Women’s attitudes toward rape victims February 15, 2010

NR sends us this disturbing story, which includes statistics like the following:

Almost three-quarters of women said if a rape victim got into bed with the assailant before an attack they should accept some responsibility.
One-third blamed victims who had dressed provocatively or gone back to the attacker’s house for a drink….The study found that women were less forgiving of the victim than men.
Some 71% of women thought a person should accept responsibility when getting into bed with someone, compared with 57% of men.

Alabama shootings: Why aren’t we talking about race? February 15, 2010

Until Rob told us in comments, I hadn’t come across anything at all about race and the Alabama shootings that initially appeared to be about tenure. But apparently all three of the faculty members killed were people of colour, one Indian and two African-American. Given the standard composition of science departments, it would seem very surprising if this were coincidental. This really should be getting reported.

Till Children Do Us Part February 14, 2010

This New York Times piece summarises some potentially interesting new research on the effect of having children upon the quality of marriage. I say ‘potentially’ because it’s a rather sketchy summary of a forthcoming paper by two psychologists at Stanford. I haven’t been able to locate the paper itself yet, presumably it really is forthcoming – if anyone finds it, please post a link in comments.

You may already have read about recent research suggesting that having kids has a generally negative impact on our happiness – despite how counter-intuitive that sounds to many of us. This interesting article from the Atlantic contained a pithy summary (sorry, again I cannot find the original source for this – is it perhaps part of the work being done by Dan Gilbert?):

…if you ask people about their greatest happiness in life, more than a third mention their children or grandchildren, but when they use a diary to record their happiness, it turns out that taking care of the kids is a downer—parenting ranks just a bit higher than housework, and falls below sex, socializing with friends, watching TV, praying, eating, and cooking.

After mentioning this idea, the NYT piece suggests that the report by Phil and Carolyn Cowan refines these findings by considering some of the many nuances involved, including the effect of gender roles… (emphasis added)

…most studies finding a large drop in marital quality after childbirth do not consider the very different routes that couples travel toward parenthood.

[...]

The Cowans found that the average drop in marital satisfaction was almost entirely accounted for by the couples who slid into being parents, disagreed over it or were ambivalent about it. Couples who planned or equally welcomed the conception were likely to maintain or even increase their marital satisfaction after the child was born.

Marital quality also tends to decline when parents backslide into more traditional gender roles. Once a child arrives, lack of paid parental leave often leads the wife to quit her job and the husband to work more. This produces discontent on both sides. The wife resents her husband’s lack of involvement in child care and housework. The husband resents his wife’s ingratitude for the long hours he works to support the family.

Although this point about gender seems pretty intuitive and obvious to me, it’s nice to see research bears it out. After all, this is clearly an area where our intuitions can lead us astray (the article also suggests the increased amount of time modern parents spend with their kids is detrimental to everyone’s happiness). If future research further supports these findings, it will perhaps lend greater force and effect to an already important strategy for feminists, namely the thought that gender equality makes people (of all genders) happier in their relationships and isn’t everyone in favour of that? Then again, perhaps this is all too sketchy to tell us anything important just yet. What do you think?

The Sunday Cat has suffered a setback February 14, 2010

As part an our attempt to recognize other species, we planned to put up a lovely video of a female elephant seal cuddling with a woman on a beach. Chatting penguins strolled by, and it was a lovely scene. BUT it just got removed. In desperation, we looked for Maru, who seldom fails to please, intentionally or otherwise. So here again, a top cat from Japan:

And

An area where we don’t want more women February 13, 2010

is mass murder. But sadly, Dr Amy Bishop has now given us one of the first mass shootings by a woman. And it was over tenure, of all things. Sigh. (Thanks, Esa.)

Because “bias” is in the eye of the beholder February 12, 2010

Since SFgate reported that Judge Vaughn Walker is gay, several groups opposed to gay rights have apparently claimed that his sexual orientation constitutes a bias that should prevent him from presiding over the Federal trial over California’s Proposition 8.  Despite Walker’s long-standing reputation as an impartial judge,  Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel has said that: “Any decision favoring plaintiffs in this case will be permanently marred and universally viewed as stemming from Judge Walker’s personal biases.”

Of course, this is the same Liberty Counsel that is currently looking to hire a “religious liberty attorney” with “an unquenchable desire to be on the front lines of the culture war that is raging against America’s Christian heritage.”  Presumably, the successful candidate should also have no aspirations to a judicial career.

Pants/trousers* and Superbowl Commercials February 12, 2010

I honestly don’t know what is  worse:  The commercial or what appears  to be the manufacturers/advertising agency’s comment on it:

And here’s the explanation:

The Men Without Pants ad makes a statement about modern masculinity, or lack thereof. The anti-anthem commercial dramatizes the ridiculous behavior of a group of men not wearing pants. These proud but childish men march through a field with purpose while singing I Wear No Pants and are interrupted with a notice to mankind: Calling all Men – its time to Wear the Pants. The takeaway of the ad is that men might see a glimmer of themselves in the pant-less parade and make the decision to Wear the Pants, both literally and figuratively.

Given the amount of drinking that can be going on as this commercial is watched, one has to worry about whether such a commercial is going to bring out undesirable behavior.  Or so I think.

What do you think?

———————–

*trousers are called “pants” in the US>

“Green Porno”, by Isabella Rossellini February 12, 2010

Enjoy.

For more Green Porno, go here.

Comments getting lost in spam February 12, 2010

I just discovered 3 comments buried in the  spam box.  The algorithm used to decide what goes in there is obviously very imperfect.  If you don’t see your comment getting posted, please use the “contact us” to let us know.  We do not screen comments, though we may delete those that violate our policies.

The posts were on the following three topics:

- query from a reader

- once upon a time

- pretty thin men

Jan Palmowski is a Disgrace: He Must Go February 12, 2010

He appears to be the man behind the King’s insanity. For more, go here. I really do urge you to do so, and to continue this campaign in whatever way you can.

G-Spot Controversy, and a bit of national stereotyping February 11, 2010

Who knew they could be so easily combined?

At last week’s gynaecologists’ conference in Paris (what is the collective noun for a group of gynaecologists?), organiser Sylvain Mimoun declared that 60 per cent of women have one, and that proper “interaction” with it can make it increasingly “functional”. The doctors then couldn’t resist thumbing their noses at the British scientists who recently claimed to have proved the non-existence of the G-spot after they studied 1,800 exceptionally patient identical twins.

“The King’s College study shows a lack of respect for what women say,” sneered a “leading French surgeon”, Pierre Foldes.

“The conclusions were completely erroneous because they were based solely on genetic observations. It is clear that in female sexuality there is a variability. It cannot be reduced to a yes or no or an on or off.”

Gynaecologist Odile Buisson added: “I don’t want to stigmatise at all,” before going on to stigmatise the British researchers. “I think the Protestant, liberal, Anglo-Saxon character means you are very pragmatic. There has to be a cause for everything, a gene for everything. It’s totalitarian.” Ouch….

Some British women find it dispiriting to be told about the non-existence of the G-spot; but still more are disappointed to hear all these French women bragging about having them while we, instead, have fluoridisation and proper tea. “Weeth zees long ‘olidays we ‘ave plenty of time for ze looking,” they seem to be saying. “We ‘ave it, ze G-spot. It ees ‘ere!” Yet others are murmuring that it seems a peculiar preoccupation of (mostly male) research scientists to want to find something that many rational people are certain isn’t there.

Thanks, Kitchen-Chick!

Learn about Philosophy of Religion. And the Maleness of the Field. February 11, 2010

Well, it’s educational. The University of St Thomas is holding a summer school on Philosophy of Religion that will teach students many things. Including that the field is just not for girls.

Thanks, K, and apologies for the delay!

Gender Identity and the DSM-V February 11, 2010

Reader TM has alerted us to proposed changes in the Diagnostic Criteria for Gender Identity Disorder in the DSM-V. These matter because, as I understand it, satisfying these criteria is (at least sometimes) necessary (though not sufficient) for one to get access to certain medical procedures/treatments, and for one’s transition to be legally recognised. (Please correct me if I’m wrong!) TM points out that the criteria are looser than they used to be, and also that they allow for the possibility of more than 2 genders. Here are the criteria:

A. A marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and assigned gender, of at least 6 months duration, as manifested by 2* or more of the following indicators: [2, 3, 4]

1. a marked incongruence between one’s experienced/expressed gender and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics (or, in young adolescents, the anticipated secondary sex characteristics) [13, 16]

2. a strong desire to be rid of one’s primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked incongruence with one’s experienced/expressed gender (or, in young adolescents, a desire to prevent the development of the anticipated secondary sex characteristics) [17]

3. a strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender

4. a strong desire to be of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

5. a strong desire to be treated as the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

6. a strong conviction that one has the typical feelings and reactions of the other gender (or some alternative gender different from one’s assigned gender)

I was surprised to see that the careful parenthetical about alternative genders is absent from criterion 3, which seems odd. I’d very much like to know what others think about the proposed revisions.

Calvin College’s Discrimination February 10, 2010

Mark Lance writes:

As readers of this blog probably know, there was an extended debate on the Lieter site about a year ago regarding schools that discriminate against LGBTQ folks advertising with the APA. This resulted in a clarification of the APA anti-discrimination policy. (See herefor background.) Now Calvin College is the first to explicitly reject the new policy and announce it’s intention to continue discriminating in hiring. Todd May of Clemson university and I have drafted an open letter that is being circulated. It has been mentioned already on InsideHigherEd and will be sent to the Proceedings of the APA. If you would like to be added as a signatory, contact Mark Lance at abuemma@gmail.com.

And here is the letter.

Response to Calvin College’s Rejection of APA Statement on Non-discrimination

We, the undersigned, note with concern Calvin College’s decision to reject the APA’s clarification of its non-discrimination statement to include “gender identification”. In doing so, Calvin College enjoys the dubious honor of being the first institution identified by the APA in its new policy of flagging those institutions that refuse to honor the non-discrimination statement.

One might puzzle over a form of Christianity that is committed to the inequality of people, and in particular of job applicants for positions in philosophy. More disturbing, however, is the stigma Calvin College feels entitled to place upon those who are doubly exposed: as lesbians, gays, bisexuals or transgendered in a society that has yet to accept them, and as people seeking jobs during difficult economic times.

Obtaining academic positions in philosophy is never an easy task; doing so in the face of the current economic climate is nothing less than traumatic. That Calvin College would engage in a most egregious form of discrimination under these circumstances strikes us as not only deplorable but indeed as displaying a lack of basic human concern.

We live in a world in which it is legal in most states to fire someone simply for being, or appearing to be, gay or lesbian; in which sexual minorities are denied visitation rights to dying life-partners; and in which loving, same-sex couples are denied the right to adopt. In this environment, the decision by Calvin College to align itself with those who seek to deny human dignity and equality to their fellow citizens and our fellow philosophers is an injury that we must resist.

We urge all those in the philosophical community, regardless of their sexual or gender identification, to write to Calvin College, see below, to express their dismay at this lack of decency, and, if so moved, to contribute to the groups listed in the Grand Rapids LGBT network.

It is imperative for us, as philosophers, coming as we do from a tradition that seeks to understand and promote truth and justice, to resist those who would betray both the most significant values of our profession and the most vulnerable members of it.

Contact information for Calvin College:

Contact information:

Calvin College

Office of the President

3201 Burton Street, SE

Grand Rapids, MI

49546

(616) 526-6100

(616) 526-6577 Fax

offcpres@calvin.edu

Department of Philosophy

1845 Knollcrest Circle SE

Grand Rapids, MI 49546

Phone: 616.526.6488

Fax: 616.526.8505

Del Ratzsch

Professor, Department Chair

616-526-6415

dratzsch@calvin.edu

They’re different: look for it from day 1! February 9, 2010

Check out this awesome advice to new mothers. I especially like the way that she acknowledges you may not actually perceive these differences, so you should look for them:

Boy or girl? That’s the first question people ask when they hear you are having a baby. And according to child psychologist Dr Pat Spungin, the answer makes a huge difference to your baby’s personality and progress, from the very moment he or she arrives in the delivery room. ‘Gender affects everything – from how well babies make eye contact in the first week of life, to whether they’re easy to potty train at 18 months,’ she says. The differences are very important for parents to be aware of, yet it’s so easily overlooked.’

The amazing thing is that the full article actually acknowledges the ways that parents’ reactions shape the children, and the ways that parents differentially classify the same behaviour in boys and girls.

I particularly liked the closing line (after explaining the boys are unsociable, slow to potty train, slower to talk, etc).

Does it all seem weighed in favour of girls? Not in the long term. Your son is likely to earn up to 25% more than most women, be bigger and stronger, and has better odds of becoming Prime Minister. Plus he is less likely to have to worry about domestic chores (apparently, there is no society where men are the primary caregivers). Oh, one more thing about a boy. He never stops loving his mummy.

Query from a reader February 8, 2010

MV writes:

Next Fall I’ll be teaching an interdisciplinary humanities honors seminar on 20th Century Intellectual History, which is effectively a broadly humanities-focused course that could be called “Important Works published between 1900-1999 the Professor Wanted to Read this Semester.” The presumption is that we read a book a week, and ideally something that looks impressive sitting on the bookshelf in a Great Works sort of way.

I’ll be teaching 4 or so units on different subject matters, and I’m thinking about doing a unit on feminism. There is obviously an embarrassment of riches of great 20th century feminist texts, whether philosophical, literary, journalistic, or historical. What I’m looking for, though, is some intelligent dissent. I’m hoping you can help me with that because not much is coming to mind. Ideally, the writing would be some Impressive Book, but it need not be. If the best stuff is a series of disconnected articles or other media, that’s fine. The important thing for my purposes is to get the best critical work on the table, regardless of whether it is popular, academic, philosophical, literary, or other.

Thoughts about what I should take a look at?

APA Eastern Division Paper deadline February 8, 2010

It’s Feb. 15 & here’s the  online submission page.

You need a 3,000 word paper and a 100 word abstract.  I assume the word length does not include bibliography.

So if you’ve got the extra paper here or there, do think of putting it in, expecially if you are already on the East Coast or have to go to the meeting for the job market (gasp!).

And now back to madness in the UK February 8, 2010

The University of Sussex is enacting massive cuts, including the elimination of Early Modern History. Other highlights include closure of the subsidised childcare facility and the sexual health clinic. (H/T Leiter.)

When Philosophers Get Discussed on Late-Night TV February 8, 2010

A bit of light relief:

And, for you British readers: I think she meant ‘leather trousers’.

More from UK academia February 8, 2010

The fun just never stops over here.

Universities across the country are preparing to axe thousands of teaching jobs, close campuses and ditch courses to cope with government funding cuts, the Guardian has learned.

Do consider joining the Facebook group Save Higher Education (UK).