Jealous of all the body enhancements women get to buy? Looking for a way to spend all the extra cash you’ve got in the recession? Look no further. Ript is here to help you.
Thanks, Mr Jender! (Who sent me the link. He’s not the guy in the photo.)
(Due to a bit of confusion induced by the july 3, pre-July 4 holiday, the Sunday cat is appearing early.)
The bat was seen gripping the hull as the space ship launched on March 15, 2009.
… on the same topic as jj’s last post – but more positive news. In the past conferences notable for their absence of female speakers have been held up, and those which have laudably offered a more inclusive programme also heralded. The Society for Applied Philosophy’s recent annual conference, in Leeds, had the following speakers in its plenary sessions:
The Unity of the Virtues
Professor Julia Annas, University of ArizonaSome strengths of a consequentialist approach to human rights
Dr Elizabeth Ashford, University of St Andrews
Integrity and Fragmentation
Professor John Cottingham, University of ReadingDisease
Dr Rachel Cooper, Lancaster UniversityVirtue Ethics: What Is It, And Why Should Anyone Believe It?
Professor Roger Crisp, University of OxfordWhat is a human right? A question for applied philosophy
Dr John Tasioulas, University of OxfordLies, Damned Lies and Politicians
Professor Susan Mendus, University of YorkThe Political Expression of Forgiveness: Irish Reflections
Professor Nigel Biggar, University of Oxford
Really good to see high profile women philosophers well-represented! Credit to the SAP.
Marcel kinsbourne
John Bickle
Andrea Scarantino
Daniel Weiskopf
Well, “Andrea” is actually a man, so they are all men. And that means, of course, that they all meet a necessary condition on being a keynote speaker at a conference! {SNARK ALERT!}
Two of them are also among my most favorite people to see at conferences, so I hardly want to lament their being featured at the 2nd Annual Interdisciplinary Conference on Perception, Action, and Consciousness. Still, the area is one in which a lot of women are doing interesting work.
Well, I will write…
but we should be sad at this one. Women choosing to live with integrity in a way that responds to the present society and aids the needy in their community and the world may face difficulties for just that.
The current investigation by the Vatican is two-fold. One, an apostolic visitation, is something usually done in response to a serious current problem, though none in this case is obvious. The second investigation is a doctrinal assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which has 1,500 members from about 95 percent of women’s religious orders. This investigation was ordered by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
It all sounds ominous. One worries that current nuns’ lives were not always foreseen by agreements entered into many years ago. If so, they may turn out to be untenable. And the nuns disagreeing with Rome on matters such as the male-only celibate priesthood and the acceptability of homosexual sex may be censured.
If any of our readers is in closer touch with what is going on, please let us know what you think.
Hurrah! India has decriminalised gay sex, overturning a law imposed by the British. (Thanks, CR!)
UK schools are being given guidance on signs that pupils may be getting forced into unwilling marriages, and are being asked to alert authorities. Now is a key time– as school holidays are approaching, and forced marriages often happen during the holidays. It’s clear from the way the guidance is written that schools are often reluctant to interfere in what they view as cultural or religious traditions. That’s why Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant explains:
“I should make it absolutely clear there is no culture and there is no religion in which forced marriage should be acceptable or indeed is acceptable,” he added.
“I know there are maybe some people who think this is an issue about Islam – it’s not. Islam does not recommend or accept forced marriage. Marriage in every religion has to be freely and openly consented to.”
Jasvinder Singh of Karma Nirvana, a national campaign group against forced marriages, emphasises a similar point:
Interestingly, of course, one can agree with Singh and disagree with Bryant. Everything Singh says is true even if there *is* a religion that condones forced marriage. (Which matters, because surely there are at least some small religious sects that condone forced marriages. And there are many more where people, especially women, have few options other than obedience– which arguably counts as forcing.) thanks, Jender-Parents!
I’m on your side, really. I agree that Obama’s taking LGBT folks for granted, and even that it might be good for them to stop shelling out money to him until he stops doing so. But do you have to call your article, “Why It’s Time for LGBT Democrats to Get Over Their Battered Wife Syndrome”? Couldn’t you have found a different metaphor, one which didn’t carry the suggestion that domestic violence victims just need to get over THEIR problems? Oh, wait, you did! Excellent. Or maybe not…
What if, instead of getting a million dollar booty-call from the one group that always puts out, no matter what, the LGBT donors had suddenly crossed their collective political and economic legs, and told the DNC “No more freebies. Not without that ring.”
Yep, that old sluts VS virgins thing is a BIG improvement. (Thanks, J-Bro!)
Well, this is an FP first: someone has sent us a job advertisement. If this starts happening all the time, we may have to not post, but for now it seems like a good idea to help a department that wants to recruit feminist philosophers; and to help feminist philosophers in search of jobs:
The following job is available in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Cincinnati:
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. One-year Visiting Assistant Professor to begin 1 September 2009. AOS/AOC open. PhD required. Introductory to advanced undergraduate, possible graduate instruction; quarter system, 3-3-3 load. The successful candidate must teach introductory lecture courses in philosophy through film, and contemporary moral and political ideas. The department has additional teaching opportunities in philosophy of mind, epistemology, philosophy of law, feminist philosophy, environmental ethics, and business ethics. Minimal service requirements. However, the visitor will be expected to participate in departmental functions and generally contribute to the life of the department. The University of Cincinnati is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer. Women, minorities, disabled persons, and Vietnam Era and disabled veterans are encouraged to apply. Applicants must apply online for job reference number 29UC4308:
https://www.jobsatuc.com/applicants/jsp/shared/frameset/Frameset.jsp?time=1246386610868
Applications must include a cover letter, CV, writing sample, names of three individuals who will be sending letters of recommendation, and evidence of teaching excellence. Initial consideration of applications begins 15 June 2009. The position will remain open until filled. To complete the application proceess, candidates need to have 3 letter of recommendation sent via paper mail to Chair of VAP Search, University of Cincinnati, Philosophy Department ML 374, Cincinnati OH 45221-0374.
Here’s the conservative view:
Good conservative judges apply the law rationally and they do not get involved in empathy and identity politics.
The issue before the SCOTUS on Monday: A test was given to those applying for promotion in a New Haven fire department; no blacks qualified for promotion with the test. Does that mean that the test was discriminatory? Apparently yes
1. Linda Greenhouse, prof of law at Yale: Congress enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the statute at issue in the Ricci case, with a simple command to employers: thou shalt not discriminate on the basis of race or other protected characteristics, including sex and religion. .. In a 1971 decision, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a test that was “fair in form, but discriminatory in operation” could violate Title VII even without proof that the discrimination was intentional. Congress eventually amended Title VII to codify that decision, Griggs v. Duke Power. The rule was clear: if a job requirement produced a “disparate impact,” the employer had the burden of showing that the requirement was actually necessary.
BUT
Powerful voices on the court, including Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion on Monday, began to call for something close to a zero-tolerance policy when it came to government counting its citizens by race for any purpose. And the court became skeptical of Congress’s making its own legislative judgments in ways that threatened to expand the boundaries of the court’s own narrowing constitutional vision.
As far as I can tell, the grounds for reaching a conclusion about disparate impact have been strenghtened, but also made highly problematic, since emplying it invokves racial thinking, according to the SCOTUS.
And a recurring them of the SCOTUS discussion: we all feel for the while guys! Greenwald notes:
…Justice Kennedy devotes multiple paragraphs at the beginning of his opinion to highlighting all of the facts (as opposed to legal arguments) which make people sympathetic to Ricci. Conversely, Justice Ginsburg, writing for the dissenters, noted upfront that the white firefighters ”understandably attract this Court’s sympathy,” but it must be the law — i.e., long-standing legal precedent and the purpose of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act — which determines the outcome.
Treat this story as a mystery story. A bad deed has been done. The mystery is in how it is undone.
Background: A family member died three weeks ago; the circumstances made her an excellent organ donor, which she wanted to be. Presumably, a number of people now have better lives because of her death.
The bad deed: The hospital where her organs were collected have charged her widower for the procedure. Or, more precisely, they’ve charged the insurance. But insurance comes with a deductable. The bill is very high; around $20K.**
I’ve looked around on the internet. The family of the donor is never charged, many sites say. In fact, one site says, sometimes the hospital donates the costs. In any case, if something has to be paid, it is the recipients’ responsibility.
I cannot find any reference to any legal protection the donor’s family has. But stay tuned. You can bet that if you hand an unjust bill for 20K to a very stressed out individual, there will be objections. And the insurance company is not too happy either.
This is all in the US, of course.
_________________________________
**Actually, the whole bill is $38K; she arrived at the hospital brain dead, but it was about 15 hours before that was officially determined and declared. It looks like those hours may have cost somewhere around 15-18K, from what I understand.
This may well seem quite insane. It is medicine in American.
displayed picture changes (with time delay) when someone looks at it
The ad is up in Germany. A video explaining a bit more can be found here.
Thanks, PJ.
Or, The Sunday Cat likes Stoned Wallabies.
“The one interesting bit that I found recently in one of my briefs on the poppy industry was that we have a problem with wallabies entering poppy fields, getting as high as a kite and going around in circles,” Lara Giddings told the hearing.
“Then they crash,” she added. “We see crop circles in the poppy industry from wallabies that are high.”
Thanks, Jender-Parents!
Prof. dr. Dvora Yanow sent this request to the FEMMSS list serve and I am sending portions of it out to all of you with her permission. She is in search of French scholars (working outside of France is ok; or it could be a non-French scholar working in France).
Colleagues,
I am assisting a group planning the 2010 Interpretive Policy Analysis conference, which will be at one of the universities in France.
The leader of that group blanked when asked about a woman to include as a plenary speaker.
I unfortunately don’t know colleagues there myself.
Can anyone make some suggestions? To give you a sense of the thing, they are planning to ask Bruno Latour. So someone from sciences-po or with that orientation, and/or who engages questions of phenomenology, hermeneutics, critical theory, discourse analysis, etc. with application(s) to science studies/science policy or other areas of public policy, especially someone concerned with the methodological side of things.
Please write me at d.yanow@fsw.vu.nl
Many thanks in advance,
Dvora.
Courtship:
Consequences:
These are all Turkish Vans.
I already knew the bizarre and troubling fact that political advertising is not subject to false advertising law in the US. A new ruling holds that there is no law against lying on the news, either.
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization…The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.
I’m a little curious about this bit, and wondering if anyone can fill me in on what it comes to:
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was “totally vindicated” by the verdict.
How binding (if at all) is the FCC policy?
Anyway, I find this both fascinating and appalling.
Dan Choi, the gay Arab linguist who came out on the Rachel Maddow show, is on trial Tuesday. He writes:
Now I need your help. ANYONE who believes the Army should not fire me can take a stand right now. I am bringing a statement of support to Tuesday’s trial and I need you to add your signature to it. Will you support me by signing this statement before Tuesday?
I want to thank the 141,262 people who have signed the “Don’t Fire Dan” letter launched a few weeks ago by the Courage Campaign and CREDO Mobile to President Obama, asking him to take leadership to bring this tragic policy to an end.
The momentum is building. This week, 77 members of Congress signed a letter to the President citing my service as an example of why DADT should be repealed. And a Gallup poll was recently released showing that 69 percent of Americans — including 58 percent of Republicans – favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve their country .
As I learned at West Point, deception and lies poison a unit and cripple a fighting force. That’s why more than 70 of my fellow West Point graduates have also come out of the closet to join Knights Out, the organization I co-founded to build support for the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”.
The only way we will eventually overturn “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is by speaking up together. You can help me fight back right now by adding your name to my statement of support. On Tuesday morning, I will bring your signature — and thousands of others — to my trial as a demonstration of your collective support.
Here’s where to go to sign.
Catarina Dutilh Novaes sent an email to philos-l which has now been re-posted with her permission at LogBlog. The post in its entirety is excellent, but here I just want to draw attention to its main point:
The purpose of this message now is to question the widespread impression that there are not (or very few) prominent female logicians and philosophers of logic, people with the standing to be keynote speakers at major conferences. I was thinking it might be useful to compile a list of such people, sort of a handy device that could help those organizing conferences in the area to ensure a better gender balance among the speakers. Please send me names off list, and I will post the results to the whole list once we have a significant number of names.
So do send her some names! The email address is cdutilhnovaes@yahoo.com.
Relatedly, Hippocampa has suggested that perhaps we should all be making more use of http://www.academia.edu/ as a way of keeping track of women in various areas of philosophy. (Thanks Hippocampa and Richard!)
From Rolling Stone’s archives:
In the year[s] since Michael Jackson made his first national television appearance with his brothers at age 11, he has evolved from a singing and dancing soul music prodigy to the self-proclaimed but widely acknowledged “King of Pop” to one of the most widely ridiculed of all public figures.
That is a literally tragic transition. The so promising start:
And behind that:
From a young age Jackson was physically and mentally abused by his father, enduring incessant rehearsals, whippings and name-calling. Jackson’s abuse as a child affected him throughout his grown life. In one altercation — later recalled by Marlon Jackson — Joseph held Michael upside down by one leg and “pummeled him over and over again with his hand, hitting him on his back and buttocks”. Joseph would often trip up, or push the male children into walls. One night while Jackson was asleep, Joseph climbed into his room through the bedroom window. Wearing a fright mask, he entered the room screaming and shouting. Joseph said he wanted to teach his children not to leave the window open when they went to sleep. For years afterward, Jackson suffered nightmares about being kidnapped from his bedroom.
Jackson first spoke openly about his childhood abuse in a 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey. He said that during his childhood he often cried from loneliness and would sometimes get sick or start to regurgitate upon seeing his father. In Jackson’s other high profile interview, Living with Michael Jackson (2003), the singer covered his face with his hand and began crying when talking about his childhood abuse. Jackson recalled that Joseph sat in a chair with a belt in his hand as he and his siblings rehearsed and that “if you didn’t do it the right way, he would tear you up, really get you.”
(From Wikipedia, via Obsidian Wings.)
And how should we see the later parts of his life? An evil pedophile? An obsessed person who had altered his body past reasonable boundaries? Someone of immense talent about to undertake a wildly success tour? I don’t know. What do you think?
If you can tear yourselves away from the news of Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson, check out these links about the immense bravery of Iran’s women: Ms Magazine here and USA Today here. And remember when we referred you to Tehran Bureau for news? Well, it turns out to have been a key source for all the major news organisations, too, and it’s run by an Iranian woman as well. (Thanks, CR!)
 | Emma on Loving Wife Spanking? |
 | jj on Men! Suffer no longer! |
 | j on Men! Suffer no longer! |
 | Andy on Incredibly fat, ugly woman in … |
 | amelia on Incredibly fat, ugly woman in … |
