Sociologists For Women In Society Research Articles

Feminist Scholar-Activism Goes Global: Experiences of “Sociologists for Women in Society” at the UN

This article focuses on the experiences and strategies of members of Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) who strive to bridge the worlds of social activism and academia. It concerns the International Committee’s work at the United Nations (UN), specifically at the annual Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) meeting. It builds on transnational feminist literature that has discussed the UN as stage for a diverse global women’s movement and provider of global gender equality norms that, if utilized, advance gender equality in its member states. I analyze themes that emerged from a sample of in-depth interviews with current or former UN scholar-activists within SWS from a larger ethnographic study, and present experiences and challenges of SWS members’ engagement with UN politics and policy development since the mid-nineties. I demonstrate that SWS does justice to its mission of serving as an activist organization through its work in the global arena. Analysis of interviews, observations, and archival material demonstrates that SWS’s UN scholar- activism is increasing the visibility and applicability of feminist sociology. While this activism critically examines the discourse, it also disrupts hegemonic discourse and offers opportunities for concrete social change, particularly through linking activism, mentoring, and teaching.

Science, Expertise and Profession in the Post–Normal Discipline

Historical binaries constrain Turner’s narrative, American Sociology: From Pre-Disciplinary to Post-Normal. The identification of mid-20th century American sociology as a gold standard for judging predisciplinary and post-normal sociology paints the epistemological challenges of the 1960s and 1970s in an unnecessarily negative light. The conflation of feminization with feminism reduces the contributions of Sociologists for Women in Society and collapses them into a narrative about a generational struggle between men. The focus on the elite-mass dynamics of academic labor markets misses the vibrancy of the broader disciplinary project of contemporary sociology. The prospects for 21st century sociology are more positive than Turner imagines. Rather than a scientific failure with a damaged brand, 21st century sociology offers a more reflexive and culturally nuanced form of sociology appropriate for the deeply unequal, global and mediatized social world we inhabit.

Sociologists for Women in Society: A Feminist Bureaucracy?

Sociologists for Women in Society: A Feminist Bureaucracy?

Sociologists for Women in Society

Sociologists for Women in Society

In memoriam: Athena Theodore (1919–2001)

Athena Theodore, sociologist, feminist, activist, author of two classic works on American women at work, died on December 1, 2001, in Naples, Florida. She earned a reputation as a pioneer in the field of American sociology by publishing The Professional Woman in 1971, which became a classic scholarly contribution. Campus Troublemakers, in 1986, was likewise acclaimed as a trailblazing work because of its unique scholarly data on sex bias in academe. The book's evidence gave impetus for legal actions in the courts under the U.S. Civil Rights Act. Theodore's data had a salutary effect upon discriminated women's chances in their legal cases. While researching the book, she saw that few of the faculty women who participated had either the vocabulary or the concep tual tool-kit even to define "it," that is, discrimination. Critics praised the work because, "Its relevance is not limited to campus troublemakers themselves but [extends] also to those who deal with them." Professor Theodore was among those relatively rare (at the time) female scholars who blended objective re search with social activism, and who encouraged the careers of other women. For her, social science's larger purpose of social reform was to bring legal and societal change. Athena was born in Salem, Massachusetts. During World War II, she enlisted in the U.S. Navy. After the war, she married Christopher Theodore, a professor of business at Boston University, and she earned a Ph.D. in the Boston Univer sity Department of Sociology under the G.I. Bill. Athena had been one of the few Navy women in Communications in the Charlestown Navy Yard. She then took advantage of the same educational opportunity that helped so many men in the military. In later years she was honored for becoming the first woman Ph.D. in sociology at Boston University. Athena taught at Simmons College, where she became a professor em?rita in the 1970s. While at Simmons, she sent urban studies undergraduates into the field of Boston neighborhoods, using the Chicago School method to advance knowledge of ethnic and social enclaves in the interests of public policy. She believed in establishing organizations that focused upon women, and served as a founding member of the national group, Sociologists for Women in Society. In her retirement, she continued to focus on national and regional sociology meet

Women and power in sociology: SWS as an arena of change

This article explores the ways that the feminist organization Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) has become an arena of change in the discipline of sociology, academic institutions, and larger society. We begin with an examination of feminist models of power and change, followed by a brief history of SWS and an exploration of the use of power in sociology, academia, and beyond. We find that SWS has influenced both the organizational governance structures of sociology (such as the American Sociological Association) and the production of sociological scholarship. As a result, the presence of women is more apparent than ever before, and sociological paradigms are more inclusive and attentive to the voices of “outsiders.” Academic institutions have been challenged and changed by an SWS presence and the monitoring of women's experiences in the academy. Beyond the discipline and academia, SWS strives to participate in the making of public policy that affects women's lives and to be a presence both domestically and internationally in issues affecting the status and well‐being of women. We conclude with the recommendation that sociologists use their experiences and knowledge to create change in the institutions where women practice and the world in which they live.

American Sociological Association Elections, 1975 to 1996: Exploring Explanations for "Feminization"

Since 1972, the proportion of women in American Sociological Association governance positions has increased. Woman candidates for ASA offices and the ASA Council have been overrepresented and generally have had higher odds of winning than male candidates. The authors examine three possible factors behind these trends : the general impact of the women's movement, the influence of Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS), and elite dilution. Liberal attitudes fostered by the women's movement appear to have raised voter willingness to select woman candidates. SWS members were overrepresented among candidates, and SWS membership (for women) and support for its goals increased chances of being elected. High voting rates of SWS members could have swayed elections, as well. Contrary to elite dilution arguments, woman and man candidates differed little from each other or over time in productivity, honors, or experience, although women were elected earlier in their careers than were men and were less often employed in the most prestigious graduate departments. In analysis using measures of all three factors together, gender affected election success, with marginal effects for productivity; effects of SWS membership and professional location were not statistically significant

Structure, agency, and gender: The social reproduction of a discipline

In 1965, one year after the publication of the Handbook of Sociology, edited by Robert E. L. Faris, I entered graduate school at the University of Chicago and in 1968 got my first academic job. It was a heady time in American sociology. The first meeting of the Women's Caucus, later Sociologists for Women in Society, was at the 1969 meetings of the American Sociological Association in San Francisco, and challenges to the intellectual hegemony of structural functionalism from political leftists, blacks, gays, and feminists were increasingly evident. By entering the discipline when I did, I was -to use McAdam et al.'s term in their chapter on Social Movements in the 1988 Handbook of Sociology -biographically available to participate in the political and intellectual currents that have helped shape American sociology over the past quarter of a century. Yet what strikes me in reading the new Handbook of Sociology, edited by Neil Smelser, is the unevenness with which these different currents have been integrated into contemporary sociological debate. In contrast to 25 years ago, there now appears widespread recognition of the contributions made by Marxist theory and class analysis. There has been a reemergence of attention to political economy, and a convergence on the centrality of the political for understanding both social organization and social change. Yet despite the explosion of research on gender, sexuality, the sociologies of culture and emotions (all of which have established themselves as sections of the American Sociological Association), these subjects have not been well integrated into mainstream sociological debates. In the presentation to follow, I will elaborate on this observation, suggest some reasons why I think this integration has been illusive, and argue for its inclusion in

Sociology for Our Times

The remarks I prepared for this occasion are not intended to be a scholarly dissertation that will break new ground, or roll back the frontiers of sociological knowledge. What I have in mind is a kind of informal homily, a conversation among ourselves as southern sociologists who are enthusiastic about our life's career, supportive of our professional organization, but most of all concerned about the people who are the subject and content of the sociological enterprise. For ourselves we worry about the shrinkage of the academic marketplace, about retrenchmenrt of research funds, about more employment opportunities in noncampus settings. But we worry also about a wealthy society in which people are unemployed and hungry and homeless, about a democratic society where there is still vast injustice and violence and discrimination. In all my communication with members, officers and subcommittees of sss,I tried to bring alive this year's theme: for Our Times, and I came to the realization that subtle changes have occurred in our Society. We have gradually switched from a campus-centered association of sociologists to a federation of special interest groups. The program of this annual meeting lists special group sessions for the Radical Caucus, the Clinical Sociology Association, Sociology in Small Colleges, Association for Humanist Sociology, Sociologists for Women in Society, and Policy Research and Application. All the committees I appointed this year are representative of the subcategories: noncampus sociologists, women, minorities and members from small colleges. When I look back at the annual programs over the years I see that our concerns have evolved. In the early years we paid most attention to race and minorities: then the emphasis shifted to women's liberation, where it is still strong, and this year it is predominantly on noncampus sociologists who are in for-profit employment. The activities of special interest sociologists are recognized in the number of sessions listed on the program as being cosponsored by sws, by clinical sociologists, by radicals, by small college groups.

Mechanisms of Discrimination*

Peace & ChangeVolume 6, Issue 3 p. 33-39 Mechanisms of Discrimination* Baila Miller, Search for more papers by this author Baila Miller, Search for more papers by this author First published: October 1980 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0130.1980.tb00417.x † *An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Sociologists for Women in Society, New York City, September 9, 1977- I would like to thank Mildred Schwartz, Michael Preston and Berenice Carroll for their helpful comments. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume6, Issue3October 1980Pages 33-39 RelatedInformation