) can become quite apparent, and that this is why people from other disciplines are sometimes quite dubious about the level of objectivity that's applied by researchers in this area.

Edited June 26, 2020 by Libby1

[Emilie Jolie]

23 minutes ago, Libby1 said:

that this is why people from other disciplines are sometimes quite dubious about the level of objectivity that's applied by researchers in this area.

Well, I guess a researcher will have a cross-disciplinary overview of a specific subject matter, as opposed to just one narrow (legal in your example) view. I think it's totally fine to disagree with the paper, and maybe you should write your own counter-research...

Academia isn't about dishing universal, objective truths anyway. Besides, even the law lends itself to interpretation. 

I don't doubt your perspective; I don't doubt the perspective of author of that paper. People can have different views; different doesn't need to be slanted. If you find them dubious, you put yourself on a higher moral position, as though there was a hierarchy of opinions in which yours, for some unjustifiable reason, would rank higher. I don't see the point in that, personally.

[Libby1]

21 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Well, I guess a researcher will have a cross-disciplinary overview of a specific subject matter, as opposed to just one narrow (legal in your example) view. I think it's totally fine to disagree with the paper, and maybe you should write your own counter-research...

Academia isn't about dishing universal, objective truths anyway. Besides, even the law lends itself to interpretation. 

I don't doubt your perspective; I don't doubt the perspective of author of that paper. People can have different views; different doesn't need to be slanted. If you find them dubious, you put yourself on a higher moral position, as though there was a hierarchy of opinions in which yours, for some unjustifiable reason, would rank higher. I don't see the point in that, personally.

I think when it comes to the operation of the criminal justice system, a lawyer's opinion absolutely should rank higher than a sociologist's.  I don't see that as unjustifiable at all. Particularly not when the sociologists in question have expressly indicated that they have the goal of obtaining higher conviction rates for a specific crime.

Edited June 26, 2020 by Libby1

[Emilie Jolie]

1 minute ago, Libby1 said:

I think when it comes to the operation of the criminal justice system, a lawyer's opinion absolutely should rank higher than a sociologist's.  I don't see that as unjustifiable at all.

I don't think any opinion ranks higher than the next, even if I value different perspectives and experiences. I also don't judge a whole academic discipline, or the professionalism of an academic, on reading the first page of a paper chosen at random. To each their own, as they say. 🤷‍♀️

[Ellener]

6 hours ago, schlumpy said:

Isn't this behavior in today's parlance referred to as "finding oneself through other people?" As I said, when things are going well human beings tend to get bored and foul the nest.

She was very  successful in her academic and writing career. She was being herself not finding herself.

Her behaviour would attract little attention in Paris today.

Her relationship with a seventeen year old would only be criticised from the perspective of lecturer-student, the age of consent in France is 15.

[ThaWholigan]

14 hours ago, gaius said:

You always used to confuse people with those avatars @ThaWholigan so I'm glad you spelled that out for all the newbies.  Good to see you posting again old timer.

@Emilie Jolie If you have any gender studies viewpoints to share that don't taste like dark chocolate filled with raspberry creme I'd love to hear them.

I'm off work till September so plenty of time on my hands! 😂

[Weezy1973]

Academia is not political because whatever prevailing theory is out there can (and does) get modified or completely overthrown based on good research. In fact the most famous academics are ones that changed the way we understand the world. 
 

Problems arise when what is discovered through research and observation is discounted because it doesn’t match what people believe. A good example is evolutionary theory. Still baffles my mind that there are some places in the US that consider creationism to be on equal footing to evolution and both should be considered in text books!

 

Also the extreme views spouted on social media are generally not the actual academics, rather they are young students who don’t yet have the moderation that comes with experience.

[schlumpy]

1 hour ago, Weezy1973 said:

Problems arise when what is discovered through research and observation is discounted because it doesn’t match what people believe. A good example is evolutionary theory. Still baffles my mind that there are some places in the US that consider creationism to be on equal footing to evolution and both should be considered in text books!

How do you feel about the theory that we were created by an alien species through tampering with our genetics? Would that lean more towards the creationist model or the evolutionary model?

[Weezy1973]

48 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

How do you feel about the theory that we were created by an alien species through tampering with our genetics? Would that lean more towards the creationist model or the evolutionary model?

If there’s as strong evidence supporting that as there is evolutionary theory, great. But people often mistake the strength of their belief for strong evidence. 

[Prudence V]

On 6/26/2020 at 4:20 AM, basil67 said:

STEM is about testing and finding outcomes which are repeatable.   Where as social sciences, under which gender theory falls, is about observation and trends.  STEM doesn't work in social science, psychology etc because no two people are the same.  And one person can change their minds or their views.

This is a very narrow interpretation of both STEM and social sciences. There are branches of pure mathematics that overlap with philosophy. There are branches of physics that centre “observer effect” and laugh at notions of “objectivity”. There are branches of psychology that are all about the experimental method. There are social sciences that are more positivist than physical sciences. These crude distinctions exist only at the very basic levels - the higher you go in any of them, the more you understand that these divisions are nonsensical. 
 

Proper scientists, whatever their discipline, recognise the importance of context and framing of the problem for the choice of method. Most of us are trained in more than one paradigm, more than one methodology, more than one theoretical framework, because we recognise the complexity of the world and the limitations of “if your only tool is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail”. 

[gaius]

One problem modern day academia has that it doesn't want to admit to is that other priorities have overtaken basic common sense and rational thinking. And the results show. Take Coronavirus for example.

Back in late January, when coronavirus was just starting to break into the news and hardly anyone was talking about it I started a thread, pointing it out as a heightened risk because of it appearing less deadly and more contagious than SARS. I'm not a doctor and I don't have a master's degree. The response at the time from the medical community with years of academic training? "Oh you have more to worry about from the flu." And from those model predictions of death numbers to telling everyone not to wear masks, ever since it's just been an endless string of garbage from the trained academics who should have known a lot better. 

Back in the day academics earned respect by being smarter and able to outperform everyone else. They could go over to a group of natives and tell them the sun was going to be blotted out on this day and time, and it would be. That earns respect. Modern academics say the sun is going to be blotted out on Tuesday, Tuesday goes by, nothing. Then they would say Wednesday, Wednesday would be sunny all day. Then they would say Friday, and the eclipse would end up coming Thursday. Then they cry that their scientists, the science is always evolving and people need to respect science and what they have to say. The world doesn't work like that though. You don't get to cloak yourself in a particular label and be heralded no matter how incompetent you actually are.

If it makes academics feel any better, back in the day if you made predictions like you do nowadays the natives would have stuffed you right into the cooking pot and had a nice dinner. General disdain and disrespect for what you have to say, that's getting off easy.

 

[homecoming]

On 6/25/2020 at 6:18 PM, Libby1 said:

I think there are two sexes, (and intersex which I understand to be not so much  a third sex but is more a state where it's not immediately apparent what sex a person is)and that gender is a concept that refers to cultural norms, expectations and to a certain extend stereotypes relating to those two sexes - as well as experiences we have which relate to being that gender  Some people may conform very closely to the norms, expectations etc relating to their sex, lots of people probably conform to some of them but not all.  Some barely conform to them at all.  Since I regard gender as a social/cultural construct based on observations about common differences between men and women's behaviour,  I don't think it's really for me to decide how many genders there are...but from observation, society at the moment seems to be settling on man, woman, trans man, trans woman and non binary which makes 5. 

I've seen references to 52 genders, which makes me wonder if perhaps there's a growing tendency in sociology to create a new gender for every personality type.  

 

1st bolded: That's pretty much what gender norms and roles are described as...

2nd: No, there have been multiple genders around the world for many years, such as within the Native Americas. 

I'm not really sure why you asked me how many genders there were if you've already got your own perspective on it...

 

[Noproblem]

On 6/20/2020 at 11:31 PM, Ellener said:

Well some do, to be fair. But they shouldn't!

pretty sure whoever that do that is being paid but one rich "common person" to serve their political/religious agenda!

[gaius]

By the way @homecoming, you mentioned at some point something about not seeing a lot of black people in management positions. If you're ever interested in seeing what a predominantly or high percentage black city in the southern US looks like check out "The Wire".

Baltimore is an example on the extreme end but all the dynamics are there. Plenty of black people in all levels of management but lots of other issues going on. One of the greatest tragedies of the Black Lives Matters movement is that it's now unlikely a show as smart and honest as that will ever get made again. Or at least in the near future.

[schlumpy]

4 hours ago, gaius said:

By the way @homecoming, you mentioned at some point something about not seeing a lot of black people in management positions.

It's a bit irrational for people to wonder why there are not as many african-americans in management positions in America. The dismal high school graduation rates of blacks are a reliable predicter of low participation in upper management positions. It's cause and effect. There's nothing new about that. If you study you pass and good things happen.

[Prudence V]

On 8/6/2020 at 10:02 AM, schlumpy said:

If you study you pass and good things happen.

That’s a bit simplistic. I can’t speak for the US - I’ve never been there and know only what I read in research papers, but in contexts I am familiar with, there is a lot more to it than that. I work at a uni that recruits mostly from a working-class / economically disadvantaged demographic. Many of our students are from minoritised ethnicities. I’ve done a lot of research about students on one of our programmes, who are basically “second-chance” students who have done poorly at school but who have potential to succeed academically. They work hard. They study hard. Far harder than many other kids. But circumstances are stacked against them. Whereas other kids attend schools that offer opportunities, the schools these kids attend don’t have that. They’re raising money to fund breakfast clubs so that kids start school with a meal in their stomachs. These kids don’t play sport after school, or go to extra maths or music lessons. They’re working on the checkout at Morrison’s, to help out financially because Dad can’t get a job and Mum earns less than minimum wage at her zero-hours contract, and after work they have to help out with their younger siblings and cook for their Gran who needs a special diet, and then they spend all night doing homework and studying but it’s hard when you don’t have a quiet place to work, and the only computer in the house is an old PC that your Dad is using all the time to type out job applications.