There are seriously multiple articles on why sex is best on Thursday (don’t ask how I got there). So let’s riff on that and go through some sex/gender inspired links for the day (a quickie, if you will):
The Republican witch hunt of Susan Rice is over as she withdraws her name from consideration for Secretary of State. Pundits are still arguing that she’s been criticized for the wrong reasons, while others feel that all the flack she’s gotten gives her a ‘pass’ on policy stances.
The Human Security Report Project’s recent claim that wartime sexual violence is declining continues to face criticism as countless headlines continue to flow from places like the Congo, Syria, and Columbia clearly indicating (unfortunately) it remains a key tactic of war.
A recent Australian study found that most of the gains that university departments made through the 90s in terms of hiring women and gaining balance in the gender ratio of staff members has been reversing over the last few years. The study blames the emphasis of the ERA system (similar to the evaluation systems in the UK and elsewhere), with its emphasis on particular forms of research and devaluing of teaching and administration (roles women tend to take on more often).
Megan MacKenzie is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Government and International Relations at the University of Sydney in Australia. Her main research interests include feminist international relations, gender and the military, the combat exclusion for women, the aftermaths of war and post-conflict resolution, and transitional justice. Her book Beyond the Band of Brothers: the US Military and the Myth that Women Can't Fight comes out with Cambridge University Press in July 2015.
https://www.cambridge.org/ee/academic/subjects/politics-international-relations/international-relations-and-international-organisations/beyond-band-brothers-us-military-and-myth-women-cant-fight?format=PB
- Megan MacKenziehttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/mmackenzie
- Megan MacKenziehttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/mmackenzie
- Megan MacKenziehttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/mmackenzie
- Megan MacKenziehttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/mmackenzie
- Megan MacKenziehttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/mmackenzie
- Megan MacKenziehttps://www.duckofminerva.com/author/mmackenzie
While these are interesting links, I wonder if you’re being a bit dishonest when you write that ‘The Human Security Report Project’s recent claim that wartime sexual violence is declining continues to face criticism.’ That is, I can’t actually see any criticism of that claim in these ‘countless’ headlines. Perhaps what you mean to say is that you continue to criticise the HSR claim – though it is arguably a non-sequiter to infer from the continued presence of wartime sexual violence that the overall level of wartime sexual violence cannot be declining.
I’m not Megan or a moderator but I just wanted to chime in to say that inadvertently accusing someone of dishonesty is a little bit acidic. I think that you meant to say “exaggerating a bit.”
There’s nothing inadvertent about it; I made the accusation outright. I don’t think ‘exaggeration’ is the right term because from what I can tell, the links Megan offered did not in any way discuss global rates of wartime sexual violence, or the assumption which appears to underlie HSR claim – viz, that the overall decline in wartime violence which they observe is sufficient to conclude that wartime sexual violence, as a particular kind of wartime violence, is also in decline. I could certainly have missed something, though, and rhetorical devices might be both dishonest but also relatively benign.
Oh, well, in that case, carry on. (I’m not joining in your accusation I just think that often commenters, myself included, can be sweeping when they don’t intend to be.)
Nevertheless, even if you think someone’s being dishonest, it’s normally more effective as a rhetorical strategy to presume they’re acting in good faith.
You don’t need to be a mod to take issue with my tone, and I was hoping that my qualified suggestion that Megan was ‘a bit dishonest’ would not seem sweeping or rude. As I just indicated to Dan, though, there is something about her wording that sits ill with me. In the future I will express my anxieties differently.
It looks like this has been cleared up, but I thought I should weight in to say that I didn’t feel the need to re-link the MULTIPLE criticisms that the HSR report has faced (including my own)- please see Laura Shepherd’s on the Disorder of Things and Dara Cohen and Elizabeth Wood (people Mack cites in the report but who have come out to clarify that they do not support the report’s findings- doesn’t the title “Is Wartime Rape Declining?: We don’t know and it doesn’t matter” say it all? The links I did include indicate evidence of sexual violence that is happening right now- if you don’t see that as evidence of HSR failures that’s fine. Agree to disagree. But there is no dishonesty here- the report has faced criticisms, and there is ongoing evidence that makes it difficult for many to buy the report’s claims.
I’ve had the pleasure of having some of the HSR entourage contact me to accuse me of being emotional, amateur, and just not understanding the report (what’s complex about it?), so no offense taken by your concern with my tone, but I’m not spending another breath addressing what I see as not only shoddy, but hugely irresponsible and flippant work by HSR.
Megan, if I had a point, it has been lost by now. It also did not pertain to the power of your and others’ criticisms of HSR’s claims as expressed elsewhere, if and when that point existed. It also seems alarmingly dismissive and patronising for HSR to have contacted you personally to deliver slurs – not that being emotional about something should even be a slur.
Anyway, it was not my intention to solicit from you a defence or re-linking of existing criticisms of the report, nor even, for the most part, to dispute them.
I think we’re all cool now. Who says lack of facial and body-language cues prevents online discussions from going completely off the rails? :-)
I’m not cool, it’s 32c here, and I’ve got no facial hair. What’s the meaning of life btw?
agreed, all cool :-)
I am a moderator. I’d say that accusing someone of dishonesty due to a conflation of the word “as” with the word “in” strikes me as a bit trollish. Indeed, I’ve just said it.
As to more constructive ways of making the same point, I am with PM.
It is certainly not my intention to troll.
How do you suggest I interpret what Megan is saying here? Is it unreasonable of me to understand her words as implying that someone other than herself is criticising the HSR claim? That strikes me as the implication of ‘[claim] continues to face criticism’. And if there is no such criticism contained within the articles she linked to, then is there a better interpretation of her words than as a sly way of saying ‘I continue to criticise’ such that she doesn’t appear alone in her criticisms?
Of course, she isn’t alone in them, but I am uncomfortable with what seems to be an unwarranted redirection from several articles on the ongoing tragedy of wartime sexual violence to her disagreement with the HSR over a claim that doesn’t, on the face of it, appear to be undermined by the content of those articles.
You clearly did miss the series of posts we had on the HSR. Meagan is far from alone, as three authors of a guest post here will attest. Please desist from accusing her of arguing in bad faith.
I did see those posts and I agree with Megan that the HSR claim is flawed. My point here was intended to be about her language in one relatively insignificant way – I’m definitely not accusing her of arguing in bad faith. Instead I seem to have come across as a bully, and I apologize if I’ve offended you , her, or anyone else.
Sorry, coming along a little late to this party. Just wanted to say, Simon, if you’re interested in reviewing the continuing criticism of the HSR 2012 I have done my best to archive academic/activist engagement here: https://hsr2012.tumblr.com/. New releases include an article in FP by John Arquilla (3 Dec. 2012) and an article in the most recent issue of PRIO’s Gender, Peace and Security Update (also Dec. 2012).
Thank you for the link. I’d already seen Arquilla’s piece in FP and, for what it’s worth (very little I’m sure), my opinion is that it is pretty weak. But the PRIO update makes very well and succinctly the two main criticisms I think carry great power, which is a) that HSR oversteps its evidence in suggesting a decline and b) rise or decline, what really matters is that it’s still one of the most urgent yet under-addressed forms of conflict violence. I’ll keep track for any new criticisms as well.
“A recent Australian study found that most of the gains that university departments made through the 90s in terms of hiring women and gaining balance in the gender ratio of staff members has been reversing over the last few years.”
I do not think this claim about “most of the gains” is supported by the figure that you posted. It shows that for 2 schools, UNSW and ANU, there has been no decline. For the other 6 schools, the chart shows that the gains from 2008 to 2010 were largely reversed from 2010 to 2012. However, for every one of these schools, the 2012 number is still higher than any number before 2008, and far higher than in 2000.
Right, but UNSW and ANU have the shoddiest record when it comes to women- they had no significant gains in the last decade so there has been no significant ‘roll back’ (like the University of Sydney, for example). I’m just reporting the news here, but the article seems to say that many of the redundancies over the past few years have impacted women and that the trend of scooping top research professors to increase the ERA rating results in hiring senior men (on average).