A Job Advert June 30, 2009

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.

Feeling for White fire fighters June 30, 2009

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.

Have you signed to be an organ donor? June 28, 2009

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.

Dynamic ad captures how domestic violence stays hidden June 28, 2009

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.

Crop Circles Explained June 28, 2009

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!

Searching– Women plenary speakers for conference in France June 28, 2009

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.

The Sunday Cat cherishes courtship and its consequences June 28, 2009

Courtship:

 

Consequences:

 

These are  all Turkish  Vans.

Lying on the News: Perfectly Legal June 27, 2009

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.

Help Dan Choi June 27, 2009

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.

Women Logicians! June 26, 2009

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!)

Never underestimate the power of childhood abuse June 26, 2009

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?

 

More on Iran’s Women June 26, 2009

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!)

TWEET! tweet! tweet… June 25, 2009

Our Twitter Picture

Feminist Philosophers are now on Twitter.  Check it out. 

Twitter and the  linking plugin, tweetfeed, are imperfect.  We’re suppose to have an update on Twitter every hour.   Instread, yesterday a partial update took about 20 hours.  Still, twitter and we are working the issues.

FeministPhils (our user name) appears to have some followers in the porno industry.  I think we’ll just leave that for now, but if you have other suggestions, please let us know.  One can block people from being users.

(I hope none of you is shocked or dismayed.  Jender did approve it, so now any fault is jointly owned, I again hope.)

“Lady tennis players” June 25, 2009

And here’s my other norms-of-appearance related gripe:

Hurrah – Wimbledon time! One of the few times of the year that women can be found on the sports pages, (almost) rivalling coverage of sportsmen. (Note that recently women cricketers in the UK also received some headlines. Hurrah again!).

But - boo! – once again, ridiculous attention is being paid to the appearance of the women on court.
And we get silly silly claims such as:

“lady tennis players” should not grunt because “it makes them unsexy, and sex appeal is the main selling point of women’s tennis”.  (Former tennis player Michael Stich)

Or maybe the tennis has something to do with it? Yawn….

A&F: Classic [i.e. non-disabled] American Style June 25, 2009

First in a series of posts on ’norms-of-appearance related grievances’:

The Guardian reports on this ongoing tribunal, in which a student with a prosthetic arm is suing Abercrombie & Fitch (the clothes retailers) for disability discrimination.

the firm agreed she could wear a white cardigan to cover the link between her prosthesis and her upper arm. But shortly afterwards, she was told she could not work on the shop floor unless she took off the cardigan as she was breaking the firm’s “look policy”. She told the tribunal that someone in the A&F head office suggested she stay in the stockroom “until the winter uniform arrives”.The “look policy” stipulates that all employees “represent Abercrombie & Fitch with natural, classic American style consistent with the company’s brand” and “look great while exhibiting individuality”. Workers must wear a “clean, natural, classic hairstyle” and have nails which extend “no more than a quarter inch beyond the tip of the finger”.

Dean said today in her evidence: “A female A&F manager used the ‘look policy’ and the wearing of the cardigan as an excuse to hide me away in the stockroom.

We’ve worried before about look policies - that they could be used to discriminate against people with disabilities is a further deeply probelmatic aspect of them.

Colorado Governor Signs Parent Time Off Bill Into Law…for some June 24, 2009

The state of Colorado has a shiny new law stating that employees of companies with more than 50 employees may take up to 6 hours per month in leave to attend meetings & conferences with their children’s educators.  Pretty good, eh? …well, except if you’re a manager, an independent contractor, a domestic employee or an agricultural worker: they’re not eligible. (Maids don’t have children, do they? Or anyway if they do, they don’t go to school, right?) (Thanks, HEB!)

When Two Rights Make a Wrong June 24, 2009

So, fully-grown adult woman having a tipple? fine, yes? Let’s stack the deck: fully-grown American woman having a tipple? I know it’s a tough question, so I’ll answer for you: It’s fine. It really is.

Mother breastfeeding her baby? Fine, of course. Excellent even. Right? Right.

And yet, combine the two and, without any medical or otherwise scientific say-so behind it, CHILD NEGLECT. That’s right, child neglect. At least, it is if tippy mummy lives in North Dakota:

A North Dakota woman accused of breast-feeding her 6-week-old baby while drunk has pleaded guilty to child neglect. Twenty-six-year-old Stacey Anvarinia could face up to five years in prison when she’s sentenced on the felony charge in August. Judge Sonja Clapp says Anvarinia will not have to register as an offender against children.

She doesn’t have to register as an offender against children…for brestfeeding her child! Wasn’t that nice of the judge?

Nearly 20 years ago, Mary Anne Warren warned against a shifting tide of sentiment towards the rights of the fetus that may someday see pregnant women prosecuted for child abuse on grounds of eating the wrong foods, getting too little sleep, consuming alcohol (Hypatia 4:3 Autumn 89); in other words, that may someday see pregnant women lose the rights that other adult persons have. Guess what, Mary Anne? Even postpartum women are catching it these days!

But surely, you say, this ruling is based on medical evidence. Surely they have consulted the relevant experts and expert research in order to come to the conclusion that breastfeeding while intoxicated constitutes child abuse. Maybe, for example, they have consulted the American Academy of Pediatrics:

The American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Drugs considers alcohol compatible with breastfeeding. It lists possible side effects if consumed in large amounts, including: drowsiness, deep sleep, weakness, and abnormal weight gain in the infant, and the possibility of decreased milk-ejection reflex in the mother. (La Leche League FAQ on Alcohol)

OOO OOO! Abnormal weight gain! Surely causing your child to gain weight abnormally is abuse! YES! So long as feeding sweets or other nutrient-poor foods to your children (once) is abuse!

Thomas W. Hale, R.Ph. Ph.D., member of the LLLI Health Advisory Council, says

Excess levels may lead to drowsiness, deep sleep, weakness, and decreased linear growth in the infant. Maternal blood alcohol levels must attain 300 mg/dl before significant side effects are reported in the infant. Reduction of letdown is apparently dose-dependent and requires alcohol consumption of 1.5 to 1.9 gm/kg body weight (6). Other studies have suggested psychomotor delay in infants of moderate drinkers (2+ drinks daily). Avoid breastfeeding during and for 2 – 3 hours after drinking alcohol.

Pyschomotor delays! Child Abuse! Hmm. Again, Only if feeding your kid a crap diet–not even a crap diet: a crap foodstuff, one time–is child abuse, too.

This (pardon my french) absolutely bullshit ruling has nothing whatever to do with medical science, and everything to do with placing restrictive social standards on mothers: it’s all about a distaste for seeing someone’s mommy get ripped. Go ahead and add a second count of abuse if she was swearing. Or wearing trousers. Or sitting with her knees apart. Or thinking for herself.

Out of solidarity for all that is right and good in this world, I encourage all of you who are on Facebook to join the group Moms Who Drink and Swear. Having children shouldn’t mean you have to become Donna Reed to escape a prison sentence.

(btw, let me give our lovely and beloved breastfeeding-zealot readers a head-start on what they should be thinking about this story: Nestle must love this ruling!)

(Thanks, Jender-Parents!)

“Did you even hear what I heard?” June 24, 2009

Note: This post is about something said on radio.  Since I wasn’t watching the clock, I can’t be sure when I hear this or even on which station.  Short of reading/listening to hours of very conservative broadcasting, I can’t be sure I can find it.   I’ve worried about whether I should post this without more documentation, but let me instead leave it to you to decide how you’ll take it.

_______________________________________________________

I wasn’t able to watch Obama’s press conference yesterday, but shortly afterwards I turned on the radio and started listening to a discussion of it.  The show’s host said how disappointing Obama’s statements about Iran at the conference had been.  Then he  said we should listen and played a passage with Obama saying that it would be counterproductive for the US to be seen as meddling in Iran’s political affairs.

So what’s wrong with that picture?  Though the host said he was talking about the June 23rd conference, the tape was of remarks Obama made on June 16, one week earlier.

Having heard the tape, even I was wondering when I saw the later headlines on the NYT and CNN that Obama had strongly condemned the Iranian gov’t actions.  No doubt some of the radio show’s listeners will dismiss them as fabrications of the liberal media.  In fact, it seems sometimes we do not even hear what supporters of the other side hear.

Gender Bias in Theater? June 24, 2009

The NY Times reports on a year long study conducted by a Princeton economics student, Emily Glassberg Sands, whose work has been vetted by a number of excellent economists.  The study looked at the fact that many more plays produced are written by men than by women.  These are the conclusions reached:

1.  There are many more men than women playwrights and the men are more prolific.  Given that, men’s and women’s plays are produced at the same rate.

2.  A study, which sent a play to theater directors and literary managers around the country with the name variously a male or female one, indicated that men judge men and women equally, but women are more likely to favor the male writer.

3.  Women’s plays, when produced, are commercially significantly more successful, but they do not get any longer run time than the less successful men’s plays.  (A case of there being higher standards for woman to get treatment equal to a man.)

4.  “Plays that feature women — which are more commonly written by women — are also less likely to be produced”.  (One person’s quoted reaction said that the female characters were less likable; it was not possible to tell if this was supported by the research or an interpretation of it.)

Let me start off the comments.

I have heard the equivalent of 1 holds for the sciences; I am not sure about other fields, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it is true in most or all male  dominated fields.  The data in this case was drawn from a directory that depends  on self-reporting, so part of the difference could start with what is reported.  One reader comments that women are still socialized to believe that they will be wives and mothers in a way that puts other things second.  I am inclined to think rate of productivity may be influenced by having a sense of being a part of the community, having expectations that what one writes will be taken seriously, and so on.

2 is certainly unwelcome, but a reminder that women are equally likely to have implicit biases; if we simply assume we  are more fair, we may well be less fair.

Now, please, do join in and tell us what you think!

Are you on Twitter? June 23, 2009

So much about Iran seemed to be coming from Twitter, so I joined.  It seems to be a great way to send a message to a group, as the protestors in Iran have been doing.  And there are also messages you might want to get.  You can keep up with tweets from CNN, the Nation or Perez Hilton, if you wish. 

I think that if I had a young children and a scattered family, it might be fun to have a family page on which grandparents might find a cute tweet.  And there’s a cat who writes a  daily haiku, along with ones we noted earlier  whose to-ings and fro-ings are tracked on Twitter; that’s Penny and Gus.

But there don’t seem to be many academic philosophers or even academic things, though clearly it would be useful for getting a group together during a large conference or to track friends in a large museum.  E.g., “I’ve found the Picasso’s; they’re on the third floor, in …”

There’s a need for a more robust feminist presence, so this blog might get a page and update it.  I can’t see yet how to have automatic updates.

What are your experiences, if you’ve had any?  Any uses I haven’t figured out in my short time on it (she says  hopefully)?