not a star

I saw an article headline (entire article is "premium access" so I can't read it - my uni has some access but it seems things are embargoed for a month). It's about the sad Ronell/Reitman scandal at NYU. (Fundamentally: a professor is accused of sexually harassing a student, but she is a woman, he is a man, they both claim they are gay, so it's complicated. Though some of the behaviors reported about her towards him seem super coo-coo to me.)

But anyway. The title of the article struck me:

"Avital Ronell and the End of the Academic Star"

And you know how many times I've railed about the "superstar" mentality, that says "some are great and all the other should just bow down to them"? Well, sadly, in the MeToo era, it looks like some of those superstars seem more like giant balls of flaming gas, instead, and while I feel like the "academic superstar" trope badly needs to die....maybe not with the path of destruction sexual harassment leaves in its wake.

But anyway. It struck me today: I don't think of myself as a "star." I am not outrageous enough or flashy enough or what I do as research isn't "sexy."

But.

I also realized there's another, better metaphor for what I do:

I am an academic journeywoman. I have paid my dues, I have learned my craft. I may not be flashy but I am solid and dependable and I get stuff done. I behave appropriately in my career.

And you know? I LIKE that image - "academic journeywoman" - because I tend to feel what our society needs is less flash and bluster and more people who just sit down and do the necessary work. More Rosie the Riveter and less, I don't know, pick your favorite unreliable over emotional 1940s movie star....

And yeah, I feel better about myself calling myself that than I do by saying "I'm not a star" because it's always better to define yourself as what you ARE, rather than what you ARE NOT