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. Stephen Avatar
    Stephen

    @anonymous
    I’m very sorry to hear that, and also rather shocked.
    It would be instructive to learn a little more about what kinds of comments you mean, by whom they were made (e.g. by faculty colleagues? by fellow graduate students?), by how many (i.e. were these fifteen comments all made by different individuals or just a few?), and under what circumstances (e.g. at conferences, during tutorials, or in less formal social situations?).
    This is not to say that such behaviour would be acceptable under some circumstances but not others, but I think the circumstances do matter somewhat: e.g. I would be far more concerned about male faculty members making lewd or sexually explicit comments to female colleagues or graduate students during a conference than I would about drunken male graduate students making such comments in a tongue-in-cheek way to female graduate students in a bar.

    Like

  2. Stephen Avatar
    Stephen

    @Catarina
    You make some good points, though I wonder whether there is any evidence that the kinds of things you are talking about are among the principal reasons why women are under-represented in professional philosophy. Wouldn’t that suggest that men in philosophy are more likely to treat women this way than men in other professions where women are better represented? Is it also the case that women are under-represented in e.g. physics and mathematics because physicists and mathematicians tend to be sexually incontinent, lecherous misogynists?

    Like

  3. Neil Avatar
    Neil

    I am not trying to take sides here (I am saddened there are sides to take). I just want to mention that it is now widely recognised that testosterone is a social hormone, motivating prosocial behavior. Its role is context dependent. See, for instance: http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(11)00084-2

    Like

  4. Catarina Dutilh Novaes Avatar

    Just to be clear: my comment was only intended to address your question of how common such behavior is among professional philosophers, not to claim that this is one of the main causes of the low number of female philosophers. (Though I suppose I do think this is an important cause, and anecdotal evidence suggests to me that it’s worse in philosophy than in other academic fields.)

    Like

  5. Stephen Avatar
    Stephen

    “Just to be clear: my comment was only intended to address your question of how common such behavior is among professional philosophers, not to claim that this is one of the main causes of the low number of female philosophers.”
    Yes, sure, I appreciate that, and thanks for your comments.
    “Though I suppose I do think this is an important cause, and anecdotal evidence suggests to me that it’s worse in philosophy than in other academic fields.”
    Okay, I guess it’s possible, but then you’ve surely been exposed to a whole lot more philosophy-related anecdotes in general, and you should probably take into account e.g. availability bias.

    Like

  6. bzfgt Avatar
    bzfgt

    Stephen, you should check out this blog:
    http://beingawomaninphilosophy.wordpress.com

    Like

  7. bzfgt Avatar
    bzfgt

    Jon Cogburn’s post seems like a good starting point for a discussion of how biological and social factors may intersect and interact, and seems plausible in many ways. It also seems to take gender categories at face value in a way that may be problematic. I don’t know why it would be so crazy to try to have a conversation about this rather than sniping at each other.

    Like

  8. anonymous Avatar
    anonymous

    Stephen, I stopped going to the bar with fellow graduate students a few months after I started grad school. The explicit comments I was referring to were not so inappropriate as to have been made by professors in seminar. Mostly, they were made by fellow students while on campus but not during seminar (e.g., right before seminar begins, running into someone in the library, etc.). Often times they were very clearly meant as jokes–and some of them were made by people who I consider friends (which makes it much easier for me to really take it as a joke). Two that I was thinking of within the past year were at conferences (two different ones). One of the men in question I know was a student, the other I think was a faculty member but I actually didn’t know him, so I cannot be certain.
    In any case, I take your point (and I agree) that context matters–when a friend jokes that I was hit on at a conference because I’ve got a “such a nice ass,” he’s quite obviously doing me less harm than, say, a faculty member would if he were to likewise comment on my body during seminar but without humorous intent (which has never happened to me in a obviously sexual way–only ever in a “Your hair looks nice today” kind of way).
    Here’s where I think remembering how underrepresented women are, in at least some corners of philosophy, is important. In my own department, men outnumber women a little more than 5 to 1. That means it would only take 1 out of every 5 men in the department making one inappropriate comment for it to be possible that every woman had been on the receiving end of one such comment. Further, the men who have made such (explicit) comments to me tend to be repeat offenders. It doesn’t take very many people engaging in bad behavior for this to become a big problem.
    Most of the comments that have been made to me wouldn’t give me much pause if taken in isolation; rather, it’s the frequency.

    Like

  9. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Yes, I totally agree. It would be nice if it were possible to have an actual conversation about these issues with people. But some people seem unwilling to talk about these issues.

    Like

  10. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Hi Neil. Thanks for the link. I hadn’t seen that.

    Like

  11. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Yes! Thank you! That is the best philosophy blog out there! It lets people talk about the enormous problems that remain in our profession.

    Like

  12. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    Thanks, Catarina. That is spot on!

    Like

  13. Stephen Avatar
    Stephen

    @anonymous
    Thanks for this. It sounds to me like your problem is with the “repeat offenders” you refer to. My suggestion is that whenever it happens you make it crystal clear to them that you find their remarks offensive (or degrading, or whatever) and that they really need to stop doing it. If they continue, it could count as sexual harassment, so you could then speak to e.g. your head of department or a member of faculty with whom you feel comfortable. I would also hope that if you make your feelings known to fellow graduates about the behaviour of these men, some of them will confront them about it. You will probably find that they have also made such comments to other females in your department too, so speak to them about it. Such men need to be made aware, one way or another, that their that behaviour is simply not acceptable. The more uncomfortable they are made to feel about it, the less they will do it.

    Like

  14. anonymous Avatar
    anonymous

    Stephen, one would certainly hope that what you suggest would help–but unfortunately (at least in my case), it hasn’t. I am certainly not alone amongst the women (or in general–some of the men here feel the same as I do about such harassment) in my department in feeling as I do or having been treated as I have. Nor am I alone in having made my feelings clear both to fellow students, faculty, or head of department. If anything, doing so has made my experience significantly worse.

    Like

  15. anonymous Avatar
    anonymous

    (A follow up note to the bloggers here who might be able to do some detective work and figure out which department I’m in: Please don’t take what I’ve said as an indictment of any one in particular just because they happen to also be a member of my department. Many of the people here not only wonderful philosophers, but genuinely wonderful people)

    Like

  16. Stephen Avatar
    Stephen

    You and other students have reported cases of frequent, ongoing sexual harassment to members of faculty, and to your head of department, and it has made matters significantly worse?! This is dumbfounding!
    Well, apart from writing to your university Vice-Chancellor, and perhaps contacting the police, I’m not sure what to suggest, but I should imagine you can find plenty of good advice and support from people on this blog and the one linked to above by bzfgt.
    I wish you the best of luck.

    Like

  17. anonymous Avatar
    anonymous

    Stephen, I am a little dumbfounded that you’re dumbfounded. Seriously. In talking to women from other programs, I have the sense that this is just par for the course. I didn’t know there were philosophers plugged in enough to read this blog and removed enough to not know this!

    Like

  18. Stephen Avatar
    Stephen

    You are suggesting that female students reporting cases of frequent and ongoing sexual harassment to members of faculty and the head of department and this making matter significantly worse is “just par for the course” for female students in philosophy departments?

    Like

  19. John Protevi Avatar

    Stephen, you’re veering quite close to gaslighting territory: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yashar-hedayat/a-message-to-women-from-a_1_b_958859.html?
    What is so hard about accepting the testimony of “anonymous” here? The whole point of such exchanges, I would have thought, is to open your mind to the possibility that women have access to experiences that men do not. So, open your mind, please.

    Like

  20. Michael B Avatar
    Michael B

    I am not surprised things have been made worse since we live in Reality Land, not Should Land. From playground bullies to whistleblowing on countries, it is apparent that ‘no one likes a snitch’ as it were. Take it from someone who, with their family, have been through intimidation during a trial for violent crime for daring to press charges. Simply telling someone in authority, if it makes it better at all, is often preceded by a period of making it worse.
    FWIW: in speaking with a friend of her experience of yet another incident of unwanted, crude, sexual attention on a night out (good luck not making things short-term worse when you explain calmly and rationally that such advances are not wanted, before they shuffle off to their next potential victim) it occurred to me that I have never in my life experienced what it must be like to feel sexually threatened.
    I might be blissfully ignorant of situations I’ve been in, or overconfident in my physical ability to defend myself. But despite being on the wrong end of aggressive, abusive behaviour (usually in public, from strangers, usually verbal), in part because of my skin colour and how I wear my hair – I have never thought I was in danger of someone trying to force themselves on me.
    So I shouldn’t be dumbfounded by anything at all a person has to say about what it is like to have ‘joke’ comments made in e.g. bars, where alcohol is flowing, or even academic departments, since I live in a world where I am at hugely less risk of sexual assault, and seeing shifty looking people follow me in the street at night on my (foolish) walk home, only ever stops at the thought ‘They want my money or to beat me up’, and never moves to ‘They want to sexually assault me.’ I don’t even know what that must be like.
    I’m only speaking about my friend and not for any groups of people. But it hit me how utterly useless and irrelevant my ‘advice’ on how to deal with it would be.
    So it might help to try and remember just how hard it is to put yourself in someone else’s shoes if you’ve never walked a lifetime in them.

    Like

  21. Stephen Avatar
    Stephen

    To be clear, I am not questioning anonymous’s personal testimony in #58, where she says that some “explicit comments” have been made to her by “fellow students while on campus” that were “[o]ften times … clearly meant as jokes”, sometimes “made by people who I consider friends”, and that she was “hit on” by graduate students a couple of times at conferences. But while I can readily believe that this kind of thing is “par for the course” — between young people generally, not only students — I do not believe that it counts as sexual harassment (this may depend on what kinds of comments were made, but anonymous states that they were often meant as jokes made by friends, so I doubt it). I suggested to her that if she feels uncomfortable about such comments, she should make this crystal clear to whoever makes them, and that if they continue with such behaviour, then it might count as sexual harassment and she should report it.
    What I am querying, however, is anonymous’s sweeping generalisation that it is “par for the course” for female philosophy students to be subject to frequent and continual sexual harassment, and that when they make formal complaints about it to faculty and heads of department, this leads to said harassment getting “significantly worse”. This suggests that most philosophy faculty members and heads of department, when in receipt of such complaints, do nothing about it — or worse, even act in such a way that things get worse. This is what I am querying.
    I have nothing further to say on this matter.

    Like

  22. Anon Avatar
    Anon

    I agree 100% with anonymous’ comments. I’ll be trying to leave my own department–after having reported multiple incidents to various faculty members and administrators, only to have my situation worsen. If I fail in my attempt to transfer, it is likely I will leave the field altogether.

    Like

  23. Stephen Avatar
    Stephen

    I responded at some length but it didn’t go through. In any case, I’m done with this.

    Like

  24. John Protevi Avatar

    Your comment 71 unfortunately triggered our (hyper-active at times) automated spam filter. I found it and published it immediately.

    Like

  25. Nicole Wyatt Avatar
    Nicole Wyatt

    Questions about how hormones impact our experience of the world are interesting, and it is perfectly possible to have a conversation about them without treating testosterone as proxy for men or estrogen as proxy for women. It’s not only offensive, it’s bad science, since we all produce testosterone and we all convert it to estrogen, in varying degrees.

    Like

  26. anonymous Avatar
    anonymous

    Stephen, I think you have misunderstood me. Let me try to clarify. First, what I said in 58 was only in reply to your query about explicit sexualization. That is certainly not the only gendered problem within my department, and so you should not assume that it is the only kind of harassment. Second, I did not say such comments were often made by friends, though I did say that they were often intended as jokes and sometimes made by friends (Note: I haven’t given you the particulars of what those jokes were save one of the more innocuous ones).
    Second, I did not claim that female philosophy students are generally subject to frequent and continual sexual harassment nor that when female students make formal complaints that said sexual harassment gets significantly worse. What I am claiming is that being subject to frequent and continual sexual harassment is not far off from my own experience nor the experience of some of my friends at other programs and that making complaints in such an environment makes one’s situation worse generally. It’s not the case that since letting fellow graduate students know I find sexualizing comments offensive I have been subject to more of them, but rather it has led to other kinds of problems (e.g., being mocked as the over-sensitive woman who cannot handle a joke, etc.). For communities in which such behavior is common there is a reason it is common; where there is frequent and continual harassment there is likely a community culture which is not conducive to treating well those who attempt to change it. Communities without such a culture are less likely to have harassment occur in the first place, let alone frequently.
    Third, to follow up on Michael B’s comment, not only is it exceedingly common for those who complain to face intimidation and backlash as a result, it is exceedingly common for universities to mishandle even formal complaints (e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/nyregion/facing-complaints-columbias-president-calls-for-transparency-in-assault-inquiries.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0 ), fail to have a commitment to equity that translates to action, etc. If there is a problematic institutional culture, it can be difficult for even a department head who is committed to equity to adequately address problems within their department.

    Like

  27. Michael B Avatar
    Michael B

    To follow up on anonymous’ follow up to me (#76) can I just say this reminds me of a wonderful post I read on here before about ‘structural violence’. I don’t know if it applies but it reminded me of it anyway.

    Like

  28. r Avatar
    r

    It’s entirely plausible that complaints of sexual harassment often meet with negative reactions. Such complaints generate work and unpleasantness for the people in charge, and bad feelings among the people involved (who will often think they did not do anything wrong). In an environment which runs substantially on mutual good will, anyone who creates unpleasantness–rather than sucking it up and dealing–risks ruining important professional relationships. And this combined with the fact that dedicating energy to trying to change the situation is energy away from the all-encompassing academic work.
    This problem is, I think, quite general beyond the case of sexual harassment. I and people I know have certainly avoided ‘rocking the boat’ for these sorts of reasons. There were some serious incidents, but also more mundane things like dealing with professors who do not return papers, or do so unreliably, or without comments. In these cases it often looks better from the individual point of view to just work through it, rather than causing headaches for the people who one day will, god willing, be talking you up in some letters.
    I would find it truly remarkable if a department were such a peaceable kingdom that there were no counter-incentives to insisting on one’s rights and fair treatment. It is thus no surprise to me at all that many women have been put in this dilemma for reasons relating to their gender.

    Like

  29. bzfgt Avatar
    bzfgt

    “Questions about how hormones impact our experience of the world are interesting, and it is perfectly possible to have a conversation about them without treating testosterone as proxy for men or estrogen as proxy for women. It’s not only offensive, it’s bad science, since we all produce testosterone and we all convert it to estrogen, in varying degrees.”
    Exactly, and since there is not a scientifically agreed-upon definition of “man” and “woman” that bases itself on hormones, we should avoid naturalizing these terms based on hormone content, since to do so is a form of quackery. And we should be sensitive to how someone’s social position can affect the level of politeness or forbearance that they feel is appropriate in responding to such things while, I nevertheless think, continuing to try to have a respectful dialogue about things rather than making things worse by getting defensive.
    If it is true that a woman was never killed while saying “Dude, hold my beer” (I have no idea what this refers to by the way), it seems obvious that testosterone doesn’t put words like “Dude, hold my beer” in people’s mouths. Jon Cogburn’s post does nothing to mitigate the wrongness of using “testosterone” as a synonym for “male behavior” (or whatever it was in that original post up there in the clouds). It does raise some interesting questions, though; and if there has ever been someone on the internet willing to be corrected, it’s JC, so if someone fails to do so without making him defensive, they’ve really missed an opportunity.

    Like

  30. Jon Cogburn Avatar
    Jon Cogburn

    bzfgt,
    Sorry- “Dude, hold my beer” is what one says to one’s fraternity brother before doing something that requires both hands and is also absolutely moronic and dangerous. The phrase a common trope among stand up comedians. I should not have assumed familiarity with it.
    The posts I linked to above as well as the Neil’s post (53) suggest that testosterone might play such a role in males in different species undertaking unnecessarily risky behavior, though (as far as I understand Neil’s links) it also is just as likely to play a role in promoting prosocial status seeking behavior, especially in social milieus where status is gained by behaving prosocially.
    I do think that men (talking sex here, not gender) overall tend to be knuckleheads far more than women are, that this often leads to immense suffering, and also that some of this tendency towards knuckleheadedness is biological (though of course there are all sorts of epigenetic and social factors). But I’d be happy to not express myself this indelicately in public if there is a reason not to do so.
    I also find many of the traits associated with masculinity (genderwise) to be vomitous. Public Enemy had John Wayne’s number, at least with respect to many of the roles he played. And I own a samizdat copy of the famed underground poem “The Wussy Boy Manifesto” (on-line now at http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/The-Wussy-Boy-Manifesto-2773648.php ), and I’m not ashamed to say that it got many close friends through many a hard night.
    I do also realize that the biology alone is enormously complicated. Every time someone comes up with a reductive definition of male versus female sex, people find counterexamples in the next decade. The chapter on gender in Tristan Garcia’s book is in part an encyclopedic discussion of so many such cases that by the end the notion of sex starts to seem more socially constructed than that of gender.

    Like

  31. bzfgt Avatar
    bzfgt

    Thanks for the clarification about “Dude…” I wasn’t objecting to the way you expressed yourself exactly, but to the implication that there is a straightforward way to categorize males as people with more testosterone. But much of what you say may nevertheless be broadly true.

    Like

  32. Neil Avatar
    Neil

    Just for the record – because Jon mentions me – I don’t endorse the idea that men are naturally inclined to be knuckleheads. I don’t think it is possible to distribute causes in the way that seems to suggest. Testosterone, like every other biological influence on behavior, works in a social context (equally, cultural factors work in a biological context). I wouldn’t even accept that testosterone promotes prosocial behavior only when that’s a route to prosocial behavior: I think that is inconsistent with some of Fehr’s data.

    Like

  33. Jon Cogburn Avatar

    I think most people raising both sons and daughters find the knucklehead hypothesis to be something very natural to believe, which might be some highly defeasible evidence for its truth.
    I remember the very day that Emily and I got the ultrasound that showed Thomas was going to be a boy. We went to a party at one of my colleague’s house that day. We were just coming off of a particularly fertile time in our small department so there were four kids of around five to seven there.
    The little girl was sitting on the couch, petting the cat, and talking with us like a civilized human being about the books she was reading. At one point during the conversation I looked up outside of the picture window and the boys were all holding various gardening implements trying to impale the goldfish in the koi pond. As I looked at the Lord of the Flies type scene with all the rakes and shovels turned into weapons, my first thought (before intervening, no fish was harmed) was, “Oh my God, we’re going to have one of those?”
    I love my son just as much as I love my daughter, but it’s just a fact that it’s almost a priori that she’s never going to think it’s a good idea to poke at a goldfish with a rake handle. He’s a very sweet little boy, but it’s not a priori that he wouldn’t do something like that, especially if older boys were doing the same thing. I think the overwhelming majority of parents with both girls and boys will report similar observations.
    Obviously: (a) these stereotypes may not reflect statistical reality, and (b) to the extent they do, we barely understand epigenetic and cultural factors that start even in utero even with respect to sex, much less gender, (c) (as an instance of (b)) our belief that boys are more likely to be knuckleheads might be causally efficacious for them manifesting said behavior.
    Two questions- (1) When we look at adults though, it is clear that men play an outsized role in handing on misery to the rest of humanity. This is surely part biology and part culture, right? And, (2) Does Fehr’s data contradict the data and theories I linked to above suggesting that testosterone at certain levels both weakens the immune system and causes sometimes unnecessary risk taking behavior among human men?

    Like

  34. John Schwenkler Avatar

    I love my son just as much as I love my daughter, but it’s just a fact that it’s almost a priori that she’s never going to think it’s a good idea to poke at a goldfish with a rake handle.
    Wish I could say the same about my little girl, but she’s more likely to be the one leading her big brothers off on such an expedition.

    Like

  35. Neil Avatar
    Neil

    In a certain social context, testosterone might cause aggression; in another it might cause something else. Testosterone is a cause in both situations because it is something you can manipulate to change outcomes. But the causal role it plays is dependent on context; given that fact, you can’t parcel out causal contribution. Further, manipulating social context is manipulating testosterone – the levels change – as well as manipulating the effects of the hormone. Suppose it is true that men have higher levels of testosterone on average then women. Suppose, further, that that fact is highly resistant to environmental perturbation (I don’t know if that’s true, btw). None of it entails that men are more inclined in virtue of this fact to be knuckleheads, or to engage in risk taking behavior.
    “I think most people raising both sons and daughters find the knucklehead hypothesis to be something very natural to believe, which might be some highly defeasible evidence for its truth.”
    Social expectations and norms are transmitted implicitly at least as much and at least as powerfully as explicitly. That’s why gender-neutral parenting never succeeds (which isn’t to say it isn’t worth trying). Even if the knucklehead story were true, moreover, the idea that between gender effects would not be swamped by individual variations in a single family is laughable, which entails that the evidential value of the observation is zero.

    Like

  36. plus.google.com/115616621561471088402 Avatar

    Thanks for the post, Brit! I can definitely identify with many of these. Thanks for challenging those with privilege (cissexual, primarily white, men in philosophy) to re-think the behaviors that reinforce their privilege and perpetuate the exclusion of women and other minorities within philosophy.
    @Rachel, I am curious about your objections. I wonder what exactly your definition of “problematically essentialist” is. I am a cissexual female philosophy grad student. Personally, I don’t happen to have the extreme fear of public speaking Brit spoke of, and I am rather aggressive and combative (much more so than my boyfriend, actually, who is also a philosopher). However, I realize I am not completely immune to the effects female hormones have on my psychology and behavior. For example, I experienced pretty severe post-partum syndrome after the birth of my daughter. Is it problematically essentialist to attribute the irrational fears and anxiety I experienced to hormones? (The post partum period was to date my first and last time ever experiencing such symptoms). Thanks!
    Sarah

    Like

  37. Jon Cogburn Avatar
    Jon Cogburn

    Neil,
    I’m still not seeing a discussion of the literature concerning testosterone to which I linked, nor the reports of male transsexuals who give pretty consistent descriptions of phenomenological changes after undergoing testosterone therapy, including the kind of compulsions to look at women that Brit jokingly referenced. I couldn’t see how the article to which you linked addressed that, or the stuff about apes and fish. But it’s absolutely fine if you don’t want to discuss it in any detail. We’re all busy.
    As far as your later point, I think a lot depends upon what you mean by “gender neutral parenting.” Even at three my daughter overwhelmingly preferred the pink and purple Lego Friends sets over the Star Wars sets her brother prefers. She reliably invents elaborate stories that her legos act out, with dialogue, while he just has them shooting at one another and flying around. What is the “gender neutral” thing to do here? There’s a generality problem in describing the relevant maxims. It’s very hard because you want them to develop into empowered autonomous beings and so much of gender stereotyped behavior works to disempower both women and men. But kids are the definition of heteronomy with respect to their innate dispositions and environment, the former which you have no control over and the latter which you have much less control over than you thought you would prior to having kids.
    My statistics isn’t good enough to understand what “the idea that between gender effects would not be swamped by individual variations in a single family is laughable” actually means. Are you saying that in some sense the differences between two sisters and two brothers is going to be greater than any systematic differences that might exist between sisters and brothers? I don’t know how one would measure these things, and I don’t see what’s laughable.
    At my kids’ schools (preschool and elementary school) the boys get in a hell of a lot more trouble than the girls for doing knucklehead type things. It’s extraordinarily depressing because so many of the boys get lined up to take their ADHD meds every day. I don’t think the gender disparity is the result merely of the way the boys have been socialized by their parents prior to school. Am I making some statistical error in thinking this?
    Finally, the sort of behaviorist it’s-all-culture tick can be really dangerous to people’s well being. Remember that David Reimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer) used to be held up as a textbook case of how socially conditioned all of these things are. It can be a very dangerous null hypothesis, just as dangerous as assigning too much weight to biological factors.

    Like

  38. Helen Avatar
    Helen

    As there is a great age difference between my children (one is 9 years, the other 8 months old), I can only compare them as babies. My baby son is very sweet and gentle, whereas my daughter was all rough-and-tumble as a baby. I love their different temperaments, and I am actually happy it turned out this way because I’m sure I would have fallen prey to gender essentialism if it were the other way around. As Jon and John’s stories illustrate, kids differ a lot and it’s hard to generalize from one’s experience.
    Big shifts in hormone levels can affect one (as Sarah says) but that is not the same as saying that higher levels of testosterone leads people to be more aggressive. That is a contested claim.
    This randomized controlled trial shows zero effect in the role of testosterone and oestrogen in economic games:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/106/16/6535.full
    The role of testosterone in aggression is a continued topic of debate, and fact that many studies aren’t randomized complicates the interpretation of findings. A recent meta-analysis indicates that, if there is an effect, it’s a very weak one “Correlations ranged from −0.28 to 0.71. The mean weighted correlation [was] (r=0.14)”. Moreover, the authors also caution against sampling bias: there may be many more negative results (i.e., no relationship) that make the effect disappear entirely if they had been also included. After all, there is a cultural expectation that testosterone = higher aggression, so negative results are less likely to be published.
    See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135917890000032X
    On the whole, the weakness of the overall effect in this study (with an r of .14) it seems to me that the aggressiveness in philosophy cannot be attributed to testosterone levels in its population. Indeed, even if the weak correlation is valid and not a result of publication bias, the aggressiveness should be explained to a large extent by other factors.

    Like

  39. Neil Avatar
    Neil

    Jon, on any remotely plausible story of innate gender differences, the bell curves on any trait would overlap to such a great degree that it would take sophisticated statistical analysis and large population to detect them. No one denies that. The idea that we could look at a sample of 2 – or 3,5,or however big a family might be – and see them is crazy. The amount of noise would certainly be too great. Holding that parental observation is defensible evidence here is committing to a picture of gender differences that are enormous: much bigger than even the Baron-Cohen’s and other scientific sexists believe in. The explanation for parental observation has to be confirmation. The use of David Reimer is a further instance of the same bias.
    I don’t have any specialist knowledge about testosterone. My point was general: about the relative contribution of biological and non-biological factors in the causation of phenotypic traits. The claim wasn’t that it’s all cultural. It was that the idea of partitioning causes makes no sense in this domain.

    Like

  40. Jon Cogburn Avatar
    Jon Cogburn

    I think I must have violated some Gricean norm. I never wrote, nor intended to communicate by entailment or implicature, that people raising both girls and boys only look at their own children in forming beliefs about respective tendencies (as if the fact that my son programs in Scratch would provide evidence that 100% of boys program in Scratch).
    When you are a parent you also observe all the other kids in your kids’ classes, you talk with other parents about what’s going on in all the other schools, and then try to see how that reflects on your own kids. At least in the United States (given how atrocious much of the education system is) if you are at all responsible, then you have to do a lot of work navigating the system and advocating for your children.
    What I perceive is that the boys are far more likely than the girls to have a difficult time sitting still and far more likely to do knuckleheaded things that result in disciplinary problems. Most* of the parents I know that have kids of both sexes don’t find this at all surprising. Sometimes common sense is sensible.
    I’m sorry, that’s not laughable nor is does it rise even to the Kahneman/Taversky level of minor statistical error. It’s actually extraordinarily important since there is such a strong tendency to try to medicate the misbehaving boys into somnolence. If you happen to visit an elementary school during the time when so many of the little boys are lined up like the inmates in One Flew over the Cukoo’s nest, waiting to get their pills, then you really won’t look at the world the same way again.
    Different rates of drug prescription for boys and girls relating to school behavioral problems are easily googleable. Maybe some of this is that teachers accept less bad behavior from boys? Maybe some of it is that parents have socialized their boys worse than girls? I don’t know. But a decent null hypothesis would include the possibility that boys and girls (on average) as a matter of biology are more or less likely to respond to certain social milieu in characteristic ways.
    [*Clearly there are all sorts of exceptions. Nothing I’ve said is inconsistent with that.]

    Like

  41. Julie Klein Avatar
    Julie Klein

    I think Catarina’s description of the problem is spot-on.

    Like

  42. Julie Klein Avatar
    Julie Klein

    Jon, some of the criticism you’ve received here seems justified, but I want to agree strongly with your distress about the over-use of meds in children. The way we pathologize kids’ behavior leads to an appalling overuse of stimulants and, worse, anti-psychotics in children, particularly non-white and poor children. Medication has its place, but we largely ignore non-pharmaceutical interventions, social factors, institutional structures, etc., etc.
    Back to the main subject of the thread.

    Like

  43. Stephen Avatar
    Stephen

    “it seems to me that the aggressiveness in philosophy cannot be attributed to testosterone levels in its population”
    It seems to me that the putative explanandum — i.e. the claim that male philosophers tend to be more aggressive than female philosophers — has by no means been established in any case. It’s certainly not something I’ve ever noticed. When I try to recall the philosophers I’ve known who have had a tendency to be a little on the “aggressive” side when asking questions, just as many female as male faces/names come to mind.
    In fact, ironically, I find Berit’s post above to be far more aggressive — not to mention far more willing to embrace crude, oversimplistic gender stereotypes — than anything I can recall ever reading by a male philosopher (at least, anything written this side of WWII). I have never been at a conference with Berit, but I can well imagine she can be just as “aggressive” with her questions as any male philosopher.
    I have related problems with several other things she says in the post. To mention just one, it may be true that, on the whole, more women suffer from anxiety-related disorders than do men (though since we live in societies in which it is still much more difficult for men to admit to such things, or to openly talk about their feelings,it may be that they turn to other ways of dealing with it rather than seeking medical help). But even if it is true, surely what matters is that people don’t treat anyone harshly because they seem to be suffering from such a condition, not just that they be careful not to treat women harshly on the grounds that the incidence of such conditions is higher in the female population. Social-anxiety disorders are debilitating for anyone, and demanding that people just refrain from not treating women harshly when they show signs of such conditions strikes me as a little like advising people to be kinder to men who’ve suffered a stroke or heart attack than to women who have suffered the same on the grounds of its higher prevalence among men. Read her point 5 again. Doesn’t it sound to you like she is suggesting that women who suffer from nerves, anxiety and social phobias should be treated more gently than men who suffer from such things? It certainly does to me, and as someone who has long suffered from a very debilitating social anxiety disorder (for which I have long taken substantial amounts of daily medication), I find such advice really quite insensitive and offensive. As it happens, I have been judged harshly countless times, by both men and women, for not giving talks or dealing with question-and-answer questions with the same confidence as others, but then since I’m not a women, I guess I shouldn’t expect anyone to cut me any slack, right?

    Like

  44. Kristian Marlow Avatar
    Kristian Marlow

    Stephen, I think Brogaard mentioned anxiety-related disorders to provide an empathetic reason to be more mindful of how ones treats an audience. Some people aren’t just sensitive; rather, the nature of some brains is such that words or actions are taken to be offensive even if most other brains would disagree. So if our goal is to be kinder speakers/interlocutors, we need to be mindful of these differences.

    Like

  45. Nicole Wyatt (@nwyatt) Avatar

    I have a 4.5 year old. There are noticeable differences between boys and girls at her preschool. My experience and yours in this respect are the same.
    However, in this article in Sex Roles from 1975: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00288004 : researchers detail how people treat a 3 month old baby differently depending on what gender they are told they are. By the time you are observing gendered differences in children in preschool settings you are observing children that have been acculturated into gender norms for 3-5 years. Of course there will be differences between the boys and girls at this point. This is zero evidence that those differences are based in biology.

    Like

  46. Neil Levy Avatar
    Neil Levy

    Okay, I take back the claim it’s laughable. Let’s alter it to chuckleable. The same points still hold: even with controlled observation, you would not expect a person to be able to detect gender differences, on the grounds of effect sizes alone. Throw in the fact that it’s uncontrolled and the fact that people have expectations about gender (setting the stage for confirmation bias, salience bias, and so on), and the observations you report are what we would expect, given the hypothesis that girls are slightly more inclined to be knuckleheads than boys.
    I happened to come across a study on perceived warmth in girls yesterday. It reviewed a decade of research on the topic: the consistent finding us that people expected girls to be warmer than boys (more caring and empathic) but there was no evidence that they are.

    Like

  47. Chris Rawls Avatar
    Chris Rawls

    Thank you for this post, the conference information, and all comments.

    Like

  48. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    fwiw, I have now read Whipping Girl. I think some of the comments above about ‘transsexual’ are problematic (not just my own, but also those attempting to correct my use of the word). I think the following quote from Whipping Girl is helpful:
    “Attempts to limit the word ‘transsexual’ to only those who physically transition is not only classist (because of the affordability issue), but objectifying, as it reduces all trans people to the medical procedures that have been carried out on their bodies. For these reasons, I will use the word /transsexual/ to describe anyone who is currently, or is working toward, living as a member of the sex other than the one they were assigned at birth, regardless of what procedures they may have had.” (p. 31)

    Like

  49. Berit Brogaard Avatar

    I looked into the baby-blues issue. It looks like it may be caused by variations in the levels of testosterone after child birth, which may cause depression. Here is one study:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11955793

    Like

  50. Jon Cogburn Avatar
    Jon Cogburn

    Nicole,
    Thanks, this is amazing research. There’s also new research about the spatial IQ gap between male and female college students. Groups of them were tasked with playing first person shooter video games every day for six months. At the end of the experiment, the difference in mean spatial IQ had completely disappeared. What’s weird is that playing more of those games had no measurable effect on the male college student’s spatial IQ, but it on average increased the spatial IQ of the female college students. One wonders if it had no effect on the men because their culturation had already had them doing all sorts of things more relevant to spatial IQ. On the other hand, it might be the case that women on average are less likely to find things like fist person shooter games worthwhile. Or maybe some combination of both.
    One of the problems with interpreting causation from the research you cite is that you could only ever tell that this was entirely nurture and not nature if you raised cis-gendered girls as boys and vice versa. And this actually happened in the 1970s to David Reimer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer), who was put in several college and highschool psychology textbooks to prove that gender roles were just social. Please read the wikipedia page. The guy was a wreck and he killed himself. In clinical and experimental psychology, he’s an advertisement for just how destructive behaviorism became in it’s heydey.
    I don’t really have a truck about the actual role of testosterone. It does work as a metaphor for biological differences relevant to gender (which was Brit’s use originally). Maybe it’s not a good one, since from Neil’s stuff, it’s misleading.
    This being said, I do think that the “it’s only social” bias can be astonishingly cruel to the non-cisgendered, who report being trapped in the wrong biological sex. Note that for the vast majority of such people they report that they have no control over their gender identity!
    If gender roles are purely social then we would have to say that the non-cisgendered are all this way because of parenting. This is the kind of thing Freudians used to say to gay people (caused by bad mothering for gay men), and I think it’s just as cruel and wrongheaded today with respect to non-cisgendered. Moreover, there is strong growing evidence of genetic and/or epigenetic factors independent of culture inputs resulting in gender dysphoria.
    I would bet my car note that gender dysphoric children typically receive all of the cultural input that are measured in the research you and Neil cite, yet still identify strongly with many of the gender roles that are not normally associated with their biological sex.* I would also bet my car note that we will find more and more biological explanations of this (though I would not bet the extent to which these explanations are epigenetic).
    [*I hate to use “biological Sex” as if it is well-understood. It’s not! Every time someone comes up with a reductive account at a biologically small enough level (described (epi)geneticly), people find counterexamples.]

    Like

Leave a reply to Jon Cogburn Cancel reply