The title of this collection of essays is âstrategies for resisting sexism in the academyâ. In this chapter, I explore the definitions and associations of sexism and establish the need for resistance as a multi-pronged attack against the seven-headed dragon (van den Brink and Benschop 2012) of sexism.
Sexism is generally defined as prejudice or discrimination based on a personâs sex or gender . The term was coined by feminist Caroline Bird in a speech she delivered in 1968 where she claimed, âThere is recognition abroad that we are in many ways a sexist country. Sexism is judging people by their sex when sex doesnât matterâ (Bird 1968). She formulated the term to raise consciousness about the oppression of girls and women in the USA, though it has subsequently been used to also include the oppression of women, girls and intersexual and transgender people internationally (Masequesmay 2008). The main function of sexism is to maintain patriarchy through ideological and material practices that oppress people on the basis of their sex or gender. In particular, sexism is based on the notion that women and men are opposite to one another, with widely different and complementary roles. Within this view, women are conceptualised as weaker and less capable than men, especially in the realm of logic and rational reasoning. By extension, women are considered to be ineffective leaders in business, politics and academia (Masequesmay 2008) which propagates womenâs marginalised position in society and structural disadvantage in academia.
Yet, within a postfeminist sensibility there seems to be a contemporary boredom or frustration with the term sexism as a frame of reference, and with an identification of patriarchy and structural gender inequality more generally. Sexism , and the need to resist it, is considered passĂ©âno longer relevant or applicable. Gill et al. (2017) draw attention to key features of a postfeminism that repudiate contemporary sexism. The first of these is the notion of âpastingâ (Tasker and Negra 2007) and âoveringâ (Ahmed 2012), as if sexism is a thing safely located in the past or only apparent in other/âlesserâ geographical locations. Such positioning frequently uses âa racist/Islamophobic discourse in which inequalities are positioned as not here but âthereââ (Gill et al. 2017, p. 227). A second feature of postfeminism that renounces sexism is gender fatigue and the premise that âall the battles have been wonâ, and equality has been achieved (Gill et al. 2017, p. 229). For example, Projansky identifies that for postfeminists like Hakim, âfeminism has worked, feminists are happy and thus there is no longer a need for feminist activism â (Projansky 2001, cited in Lewis and Simpson 2017, p. 118). Finally, an overlap with neoliberal ideas of individualism and individual choice dismantles the notion of contemporary structural disadvantage that requires critique. The choice and preference discourses circulate ideas that women have a choice to âlean intoâ work, homemaking or both (Lewis and Simpson 2017). Such âindividualizing technologiesâ place blame on women themselves for their lack of academic success (in terms of promotion or decision-making capacity) and remedial professional development is introduced to change women, rather than challenging an unjust world (Gill and Orgad 2015). Therefore, in an era of a postfeminist sensibility, the term âsexism â is assumed to be a backward referent to the ideas and practices of a different/other place or time, and so resistance to it can be accused of being past its use by date: âAllied with a âretreat from structural accounts of inequalityâ postfeminism repudiates sexism and the need for feminismâ (Gill et al. 2017, p. 227). In response, I present below a structural account of inequality in the international academy in a bid to illuminate both the impact of sexism on womenâs roles in academia and to demonstrate why resistance to sexism remains urgent and necessary.
As far back as 20 years ago, Husu determined that the under-representation of women in senior decision-making roles in academia was an increasingly and globally recognised serious problem (Husu 2000). Yet, while the overall trend over the last 40 years has been an increase in the number of women in higher education both as students and staff in many countries (Machado-Taylor et al. 2008), their presence in the senior- and executive-level positions remains disproportionately low. The proportion of women in casual and relatively low levels of academic work in relation to those in senior and executive academic positions, and the pay gap between genders, provides evidence of unequal and patriarchal structures in contemporary universities. Hearnâs assertion that academia is an âincredibly hierarchical gendered institutionâ (Hearn 2001, p. 72) is internationally borne out as women remain a minority in senior appointments and leadership positions internationally (Machado-Taylor and Ăzkanli 2013). The trend to furnish lower academic positions with women is evident even in countries where women make up the majority of university workforce overall such as Australia (58% in 2016), and where majority of students are female as in Australia (55% in 2014) (Jarboe 2017). Studies from the UK, USA, Canada and Australia show that approximately half of the PhDs awarded go to women; however, the proportion of female tenures at the universities are lower than those for men, and it further decreases in positions as full professors (American Council on Education 2016; Canadian Association of University Teachers 2008; Lindhardt and Berthelsen 2017).
Even though the percentage of women academics varies across the world, a general picture of womenâs disadvantage remains coherent. In Europe, the proportion of women in faculty ranges from 32% (Malta) to 56% (Latvia) with an average of 41% female academics in the 28 countries of the European Union (European Commission 2015). Women represent less than 40% of the academic workforce in nine European countries and less than 45% in five countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, and the UK). Six countries in Europe can claim close to gender -balanced numbers (Finland, Norway, Ireland, Bulgaria, Norway and Serbia). Three countries (Denmark, Lithuania and Latvia) can boast to have more than 50% female academic workforce (European Commission 2017). Similarly, in Indian higher education institutions, 44% of students are women and 36% of academic staff are women (Morley and Crossouard 2014). However, when it comes to the high academic ranks of professorship in academia , the gender imbalances significantly increase at senior levels.
The gender gap increases with higher academic ranks across all nations. In Europe, the proportion of women academic staff in lowest academic entry grade D is 47%, grade C at 45% and grade B at 37%. Women on average occupy only 21% of A level (full professorship) academic positions in the European Union with just over one per cent progress at this level compared to previous three years to 2013 (European Commission 2015). There is one woman for every five male professors in countries such as Germany, Italy, Hungary, Poland and Portugal but fewer female professors than this in Ireland, Greece, Cyprus, Netherlands and Belgium. One professorial position in four is held by a woman in the UK, Sweden, Norway and Switzerland, and only one in three professors is a woman in Malta (European Commission 2017). The national data for the USA show similar patterns where 24% of professors, 38% of associates, 46% of assistants and 56% of lecturers/instructors are women (Monroe et al. 2014).
Disparities are evident in womenâs representation in the upper institutional hierarchy of Australian academia also, where in 2016, 68% of positions above Senior Lecturer roles (Associate Professors and Professors) were occupied by men (Australian Government Department of Education and Training 2016). Finally, in India, the total of 26% of professors, 31% of associate professors and 39% of lecturers/assistant professors were female in 2011 (Morley and Crossouard 2014).
Moreover, intersectional factors provide further evidence of structural de/privilege in academia . For instance, only 2% of Asian females are full Professors in Australian universities, compared to 7% male (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.) and in the UK, according to HESA data, there are around 350 Black female professors in the UK, out of a total number of 18,000 professors across the UK, meaning that Black women make up less than 2% of the professoriate in higher education (Solanke 2017). In the USA, in 2015, among full-time professors, 27% were White females and 2% each were Asian/Pacific Islander females (U.S. Department of Education 2017). In India, gender intersects with caste identities to provide varying levels of privilege where in a state university in western India, women make up only 39% of faculty, and yet 78% of women faculty come disproportionately from âupper castesâ (Tambe 2019).
Women who are mothers also fare worse than nonmothers. Parenting or caring responsibilities in the academy are known as a âmotherhood penaltyâ as it is well established that mothers and pregnant women are rated as less competent, committed and dependable than nonmothers with identical qualifications (Cuddy et al. 2008). Also, employers are less likely to recruit or promote mothers compared to otherwise equivalent nonmothers, and when they do, they pay mothers significantly less than nonmothers for doing the exact same job, though fathers are paid the same as nonfathers (Correll et al. 2007). Difference...