Just imagine if… November 23, 2009

A glossy folder for jj-spouse just came through my mailbox with the following note on it:

Because of your active membership with the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a Subaru marketing affiliate, you may be eligible to participate in the VIP Partners Program.

And get a Subaru for less. 

Being an active researcher myself, I googled for some information about this surprising role for the AAAS, having first ascertained from jj-spouse that it was indeed surprising.  I found that Subaru is now the Premier Automotive Sponsor of the AAAS.  And, in addition to giving members of AAAS up to 3k off of new cars, Subaru now sponsors all sorts of prizes for students, school teachers, books and films.  All for K-12, but still a really good thing.

So just imagine if the American Philosophical Association got some corporate sponsor.  Who would it be and what could we get?  I don’t know that my imagination is up to it, but I can try to start it off:

Fox News is now the Premier News  Network of the American Philosophical Association.  It will sponsor research on favorite philosophical topics such as the merits of upholding traditional values over attempts to introduce diversity.  Special funds will be available for conferences featuring all white male keynote speakers.  Free advertisement for all male departments will be carried on the network.

Let us know what you think!

“Now I just walk away. That’s all I can do.” November 23, 2009

The words are from Caster Semenya, who is the topic of an article by Ariel Levy, in the New Yorker, Nov. 30, 2009.  The article places the questioning of  Caster Semenya’s sex in a complex context.  The article opens with the poverty of the region CS grew up in:

The land is webbed with brambles, and the thorns are a serious problem for the athletes, who train barefoot. “They run on loose stones, scraping them, making a wound, making a scar,” Sako, a tall, bald man with rheumy eyes and a big gap between his two front teeth, said. “We can’t stop and say we don’t have running shoes, because we don’t have money. The parents don’t have money. So what must we do? We just go on.”

Another factor in the picture is the enforced categorizations from the colonizers:

South Africans have been appalled by the idea of a person who thinks she is one thing suddenly being told that she is something else. The classification and reclassification of human beings has a haunted history in this country … Taxonomy is an acutely sensitive subject, and its history is probably one of the reasons that South Africans—particularly black South Africans—have rallied behind their runner with such fervor. The government has decreed that Semenya can continue running with women in her own country, regardless of what the I.A.A.F. decides.

Does she look like "a drag queen," as some have said?

Another comes from the dehumanizing curiosity of the European look:

South Africans have compared the worldwide fascination with Semenya’s gender to the dubious fame of another South African woman whose body captivated Europeans: Saartjie Baartman, the Hottentot Venus. Baartman, an orphan born on the rural Eastern Cape, was the servant of Dutch farmers near Cape Town. In 1810, they sent her to Europe to be exhibited in front of painters, naturalists, and oglers, who were fascinated by her unusually large buttocks and had heard rumors of her long labia … Many South Africans feel that white foreigners are yet again scrutinizing a black female body as though it did not contain a human being.

 

In addition, the article picks up on the  immense complexity of the biology of sex and secondary sexual characteristics.  The facts make it clear that it is hardly likely for there to be some simple texts for sex; Ann Fausto-Sterling’s words on natural kinds are made especially relevant.  That is in contrast to the  role of gender duality:

There is much more at stake in organizing sports by gender than just making things fair. If we were to admit that at some level we don’t know the difference between men and women, we might start to wonder about the way we’ve organized our entire world. Who gets to use what bathroom? Who is allowed to get married? (Currently, the United States government recognizes the marriage of a woman to a female-to-male transsexual who has had a double mastectomy and takes testosterone tablets but still has a vagina, but not to a woman who hasn’t done those things.) We depend on gender to make sense of sexuality, society, and ourselves. We do not wish to see it dissolve.

And there are still other issues:  the politics of sports organizations, the way CS,  a child, was poked and proded without  any parental consent, and more.  And, finally, the  impact of it all on the child, who has decided she can only walk away.

CFP: Reasons and Rationality November 23, 2009

The first St. Louis Annual Conference on Reasons and Rationality (SLACRR, pronounced (slăk΄ r)) will take place May 23-25, 2010 at the University of Missouri-St. Louis.  The conference is designed to provide a forum for new work on practical and theoretical reason, broadly construed.  Please submit an abstract of 500-1000 words by December 31, 2009 to SLACRR@gmail.com. (In writing your abstract, please bear in mind that full papers should be suitable for a 30 minute presentation.) We are also interested in finding commentators for papers, so please let us know if you would have an interest in commenting.   

 

The Conference will include papers in ethics, epistemology, and other areas of philosophy that deal with reasons, reasoning, or rationality.  For instance, we would be interested in papers exploring such questions as:

• What is the relation between reasons for actions and reasons for beliefs?

• What are the sources of our reasons for belief?

• How are features of one’s psychology (desires, intentions, etc.) relevant to reasons?  

• What is the relation between reasons and what we ought to do (or believe)?

• What is the relation between reasons and value?

• Are the requirements of practical and theoretical rationality normative?  

• What is the relation between individual rationality and collective rationality?

Of course, this is just a small sample of questions; we hope to include a wide variety of papers on the Conference Program that deal in some way with reasons, reasoning or rationality.   Further questions can also be directed to either John Brunero (bruneroj@umsl.edu) or Eric Wiland (wiland@umsl.edu).

Not-so-new directions in metaphysics November 23, 2009

The New Directions in Metaphysics conference coming up at Nottingham takes things in a rather old direction in at least one respect: gender. For contrast, one might check out the forthcoming New Waves in Metaphysics volume. (Thanks, R!)

Female breadwinners are self-deceived whingers November 22, 2009

…according to this story. The evidence? Oh, you picky, picky people. Nothing relevant that I can see, from this Guardian story. The study doesn’t seem to even concern whether or not women’s views of their husbands are accurate, despite the way it’s being reported. (Thanks, Andrew!)

The sunday cat can be very loving November 21, 2009

There are a lot of versions of this video on the web, some of which show the officer “shoo-ing” the cat off. It does not appear, however, that the cat was at all hurt, or even deterred, by such action.

Many thanks to JT!

Stay-at-Home Fathers November 20, 2009

Perhaps an anthem is needed…

Insurance coverage for abortion November 20, 2009

The Stupak Amendment to the US Health Care bill would dictate that no insurance policy which covers abortion (except in cases of rape, incest or danger to mother’s life) could be part of the pool of insurance plans for which people are entitled to government subsidies. As a long-time UK resident I confess that I was a little unsure at first how much of an impact this would have. My suspicion was that almost no US insurance policies covered abortion anyway. (The NHS, of course, does. And birth control pills are free.) It turns out this was wrong. And, given the way that insurance tends to work, ruling out abortion coverage for the policies in the pool would be very likely to end up denying it to all women. This would be a horrendous result, as these stories from doctors make very clear to anyone in doubt.

This led to a now-familiar US political situation in which feminists were being asked to sacrifice a vital interest of women to the greater good (in this case, of health care reform). And in which those who objected to this were accused of selfishly holding the interests of everyone else hostage to the supposedly niche issue of the health and rights of half the population.

Now, however, the senate has offered a compromise, which– in the way of all compromises– has serious drawbacks. But it is nonetheless a vast improvement.

The key details of the Senate bill are as follows: Both public and private plans are allowed to offer abortion coverage. It empowers consumers to use government subsidies to purchase insurance that covers abortion, but requires that their premiums (and not federal funds) pay for the actual procedures. The Health and Human Services Secretary is charged with evaluating plans to ensure that taxpayers do not pay for abortions. And, while the bill requires at least one plan in each state to cover abortion, it also includes a conscience clause stating that healthcare providers cannot “be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness … to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.”

For more on the compromise bill, see here. (Thanks, Vishal, for repeatedly but kindly nudging me to write something more on this.)

Good news from the APA… November 20, 2009

…regarding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Leiter reports:

Alastair Norcross (Colorado) reports that the National Board of the American Philosophical Association has now taken action on an initiative that began with a letter from Charles Hermes (UT Arlington) (posted here last February) and then a petition he crafted (signed by over 1400 philosophers) followed by a motion put before the APA by Professor Norcross and with support from many others.

For more, go here.

RIP Jeanne-Claude, brilliant artist November 19, 2009

As many will remember, The Gates in NYC’s Central Park was done by Christo and Jeanne-Claude.  For some time their collaborative projects were labeled as if by him alone.  For some information about the change, see below.   

We  note that it is a familiar idea that women’s brilliance can be hidden  behind a man’s name.  And that in the past it may have made great sense to her.

Jeanne-Claude, who collaborated with her husband, Christo, on dozens of environmental arts projects, notably the wrapping of the Pont Neuf in Paris and the Reichstag in Berlin and the installation of 7,503 vinyl gates with saffron-colored nylon panels in Central Park, died Thursday in Manhattan, where she lived. She was 74

Jeanne-Claude met her husband, Christo Javacheff, in Paris in 1958. …  To avoid confusing dealers and the public, and to establish an artistic brand, they used only Christo’s name. In 1994 they retroactively applied the joint name “Christo and Jeanne-Claude” to all outdoor works and large-scale temporary indoor installations. Other indoor work was credited to Christo alone.

Texas law bans anything “identical to” marriage. (Oops.) November 19, 2009

I’m in lefty pedantic philosopher heaven:

Barbara Ann Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer and Democratic candidate for attorney general, says that a 22-word clause in a 2005 constitutional amendment designed to ban gay marriages erroneously endangers the legal status of all marriages in the state.

The amendment, approved by the Legislature and overwhelmingly ratified by voters, declares that “marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.” But the troublemaking phrase, as Radnofsky sees it, is Subsection B, which declares:

“This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.”

For more, see here. (Thank you, Jender-Mom!!)

More on breast self-exams November 18, 2009

One of the most puzzling aspects of the new guidelines concerns self-exams for breast cancer.  The panel is recommending not teaching the technique. 

Here is an article about some of the research behind the recommendation, and criticism of it.  The research does appear to have some serious problems.

Horrible things November 18, 2009

Somali woman stoned to death for adultery.

Global failure to meet women’s health needs.

Afghan women burning themselves to escape abuse.

US Chamber of Commerce fighting legislation designed to prevent contracts like that of Jamie Leigh Jones, whose Halliburton contract forbade her from filing any charges against the company for locking her in a container after being gang-raped by co-workers. Go here to sign a petition against this. (Clarified in response to Monkey’s comment.)

Early career story: an unusual one November 18, 2009

Dr Brooke Magnanti, a cancer researcher, was already a famous author by the time she got her first academic job. She was Belle de Jour, who blogged about her experience as a highly paid prostitute in London. (A movie is in the works.) It seems she turned to prostitution when she needed money while writing up her University of Sheffield PhD. For more, see here and here. Vishal, who sent this in, wonders whether there are any similar stories from men in academia. I don’t know of any, but I did once have an MA student who supported his degree by stripping.

Publishing survey November 18, 2009

Sally Haslanger writes:

On behalf of the Women in Philosophy Task Force, I’m circulating a survey on publishing in philosophy for philosophers employed in higher education. It should take about 10 minutes. It will be useful to have your CV handy as you fill it out. Please go here to find it. I hope to report on the results at the December APA in the symposium on philosophy publishing (Wednesday December 30th, 11:15-1:15).

Anti-women? Absolutely not! November 17, 2009

Tory rebel Sir Jeremy Bagge explains:

“Sorry, no, I have never said I’m anti-women. I have got absolutely nothing against women.
“Who cooks my lunch? Who cooks my dinner? How did my wonderful three children appear? Women, you can’t do without them..”

For other remarkable utterances and explanation of the context, see here. (Thanks, AH!)

Submission for an APA call for panel proposals? November 17, 2009

 

The subject of tonight’s discussion is: why are there no women on this panel?

 

 

Stupak Amendment November 17, 2009

I keep not getting a chance to post something on this, so instead I’ll refer you to the always excellent Kate Harding here. And to a petition you can sign here. (Thanks for the reminder, Jender-Mom!)

For those who just turned 50, UPDATE November 16, 2009

all those mammograms you may have had look like a waste of time.  And for all of us who picked up the message that if you didn’t get a yearly mammogram after 50, then you were asking for it?  Forget that too.  Now it is every other year.  In the US, of course.

(I apologize for the irritated tone on this important topic, but it  is important too that we have a pretty clear example of adamant advice that was based on less than good data and understanding.)

Actually, the new recommendations reflect the fact that the contribution of regular mammograms  to women’s health and longevity looks pretty problematic in a number of ways.  There has been over-treatment, apparently (see update).  So what one needs to do is to forget the urgency and have a heart to heart with one’s gynecologist.  Though just how tailored the advice a doctor gives to her clients in a large practice is will be another  question to ask.   And without wanting to complain from ignorance, I don’t know why we should think in advice that the parameters for a decision are so complex that we have to seek expert opinion, as opposed to perhaps some agreement.  Of course, the advice  is not going just  to PhDs, but women are not bad at assessing their degree  of understanding.

This all comes from a very influential committee;  here is the advice:

Women in their 40s should not get routine mammograms for early detection of breast cancer, according to updated guidelines set forth by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

“All we are saying is, at age 40, a woman should make an appointment with her doctor and have a conversation about the benefits and harms of having a mammography now versus waiting to age 50,” said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the task force.

Before having a mammogram, women ages 40 to 49 should talk to their doctors about the risks and benefits of the test, and then decide if they want to be screened, according to the task force.

For women ages 50 to 74, it recommends routine mammography screenings every two years. Risks and benefits for women age 75 and above are unknown, it said.

The group’s previous recommendation was for routine screenings every year or two for women age 40 and older.

The task force is composed of 16 health care experts, none of whom are oncologists. The group reviews medical data and bases recommendations on effectiveness and risks involved.

Since this group advises doctors and insurance companies, it may well affect what one can claim for.

Of course, the evidence is statistical and it may be the case that the mammogram was essential in saving some young peoples’ lives.  I know the cliches one is suppose to say here about exceptions not making good policy, but still…

Update:  From NPR, on 11/16:   The American Cancer  Society still recommends yearly mammograms after 40.  The descriptions of over  treatment  varied, with one person at one point talking about women unnecessarily receiving chemotherapy and radiation.  The most frequent worry expressed was, however, that there are a large number of  false positives that resulting in much unnecessary anxiety.  Unnecessary anxiety, as one person said, hardly seems a reason to decide for women what we need.

Do see SallyH’s comment!

Plastics make your boys act girly! November 16, 2009

As if the environmental effects weren’t bad enough, new “safety” worries are emerging about plastic products. If you’ve got the around the house, your boys might not want to play with guns! Oh, the horror!!!!!!! (Thanks, AP!)

Dr Shanna Swan and her team tested urine samples from mothers over midway through pregnancy for traces of phthalates.
The women, who gave birth to 74 boys and 71 girls, were followed up when their children were aged four to seven and asked about the toys the youngsters played with and the games they enjoyed. They found that two phthalates DEHP and DBP can affect play behaviour.
Boys exposed to high levels of these in the womb were less likely than other boys to play with cars, trains and guns or engage in “rougher” games like playfighting. Elizabeth Salter-Green, director of the chemicals campaign group CHEM Trust, said the results were worrying.