Search Results

by Dr. Jem Tosh I remember sitting down shortly after being accepted onto my PhD and panicking over the expected word length of my thesis - 80,000 words. If I remember correctly, I hid under the covers of my bed for a couple of days, before re-emerging as a slighting less terrified first year student. I write because I enjoy it, but mostly because I feel that whatever I'm writing about really needs to be said. It's funny, how over time, that limit seems smaller and smaller. For my latest book, every single chapter could have easily been a book if its own. The topic areas of (1) psychological and psychiatric diagnoses and treatments related to gender and sexuality, (2) feminism, and (3) transgender activism and scholarship related to the 'psy' professions - are immense and complicated. As a result, the first draft of my book was over 20,000 words too long, and I was far from finished. I had to cut a lot of content to make the book as agreed, and to make the deadline (ish...). I write because I enjoy it, but mostly because I feel that whatever I'm writing about really needs to be said. So I disagree with the Anonymous Academic article published late last year in The Guardian, that the only reason people write academic books is for 'vanity'. I love to write, and regardless of where I ended up in life, I would have spent my time writing (much to the surprise of my high school English teacher). Also, some things need the space that a book offers. I initially tried publishing my work in journals and repeatedly got feedback from editors that the scope of the paper was too big. I was also told that I needed to expand each section to provide more information and background for readers unfamiliar with all the different areas that I was trying to bring together. In short, Perverse Psychology and Psychology and Gender Dysphoria were just not possible in many of the academic publishing formats available, other than books. While there are important conversations to be had around institutions profiting over the hoarding of knowledge, producing an elitist system where papers are inaccessible to most, to assume that, "much of the time that goes into writing these books is made possible through taxpayers' money" (Anonymous Academic, 2015) is to make several problematic assumptions - the first being that those who write books are paid to do so. This is not always the case. In fact, as is increasingly being documented, the majority of those who work at universities are on short-term and temporary contracts. They are paid by the hour, or by the course, their employment insecure, and their workload high as they continue to chase the ever-out-of-reach goal of a full time position, or dare I say it, tenure. If the only motivation you have to write a book is vanity, it won't get finished. You need to love writing, even when you hate it. To disavow academic books is to continue a worrying 'norm' within academia, and education more generally, that academics and teachers will work above and beyond contracted hours on numerous tasks, that are ultimately unfunded and never reimbursed. Whether it's money for school supplies, or self-funding that conference presentation in the hope that it will lead to a job somewhere down the line, if we actually calculate the number of hours many academics and educators put into their work, it can fall way below the minimum wage. To assume that academic books are some kind of money making machine, it to overlook just how many hours are required to produce one, and the much smaller percentage that ends up on the author's own pocket. Writing a book is hard, it is physically painful, exhausting, and all-consuming. You have sleepless nights, aching hands from typing, blurred vision from staring a books and computer screens, and looking out of the window for hours while you dream of a future when it's finally fucking done. If the only motivation you have to write a book is vanity, it won't get finished. You need to love writing, even when you hate it. While you can argue that educators choose to work beyond their contracted hours, again this overlooks the current context of higher education where temporary and insecure employment is the 'norm'. This makes it much more difficult for staff to refuse to do work that is sent their way, and to look beyond the illusory belief that if we just do more, eventually we will land that job/position/pay/security that was promised to us years ago as an idealistic and optimistic student. To look beyond this belief, however, means risking the realisation that the dream job may not even exist and that all the time, effort, and investment in this career has been for nought, resulting in a personal sense of failure (rather than anger at an unfair system). We should not be putting people in the position of having to choose between taking shifts at a minimum wage job to pay the rent, and taking on unpaid academic tasks that come with the elusive promise of future academic success. For those on low hours, short term, and casual contracts, payment for any additional work can be, not only a bonus, but a necessary income. Tasks such as reviewing papers, editing journals, managing email lists, and writing journal articles can take away from paid income for those in insecure employment, hanging by a financial thread within the academy. The expectation that academics will complete these tasks without pay, assumes that everyone is as privileged as those in full time faculty positions (a particular problem when we consider the under representation of people from marginalised groups in relation to race, gender, class, and disability within academia as a whole). While we should support Open Access and anti-elitist publishing avenues, we should also support reimbursement for academic labour with the understanding that most people working in higher education are not paid for their time and simply cannot afford to work for free just because they are expected to. We should not be putting people in the position of having to choose between taking shifts at a minimum wage job to pay the rent, and taking on unpaid academic tasks that come with the elusive promise of future academic success.

by Dr. Jem Tosh I met my recent editor under unusual circumstances. I was contacted via email with a request to write a book on the topic of 'gender dysphoria'. We agreed to meet in person and talk more, as the topic itself is complex with much disagreement and debate. I needed to make sure that they were looking for the kind of critical, trans-inclusive, and feminist book that I was planning to write. At our meeting, we discovered that our paths had crossed before, only briefly. My editor had developed an interest in the topic after attending a conference some years earlier - I conference where there was such controversy regarding the keynote speaker that there was a protest outside. We laughed as we soon discovered that while my editor was inside the conference promoting books, I was outside with the protesters. My first book, Perverse Psychology, was a critical analysis of psychology and psychiatry and the many problematic ways they frame sexual violence and transgender people. I concluded that it was the profession that was perverse, not those they claim to 'treat'. My new book builds on this work, by including a more in-depth analysis of psychology and psychiatry's framing of gender nonconformity - including a broader range of diagnoses related to gender (e.g. masochistic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, hysteria, autogynephilia, transvestism, gender dysphoria) as well as more detail and critique regarding treatment approaches - such as gender conversion therapies. The second part of the book addresses the longstanding tensions between feminist and transgender perspectives, most notably those from trans-exlusionary radical feminism (or 'TERF') and trans feminists. It shows how oppressive and transphobic accounts of gender, that are used to silence and victimize trans people from within feminism, actually draw on and parallel dominant narratives from psychology and psychiatry. I conclude that feminist, queer, and trans critiques need to incorporate sanism into their intersectional analyses of oppression. Psychology and Gender Dysphoria: Feminist and Transgender Perspectives will be published by Routledge in March 2016. The book is available for pre-order at this link, and you can also recommend it to your university librarian here. Book Blurb Psychiatry and psychology have a long and highly debated history in relation to gender. In particular, they have attracted criticism for policing the boundaries of ‘normal’ gender expression through gender identity diagnoses, such as transvestism, transsexualism, gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria. Drawing on discursive psychology, this book traces the historical development of psychiatric constructions of ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ gender expression. It contextualizes the recent reconstruction of gender in the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and its criteria for gender dysphoria. This latest diagnosis illustrates the continued disagreement and debate within the profession surrounding gender identity as ‘disordered’. It also provides an opportunity to reflect on the conflicted history between feminist and transgender communities in the changing context of a more trans-positive feminism, and the implications of these diagnoses for these distinct but linked communities. Psychology and Gender Dysphoria examines debates and controversies surrounding psychiatric diagnoses and theories related to gender and gender nonconformity by exploring recent research, examples of collaborative perspectives, and existing feminist and trans texts. As such, the book is relevant for postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers of gender, feminism, and critical psychology as well as historical issues within psychiatry. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Psychiatric Constructions of Women and Femininity 3. Psychiatric Constructions of Transgender Identities and Gender Nonconformity 4. Feminist Constructions of Gender Dysphoria and Transgender People 5. Transgender Constructions of Psychiatry and Feminism 6. Conclusions: A Trans Feminist Antipsychology Reviews "Tosh's skillful genealogical analysis is simply outstanding... she has urged those aligned with feminist, constructionist, and poststructural epistemologies to engage in greater self-reflection regarding their own epistemological views, and to be acutely aware of their potential for harm." Diana Kuhl, Psychology of Women and Equalities Review, 2016 "Tosh has much to offer those new to the study of the intersections of transgender studies and the psy disciplines." Damien W. Riggs, Flinders University "This book poses valuable theories and critiques for any college course on the psychology of women, disability, or transgender studies... it is a big step in the right direction." Layla Zbinden, Savannah Schlauderaff, Esther Rothblum, Psychology of Women Quarterly

by Dr. Jem Tosh I never really saw the point of structuring my career or work around multiple systems where the goal posts were always changing. Why turn down opportunities or change the focus of your research to match the current priorities of others, that are likely to change over time and could take you further away from what you're really passionate about? Rather than have that narrow focus dictated by a fluctuating system with ever-changing criteria (i.e. funding bodies, REF assessments) I chose breadth, meaning that whatever the priorities turn out to be, at least some of my work will be relevant or eligible - and if not, well, at least I had fun while doing it. 1. Don't write a book. If I had a dollar for every time someone told me not to write Perverse Psychology or Psychology and Gender Dysphoria, I would have more money than my book royalties. Many of my colleagues in academia, particularly in the discipline of psychology, advised me to avoid writing books like it was career suicide. 'Don't write books, write journal articles'. Personally, I always wondered why it was a choice. Those who know me well, know that whenever I'm offered a choice (e.g. If you read out a menu and ask me what I want, I'm likely to respond with 'all of the above'). I'm not an 'or' person, I'm an 'and' person, and I think long term. So, while I could think about all of the journal articles I could have written during that time (about 9 or 10, if you're curious), I look over the breadth of my current publishing record, which includes a range of topics, disciplines, and formats (e.g. books, book chapters, journal articles, commentaries, reviews, encyclopaedia entries, special issues and so on). So, I'm not feeling too worried about the fact that my journal list could be longer tbh. 2. Publish in high impact journals. The most frequent response I get about this piece of advice is either about the UK REF and the importance of contributing to a university department's entry, or that working in academia depends on producing high impact journal articles. The problem is (actually there are many, many problems with this system) that it promotes those perspectives that are already accepted and influential. Analyzing rare or taboo topics, using or developing innovative or creative methodologies, challenge the rigid expectations of journals that predominantly focus on quantitative and positivistic approaches. The radical work that redefines a discipline, a method, or a topic, is less likely to fit into a process or system that is so difficult to dismantle. It's an inflexible system that is resistant to change - and my work is all about change, and those complex, messy issues that don't always fit within current concepts and/or approaches. I'm not going to change my work or my focus just to score points in a flawed system, and one that is changing. Instead, I prioritise open access publications. I want my work to be available and read. So, my impact scores are low, but my impact (particularly my social impact) is high. I have around 25,000 views, reads and downloads of my work on Academia.edu and Researchgate.net. Publishing in smaller journals, that are more appropriate and relevant to my work (or specialist), that are also more accessible and can publish quicker, means that my work remains timely and relevant. That just makes more sense to me. 3. Don't speak up. Don't stand out. I have been told this piece of advice a lot - over most of my life actually. I've resigned to the fact that I just don't know how not to stand out. So, I'm just going with it. When I started campaigning against gender conversion therapies (those therapies that try to change someone's gender identity), I was told by many people to stop talking about it. Whether it was people who thought that transgender people did need this kind of therapy (click here to see why they don't) or LGBTQA+ people who knew the risk I was taking in speaking out. It was a risk and it was really stressful. I received a lot of hostility, which was distressing and at times terrifying. But that doesn't mean taking a stand was a bad thing. These reactions were due to transphobia and homophobia. They wouldn't have gone away if I had stayed quiet, they would have just been less visible. I felt I had a responsibility, as someone in training and now qualified, to use the spaces I had access to for social change, and I still believe that. For every person who turned their back or disagreed with what I was doing, I met many more who were working for the same thing and with the same passion. 4. Tone it down. I got this a few times from mentors over the years, trying their best to protect me from the onslaught of hostility and discrimination that can happen within psychology (and academia more generally) when you work on topics that have divided the profession. I could see how they struggled to encourage me, while at the same time worrying about what would happen to me. It was usually related to feminism and my work regarding social justice. Passion and politics don't fit well within a discipline that promotes 'objective science', but my work embraces subjectivity, transparency, and ethics. My passion is what drives me when I'm analyzing a traumatizing transcript about violence against women, or how I break my publishing records (yes, I have publishing records). People think that I'm productive, and I am, but it's my passion that drives my writing. So don't tone it down, turn it up. I can write a draft paper that I'm excited about in day. When I have to write something that my heart's just not in, it can take months. I'm more productive when I'm really excited and interested in a project, so I go with my interest and the publications follow.

by Dr. Jem Tosh (Content warning: Anti-Irish racism in England) When I was nine years old I had just started a new school. In the first few days there my teacher asked each student to say 'how now brown cow' - a statement used in teaching elocution. As a primary school in England, each student before me said it as you might imagine. However, the Northern Irish pronunction of 'how' (and all the words that rhyme with it) is quite unique. It's so unique, in fact, that it's a common struggle for actors who try their best to mimic the accent to get it anywhere near believable (just check out Sons of Anarchy for some of the more confusing attempts at it). You learn very quickly that there is something about you that is different, and that difference is cause for social exclusion and ridicule. I was the last to speak and my attempt was met with ruckus laughter by every student in the room, as well as the teacher. As a child who had talked this way their entire life without question, or laughter, it is a jarring and daunting moment to be singled out for something and have no idea why. You learn very quickly that there is something about you that is different, and that difference is cause for social exclusion and ridicule. It's not as obvious or cruel as the sticks that used to hang around children's necks marked for each time they spoke Irish, but it's just as effective. Once the laughter had finished, I was made to stand in front of the class and repeat the phrase until I 'got it right' - to replace my Northern Irish accent with a performance of Englishness. These microaggressions, of course, occur within a context of relative powerlessness, as a child in education following the instructions of a teacher. Over time I got very good at this performance, but struggled more with the parts of Northern Irish dialect that go beyond mere pronunication - such as pace, timing, and words unique to where I am from. Every utterance had to be carefully considered before being spoken, a hypersensitivity to social/political context and location. This is painful and exhausting, but the consequences of not being so aware can be severe. The Northern Irish accent can be a sole trigger for violence in Britain, within a present and historical context of colonialism, anti-Irish racism, discrimination and oppression. That being said, the social, political context and location are equally important when considering anti-Irish racism and white privilege. While the Irish were not always considered 'white', their social position in North America, for example, is very different to Britain. As an Irish individual, I have lived in Northern Ireland, England, and Canada - and my being Irish and my 'Irishness' have been very different in each of those contexts. Therefore, those who draw on the colonial violence enacted on Ireland as a means to undermine racism toward Black and Indigneous folks as well as People of Colour (BIPOC) (by saying that 'whites were slaves too' etc.) fail to consider context - and racism is always context specific. As an Irish individual, I have lived in Northern Ireland, England, and Canada - and my being Irish and my 'Irishness' have been very different in each of those contexts. Within North America, the Irish have experienced both discrimination and privilege over a long historical period. They have participated in acts of racial violence toward other marginalised groups, and remain a part of the privileged group of settlers who continue to benefit from the legacy of violent colonial imperialism regarding Indigenous communities in the US and Canada. Also, as Chris Rock's problematic Oscar's performance shows, it is possible to be both a victim of racism and racist to other groups. Therefore, just because some Irish experience racism, that doesn't mean that they are immune to being racist, or tha they have experienced the same struggle as other victimized groups have. Therefore, #blacklivesmatter regardless of the violence towards the Irish many years ago. It is complex interweaving of colonialism and constructions of race that are at play here, not a simple dichotomy of colour. My first ever job interview after finishing my undergraduate degree was as equally jarring as that day at school. After a 45-minute interview I was told that I was both (a) the most qualified and experienced candidate and (b) not successful. I was told that this was because 'we couldn't understand a word you said', a phrase that confused me further at the time, because it was clear that they had understood. There had been reciprocal conversation for over 40 minutes, that requires successful communication to occur. Over time, I realised that this phrase is used not to mean 'we cannot understand you', but 'we don't like how you speak'. It forces you to change the way you speak, to the preference of the listener, if you are to be successful in whatever it is that you need, whether that's a job, or getting a bottle of water. It was this moment that I learned that my performance was no longer enough to overcome discrimination in this context - in a professional context. It took much longer to learn how to replace my Northern Irish way of speaking enough to meet the expectations of English professionalism. I learned over and over again that to be successful (or simply to be employed, to gain access to training, services, or basic necessities) I needed to hide my voice more and more. Over time, I realised that this phrase is used not to mean 'we cannot understand you', but 'we don't like how you speak'. The fact that the Northern Irish accent is often interpreted within Britain to be 'incorrect' or 'wrong' shows that it is viewed differently than many others. Rather than being viewed as a legitmate accent, it is frequently viewed as a form of communication that needs to change. It is percieved as being incongruent with professionalism, and academia, instead representing more often the longstanding stereotypes of a demonised and ridiculed community - as 'stupid', 'backward', 'poor', and violent. If I were to present research in my voice, it would be recieved very differently (except for the few times I have presented at home - and no one gave it a second thought). The elitism within academia, especially how it relates to language, is particularly problematic due to the predominance of English and its links to colonialism, making a wide range of global and Indigenous ways of speaking, relating, and knowledges deemed unprofessional, 'less than' English, or laughable. Consequently, it maintains the underrepresentation of marginalized ethnicities and races, classes, communication styles, and disabilities, unless they are willing to sacrifice their voice (culture and heritage) in ways that fit with the mainstream culture. They are then left with a choice, either perform/create a version of yourself that will be (more) accepted, or speak in your voice and be silenced. Further Reading: 'Rape Me, I'm Irish': An Analysis of the Intersecting Discourses of Anti-Irish Racism and Sexual Violence.

by Dr. Jem Tosh I'm a very efficient person. People who know me well, know that my wardrobe will not only be really organized, it will be colour coded, categorised by season, and designed to make sure that no space goes wasted. My home is what tetris would look like if you played it with furniture instead of brightly coloured shapes. I don't like wasting things, whether it's time, old clothing, or writing. When I began my PhD, I put so much effort into writing that I was afraid I would spend three years working on the biggest project I had ever done, and it would sit on a shelf gathering dust - unread. I vowed to publish every single bit of it - and I did. Today I submitted the final (accepted) version of the very last section of my thesis to be published. Every chapter is either already published, or in press. In a busy three years, it has become three journal articles, three book chapters, and one book. This aim, however, wasn't only due to my fear. It was also a result of some great advice that I received from my supervisors along the way. So, for those just starting out on their PhD, here are some of the things that my supervisors told me that had the biggest impact on my work, and my approach to publishing. Jump right in When I started my PhD I was *really* intimidated. I had dabbled in discourse analysis for my undergraduate degree and published a summary of that work, but I was far from confident in using it (is anyone?). I remember sitting in my supervisor's office, talking about methodology and trying to get my head around the new texts I was reading, and wondering if I would ever understand it. My supervisor, the lovely Erica Burman, suggested 'jumping right in' with a small project and learning while doing. Alongside reading and planning, she suggested completing a smaller, more focused project - I guess you could call it a pilot project if you're more positivistically minded. Jumping right in was great for me. Not only did it give me the chance to apply the theory and have an experience that I could reflect on - it was a huge confidence boost right when I needed it. In a few months the small and focused project was complete and I had a much better idea of what the big picture would look like in the end, and more importantly, I was beginning to believe that I could do it. Just write I've had this piece of advice a few times, but alongside this 'jumping in', my supervisor advised me to start writing right away. At the very beginning of my PhD I produced a contents page and draft chapter outlines, and I revisited them over and over as the project developed. I wrote up my small focused project as I was completing it - the literature review became the introduction to chapter two and so on. This meant that within the first six months of my PhD one of my sub-projects had been completed and I had a draft thesis chapter. ...I had a much better idea of what the big picture would look like in the end, and more importantly, I was beginning to believe that I could do it. Sure, that chapter would change a lot over the three years, but a draft chapter is better than no chapter. As my students well know, I actively encourage them to send 'crap drafts' because at least you have started, and improving a draft is better/easier than starting one from scratch. It also helps you to get over the anxiety that a blank page (or document) can cause. I also encourage students to get their points on the screen - just type. Don't use punctuation, don't go back and correct a typo - just go for it and you'll be amazed at how much you already know about how you want the piece to look - the structure, the main points, and the areas you need to read up on more. Turn your back on perfectionism, and just write. During my undergraduate studies my supervisor let me in on a little secret. The way to success in psychology/academia is not some superior innate intellectual ability - but persistence. Whether this means reading that same text over and over until you finally understand even just a little bit of it (progress is progress, no matter how small), or finally getting that damn paper accepted, the key is persistence. I describe myself as a writer, so it might be surprising to know that I struggled with writing all through school and college. The move from Northern Ireland to England (and back) during my childhood meant that, while the words translated, the grammar didn't always quite match up. I was labelled early on as 'bad at English' and avoided writing as much as possible (taking Art, Computers and Maths A-Levels). Turn your back on perfectionism, and just write. When I started university I knew that to be successful at my degree in psychology, I would have to figure out this whole 'writing an essay' thing. I began writing, and getting feedback, and I never stopped. Now I love to write and miss it when I don't have the time to put my thoughts down on paper (or a keyboard). During my PhD, I began thinking of publishing like acting. How many auditions do actors go through before they finally get a part? How much rejection do they have to listen to before they 'break through'? What they don't really tell you when you start out seeking a career in academia, is that publishing is like the part of the iceberg you see, and rejection is the part that you don't. It's just a part of the job. That doesn't mean that it's easy, or that your confidence won't get a hefty knock - but it means don't give up. When my first paper got rejected my supervisor told me to read the reviews and then put them in a drawer for a while. Come back to it later. At that second reading, I was told to take notes. Make a list of the feedback that is useful (because lets face it there are too many reviewer 2's out there) and ditch the rest. Whatever is unhelpful - such as feedback from someone who doesn't really understand your method, disciplinary differences of opinion, or well-known interdisciplinary debates that mean your perspective is just as valid even though it contradicts the reviewer - discard them. Make those changes that turn your paper into an even better version of itself and either send it back to the editor explaining why you only made some changes (if they asked you to re-submit), or send it somewhere else. ...publishing is like the part of the iceberg you see, and rejection is the part that you don't. Papers get rejected all the time. Published papers have been rejected elsewhere. Rejection is a part of publishing. So, if you really want that thesis published, be persistent. Bonus tips - If you need some motivation, submit an abstract to a conference, special issue, or a call for papers of any kind. Nothing gets you writing faster than an impending deadline. - If you don't know what to write in a section yet, work out how many words it should have. This helps your chapter/paper stay balanced (rather than, say, having a really long introduction and a short discussion) and it saves you time. There's no point trying to summarise 1,000 papers for a section that's only going to be 300 words long. Focus your time and energy on those areas that need it more.

by Dr. Jem Tosh and Dr. Maya Gislason This is a pre-publication version of the following article: Tosh, J. & Gislason, M. (In press). Fracking is a feminist issue: An intersectional ecofeminist commentary on natural resource extraction and rape. Psychology of Women Section Review. (Content warning: Discussion of r*pe) While it has been acknowledged that the language used to describe natural resource extraction is highly gendered (Russell, 2013), the relationship between gender and natural resource extraction is under-researched, ‘undiscussed and silenced’ (Laplonge, 2013, p. 2). Similarly, there are increasing reports that the introduction of extraction industries results in an increase in sexualized violence in workers camps and host communities proximal to intensive industrial activity (Hotaling, 2013; James & Smith, 2014; Minor, 2014). In this brief commentary, we reflect on the relationship between gender, the environment, and violence, in particular in relation to psychological, social and ecological impacts of intensive natural resource extraction. We draw on examples from around the globe to highlight the importance of including ecofeminist approaches to psychological theorizing of sexual violence. Ecofeminism In attempts to move away from narrow and individualized analyses of complex issues, such as violence against women, critical and feminist psychologists often draw attention to the social aspects of psychological distress. However, how the environment impacts these issues is often neglected. This is despite the importance and relevance of environmental issues and the many intersections between gender, social, and environmental justice. While ecofeminism (i.e. the intersection of feminism and environmentalism) has a long and diverse history, it has been marginalized within feminism more generally, following a backlash toward the more essentialist perspectives within it. More recently, there have been renewed calls for an ‘intersectional ecological-feminist approach’ (Gaard, 2011). These calls highlight the need to incorporate the material and environmental into intersectional feminist analyses, particularly those from poststructuralist and social constructionist perspectives (Gaard, 2011; Mies & Shiva, 2014). A nuanced understanding of social-ecological dynamics is particularly important when addressing the impacts of ‘game changers’ such as climate change and natural resource extraction, which have been shown to exacerbate both gender inequality and violence towards oppressed groups. Natural Resource Extraction Natural resource extraction industries use a range of techniques to access and extract naturally occurring resources - such as oil, coal, trees, fish and natural gas. Often framed as industries drawing from renewable resources, these intensive industries can be framed as sustainable. For example, natural gas is touted as a ‘greener’ alternative to coal and oil, yet the methods used to extract natural gas are not without controversy. One example is hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, which involves inserting a high-pressure mixture of chemicals and water into the ground that releases the gas stored deep below the surface. Its impact on the environment is increasingly well documented, such as ground water contamination and induced seismic activity (Brasier et. al., 2011; European Parliament, 2011; McCubbin & Sovacool, 2013; Smith-Korfmacher et. al., 2013). These impacts challenge the validity of marketing claims that it is a ‘greener’ or ‘cleaner’ energy alternative. Fracking’s impact on the physical health of those living in surrounding areas is also attracting public health, research and activist attention (European Parliament, 2011; Kassotis et. al., 2013; Goldenberg et. al., 2010; Moss, Coram & Blashki, 2013; Northern Health, 2012; Shandro et. al., 2011). In the context of increasing demand and economic opportunities for natural resource industries, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) that has the potential to open up global sales and distribution of natural gas (Smedley, 2015), many governments are keen to exploit this natural resource. The UK government aims to ‘fast track’ applications and reduce the barriers put in place by local councils (Settle, 2015). This focus on business and financial profit, however, overlooks the environmental consequences of such an enterprise, as well as its potential impact on the physical, social and psychological well-being of individuals and communities. For example, the ‘boom and bust’ cycle describes communities as experiencing a range of stresses and distresses related to drastic changes to their home area, as well as disappointment when the promises of jobs and wealth fail to live up to expectations (Shandro et. al., 2011). Increasing jobs, infrastructure, and business tend to most often benefit newcomers, and those who lived in the area long before the ‘fracking’ began can be priced out of their homes and may not secure employment. Increases in homelessness and greater disparity between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ are some of the possible consequences of introducing natural resource extraction into a community (Brasier, et. al., 2011); increases in violent crime is another. Sexual violence Globally, those who have access to increasingly scarce natural resources control the means for negotiation, price, and ultimately the survival of the planet. In the international arena, global inequities play out between nation states while intranationally these power differentials impact the lives of local communities. Climate change plays a key role in reducing the availability of natural resources (such as food) in areas most affected by increasing temperatures and more frequent weather extremes (e.g. drought) (Shackleton & Shackleton, 2012). In contexts of social instability and poverty, this can lead to the increased sexual exploitation of women and children. Transactional or “survival sex” (Regional Network on HIV/AIDS, Rural Livelihoods and Food Security, 2008) is increasing internationally, with one example being the “sex for fish” trade in Kenya and Tanzania (Hunter, Reid-Hresko & Dickinson, 2011) where women exchange sexual activity for food. In their study of natural resource extraction and crime, James and Smith (2014) have also found a significant increase in violent crime following the introduction of natural resource extraction industries in multiple ‘boom towns’[1] across the US. The trend for upsurges in violence was considered to be so predictable that they advised those introducing natural resource industrial activity to their towns to prepare for such increases (i.e. through additional police recruitment). They attributed this phenomenon to several factors, one being that resource extraction appears to attract those most likely to commit violent crime: young men. This, they argue, is due to the jobs being physically demanding. James and Smith (2014) show that men are responsible for around 90% of (reported) violent crime, particularly young men. They also consider that those with a criminal history are more likely to work in the industry due to difficulties in gaining employment with a criminal record. High wages (ranging from $100,000 - $200,000 per year), loneliness due to being located in unfamiliar, rural, and remote areas, in addition to boredom[2] and a lack of familiar recreational activities have been found to result in increases in substance abuse in these areas (Goldenberg et. al., 2010; James & Smith, 2014). Workers have been described as living in ‘man camps’ – which are often mobile units located on the outskirts of rural communities. Within these ‘camps’ and the workplace, men talk about a ‘rigger culture’ that is based on sexism, hypermasculinity, and a disconnection from the local community (Goldenberg et. al., 2008). This creates a context where violence can thrive: (1) an influx of young men arrive as strangers, (2) they work within a culture that promotes sexism, physical dominance, and hypermasculinity, (3) are disconnected from that community, and (4) engage in substance (ab)use and destructive behavior in order to deal with the psychosocial impacts of their job (Dembicki, 2010). This is supported by the work of Berger and Beckmann (2010), who found that towns with natural resource industries, like ‘fracking’, include a higher rate of sex offenders. Reports from Aboriginal law enforcement further support the claim that there is a high prevalence of sex offenders in these industries. Former Rosebud Sioux Tribe Police Chief Grace Her Many Horses described her experience of policing the ‘man camps’ near her reserve as follows: “We found thirteen sex offenders in one man camp and that man camp is found directly behind the tribal casino. Our supervisors would tell us ‘Watch your kids. Don’t let them run through there’” (para. 14). She goes on to describe children and teenagers being assaulted, raped, and forced into sexual slavery. This is in addition to increasing sex work where vans of young women are driven to the man camps on their payday (Buckley, 2014). However, men working in the industry are not solely perpetrators. Chief Grace Her Many Horses stated that sexual assaults of men increased by 75% in these areas, resulting in a figure that dwarfs reports of male prison rape[3]. The similarities go beyond high prevalence rates, however, as some workers compare their experience of living and working in these camps with being in prison (Dembicki, 2010). What is talked about less often is how intensive resource extraction activities impact on Aboriginal communities and people, in particular on Aboriginal women – people currently working to overcome a history of colonial and racist oppression. For example, in 2006 Amnesty International found that Aboriginal women were more likely to be sexually assaulted by non-Aboriginal men. As natural resource extraction activities do occur on Aboriginal land, which can result in further displacement and resettlement of Aboriginal peoples, the known risk of increased sexual violence puts Aboriginal women at a disproportionately higher chance of being attacked and harmed. This coincides with recent reports of homicide in Canada, which show that Aboriginal women are the most at risk of violence, including sexual violence, but the authors admitted they were at a loss to explain why (Statistics Canada, 2015)[4]. The introduction and expansion of natural resource extraction industries in the global north, then, offers one of many illustrations of the important role of intersectional analyses in understanding the complexity and interconnectedness of colonialism, racism, sexism, violence and environmental degradation. Conclusions The intersections between gender, violence, and natural resource extraction go beyond these few examples. There are many other areas of equal concern, such as increases in domestic abuse, child neglect, and a lack of support for women trying to leave violent relationships (Shandro et. al., 2011). More cases of violence toward women are being reported, such as the rape and murder of a woman in North Dakota by men working in the town to earn money from the shale gas industry (Hotaling, 2013). There are also more statements being made regarding the increase in sexual assault in ‘boom’ towns linked to oil and gas extraction industries (as much as 300% increases in some areas, ‘North Dakota City Police See Increase in Crimes’, 2011). This growing visibility has exposed the need for discussion of the social and psychological implications of environmental issues on women and other oppressed groups, and should be viewed by feminists around the world as a call to action. Dr. Jem Tosh is a researcher at the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University. Their research focuses on sexual violence, intersectionality, and gender. She is the author of Perverse Psychology: The Pathologization of Sexual Violence and Transgenderism (Routledge, 2015) and Psychology and Gender Dysphoria: Feminist and Transgender Perspectives (Routledge, 2016). Dr. Maya Gislason is an assistant professor in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University and co-lead of the Social and Health Inequities Stream. Her research works at the interface between the social and environmental determinants of health to study the public health impacts of social-ecological game changers. Contact: jtosh@psygentra.com References Amnesty International (2006) Maze of injustice: The failure to protect Indigenous women from sexual violence in the USA. New York: Author Berger, J. & Beckmann, J. (2010). Sexual predators, energy development, and conservation in Greater Yellowstone. Conservation Biology, 24, 891-894. Brasier, K., Filteau, M., McLaughlin, D., Jacquet, J., Stedman, R., Kelsey, T., Goetz, S. (2011). Residents’ perceptions of community and environmental impacts from development of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale: A comparison of Pennsylvania and New York cases. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 26(2), 32-62. Buckley, D. (2014). Firsthand account of man camp in North Dakota from local Tribal Cop. Lakota Country Times. Retrieved 20 January 2016 from http://www.lakotacountrytimes.com/news/2014-05-22/Front_Page/…nd_Account_Of_Man_Camp_In_North_Dakota_From.html#.VlToP9-rRE4 Culhane, D. (2003). Their spirits live within us: Aboriginal women in downtown Eastside Vancouver emerging into visibility. American Indian Quarterly, 27, 593-606. Dembicki, G. (2010). Oil sands workers don’t cry. The Tyee. Retrieved 29 November 2015 from http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/08/16/OilWorkersDontCry/ European Parliament (2011). Impacts of shale gas and shale oil extraction on the environment and on human health. Retrieved 20 February, 2015 from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/document/activities/cont/201107/20110715ATT24183/20110715ATT24183E N.pdf Gaard, G. (2011). Ecofeminism revisited: Rejecting essentialism and re-placing species in a material feminist environmentalism. Feminist Formations, 23(2), 26–53. doi:10.1353/ff.2011.0017 Gilchrist, K. (2010). ‘Newsworthy’ victims? Exploring differences in Canadian local press coverage of missing/murdered Aboriginal and White women. Feminist Media Studies, 10(4), 373-390. Goldenberg, S., Shoveller, J., Ostry, A. & Koehoorn, M. (2008). Sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing among young oil and gas workers. Revue Canadienne de Sante Publique, 99(4), 350-354 Goldenberg, S., Shoveller, J., Koehoorn, M. & Ostry, A. (2010). And they call this progress? Consequences for young people of living and working in resource-extraction communities. Critical Public Health, 20(2), 157-168. Hotaling, A. L. (2013). The moral layers of fracking: From basic rights and obligations to human flourishing. Retrieved 15 September 2015 from http:scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/1053/ Hunter, L., Reid-Hresko, J. & Dickinson, T. (2011). Environmental change, risky sexual behaviour, and the HIV/AIDS pandemic: Linkages through livelihoods in rural Haiti. Population Research and Policy Review, 30(5), 729-750. James, A., & Smith, B. (2014). There will be blood: Crime rates in shale-rich US counties. Oxford Centre for the Analysis of Resource Rich Economies, University of Oxford. Retrieved 15 September 2015 from http://www.oxcarre.ox.ac.uk/files/OxCarreRP2014140.pdf Jones, T. & Pratt, T. (2008). The prevalence of sexual violence in prison: The state of the knowledge base and implications for evidence-based correctional policy making. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(3), 280-295. Kassotis, C., Tillitt, D., Davis, J., Hormann, A., Nagel, S. (2014). Estrogen and androgen receptor activities of hydraulic fracturing chemicals and surface and ground water in a drilling-dense region. Endocrinology, 155, 897-907. Koerner-Yeo, L. (2015). Don’t rush an inquiry into missing, murdered Indigenous women. The Huffington Post Canada. Retrieved 29 November 2015 from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/lara-koerner-yeo/missing-murdered-indigenous-women-consultation_b_8599126.html Laplonge, D. (2013). “I'm gonna frack ya…”: Gender and language in the extraction method of shale gas. Retrieved 15 September 2015 from http://www.factive.com.au/download/Gender%20and%20language%20in%20the%20extraction%20method%20of%20shale%20gas.pdf McCubbin, D. & Sovacool, B. (2013). Quantifying the health and environmental benefits of wind power to natural gas. Energy Policy, 53, 429-441. Mies, M. & Shiva, V. (2014). Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books. Minor, J. (2014). Local government fracking regulations: A Colorado case study. Stan. Envtl. LJ, 33, 59–59. Moss, J., Coram, A. & Blashki, G. (2013). Is fracking good for your health? An analysis of the impacts of unconventional gas on health and climate. Technical Brief 28, The Australia Institute. Northern Health (2012). Position on the environment as a context for health: An integrated settings approach. Prince George, Canada: Author. North Dakota City Police See Increase in Crimes. (2011, November 29). Claims Journal. Retrieved 15 September 2015 from http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/midwest/2011/11/29/195792.htm Regional Network on HIV/AIDS, Rural Livelihoods and Food Security (RENEWAL) (2008). New insights on AIDS, food and nutrition. Retrieved 4 October, 2015 from http://www.idrc.ca/EN/Resources/Publications/Pages/ ArticleDetails.aspx?PublicationID=59 Russell, K. (2013). Will fracking bring the soldiers home? Peace Review, 25(4), 552–560. doi:10.1080/10402659.2013.846189 Settle, M. (2015). Fracking: Applications for be fast-tracked in England. Herald Scotland. Retrieved 24 September 2015 from http://www.heraldscotland.com/ news/13593388.Fracking__applications_to_be_fast_tracked_in_England/ Shackleton, S. & Shackleton, C. (2012). Linking poverty, HIV/AIDS and climate change to human and ecosystem vulnerability in southern Africa: Consequences for livelihoods and sustainable ecosystem management. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 19(3), 275-286. Shandro, J., Veiga, M., Shoveller, J., Scoble, M. & Koehoorn, M. (2011). Perspectives on community health issues and the mining boom-bust cycle. Resources Policy, 36(2), 178-186. Smedley, T. (2015). TTIP: What does the transatlantic trade deal mean for renewable energy? The Guardian. Retrieved 5 August 2015 from http:// www.theguardian.com/public-leaders-network/2015/aug/05/ttip-free-trade- deal-renewable-energy-transatlantic-partnership-eu-us Smith-Korfmacher, K., Jones, W., Malone, S., Vinci, L. (2013). Public health and high volume hydraulic fracturing. New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health Policy, 23, 13-31. Statistics Canada (2015). Homicide in Canada 2014. Retrieved 26 November 2015 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/151125/dq151125a-eng.pdf Wotherspoon, T. & Hansen, J. (2013). The ‘Idle No More’ movement: Paradoxes of First Nations inclusion in the Canadian context. Social Inclusion, 1(1), 21-36. Notes [1] A term used to describe towns where natural resource extraction industries operate, resulting in massive changes to the area and its economy. [2] For example, men can work for 14 days followed by 7 days off (James & Smith, 2014). [3] These range from 1 to 21% depending on data collection techniques and definitions of sexual violence used in the research (see Jones & Pratt, 2008). [4] An issue that is well known to those from Aboriginal communities, which have responded with calls for an inquiry into missing and murdered Aboriginal women in Canada (Culhane, 2003; Gilchrist, 2010; Koerner-Yeo, 2015), as well as increasing activism in the form of movements such as Idle No More (Wotherspoon & Hansen, 2013).