So shall you reap. August 31, 2007

This is widely covered in the blogsphere and newspapers, at least in the US, but it is  such a classic example, it might be useful to have a record here.  And it may also, for many of us, be a good case for thinking about moral emotions, particularly mixed ones.  The situation is both a sad case and a good cause for anger, all to be felt for or at the same person.

So enter US Senator Larry Craig, who has been a well-known Republican advocate of anti-gay measures.  And it appears he was caught soliciting sex from a man in a public restroom, in the Minneapolis airport.   His target, who was hanging out in a stall, was  a policeman and Craig was arrested. 

 Craig pleaded guilty.  That was a mistake, he says.  He  just wanted to make it go away, having in his life taken meaures to make sure it wouldn’t just go away for others.  One can hear right-wing talk show people argue that holding something is a sin and then sinning oneself does not constitute hypocrisy. That view misses the point. It is Craig’s use of power to shame and control others while indulging himself that is so objectionable.

You might well find it difficult to feel  sorry for Craig, but the police report, which requires Adobe Acrobat to read, is genuinely pathetic.

And his political career is likely finished. 

Googling around on the topic of hypocrisy, I found the following which is relevant only in so far as it features another US right-wing anti-gay public  figure, one this time found buying drugs from a gay hooker.  Look upon it and weep for rationality discourse.

richard dawkins and ted haggard:

Nature Neuroscience again August 31, 2007

This is the premier science journal that brought  us “Alpha males win again.” Now we have an airbrushed model-perfect portrait on the cover.  “Why?” one might well ask.  Fortunately, there’s an “about the cover” link.  And there they say

People’s quality of life depends on the ability to experience emotions appropriately and to regulate them in response to stressful events. Consequently, it is important to understand how the brain regulates emotions and how this regulation becomes impaired by disorders of emotion. In this issue, we present a collection of reviews on the neurobiology of emotion and disorders of emotion.

So emotions and women go together? Gosh! I’m glad that’s clear. We want to be scientific and all.

Alternatively, you might ask some people. The first response I got from a frequent reader of Nature, “Men like to look at pictures of beautiful women.” That might also be a comment in the sociology of science.

Naked On The Internet August 31, 2007

Sex in the Public Square reviews what sounds like a very interesting book. There have, of course, been loads of things written about sex and the internet. What’s interesting about this book is that it focuses on women’s experiences. It’s based on interviews with 80 women, including bloggers, internet daters, sex workers, and pornography consumers, among others. One interesting fact I got just from the review, which ties in well with some previous posts on tampon weapons: Adult oriented credit card billing services rejected porn sites featuring menstruation while accepting pretty much everything else.  There’s an interview with the author, Audacia Ray, at Feministing. There she talks about how important it was to her to capture the relationships between the internet, women’s sexuality, and women’s agency: “the ways that the Internet can be both freeing and restrictive, often for the same women at different times”.  Could be some good examples for folks working on autonomy.

CFP: Society For Analytical Feminism August 30, 2007

Society for Analytical Feminism
Feminist Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition

CALL FOR PAPERS
SAF Session at the Central Division APA Meetings
Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois
April 16-20, 2008

The Society for Analytical Feminism invites submissions for a session at the 2008 Central Division APA meetings to be held in Chicago in April 16-20, 2008.

The Society seeks papers that examine feminist issues by methods broadly construed as analytic, or discuss the use of analytic philosophical methods as applied to feminist issues. Reading time should be about 20 minutes. Authors should submit four copies of either (1) a paper, or (2) an extended abstract, as detailed as possible (up to 1000 words) accompanied by a bibliography. Please delete all self-identifying references from your submission to ensure anonymity. Submissions should POSTMARKED no later than November 1st, 2007 and be sent to:

Sharon Crasnow
925 Archer Street
San Diego, CA 92109

Or emailed as a Word attachment to:
sharon.crasnow@rcc.edu

All members of the Society are eligible to submit papers.

Graduate students or underfunded professionals whose papers are accepted will be eligible for the Society’s $250 Travel Stipend. Please indicate on a separate page (or in your covering letter) if you fall into one of these categories.

The Society for Analytical Feminism

The Society for Analytical Feminism provides a forum where issues concerning analytical feminism may be openly discussed and examined. Its purpose is to promote the study of issues in feminism by methods broadly construed as analytic, to examine the use of analytic methods as applied to feminist issues, and to provide a means by which those interested in Analytical Feminism may meet and exchange ideas. The Society meets yearly at the Central Division meetings of the APA, and frequently organizes sessions for the Eastern Division and Pacific Divisions as well. Information can be found on the SAF website:

Membership in the Society is open to all who are interested in and concerned with issues in Analytical Feminism. Annual dues are $15 for regularly employed members, $5 for students, unemployed, underemployed and retired members. To join, see the website.

O dear, Diana August 30, 2007

The tenth anniversary of Diana’s death is upon us. The Nation has a discussion of the difference between, on the one hand, Marilyn Monroe and Princess Diana, and, on the other, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.

The article encapsulates the differences between the earlier women and today’s in the following:

While Diana and Marilyn shared a number of qualities with today’s female celebs–notably a lack of sexual discretion and an appetite for public attention–Paris is, for better or worse, a new variety of feminine icon, defined not by victimhood and suffering but by self-sufficiency and self-gratification.

The conclusion of the article is that this difference explains why Paris and Britney are vilified, while Marilyn and Diana are not.

I’m reminded of a refrain from a song by Peggy Lee which was (I think), “Is that all there is?” 

Or:  what is going on here with pop iconography and its discontents?

Explaining non-facts August 29, 2007

Note: this has been corrected in response to a good point by Anon Ymous.

A few days ago, reader Jeff mailed us a link to recent address by Roy (oh dear) Baumeister to the American Psychological Association, entitled “Is There Anything Good About Men?” , a long tedious paper filled with old standbys about how men have evolved to be the explorers and empire builders and women have evolved to be basically cuddly lumps who reproduce the species. We all looked at it and agreed that we didn’t have the time or energy to bother with it.  After all, it’s basically the same old rot we’d been hearing forever.  And who would care?  

Well, apparently lots of people.  John Tierney has written a column on it for the NY Times, and it’s now one of their most emailed stories.  So we’ve got to deal with it.   

Briefly: Baumeister’s argument is an argument to the best explanation. It gives us a “fact” and then tries to explain that “fact”, by invoking other “facts” and a lot of speculation. There are lots of ways such arguments can go wrong. Baumeister’s goes wrong at the start. The “fact” being explained is that, worldwide, most of the people at both the top and the bottom of the pile (in terms of wealth and power) are men. He “establishes” this by invoking stats on prisons and homelessness, to show that men dominate not just the top but also the bottom of the heap. Unfortunately, this neglects all the data on the feminization of poverty, which shows the claim to be simply false. 

No good will come of an argument to the best explanation attempting to explain something that isn’t even true. But just the same, what a remarkable load of rubbish along the way!

Two examples:

(1) We should expect inequalities of wealth, because men just work harder (Baumeister): 

Likewise, I mentioned the salary difference, but it may have less to do with ability than motivation. High salaries come from working super-long hours. Workaholics are mostly men. (There are some women, just not as many as men.) One study counted that over 80% of the people who work 50-hour weeks are men. That means that if we want to achieve our ideal of equal salaries for men and women, we may need to the principle of equal pay for less work.             

Yeah, that proves it alright. Women are just lazy. Let’s not consider all the work women do in the home, and all the discrimination they face on the job.  Anyone heard of glass ceilings?  Also, one might question the thought that employees who work longer hours are better– one reason for long hours might be inefficiency. Most importantly, perhaps, there’s no attempt to look at why women and men might work different hours– just an assumption that it’s “motivation”.

(2) Baumeister again:

Giving birth is a revealing example. What could be more feminine than giving birth? Throughout most of history and prehistory, giving birth was at the center of the women’s sphere, and men were totally excluded. Men were rarely or never present at childbirth, nor was the knowledge about birthing even shared with them. But not very long ago, men were finally allowed to get involved, and the men were able to figure out ways to make childbirth safer for both mother and baby. Think of it: the most quintessentially female activity, and yet the men were able to improve on it in ways the women had not discovered for thousands and thousands of years.            

Ah, yes, men were *excluded*– terrible discrimination they suffered there.   If only they’d had all the opportunities open to them that women did.  And look how brilliantly things improved when male doctors got involved:  as Digivordig has informed me, death rates in wards staffed by male doctors were much higher than in those staffed by female midwives, until the difference was noticed and doctors improved their hygeine practices. And there’s just a teeny bit of disagreement, still, over such male innovations as stirrups for deliveries, episiotomies, etc etc. (For one dissenting voice among many see here.) Even fans of medicalization (and I’m not really an opponent myself) just might want to consider the idea that the advancement of science was more important than sex differences.

The NY Times should be truly embarrassed to have one of its columnists endorsing such nakedly sexist ranting. Write and tell them so.  (Many thanks to Stoat, JJ and Digivordig for their help on this one.)

cfp: Hannah Arendt August 29, 2007

From a message to swip-l:

The Departments of Philosophy and Comparative Literature at Emory University will be hosting the second independent conference for the Hannah Arendt Circle, March 28-30, 2008.

Papers on any aspect of Arendt’s work, as well as studies, critiques, and applications of her thinking, are welcome. 

Please send an abstract of the paper, by e-mail (750 word limit). Abstracts should be formatted for anonymous review and submitted to the program committee chair, Stephen Schulman, at sschulman@elon.edu on or before November 14th, 2007.

Please indicate “Arendt Circle submission” in the subject heading, and include the abstract as a “.doc” attachment to your message. Program decisions will be announced by mid-December.  

Program Committee:

Stephen Schulman, Elon University

Karin Fry, University of Wisconsin Stevens Point 

Adrian Switzer, Emory University

Our first independent meeting was outstanding, and we are looking forward to the same camaraderie and intense discussion of Arendt’s work at this year’s conference.  Like last year, the meeting will begin with an informal welcoming reception on Friday evening. There will be morning and afternoon paper sessions on Saturday, followed by a business meeting and dinner. The conference will conclude with paper sessions on Sunday morning. Each speaker will have approximately 35 minutes for paper presentation and discussion combined —papers should be a maximum of 3000 words (15-20 minutes).

Lodging has been reserved at the Holiday Inn Decatur: phone 404.371.0204.

  

Bad Evolutionary Psychology August 28, 2007

I’ve sometimes been asked by people working in evolutionary psychology to explain why so many feminists hate the field.  It’s an understandable question, from a careful scientist doing serious work on (say) concepts, or the evolution of language, or vision. There’s a lot of completely legitimate good science done by evolutionary psychologists. But then there are the people out there giving the field a bad name:

(1) The folks making claims about innate sex-based colour preferences, based on studies of adults. 

(2) The folks making claims about innate sex-based food-finding abilities, based on a small study of shoppers at a farmer’s market.

It doesn’t take a degree in  women’s studies to make one think there might be some alternative, culture-based hypotheses to rule out in these cases.  At least make an effort– Geez, study babies for the colour preferences.  It won’t be perfect, since the girls will already have spend nearly every minute of their lives swathed in and surrounded by pink.  (I really never appreciated how strong and immediate all the colour-coding was until I became a parent and tried to not play the game.)  Maybe control for how much food-shopping individuals do for the second– perhaps with a cross-cultural study, as The F-Word suggests. Do SOMETHING!

There’s an excellent critique of the colour preference study at the Guardian’s aptly-named Bad Science column.  (Note, by the way, that the Guardian itself is what I linked to for breathless reporting of the study. Though I could have chosen from hundreds of options.) Bad Science points out, among other things, that pink was considered the boy colour until the 1940s.  A quote from Ladies Home Journal, 1918:

“There has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink being a more decided and stronger color is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” 

Come on, people, stop making your field look bad. And science journalists– what is wrong with you, giving a study like the colour preference one such huge press? The flaws are so obvious that one wonders how this could happen. Gives good support to claims by feminist philosophers of science that it is much harder than one might think to correct for pernicious biases.

Lost comments? August 27, 2007

I know some comments today seem to have been lost.  Can you let me know if this has happened to you, by clicking on the contacts category?  Many thanks.

Why are philosophers annoying? August 27, 2007

That’s the search that brought 2 viewers to our site today! And an excellent question.

Could feminists believe women are inferior? August 26, 2007

In looking at recent comments on posts put up some time ago, I came across the following remark, (which is in the fifth comment):

It seems to me to be an admirable goal to try and get more men interested in and working in feminist philosophy. In some ways, it’s more important that men be feminists than it is that women be. (For the same reasons that the people you’d *really* like to convince that blacks aren’t inferior to whites are white supremicists, not black people who most likely believe that anyway.)

Do blacks reject the idea that they are inferior to whites?  Could a real feminist believe women can’t do as well as men in, say, science?

I was reminded immediately of reading Malcolm Gladwell’s comment that he came out as biased against his own race on the implicit attitude test on race (Blink, pp. 81ff).  There are versions for a number of different subjects, including race, women in science and hetereo-homosexuality. 

What becomes clear is that many, many of us have picked up biased attitudes  in our society and consequently have automatic associations that favor one group over another.   It is controversial just what the associations result in, but, as Gladwell says in Blink, the differences hit you on the head as you take the test.

I tried it on race (European vs. African American) and women in science. On both these, I have pretty strong conscious beliefs about equality, and so I was very pleased when I took my first one to find out that the submerged associations I have were in line with my beliefs. I suspected, though, that it might be just that I was very good at taking tests. So I’m glad I took the second one. It hurt my head! And I came out biased against what I believe.

Please consider taking some of the tests, if you haven’t already.  They are short.  When you’ve had a chance to do so, I’ll confess in the comments to what I found out.

More on Prosperity, Sex Selection and Language August 26, 2007

Jender relayed the dismal news that sex selective abortions have risen with the rise in prosperity in India.  According to a report in MS, there may also be a mitigating trend.

Cable television may promote gender equality and reduce domestic violence in rural India, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper. Women who were exposed to cable television over a 6- to 7-month period in India were less likely to report a preference for sons or complacency with domestic violence, and more likely to report autonomy in household decision-making, according to the working paper. In addition, more girls enrolled in school and fertility rates dropped.

The NBER working paper, based on surveys conducted in 2,700 households in the years 2001, 2002, and 2003, indicates that television alters behavior by exposing individuals to a new set of worldviews and lifestyles.

The researchers register the worry that part of what they are seeing is just a change in what the respondents think they are supposed to say, but they think that’s still progress. This observation may remind one of Jender’s comments about the language used to report the original finding. Is changing the language – or what counts as the right thing to say – progress?

My vote is “yes.” To make years or centuries of denigrating language publicly impermissible is a way of problematizing issues. My reasons for saying that are based on experiences with political-geographical areas where racist and sexist language and comments have not been disallowed, and the underlying attitudes remain relatively unexamined.

Changing what one will say to an interviewer may then be a start in the reexamination of views.  It is a small change, but, according to the NBER working paper, one accompanied in this case by positive changes in both girls’ schooling and fertility rates.

What do you think?

24 punches? That’ll be £500. August 24, 2007

It’s been a bad week for domestic violence prosecutions in the UK. First Colin Read gets off with a £2000 fine for branding and slashing his wife. Now an anesthesiologist is fined a whopping £500 for hitting his wife 24 times after dragging her out of bed. The defense from the Sentencing Guideline Secretariat:

“[You need to look at] what you are trying to achieve when you sentence someone,” says Kevin McCormack, head of the Sentencing Guideline Secretariat. “It can be punishment but you’re also trying to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. If the court reached the view that, in a particular case, there was little risk of it happening again because the relationship had ended, and if there were other things … in the defendant’s favour, then that could persuade the court to use financial penalty instead of a community or custodial sentence.”

When setting fines, he says, “it is a balance between the seriousness of the offence and the financial resources of the individual … £500 is quite a high fine in terms of the average level. It depends on the individual’s income.”

Apparently the goal of looking at the individual’s income is to make sure they don’t even notice the fine.

Here’s contact information for the Sentencing Guideline Secretariat, just in case you think they may not be getting it right.

Loving Wife Spanking? August 24, 2007

 

Ok, so this is probably not what the folks advocating ‘Christian Domestic Discipline’ , as discussed over at feministing, have in mind…

Here’s what the CDD have to say about it:

• ‘A Christian Domestic Discipline marriage is one that is set up according to Biblical standards; that is, the husband is the authority in the household. The wife is submissive to her husband as is fit in the Lord and her husband loves her as himself. He has the ultimate authority in his household, but it is tempered with the knowledge that he must answer to God for his actions and decisions. He has the authority to spank his wife for punishment, but in real CDD marriages this is taken very seriously and usually happens only rarely. CDD is so much more than just spanking. It is the husband loving the wife enough to guide and teach her, and the wife loving the husband enough to follow his leadership. A Christian marriage embodies true romance and a Christian man a true hero.’

For those interested, this publication will be informative, no doubt: chapters include ‘How much is Enough’, and ‘Uncooperative wife’.  

Perhaps you’d rather peruse this, an excerpt from which reminds us:

 ’Just as a parent would never stop to ask permission to chastise his child, a husband should not have to obtain consent to discipline his wife; however, our legal system has put him in the position of having to do so… our culture is turned upside down in so many other things’

There is in fact a chapter on ‘the meaning of consent’, which I’d love to read. Interesting issues about autonomy raised: one might hold that women who choose this do so autonomously, and so all’s well. Indeed, there’s a blog where one woman writes of her being ‘disciplined’, on which she writes:

‘ My submission is quite voluntary.  I have had a few that said they don’t know why women need it.  Well I think I could have been single and led my life just fine but in order to be a couple someone has to be in charge and someone has to follow.’ 

Of course, voluntary does not mean autonomous. And if those involved – including these women - hold that women’s status is like that of children, then interesting issues about consent raised: there are (many) circumstances under which children’s consent is not valid.

It puts me in mind of Hill’s (1985) article, ‘Servility and self-respect’, in which he claims that certain deferential and servile behaviours involve a misunderstanding of one’s agential status, or a failure to care properly about it…

Treatment of Rape Victims August 23, 2007

Via Pandagon, I just discovered the fascinating blog PC Bloggs, written by “one very hacked off [UK] policewoman”. She gives helpful tips for rape victims here and she compares instructions given to officers responding to rapes of men and women here. 

Incident 1: Caller reporting her 17-year-old daughter was raped last night by two named offenders after going out drinking at her local pub. Daughter is very distressed and sore. Update from supervisor: Officers to attend and establish the following:

1. Is the daughter making an allegation?

2. Names and descriptions of alleged offenders.

3. How much alcohol was consumed?

4. If allegation is being made, locate scene.

5. Will the victim attend court?

6. If allegation could be true, will she consent to a medical?

Incident 2:Caller reporting her 18-year-old son was raped last night by a male known to him, following a party at his house. Son is in pain and upset. Update from supervisor: Officers to attend and establish the following:

1. Locate the crime scene.

2. Arrange medical examination and take victim to rape suite.

3. Name/description of offender.

4. Preserve forensic evidence, seize clothing.

Obvious inequities here, and it’s outrageous, as well as important to see.  But it’s worth noting that the instructions for Incident 2 probably would have been very different if the victim was returning from a gay club, or if the victim was in prison.

If you are or plan to be an aging female feminist philosopher… August 23, 2007

Linked from Huffington Post, but to be found at Science News:

  A new study finds that drinking several cups of coffee can limit an age-related drop in mental acuity—but only in women.

The details at Science News are worth reading. 

It is hard to judge just how good the news is for female philosophers, since not all mental performance measures were helped by caffeine.  Still, given how much professional life is shaped by customs and rules geared towards men and men’s biological clocks, it is cheering – though oddly – to think that those women who survive may at least have some extra time to make up for losses. 

I couldn’t access the original article through my library, but I found the abstract from Neurology on the web.  I’m including that below.

______________________________________________________

The neuroprotective effects of caffeine.

A prospective population study (the Three City Study)
K. Ritchie, PhD, I. Carrière, PhD, A. de Mendona, MD, PhD, F. Portet, MD, PhD, J. F. Dartigues, MD, PhD, O. Rouaud, MD, P. Barberger-Gateau, MD, PhD and M. L. Ancelin, PhD

Objective: To examine the association between caffeine intake, cognitive decline, and incident dementia in a community-based sample of subjects aged 65 years and over. Methods: Participants were 4,197 women and 2,820 men from a population-based cohort recruited from three French cities. Cognitive performance, clinical diagnosis of dementia, and caffeine consumption were evaluated at baseline and at 2 and 4 year follow-up. Results: Caffeine consumption is associated with a wide range of sociodemographic, lifestyle, and clinical variables which may also affect cognitive decline. Multivariate mixed models and multivariate adjusted logistic regression indicated that women with high rates of caffeine consumption (over three cups per day) showed less decline in verbal retrieval (OR = 0.67, CI = 0.53, 0.85), and to a lesser extent in visuospatial memory (OR = 0.82, CI = 0.65, 1.03) over 4 years than women consuming one cup or less. The protective effect of caffeine was observed to increase with age (OR = 0.73, CI = 0.53, 1.02 in the age range 65 to 74; OR = 0.3, CI = 0.14, 0.63 in the range 80+). No relation was found between caffeine intake and cognitive decline in men. Caffeine consumption did not reduce dementia risk over 4 years.Conclusions: The psychostimulant properties of caffeine appear to reduce cognitive decline in women without dementia, especially at higher ages. Although no impact is observed on dementia incidence, further studies are required to ascertain whether caffeine may nonetheless be of potential use in prolonging the period of mild cognitive impairment in women prior to a diagnosis of dementia.

Prosperity and Sex-Selection (and Language) August 22, 2007

A very grim story, sent by the Jender-Parents: Apparently as people in India get wealthier, sex-selective abortion is on the rise. (The older, cheaper method of female infanticide is still going strong, too, as evidenced by a recent finding of 40 female foetus and baby skulls in a well.) This article serves as a reminder of how complicated things are. Increasing prosperity: Good. Increasing access to abortion: Good. But put these in an unjust context, and the effects may not be so good. This is why it’s vital to look at the total picture, as advocates of reproductive justice urge.

(At the risk (make that ‘certainty’) of being a pedant, I can’t help but notice that the BBC article also offers some interesting linguistic tidbits:

Even though it is illegal in India for a doctor to reveal the gender of an unborn child, the law is rarely enforced.

First, we’ve got the use of ‘gender’ where sex is clearly what is meant, then we get the use of ‘unborn child’ for foetus.)

Slash and Burn, BUT with provocation. August 21, 2007

Sadly, analysis not needed.  This is just another good example of…

Actually, what is this an example of?  The way in which a patriarchal system understands its own?  Is it just a matter of such cliches?

In among reports about stretch marks on iconic bodies, The Daily Mail reports:

“Executive who branded wife with iron freed with a £2,000 fine“

A management consultant branded his wife with a hot steam iron because she had failed to press his shirt.

Cambridge graduate Colin Read, 25, also slashed her with a knife because she had forgotten to make his sandwiches.

The judge’s reason for a light sentence?  It’s a bit complicated, but presumably this is the bottom line:

But the judge said it was the circumstances of the marriage that had provoked Read and that now those circumstances had gone, sending him to prison would “help no one”.

His wife, of course, “had been so frightened of him that she had to be compelled to give evidence in a three-day trial which ended in her husband being convicted of three counts of causing actual bodily harm. “

“Alpha males win again” August 20, 2007

Science reporting can be inept, as Jender reminded us last month.  So we should be glad that finally Nature Neuroscience is publishing the article on neurogenesis caused in female mice by exposure to the pheromones of dominant male mice, “Male pheromone–stimulated neurogenesis in the adult female brain: possible role in mating behavior” (Nature Neuroscience – 10, 1003 – 1011 (2007)).  (In fact, the article was available online last month; but the print version is just being announced.)  And since the discussion is technical, perhaps we should be glad for the less formal discussion provided.  That’s the one with the title about alpha males winning again (Nature Neuroscience – 10, 938 – 940 (2007)).

Should we ask what the dominant male mice are winning?  They are getting higher scores?  In what?  The number of females they have sex with, I guess.  Or maybe it’s the number of encounters? 

In any case, thanks to Nature for sharing your values with us!  Glad you all are tracking the scoring in the animal kingdom.

Hillary Clinton Nutcracker August 20, 2007

This one leaves me speechless. I’ll just point it out, and leave the analysis to you. Thanks (sort of), Jender-Parents.