Women of academe : outsiders in the sacred grove /

Aisenberg and Harrington, founding members of the Alliance of Independent Scholars, concern themselves with a paradox of recent times: more women earn advanced degrees; at the same time, few women have secure academic positions. Based on interviews, the study gives a new perspective on women in academe who face agendas that they neither made nor understand, and that have effectively excluded them. Taking into account the variations in women's experiences, the authors found more commonality than differences between those who succeeded in academia and those who left, deflated. The book is best when it raises questions about women's academic work. The authors ask whether women resist "hard" theoretical subjects in favor of "soft," less rational disciplines because of their feelings of being outsiders. Yet, in their interviews they ask questions that elicit responses to indicate that academic women's concerns probably differ little from other working women: discrimination because of gender and age; the overwhelming issue of child care, and family concerns in general. The authors offer few solutions, but suggest that women put their careers first. The authors use little historical data, and seem unaware of some of the more recent works that discuss similar subjects, e.g., Margaret Rossiter's Women Scientists in America (CH, Apr '83). For libraries supporting women's studies programs. J. Raftery California State University, Chico

In this illuminating study, Aisenberg (The Dream of Deliverance in American Politics) and Harrington, a lawyer and political science instructor at Vassar, identify ``a battery of danger points common to the experience of women seeking professional autonomy and authority'' in academia and warn that female intellectuals may undermine their own career advancement by refusing to follow the ``rules of the game.'' Interviews with 62 academics indicate that women seldom receive effective career counseling; fail to develop career strategies (five- and 10-year plans); neglect to establish professional credentials early on (e.g., submitting thesis papers for publication); are unfamiliar with networking; and shun self-promotion as calculated, even cold-blooded manipulation. Most cherish the ``merit dream,'' the belief that political expediency is beneath Ivory Tower purity. Even the tenured professor is loath to exercise her voice of authority, once attained, fearing stigmatization as a shrew. The authors offer concrete approaches to professionalization (e.g., gain practice in political skills through volunteer work) that will benefit women outside the academic community as well. (April) UFunder (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved

Women have long been subservient to men regardless of the lip service paid to equality; old stigmas still exist. Supported by over 60 interviews, the authors examine the old rules and the struggle of women to gain recognition in the academic profession. Their conclusions offer thoughts on what women should do; the possible actions provide no real solutions for individuals but collectively motivate and stimulate self-esteem. A definitive, thought-provoking study. Recommended. L.R. Little, Penticton P.L., British Columbia (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

Polemical generalizing about the plight of women in the Ivory Tower. Aisenberg (poet/critic/publisher) and Harrington (The Dream of Deliverance in American Politics, 1986; Pol. Sci./Vassar) offer no fresh explanation for the fact that only six percent of America's tenured professors are women. As part of their feminist agenda, however, they do abandon traditional, statistical methods of surveying in favor of a more idiosyncratic methodology as they generalize from 62 interviews with academics of varying generations (all over the age of 35, and no men included). The authors espouse that brand of feminism that posits different natures for men and women (with the female being superior), and thus attribute all the ills of academe --especially the ""publish or perish"" mentality--to the masculine mind that dominates the university. If female values ruled, they suggest, scholars would pursue their calling out of love lot the subject, would transform classrooms with their compelling teaching, and would publish only when the work merited it. The content of academic books would change, too, from dry and theoretical to personal and contextual. But Harrington and Aisenberg are inconsistent: women, they argue, must sacrifice their purity, learn politics, and climb to the top--and thus the authors accept the status quo of the university even as they condemn its values. A skewered treatment of an important subject. Copyright ©Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.