Carole Pateman
        Political Science

            Carol Pateman’s academic fame (and indeed she is famous in her odd little world of gender theorists and feminists) rests largely on her 1988 book, “The Sexual Contract.”  Like most political theory, it veers between dense abstractions and wild-eyed policy prescriptions supposedly justified by the author’s theorizing.  This pattern, as it turns out, is a good description of Pateman’s political and academic output in general. 

One such example of the abstract descending into the absurd is Pateman’s advocacy for a guaranteed income.  That’s right: that dusty old idea, last considered with any seriousness in 1969 when Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan almost led its passage during the Nixon (!) administration.  Through this minimum income scheme, the United States government would in essence provide universal welfare for all citizens.  Pateman, perhaps addled from having her head in the theoretical clouds her entire academic career, unearthed this historical footnote and seized on the idea as the solution to all women’s problems.  If only all women (many of whom do housework, which Pateman claims is neither viewed as work, nor compensated as such) could count on receiving a certain amount of money just for, well, being alive.  Then feminism would have a fighting chance.  As Pateman sees it, the housewife’s economic dependence on her husband is what’s holding back our country from achieving true feminist-led equality.

If that idea sounds satisfyingly wacky, there’s plenty more punch-lines to be found elsewhere in Pateman’s academic and political record.  Consider her views on sexual consent.  In a May 1980 Political Theory piece, Pateman barked,  

“[Sexual c]onsent as ideology cannot be distinguished from habitual acquiescence, assent, silent dissent, submission, or even forced submission.  Unless refusal of consent or withdrawal of consent are real possibilities, we can no longer speak of ‘consent’ in any genuine sense.” 

From here, it’s just a few more easy steps down the theoretical path to the doorstep of radical feminist theorist Andrew Dworkin,  who contended that most heterosexual sex is an act of rape.  Maybe Pateman isn’t a man-hater, but her rhetoric certainly suggests it.  Expanding on that same male-female topic, Pateman complained in 1993 that “women have never been and still are not admitted as full and equal members and citizens in any country known as a ‘democracy.’” 

 Speaking of struggles for equality, Pateman’s own history suggests a certain personal element to her feminist ardor.  A 1997 Daily Bruin article contained Pateman’s recollection that at one point in her career, she resigned a professorship after repeatedly being denied promotions.  “I was far better known in my field than a lot of men,” Pateman claimed, and her “work was a great deal better than the men who were being given those promotions…To a certain extent, I protested and then I just left.”  That’s her-story, so to speak.  But given Pateman’s nutty views, perhaps the school (and the relevant decision-makers) in question had simply never signed on to the fad of gender theory and its related nostrums. 

In light of her academic reputation, her claim to the Bruin that she was far better known than her male colleagues is certainly believable.  That her work was in fact better than these promotion-winning men is less believable.  Pateman may use the preening description of “immaculate scholarship” to characterize her work.  But braggadocio won’t make rubbish feminist ideas smell any better.

Like many other UCLA professors profiled here, Pateman really comes alive when it comes to signing on to radical political petitions, having inked her name to no less than five.  The output is typical: letters to Kofi Annan demanding an immediate two-state status for Israel and Palestine, a petition demanding that the University of California divest its portfolio of any companies doing business in or with the state of Israel, and even the muddled “Professors of Conscience” statement expressing solidarity with self-hating Israeli academics.  Par for the course, Pateman hates U.S. foreign policy as much as that of Israel’s.  Pateman is one of 42 UCLA professors to inked their name to the Not In Our Name (NION) statement, which predicted 100,000 Iraqi casualties from the American invasion.  This is not a contention that even the anti-war IraqBodyCount project supports.  Pateman is also prepared for other contingencies.  Any Iraqis not killed by the U.S. are covered by the lengthily titled “Human Rights Action Statement on the Abuse of Captives in U.S. Custody” that she signed. 

Pateman also reveled in the chance to support a homegrown rebellion, such as it was, on her home campus.  As Pateman cheerfully acknowledged to the Daily Bruin in the aftermath of the March 5, 2003 anti-war walkout, “A number of [my] students got up and left, but it did not unduly interrupt class.”  What did interrupt class was Pateman’s subsequent act of political symbolism.  While she didn’t cancel class, she did “split her class into part lecture, part discussion of the cause of the walkout – American interaction in the Middle East.”  Given Pateman’s politics of record, perhaps this wide-ranging discussion helped teach students how Israel and the evil Bush administration conservatives actually brought this attack down on our heads.  It’s a tough job, but someone’s got to indoctrinate.

Proof of Pateman’s disrespect for learning is found in student reviews of her teaching.  One commentator noted, “Ms. Pateman speaks as though she is regurgitating material from the Democratic Party.  She spouts out support for numerous “social movements” such as the animal rights movement.”  Pateman, the student continued,

“has readings only from the most extreme liberals – including one article from a professor who said children ought to be able to forget about school if that's their desire and drop out and do whatever they want.  If you have any sort of dissenting viewpoint, she will barely tolerate you, and will give you a stuffy expression.  She talks about the women's movement but says nothing about their negative contributions…If you want to develop an independent viewpoint, take another class, such as Brian Walker. But if you are a left-winger, perhaps this class is fine for you.”

Far from being a single disgruntled voice, two other reviewers (out of the six total) sound a similar theme.  The first student notes, “If you want a class on socialist indoctrination that is poorly taught, unfairly graded, and does not encourage you to think for yourself, then Pateman's Democratic Theory class is the one for you!”  And even a student giving a generally positive review admits, “If you are a hard-line conservative, stay far away from this class as you can…This class is based a lot on liberal concepts…”  Radical academics, politics, and even classroom behavior: with Carol Pateman, you get the complete liberal package.