Over the weekend I was talking to some people about how we might increase the number of women in philosophy. The sad truth is that there still are only around 20 percent women in philosophy jobs. But as has been pointed out numerous times, the problem starts at the undergraduate level. If we could get more women to major in philosophy, there would be a greater pool of female applicants for PhD programs to choose from and more women to hire in tenure-track positions.

Of course, there is a super-simple solution to this problem. Hire more women in TT positions to serve as role models for undergraduate students. Problem: Vicious circle. There aren't enough women to hire. The star programs snap up most of the women on the market. That makes it difficult for less well ranked programs to find women to hire. Or so I am told.

I hasten to say that I don’t believe this is the full extent of the problem. I am quite sure that a man is sometimes chosen over an equally qualified woman for a PhD scholarship or a TT job. But I am going to set that aside here in order to focus on what we might do to attract more women and keep the women already in philosophy happy. Most of this has been said before but I don’t think it will hurt to repeat it.

  1. Most of us women are completely turned off by too much male testosterone. So, put an end to the aggressiveness.  Stop pretending you are a literary critic from New York Times. You can ask your questions in a kind and respectful way. It doesn’t decrease the quality of your question. Au contraire. There is nothing better than a sharp comment or devastating counterexample presented in a sympathetic and considerate manner.
  2. Stop treating us like sex objects. We know you usually can’t help it. It’s automatic, a product of evolution. But you can control it if you think hard enough about it. So, stop staring at our breasts when you talk to us. Stop discussing our butts when you think we can’t hear you. Treat us in a gender-neutral way.  We are not women or men when we do philosophy. We are just philosophers.
  3. Young women sometimes tell me that they don’t have anyone to socialize with at APA meetings because everyone already has made plans with their old buddies. The old boys’ clubs are meeting in the bar, making themselves available for a little chit-chat with others, but then around dinnertime they split. When you arrange your dinners and get-togethers (we know that’s why you go to these meetings), include some women. Ask your buddies if they know any women going to the meeting. Then email them and ask them to come out with you to your gatherings. Acting like you are part of an old boys’ club is soooo uncool anyway.
  4. When you are attending a talk or graduate seminar and a woman is asking a question, you might feel that she is going on and on and on. Stop that thought right away. It’s just something you feel. There are studies showing that we perceive women’s questions as longer and more tedious than men’s, even when they ask the very same question! So, let the woman speak, make sure she gets plenty of follow-ups, and if you think her question is 8 minutes long, divide that by 2.
  5. Don’t judge a woman’s talk or class presentation harshly because she is a little nervous. It is well known that more women suffer from anxiety than men. That includes social anxiety and fear of public speaking. Perhaps it is estrogen-related. We don’t really know. But it can be debilitating. So, when you see a woman give a talk that does not seem quite as professional as the talk by the man before her, cut her some slack. Focus on the content and the structure of the talk, not on the style of presentation.
  6. When you talk to a group of philosophers that includes both women and men, make sure that you are not just looking at the men. Men have an annoying tendency to ignore women when other men are present. It’s really uncomfortable for the women in the group, and it’s even worse if the group consists of just one woman and her male buddy. REALLY uncomfortable! Trust me. So, divide your attention evenly.
  7. When you teach lower-level undergraduate courses, make sure that you include a lot of literature written by women. That can be inspirational for young women. They might just think, “If she could do this, so can I.” Give the students a little background about the authors. Tell them about the women they are reading: where they work, what they specialize in, which other work they have completed. Make them come alive for your students.
  8. Finally, a piece of advice for women only. All you women out there, apply to this workshop:

 

Call for Submissions

 

A Networking and Mentoring Workshop 
for Graduate Student Women in Philosophy

 

www.princeton.edu/~mentorship

 

Co-Directors: Elisabeth Camp, Elizabeth Harman, and Jill North

 

Female PhD and DPhil students and prospective students in philosophy are invited to submit papers on any topic in philosophy to participate in a workshop at Princeton University, August 21-24, 2014.

Thirty-five students will be selected to participate. Seven students will have their papers discussed; fourteen students will serve as commentators, and fourteen as chairs. In addition to the seven philosophy sessions, there will be five sessions at which professional advice is offered by twelve faculty mentors.

The workshop will provide meals and shared rooms for three nights at the Nassau Inn for all participants. The workshop will reimburse up to $400 of travel costs. Participants traveling with children will be provided with a single room rather than a shared room.  The workshop will also provide information about how to find babysitters in the Princeton area.

We are committed to accommodating all participants with disabilities.

Mentors:

Karen Bennett, Cornell University 

Elisabeth Camp, Rutgers University

Ruth Chang, Rutgers University

Elizabeth Harman, Princeton University

Jennifer Lackey, Northwestern University

Sarah-Jane Leslie, Princeton University

Ishani Maitra, University of Michigan

Jill North, Cornell University

Debra Satz, Stanford University

Jennifer Uleman, Purchase College, State University of New York

Katja Vogt, Columbia University

Susan Wolf, University of North Carolina

 

Advice Topics:

            Getting the most out of graduate school

            Writing a dissertation  

            Publishing

            Presenting and participating at conferences

            Teaching

            Preparing for the job market

            Starting a tenure-track job

            Balancing work with the rest of life

 

Papers on any topic in philosophy are welcome. Submissions must be no longer than 7,000 words, including notes and references, and must be prepared for anonymous review. The submission deadline is March 1, 2014. We will notify all applicants of our decision by the end of May 2014.

The online submission form is linked from the workshop webpage: 

www.princeton.edu/~mentorship

This is the first in a series of three workshops that will occur biennially.  These three workshops will reach more than 100 graduate student women across five years.

Workshop Sponsors:

Cornell University Sage School of Philosophy

The Marc Sanders Foundation

Princeton University Center for Human Values

Princeton University Department of Philosophy

Princeton University Council of the Humanities

Princeton University Diversity Initiative

Rutgers University Department of Philosophy

Posted in ,

103 responses to “How do we get more women into philosophy (And a workshop)”

  1. Helen Avatar
    Helen

    Hi Brit: I was wondering if there are any numbers available on the no of contingent (adjunct etc) women faculty in philosophy. In academia, women are more likely to be contingent faculty. If this is true, the recruiting pool might be larger than departments realize. https://www.aacu.org/ocww/volume37_3/feature.cfm?section=1

    Like

  2. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    That’s a really good point! I am not sure whether anyone has collected data on this. Does anyone else know?

    Like

  3. Jon Cogburn Avatar
    Jon Cogburn

    Brit,
    Thanks so much for this!
    It’s really helpful to have concrete advice like this because people can so easily have good beliefs and intentions yet still cluelessly behave in really destructive ways.
    RE: #7- there are some helpful things on the web. This last June, Helen did a newapps post (http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/06/how-few-women-authors-are-there-in-intro-philosophy-courses-.html) that linked to this cool spreadsheet https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgJqzL_YyKKxdEwyd1o5c1lubFp2TGpiSlkyTE5jOXc#gid=0 , which has lots of syllabus ready articles and books by women.
    There was also a discussion at feminist philosophers three years ago where the commentators provided some other resources: http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/reader-query-suggesting-women-for-syllabus/ .
    If anyone knows of anything more along these lines, please share!

    Like

  4. AJ Avatar
    AJ

    “The star programs snap up most of the women on the market.”
    Isn’t this claim almost certainly false? Implicit bias afflicts all programs, whether top or otherwise. Implying otherwise misleadingly divides programs into good guys and bad guys.

    Like

  5. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Thanks, Jon! These are really great resources! This information will definitely help adding more literature by women to the syllabus.

    Like

  6. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Yes, I am sure it doesn’t quite reflect what’s really going on, which I also note in the OP. But it is a line I hear every so often. And even if it’s not quite right, we still need to think about how to attract more female philosophy majors. In fact, we need to think hard about how to attract more majors in general. If philosophy programs had more majors, administrators would also grant the programs more positions. So, there would be more jobs to get.

    Like

  7. Rachel Avatar
    Rachel

    Can we do without the cissexism, though, please? We don’t need to tie masculinity to hormones (e.g., testosterone). It’s not the presence (or absence) of sex hormones that creates things like “macho” culture, which I take to be your real target. Moreover, it’s problematically essentialist to tie aggression to testosterone. Target what you want to target: aggression. That aggression is more socially permissible for men (and in a lot of ways, required to be a “real” man in many societies) is the problem. There’s nothing essential about being a man, or having high testosterone, that one will be aggressive.

    Like

  8. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Thanks, Rachel. That’s valuable advice. It was meant to be more of a metaphor in an attempt to make the post a bit more entertaining. Although there are some correlations between high levels of testosterone and aggression, this obviously is not the explanation of why philosophy is a more aggressive field than, say, cognitive neuroscience (they can be vicious, too, but not quite as vicious as some philosophers). Anyway, the post was supposed to be slightly amusing while also making a point. I am sorry if the first part wasn’t successful.

    Like

  9. Lisa Shapiro Avatar
    Lisa Shapiro

    While these suggestions are helpful, we’ve had a lot of success with something quite simple: the chair sends letters congratulating the A-range students in our intro classes. A number of these students are prompted to take more philosophy classes, or even declare a major, by these letters (we know this anecdotally, because students often relate that the letter encouraged them). Many of these students are women. We’ve been doing this for about 4-5 years now. We currently have about 45% female minors, and about 34% female majors.
    It is hard, however, to say what the causal factors are: our faculty is over 1/3 women.

    Like

  10. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Excellent suggestion, Lisa! That will also help with the general problem of getting more majors in philosophy, which eventually will open up more lines. We have, in fact, recently started doing the same. But since we haven’t done it for very long, it is hard to determine what the effects will be. Hopefully, we will get similar positive results. We only have two female TT people in our department, though.

    Like

  11. Rachel Avatar
    Rachel

    Berit: I don’t see humour really anywhere in this piece. Maybe I’m missing the jokes. Also, though, when jokes come at the expense of disadvantaged groups, the jokes are bound to be “unsuccessful” in being funny.
    Maybe #1 and #2 are supposed to be funny. I don’t find either of them funny.

    Like

  12. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Humor wasn’t really the purpose. “Light and easily readable” is more like it; that’s normally my style of blogging. It’s not how I write my academic pieces.
    “Male testosterone” is not an unusual metaphor for a male-dominated, hostile and/or aggressive environment. Perhaps it’s unfortunate in the same way that blind (as in “blind review”) is unfortunate. But I wouldn’t consider men a “disadvantaged group.” So, I don’t understand your line about “jokes … at the expense of disadvantaged groups.”

    Like

  13. Rachel Avatar
    Rachel

    I’m not talking about cis men as the disadvantaged group affected by treating testosterone as a metaphor for masculinity and “male-dominated, hostile and/or aggressive environment[s].”
    I get that you don’t get it. That’s what cissexism and a bias blindspot is.

    Like

  14. zkp Avatar
    zkp

    Not men. Trans women. Rachel is talking about trans women. jfc

    Like

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Something I’ve noticed that is off-putting is when well-meaning people say, for instance at a conference, “It’s great that you’re doing [name any disproportionately male subfield, e.g., philosophy of physics] We really need more women in our field”. It feels awkward because one is wondering about whether people are interested in one’s research as well (and I’ve noticed that the “we need more women in x line” is seldom followed by discussion about the paper one just brought and one just saw.
    In general, I feel happiest in professional situations when I can “forget” I’m a woman. Now, I’m a cisgender woman who feels comfortable with her gender, but I don’t like to be singled out in this way, even though it’s well intentioned. Note that this is not just about #2 (treating people like sex objects), but rather treating them as professionals and colleagues foremost, and not just as “a woman in philosophy”.
    Similarly, if I am the only female keynote in a list of (5 or more) men, especially if they are more senior than me, I cannot help wondering if I was selected mainly because I was a woman. This is why it might be helpful for conference organizers who have a large lineup to have more than 1 female speaker if there are lots of speakers, and to avoid having the one woman be the only junior person. I know this is all hard as it’s hard to find women for conferences, and senior women tend to be over-asked, but a better gender balance in conferences (even going further than the GCC) makes one feel more comfortable. I also notice I enjoy conferences more that have a good gender balance in terms of speaker lineup (both men & women), I tend to ask more questions during such conferences.

    Like

  16. Rachel Avatar
    Rachel

    Yep, anonymous, that’s called attributional ambiguity. It sucks…a lot.

    Like

  17. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    That’s a good point, too. I got it a lot when I wrote a lot about the knowability paradox but not so much now that I work a lot more in phil mind.

    Like

  18. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    I thought I granted that point in my first reply to you.
    Then you started attributing joking about disadvantaged groups to me, not specifying which group you had in mind or which jokes you had in mind. If I didn’t know better I’d have thought you were trying to prove that women can be aggressive, too.
    I agreed with you right from the start. So, stop the B.S.

    Like

  19. Michael B Avatar
    Michael B

    This seems so obvious that I’ll probably look silly but I’m ok with that. Has anyone actually asked the target group of women themselves, what would attract them more to philosophy/what puts them off?
    Whether this be at every stage during undergraduate, master’s or phd: what are the main reasons you are dropping this subject? What changes would encourage you to stay? Etc. The wording of questions can be dealt with by a statistician, I’m just floating an idea.
    Or asking a sample of new undergraduates not taking philosophy why they didn’t pick it, what would make it more interesting etc.
    Has anyone done this?

    Like

  20. Tim O'Keefe Avatar

    Hi Michael B. It’s not precisely asking women directly why they do or don’t continue, but a few people at Georgia State have been doing surveys of our Intro to Philosophy students to try to figure out what’s going on. Tania Lombrozo described their initial findings here, and the blog Feminist Philosophers linked to her description and had a good discussion of the issues here.

    Like

  21. David Hildebrand Avatar

    Without addressing the issue of cissexism, I would like to say that (as a man) the comment about testosterone makes sense. It is an important reminder for me and (I think) other men in philosophy to be vigilantly mindful about both our behaviors and our micro-behaviors. Many of our habits were learned (and rewarded) very early on in our boyhood, and it is simply going to take both our vigilance and regular reminders (sometimes metaphorical) like yours to keep at it. I have a son and a daughter and I want them to inhabit a more equitable and nurturing world.

    Like

  22. Michael B Avatar
    Michael B

    How interesting, Tim, thanks for replying. Good luck in your and your colleagues’ investigations!

    Like

  23. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    That’s a great suggestion! It would also be a good idea to ask majors from all kinds of disciplines what they like about the discipline besides the subject-matter.
    We have actually started having some women gatherings with undergraduates (among other things) in order to ask them questions like this (only one so far). Some of their answers mimic what I said above (less aggressiveness, more inclusiveness, less competitiveness, etc).

    Like

  24. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Thanks so much for these resources as well. That will be helpful in our further exploration of this (in our department and elsewhere).

    Like

  25. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Hi David, that makes a lot of sense.
    I will obviously be more careful before using “male testosterone” as a metaphor in the future for the reasons Rachel pointed out, and I am sorry I was offending transsexuals.
    But I agree with you. I think there may well be differences in men’s and women’s behaviors. These behaviors may well be learned as you are suggesting rather than a product of genes and hormones. I think it’s good advice for everyone to be “vigilantly mindful” about both our behaviors and micro-behaviors.

    Like

  26. Michael B Avatar
    Michael B

    Well maybe it wasn’t so dumb a suggestion after all then!
    I just figured asking only women who are majors (or grad students and beyond) was a bit like in World War 2 when, in order to build up a defence strategy, pilots returning from dog fighting were asked the most common position from which enemy planes would attack; of course the most dangerous positions of enemy attack were the ones used on the pilots who never made it back to answer the question!
    All the best with your investigations.

    Like

  27. Rachel Avatar
    Rachel

    Sigh. Why do I bother?
    “I will obviously be more careful before using “male testosterone” as a metaphor in the future for the reasons Rachel pointed out, and I am sorry I was offending transsexuals.”
    “offending transsexuals” is itself offensive. You might notice that I didn’t use that word…and there are reasons behind that.

    Like

  28. Jon Cogburn Avatar
    Jon Cogburn

    Testosterone does almost certainly play a role at least in determining capacities that are more or less likely to be expressed in behavior (given social pressures). For example, women have stronger immune systems than men on average, which helps them fight off a whole host of diseases better but then makes them more susceptible to autoimmune disorders. Recent research on humans and animals suggests that hormones, in particular testosterone, play a large role (see (e.g. http://www.psmag.com/navigation/health-and-behavior/girls-immune-systems-rule-boys-drool-73250/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+miller-mccune%2Fsummary_feed+%28Pacific+Standard+-+Summary+Feed%29 ).

    From the article (hat tip Andrew Sullivan):

    This month, a team of scientists at Stanford University has reported (http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/869.long ) some of the best evidence yet that testosterone directly influences immune system function in men. … This finding that testosterone may dial down the immune system in humans is consistent with the results of studies of other animals, ranging from fish (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17891730 ) to chimps (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21143892 ). But why would an essential male hormone deliberately handicap the immune system?

    The answer might be that this is one of those odd outcomes (http://wtfevolution.tumblr.com/ ) that follow from the perverse incentives of evolutionary logic. In 1992, a pair of biologists at the University of Tromsø in Norway proposed the “immunocompetence handicap hypothesis,” ( http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2462500?uid=3739688&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103355141367 ) which essentially says that males will perform dumb, dangerous stunts to impress females. The idea behind the immunocompetence handicap hypothesis is that, in order to prove their genetic fitness to potential mates, males make a trade-off between a robust immune system and a set of elaborate, testosterone-driven secondary sex characteristics, like brightly colored plumage in tropical birds.

    I’d never thought that the stuff showcased on television’s Jackass was a human equivalent to plumage, but it’s not a crazy idea.
    And I can’t see how it’s too big a stretch to think that testosterone plays a role in philosophy conference jackassery. Or that jokingly referencing this theory (in a set of concrete advice to help men change their behavior!) is cruel to the non-cisgendered. I just can’t.
    I realize me not getting this might be of a piece with the very kind of ignorance that Brit is correcting. If so, it would be extraordinarily helpful for someone to spend more time explaining what the problem is. There’s at least one “this American Life” about what it’s like to undergo hormone therapy as a transgendered person. The transgendered person being interviewed went into great detail about how the testosterone supplements radically changed the way he looked at people exactly in the way Brit jokingly presupposed. Griffin Hansbury’s essay in “Transgender Subjectivities: A Clinician’s Guide” also makes exactly this point (http://books.google.com/books?id=ArN5-dW4c38C&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=testosterone+male+gaze+transexual&source=bl&ots=PBc9oikIu6&sig=Wu_dbIFZ75apYS7wmv9FIJA1Nac&hl=en&sa=X&ei=mhLpUv6uE4rxoASU0YGwBQ&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=testosterone%20male%20gaze%20transexual&f=false ) about being a perpetrator of the “male gaze” after receiving supplements.
    These stories are just anecdotal, but at some point in the not too distant future there will be solid social science on them, and given everything else we know about testosterone, it’s not too crazy to see Brit’s presupposition completely verified.
    So where is the sin? If your claim is that she’s somehow essentializing people vis a vis biological factors, that’s just wrong because her post makes no sense unless we have a wide degree of latitude in how and whether are innate desires are acted upon. If she really thought that our behavior was biologically necessitated, why would she have written it?
    Again, I’m just completely missing something, and the fact that you don’t explain exactly what everybody else is doing wrong makes it seem like you are concern trolling. Please try to explain in a helpful manner. Nobody writing here wants to make jokes at transgendered people’s expenses or to unwittingly write things that are hurtful. But just calling what we write offensive and leaving it at that doesn’t help anybody writing at newapps* or anybody reading this.
    [*I’m not speaking for any of the other newapps writers in the above. Maybe they understand what the problem is and I’m being particularly dense. I do think a more detailed explanation would be helpful to more than just me though.]

    Like

  29. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    I am puzzled. Please explain the second to the last sentence (‘ “offending transsexuals” is itself offensive.’).

    Like

  30. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Thanks, Jon. I would like more explanation, too, so I can fully appreciate what the problem is. Maybe I am slow but I still don’t really understand it.
    The empirical evidence you are providing above is really interesting. I am going to look closer at the links (not for these purposes but because I think it’s genuinely interesting. As an aside: A review paper recently hypothesized that synesthesia is related to immune system defects as well. I don’t think there is any connection to testosterone but who knows?)

    Like

  31. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Thanks, Michael. Nice analogy! (although a sad outcome for the pilots)

    Like

  32. Rachel Avatar
    Rachel

    Jon, I can’t tell if you’re trolling me.
    Are you kidding? Testosterone has some effect on immune systems, therefore Jackass behaviour?
    Because, you know, that couldn’t possibly be a social phenomenon.
    But I’m done. I bet neither of you even see these as microaggressions.

    Like

  33. Noble Savage Avatar
    Noble Savage

    Uh. I have to butt in here. Yeah. Transsexual is offensive because not everyone who doesn’t identify with their prescribed gender identity is transsexual. Also, a joke about white males that is stereotypical needn’t be problematic or affect just white males. It affects others in virtue of excluding them or including them or simply because of the classification. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

    Like

  34. Megan Avatar
    Megan

    This piece is nice in that it acknowledges that the causal connection between testosterone and aggression is widely believed to hold, but is actually highly uncertain (and much more likely to be false).

    Like

  35. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    I understand what you are saying. But I was saying “I am sorry that I was offending transsexuals”. Rachel had already used the word “trans”, so why was that particular comment offensive? Please explain.

    Like

  36. Audrey Avatar
    Audrey

    Berit – it’s because the word “trans” is not an abbreviation for “transsexual.”
    (incidentally, can any blog admin delete the above that shows my email address?)

    Like

  37. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    However, I don’t really understand why trans people expect others to be experts on trans issues. Trans people are probably not experts on all issues pertaining to, say, asexuals, polyamory, etc.
    Of course, you may say that they don’t expect that. But it would be nice to get a dumped-down explanation of what is offensive and what is not up front.

    Like

  38. Jon Cogburn Avatar

    Rachel,
    Yes, I don’t see anything I wrote as aggressive, micro or macro.
    I do see you radically misconstruing what I wrote, as well as the articles I linked to. “therefore”? Really? Nobody I linked to or quoted said anything that remotely suggests that suppressed immune systems cause men to do more of certain kinds of dumb things than women do. That men are stupider in respect to jackassery is pretty constant across societies and history (How many woman in the entire history of the world have inadvertantly brought about their own death after saying “Dude, hold my beer”? Probably zero.). It will be much easier to remediate this if we understand the biological and social factors that give rise to it.
    Likewise, you are the one who over and over again writes as if phenomena are exclusively “social” or “biological,” and that the two shall never meet. My post explicitly said at the outset that such biological factors “determining capacities that are more or less likely to be expressed in behavior (given social pressures).” Berit’s entire post would make no sense at all if there weren’t social mechanisms that can work to help us all be better people.
    Likewise, you are the one dismissing testimony from transgendered people about the effect that testosterone injections have on the way they find themselves drawn to look at women. Again, these accounts are anecdotal at the moment, but who are we to someone that what he is going through is entirely social?
    I wasn’t kidding or trolling anyone. I really do want an explanation of how anything written by the people you are attacking is likely to be hurtful to non-cisgendered people.
    Obviously, you have no obligation to answer, but you can’t expect us to take you seriously if all you do is attack and don’t try to help people see what they are supposedly doing wrong.

    Like

  39. Noble Savage Avatar
    Noble Savage

    Wow. Did we solve the is-ought gap on this comment thread too? Did I miss something?

    Like

  40. Rachel Avatar
    Rachel

    No one’s asking you to be an expert. I’m asking you not to say extremely offensive things. That is not a high bar.
    http://tranarchism.com/2010/11/26/not-your-moms-trans-101/
    I don’t know, try Google? Try reading a book like Serano’s ‘Whipping Girl’?

    Like

  41. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Thanks for the references.

    Like

  42. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Sorry to be going on about this. But wiki says: “Transsexualism describes the condition in which an individual identifies with a gender inconsistent or not culturally associated with their assigned sex, i.e. in which a person’s assigned sex at birth conflicts with their psychological gender.”
    So, contrary to what Audrey said, wiki takes “trans” to be synonymous with “transsexual” (or at least that would follow, given the way “trans” is defined in the reference provided just above).
    Is this wiki entry wrong? If so, shouldn’t it be fixed?

    Like

  43. Audrey Avatar
    Audrey

    Berit – it’s true that it would be nice to know beforehand so that one could avoid saying offensive things. On the other hand, it’s not my job to stop people from hurting me, it’s my job to stop myself from hurting other people. This means I don’t see it as a trans person’s job to educate me on trans issues so I don’t inadvertently say something nasty to them (I’m cis). It’s my job to try to avoid doing that in the first place. (I mean, I don’t especially like it when men tell me to educate them about feminism when they’re perfectly capable of doing it themselves. I might give them some pointers, but it’s really not my responsibility to do so.)
    I guess the point is that if someone’s offended by what you (really anyone) says, that’s a signal that you said something that was actually offensive, even if you didn’t mean it as such or have any clue that it could have been offensive. But we can’t put the burden on the person who was hurt by it to fix it in the first place. This last point is actually just a generalization of what you’re saying in your post, I think. It’s putting (at least some of) the burden on men to make the philosophical environment less hostile to women. Hopefully that analogy makes sense.

    Like

  44. Rachel Avatar
    Rachel

    I can’t believe you just turned to Wikipedia as a reference.

    Like

  45. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    I didn’t. I read the reference you gave me first. I have also been reading your blog. I just thought I’d check out Wiki, and it appears to me that people could be mislead by what it says, and that might lead them to call trans people “transsexuals.” So, I think it should be corrected.

    Like

  46. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Thanks. Yes, that does make sense.

    Like

  47. anonymous Avatar
    anonymous

    I do just want to point out that talking about hormones does not entail talking about biological/gender essentialism. This is why power posing works, right? Socialized behaviors like the way we stand, sit, etc. do affect hormone levels.

    Like

  48. Stephen Avatar
    Stephen

    “Stop treating us like sex objects. We know you usually can’t help it. It’s automatic, a product of evolution. But you can control it if you think hard enough about it. So, stop staring at our breasts when you talk to us. Stop discussing our butts when you think we can’t hear you. Treat us in a gender-neutral way. We are not women or men when we do philosophy. We are just philosophers.”
    Am I the only male philosopher who is both taken aback and somewhat offended by this comment? I have been to hundreds of philosophy conferences, and can honestly say that I have never witnessed this sort of behaviour. Is there a consensus amongst female philosophers that male philosophers tend to treat them like this? I’d be highly surprised if that’s the case.
    Or is this another one of those parts of the post that was intended to be “humorous”? If so, I for one find it about as humorous as I would if it were a male philosopher “joking” that female philosophers should spend less time worrying about their hair, shoes and make-up, and stop trying to climb the career ladder by seducing senior male academic: “We know you can’t help it, it’s probably biological, a product of evolution, but please try…”
    Are there other female philosophers who feel that male philosophers treat them like “sex objects”, and can’t stop staring at their breasts (that is, when they’re not ignoring them completely, or else talking to each other about their “butts”)?

    Like

  49. anonymous Avatar
    anonymous

    Stephen, I definitely don’t think this is true of all male philosophers — but it’s also true that this isn’t super far off from how I feel I am very, very, often treated by some male philosophers. Without even thinking hard, I can remember about 15 such explicit comments made to me within the last year. Many more less explicit but still along the same lines.

    Like

  50. Catarina Dutilh Novaes Avatar

    Stephen, my experience is that the ‘nice’ guys, the guys who don’t engage in such behavior, severely underestimate the extent to which these things happen. First, because they don’t do them themselves, and second, because the behavior doesn’t happen in front of their eyes. So there is a clear problem of perception: the guys who don’t do this kind of stuff think there is no such problem (because they don’t do it), and the guys who DO do this stuff also think there is no such problem, because for them this is ‘acceptable’ behavior.
    Also, I happen to have some male friends in the profession who occasionally tell me what other male philosophers say about me when I’m not around. Even though (or perhaps because!) these other guys are themselves also friends of mine, I find it disturbing that they deem it appropriate to say such things about one of their colleagues, who happens to be female. So yes, there’s a lot of that.

    Like

Leave a reply to Noble Savage Cancel reply