One of our sister OAC groups is "Feminist Anthropology," which has 61 members and appears to be reasonably active. Glancing at the list of members, it looks as if most are female. So the feminist element or stream or frame influential in anthropology more generally is present here on OAC.
It is curious that this demographic and perhaps ideological shift in anthropology, and its consequences for cultural anthropology, does not--from the lack of response here--seem to be a worthy topic of reflection. To me it would be quite interesting to consider if and to what extent any discernable general modification in anthropological perspectives has resulted from the major, perhaps dominant presence of women in the discipline.
So what does that mean, John: that we take all of the people of the world as our legitimate subjects, but we are afraid to look in the mirror? Oh, dear.
Perhaps the one anthropology we don't really want to know about is ... the anthropology of anthropology.
Why must this be a "Punch-and-Judy dust up"? Or, why are people afraid that it would be that? I am puzzled.
My impression was that women consider their current place in anthropology as normal, and that feminists are proud of what has been accomplished. Is there any anti-feminist lobby in anthropology? Not that I know of. Is there anyone who is lobbying for a different demography? Not that I know of.
My original question is part of the more general question, Where are we now and how did we get here? Isn't this question part of the reflexivity that everyone recommends?
Good point, Martin. Would you, even though you are a man ;-), care to take a stab at a more precise, "good description"?