British Journal of Sociology of Education· 2026Q1
Gendered time inequalities in Zhihu users’ portrayals of women doctoral supervisors working in Western academia
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Zhihu comments sexualize and devalue the professional time of women doctoral supervisors in Western academia, portraying them as temporally deficient based on marital and child-rearing status, and expecting emotion labor.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Zhihu comments sexualize the professional time of women doctoral supervisors.
- Women supervisors are perceived as temporally deficient, particularly concerning marital and child-rearing statuses.
- Users expect women supervisors to perform emotion labor and are seen as moody.
- A time-centric analytical framework is proposed to understand these gendered inequalities.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Little is known about how social media contribute to perpetuating gendered inequalities in doctoral supervision through time. This article draws on a time-focused theoretical framework to analyse around 460 comments from Zhihu made by users who may include current or prospective Chinese doctoral students alongside members of the broader Chinese public. It examines how these Zhihu users’ portrayals of women doctoral supervisors working in Western academia are shaped by, and in turn reinforce, gendered temporal inequalities. Thematic analysis underscores how these women’s professional time is rendered sexualised, how they are considered temporally deficient across a spectrum of marital and child-rearing statuses, and how they are regarded moody and expected to perform emotion labour. This article contributes to scholarship on doctoral education, feminist theories of time, and social media misogyny by proposing a time-centric analytical framework that illuminates how Zhihu comments about women doctoral supervisors reflect and reinforce misogynistic temporal assumptions.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: General Health Professions
General Health ProfessionsHealth Professions