My point exactly: reply to C. Bradley

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Bonnie Blackwell,: "the need for anthro"
• Previous message: Michael Forstadt: "Grad schools"

Candice Bradley writes:

>First, gender equity has been achieved in anthropology at
>the lower ranks. There is every indication that the proportion
>of women at the higher ranks will equalize as this
>younger cohort ages, and the older (male-dominated) cohort
>retires.

These facts support the basic argument that I advanced in an earlier
post. I maintained that things seem to be getting better with regards to
hiring practices and that this is in some way tied to the demographics of
the graduate school population.

Bradley then continues:

>So I am not very sympathetic when I hear men moaning about
>being disadvantaged in job searches. My lack of sympathy
>is not about accusing them of being sexist. I feel this
>way because I've seen the data.

This is a strange conclusion to draw from the facts. I for one, by the
way, did not complain that I (as a male) will be disadvantaged in my
future job search. I merely pointed out that females are apparently NOT
disadvantaged in this way any more. Bradley's facts seem to indicate that
the current situation of inequity will be completely solved in the course
of time simply by continued hiring on the basis of qualifications. If
females make up about 60% of the graduate school population, and if
females make up 50% or more of junior faculty positions already, then
doesn't the idea of equitable hiring and promotion make sense without
resorting to any special solution?
______________________________
Mike Forstadt
Department of Anthropology
Harvard University

• Next message: Bonnie Blackwell,: "the need for anthro"
• Previous message: Michael Forstadt: "Grad schools"