Carla Freeman and Kim Wallen,
Gender Matters in the Academy?
The first CMBC lunch talk
of the spring semester brought together Dr. Carla Freeman (Anthropology;
Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, Emory University) and Dr. Kim Wallen (Psychology,
Emory University) to discuss the issue of gender and the academy. The
(intentionally) ambiguously titled talk gave rise to a fruitful conversation on
a variety of topics.
To highlight the
differential representation between men and women in the academy, Dr. Freeman
shared data from a recent two-volume diversity report conducted by Emory from
1998-2008. The report shows that while the number of women on the faculty at
Emory has increased, a greater concentration of women is found in lower rank
positions, such as non-tenure track, lecturer, part-time, etc. By contrast, there
are fewer women in tenure-track, tenured, and full professorship positions. Additionally,
the study found that women’s representation clusters around certain fields,
such as dance and women’s studies, while men appear in greater numbers in
physics, and computer and political science. The latter fields are, of course, much
better remunerated and hold a different status.
Meanwhile, the general
trend at Emory, as at other universities—both nationally and
internationally—indicates that education is becoming feminized. For example, 57 percent of incoming undergraduate
freshman at Emory are female. In light of this development, Freeman chose to
focus her remarks on the interesting implications surrounding the feminization
of education and the academy. For Freeman, the issue concerns not just the
statistical breakdown among men and women and the fields into which they fall,
but more importantly how certain cultural attributes of femininity get mapped
onto higher education itself. That is, how do genres of academic work and
knowledge production become imbued with gender and what are the implications of
this process? Moreover, how does value get ascribed to certain kinds of
gendered attributes?
Freeman noted that the
feminization of certain fields within academia parallels a similar development
in the global economy, where many industries have moved from manual production
to knowledge production. As an example of this shift, Freeman cited the
progression of clerical work and teaching, which began in the 19th century as
largely masculine vocations. Over time, however, these professions became more
populated by women and, as a result, became lower paid and lower status. Freeman
therefore encouraged us to think about the academy as a workplace in which the
labor we perform is increasingly feminized. This involves not only parsing out
the difficulties facing women vis-à-vis men, but also questioning what it means
to understand the work itself as “feminine.” According to Freeman, “feminized
labor” includes a growing emphasis on “emotional labor,” work that hinges upon
qualities thought to be naturally
associated with femininity, such as nurture, care, and consideration. If emotional
labor, as opposed to material labor, is traditionally associated with
“feminine” skills, how does this affect our perception of teaching and
scholarship as areas that include elements of emotional labor? Freeman noted
that at just the moment in which service industries are recognizing the
critical importance and value of
emotional labor, some analysts are arguing that this form of work is becoming
de-gendered. Specifically, they seek to reconceptualize emotional labor as
being gender-neutral. For her part, Freeman found this move ironic and potentially
troubling. She suggested the alternative possibility of simultaneously acknowledging
the importance of emotional labor within academic work, especially that of a
residential academic campus, and retaining an understanding of the feminine
underpinnings of these skills. This position has been adopted, to some extent,
by businesses, which increasingly value emotional skills for the rewards they
garner in the marketplace. In thinking about gender in the academy, Freeman
returned to the question: what are the implications of disavowing the
importance of gender as we move to an increasingly immaterial enactment of
labor, especially in the academy?
Dr. Wallen opened his
remarks with the provocative question: why does the academic pipeline leak
women? As a psychologist and educator, he has witnessed a huge rise in female
graduate students over the course of his career. Despite the progress made on
this front, the increase has not translated into a commensurate number of academic
careers, especially in tenure-track positions. For example, of the 11 female
Ph.D. recipients Wallen has supervised, most were hired as post-docs, but only
33 percent ended up in academic positions. Why does this happen?
In addressing the
question, Wallen suggested that women experience a greater gender load than do
men. Gender load, comprised of four factors, affects the likelihood of women
leaving academia. First is the issue of gender discrimination, which, while not
absent from today’s academic climate, Wallen considered the least substantial
factor. The second factor is gender awareness. That is, the cost of being aware
of the degree to which one’s gender has consequences. Wallen suggested that
whereas men proceed through life without thinking about their gender—or why it
may be responsible for this or that outcome—this is a more significant factor for
women. Third, the cost of reproduction disproportionately affects women more
than men, and academia in general is inflexible when it comes to taking time
off to raise children. The fourth factor concerns the range of occupations that
each gender regards as viable. Wallen suggested that women often choose not to
continue pursuing academic careers, whereas men feel more socially constrained
in terms of options and expectations. He viewed this as the most important
factor, arguing that the broader range of occupational choices contributes significantly
to women leaving the academy. Therefore, the pipeline may be “leaking women”
simply because academia is not all that appealing, and while men put up with
it, women find it easier to imagine alternative life paths. If so, perhaps the
task for the academy is to change how attractive it is to everybody, but especially to women.
A number of issues were
raised in the discussion following the talks. Some participants were quick to
highlight the progress made by women entering traditionally male-dominated
fields, notably in medicine. Conversely, historically feminized professions, such
as nursing, are witnessing an increase in men. Yet, even as women’s
representation has improved in the field of medicine, there is a further
bifurcation along gendered lines, namely between prestigious specialty fields that
are overwhelmingly male, and family doctors that are mostly female. Other
participants pushed back against the claim that the university is largely free
of gender discrimination. They pointed to the gendered politics involved in
serving on committees, and even teaching M/W/F classes, as opposed to Tu/Th
classes. Still others problematized the very notion of choice when it comes to
women “choosing” alternate career tracks.
The conversation shifted
to discussing the structure of the academy itself, returning to the issue of
how the academic pipeline is designed. There was general agreement that the academy
is largely hostile towards work-life balance, and that this circumstance affects
both genders. Women (or men) who opt to take time off in order to start a
family are not as competitive when they return to apply for jobs. This points
to a general flaw in the design of the academic system. While it seems clear
that changes are needed to facilitate the successful transition back into the
academy after a short leave, it is not obvious what the path forward requires
in terms of generating new policies.
Overall, a professorship entails
three main spheres of responsibility: teaching, research, and service. Freeman
and others pointed out that work related to the service category is valued significantly
less than the others, and argued that this situation encumbers women to a
greater degree than men. By contrast, research is highly valued and rewarded in
the university setting and beyond. Wallen stated that selfishness is a quality
that is rewarded in the academic marketplace; to the extent that an individual
is service-oriented, he or she will pay a price, regardless of gender. Despite
the uncertainty concerning how to effectively address these structural
problems, it seems clear that the academy needs to confront the issue of how to
better remunerate unseen works of service, such as advising and serving on
committees. These remain issues and questions that academia has yet to
systematically address in concrete ways.
