W(h)ither psychology of women? Current trends and future directions for the section on women and psychology.

Abstract

Abstract This paper focuses on two areas critical to the reassessment of the Section on Women and Psychology (SWAP). In the first half, the following question is addressed: Is SWAP still needed? Relying on Canadian data where possible, a mixed pattern of gains and impasses is discussed in relation to the following areas: women's curtailed advancement; curricular neglect of psychology of women; the (il)legitimate status of psychology of women and feminism; the rhetoric of equality, progress and individualism; and the (re)scientizing of psychology. The second half of the paper centres on specific pragmatic strategies for increasing SWAP's membership and raising its national and international profile. Strategies discussed include expanding publication outlets, establishing awards to increase public recognition of women's contributions to the discipline, and expanding intradisciplinary efforts through jointly sponsored swAP symposia and institutes. In 1981, Pyke and Stark-Adamec concluded their historical overview of the evolution of Canadian psychology of women as a disciplinary focus and the Canadian Psychological Association's (CPA) recognition and (delimited) integration of a feminist perspective with this provocative interrogative: Has the point been made? Can we now proceed toward the development of a psychology that has relevance for both sexes, that refrains from arbitrarily limiting human potential through the rigid endorsement of sex-role standards, that is free from both androcentric and gynocentric biases, and that deals with its disciples, male and female, in an equitable, non-discriminatory fashion? (p. 50) This paper revisits these questions and asks whether sufficient progress has been made to warrant jettisoning a separate CPA section devoted to promoting research, teaching and practice in psychology of women. I argue that although many inroads have been made since the inception of the Section on Women and Psychology (swAP) in 1976, there are several recent trends that suggest a less than progressive narrative of psychology of women. Five such trends are briefly discussed: women's curtailed advancement; curricular neglect of psychology of women; the (il)legitimate status of psychology of women and feminism; the rhetoric of equality, progress, and individualism; and the (re)scientizing of psychology. Three pragmatic strategies are also proposed for increasing swAP's membership and raising its national and international profile. HISTORICAL MARKERS Comprehensive accounts of the inception of swAP and the development of Canadian feminist psychology have been provided elsewhere (see Pyke, this issue; Pyke & Greenglass, 1997; Pyke & Stark-Adamec, 1981). Briefly, five key events precipitated and surrounded the founding of SWAP. First, in response to a consistent rejection of convention submissions pertaining to psychology of women, six York University feminist psychologists (graduate students and faculty) organized an underground independent symposium in conjunction with the 1972 CPA annual convention. Despite CPA's active opposition, the symposium was extremely well attended and received considerable attention from the media. Second, CPA formed a Task Force on the Status of Women in Canadian Psychology to commemorate the designation of 1975 as International Women's Year by the United Nations. By April 1976, the Task Force submitted almost 100 recommendations to the CPA Board of Directors. Third, the CPA Interest Group on Women and Psychology (IGWAP) was established, prompted by one of the recommendations of the Task Force. Fourth, IGWAP initiated the Institute on Women and Psychology in 1978. This one-- day preconvention conference continues to generate revenue that is re-invested in SWAP's budget. And finally, in 1977, the Coordinating Committee on the Status of Women, later renamed the Status of Women Committee (SWC), became a standing committee of the CPA Board of Directors. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.