It's entirely appropriate to respond to the questions I posed by challenging their terms. What I intended to do was to re-frame MR's questions about and objections to women's history/gender studies without the bitterness and snark. I meant to do so in order to invite responses that were not similarly bitter and snarky. Thanks to Janice, Sharon, and Claire, that's happening.

I've got to agree with Janice. 'Drained'? That's a rather loaded way of putting it, isn't it? And how would you measure it? History in universities has expanded and diversified tremendously within the last 40 years or so. In 1970 my field barely existed; now there are crime historians, not to mention specialist research centres, everywhere. Have they 'drained' resources from non-crime historians?

On question 3: firstly, I have to complain that you changed the subject here. Female historians are not all women's historians (and not all women's historians are female). But, assuming you really mean female historians, the answer could well be yes. How many studies have we seen about how female academics still have to juggle work and domestic responsibilities far more than their male counterparts; how many are working in part-time jobs as a result? It wouldn't be all that surprising if their productivity was affected.

(I'm also thinking about question 1, I promise, but that would be a post for elsewhere.)

It might be nice to set up a roundtable discussion (or discussions) on the changing nature of the profession from the impact of new fields to the impact of new types of people in the old career paths. This isn't our parents' university system any more! (I say that feelingly as a second-generation academic.)

Even though I came into the profession as one of that most old-fashioned type of scholars, an intellectual historian, I hardly yearn for the days of old when a limited canon and a few subfields were preferred. And, to be honest, most of today's "old guard" don't strike me as hoary reactionaries who think that any innovation is heresy. Many of today's senior historians came to their positions on the heels of the great changes of the 60s.

The history of crime, the new military history, the history of popular culture, environmental history and gender history are all subfields that are becoming integral (if not already!) to the discipline in this century. I can't imagine teaching without using material from each of these areas and I know that my own research has benefited from exposure to their arguments and ideas. I don't believe I can teach World War I without touching on the diplomatic issues that form the core of the traditional historical narrative, but I equally can't imagine teaching it without the stories of life in the trenches, colonial forces embroiled in the war, the havoc war wreaked on the battlefields, how women were part of the war effort and so on. The "new fields" have become central to all sorts of historical topics and I can't help but feel that they've added a lot to our historical perspective.

Regarding personnel issues: my feeling is that we all have more opportunities, rather than less, on a gross level. I teach at a university which came into existence in the 1960s and I see many other younger foundations or growing faculty lists at other schools. There are more positions for historians even within the limited confines of universities and colleges. However, I suspect that new Ph.D.s feel even more pressure as doctoral programs turn out graduates in force. When applicants spend years in post-docs, if they're fortunate, or string together overloads and adjunct teaching gigs for a decade or more, we're not doing a good job at matching output to demand.

We just need to be careful and not suggest that it's women historians or women's history that are making problems here.

You misunderstand what I thought that I clearly said. MR has closed his site to all but invited *readers*. There is no policy regarding whether blogs allow comments by readers or not.