A new generation of women academics had been joining HERDSA since the mid-1980s. They wanted HERDSA to be at the forefront of seeing gains were made by women academics and they felt that this was not a view being represented in the HERDSA Executive. They acknowledged that women had been active in HERDSA since its beginnings. Barbara Falk led one of the most respected units in Australasia and was enthusiastically involved in the establishment of HERDSA, becoming HERDSA's second President. Jackie Lublin was one of HERDSA's first members and convened two conferences, and had a hand in everything including the newsletter and workshops. Women like Jackie Lublin, Ingrid Moses, Peggy Nightingale and Margot Pearson, were now directors of Centres and had managed to circumvent the blocks to promotion and publication by being skilled in administration and policy. But Margot Pearson recalls a sense that the Executive was “kind of blokey at the top” and the expectation was that the women Executive members were the people doing things.

Led by Elizabeth Hegarty, Peggy Nightingale, Margaret Buckridge and Carol Nicholl, a group of women HERDSA members resolved that whenever something came up that looked as though it might be gendered, it was going to be confronted. They were concerned that there had only been two women Presidents in HERDSA's 20 years. Female membership on the Executive was at a low level and there was a lack of HERDSA policies on equal opportunity. The group's list of grievances reflected their frustration that, despite all the work that has occurred on gender equity in the last twenty years, the structures within which they worked were still male-dominated.

Comments on women's issues were made throughout the 1985 HERDSA conference to such an extent that a workshop was organised to formalise the discussions. Several strategies for change were suggested, not the least of which was that HERDSA needed to devote more time to these discussions at the next conference.

The 18th Annual conference at Churchill in Victoria in 1992 was the scene for what was known at the time as "the women’s revolt". The conference conveners decided to experiment with a plenary day offering six different perspectives on learning, presented one after the other with little time for discussion. Matters came to a head when a sexist remark in one of the presentations caused a walkout by a large group of women, who went on to meet to discuss what to do about the intransigency of the HERDSA leadership. Mike Prosser was giving one of the keynote presentation and agrees that sexist comments were often being made indicating a lack of awareness among some people which meant that the issue needed to be dealt with. Alison Viskovic says one of the issues was the lack of encouragement for women academics. She gives the example of the group wanting to know what the journal editors were doing to mentor women to get their academic papers into the journal.

A group of women had been meeting at the two previous conferences to discuss gender theory. They were concerned that the conference had failed to address the role of gender in higher education. They insisted that time be set aside at the AGM for a discussion of gender, accepting that it was not the ideal venue for an extended exchange of views. John Jones was President at that time and chaired the forum with some trepidation, such was the strength of the views being presented. Margaret Buckridge admits that most of the hurt feelings came about because the criticisms seemed like a charge against individual men, rather than highlighting shortcomings that the Society needed to address. Barbara Grant recollects the disquiet at the domination of male voices in the conference, particularly in the keynote presentations. Barbara remembers it was a difficult session with lots of people feeling attacked and uncomfortable. 

of course lots of people did feel attacked, and did feel uncomfortable. It was a pretty uncomfortable session. But it seemed like it was kind of time for that challenge to be made

Despite the resulting rifts with those on the receiving end of the criticism, which took several years to mend, John Jones believes having the forum was ultimately productive for the Society.

There was a public forum and I was President at that time and I chaired it. I thought, 'oh my God!' but in fact it was, although some people were very upset by it, I think it was reasonably productive.

Mike Prosser agrees that the issue needed to be confronted but wonders about the effectiveness of attacking individual people.

They were right actually. The women were right. Comments were always being made about things. And in some ways the key people were male. I don't disagree with the idea that there was an issue requiring to be dealt with. Sometimes I think they attacked the wrong person, but that's not the point really. I've always believed that at that stage it had to be confronted.

The group at the centre of the women's revolt highlighted three main issues at the AGM forum: the failure of the Executive to acknowledge the importance of gender issues in its policies and procedures; the lack of opportunities provided for women to take leadership roles at the conference; and the persistence of sexist language within the Society. All these concerns were taken up at subsequent conferences.