Some blog posts over at Talking Philosophy that readers might be interested in:
First, there’s Dear Larry, on Larry Summers’s claims about gender differences, and Cordelia Fine.
Then there’s Women, Aggression and Philosophy.
And there may well be more…. (My morning’s too busy to check.)
and there have been a few posts today related to the feline, I thought I’d mention Animal Planets new series on dealing with difficult cats. Its cat whisperer has some surprising and good advice about dealing with cats, difficult or not. The whisperer might seem a bit unexpected, but clearly the show had cat consultants.
The show is on Saturday nights. Bummer.
Request from an isolated feminist:
I could use some words of wisdom. I just can’t face the task of revising an article on which I’ve got the most breathtakingly condescending comments. I can’t seem to keep going, but trust me when I say that my upcoming performance review will not be adequate if I don’t have a peer-reviewed journal article soon. I’m very close to being published with this one, and if I could just get this revision done, I’d be adequate! However, every time I open up the document, read the comments and try to respond to them or change my paper, I just feel sick. I want to crawl in bed, quit my job, admit defeat. The thing is, all the condescending comments are on the feminist material. Today I seriously considered just abdicating on the argument, just rewriting the whole paper to say the comments are right, and feminism is wrong but thanks so much for recommending that I read longstanding classics in the field. I was on the point of reversing my entire view in order to get published, but I cannot do it. What do feminist philosophers do who have been in this position? How do you carry on? How do you finish that work? Most importantly, how do you punch through the paralysis of just reading the comments over and over? I’m really stuck, and I feel like a failure.Success stories welcome. I hope someday I have one to send along myself, after all this is over.
My own suggestion would be to write a cover letter very politely explaining why the comments on the feminism bit are wrong, but thanking the reviewer for showing you that there’s an important misunderstanding to be cleared up. Put in a footnote calling attention to the possible misunderstanding and showing why it’s a mistake, and note in your cover letter that you’ve done so– and that you think this improves the paper.
Then send it off, and pour yourself a stiff drink.
In other circumstances, you might just withdraw the paper and send it somewhere else– but it sounds like you’re too pressed for time. There’s also the option of writing the editor and explaining why you think the referee is incompetent. But I know people who have done this only to learn that the editor was the referee, and given that the editor’s almost certain to know the author’s identity it’s very high-risk.
Other thoughts?
would like to take this occasion to remind everyone how it’s done.
Azerbaijan?! Really?
(And yes, the cat knows she has posted on this topic before. But she thinks Europe needs reminding.0
Imagine a world in which a respected man in a position of world class responsibility turns himself into an attack macine:
From the associated press:
NEW YORK — The leader of the International Monetary Fund and a possible candidate for president of France was pulled from an airplane moments before he was to fly to Paris and was being questioned Saturday by police in connection with the violent sexual assault of a hotel maid, police said….
The 32-year-old woman told authorities that she entered Strauss-Kahn’s suite at the luxury Sofitel hotel not far from Manhattan’s Times Square at about 1 p.m. Eastern time (1600 GMT) Saturday and he attacked her, Browne said. She said she had been told to clean the spacious $3000-a-night-suite suite, which she had been told was empty.
According to an account the woman provided to police, Strauss-Kahn emerged from the bathroom naked, chased her down a hallway and pulled her into a bedroom, where he began to sexually assault her. She said she fought him off, then he dragged her into the bathroom, where he forced her to perform oral sex on him and tried to remove her underwear. The woman was able to break free again and escaped the room and told hotel staff what had happened, authorities said. They called police.
The case may be easily imagined, but that does not mean it is true. We haven’t heard his side at all.
Thanks, M.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
A nice little video, with some rather horrifying facts that would be useful for teaching. (Also some issues that might spark interesting discussion of a more critical sort– e.g. the use of BMI, of which there are some very good criticisms; issues concerning what teenagers are thinking about when asked what they fear most– is it what would be worst, or what they think is more likely?)
From here.
What a fabulous idea for a workshop!
The Edinburgh Women in Philosophy Group is hosting a workshop titled
“Pornography and Objectification; Aesthetics and the Erotic”.Workshop date and time: Monday, the 30th of May 2011, from 10.30am – 5pm.
Workshop Location: University of Edinburgh Philosophy Department,
Dugald Stewart Building, room 1.17.Speakers include: Rae Langton (keynote, Professor, MIT), Mahlet Zimeta
(Lecturer, Roehampton, UK), Hans Maes (Lecturer, Kent, UK)Workshop proposal:
The workshop will bring together scholars in aesthetics, ethics and
feminism to explore the nature of the relationship between
pornography, eroticism and sexuality, and objectivity, aesthetics and
ethics. The workshop will build on debates in aesthetics related to
art and pornography, sexuality and eroticism and feminist concerns
about these issues. It will develop discussion addressing the
complexity of human sexuality and the erotic as it relates to art,
pornography and the objectification of the human person, in
particular, the female person. It will encourage interest in how
feminist concerns fit into these issues and takes place at a time when
discussions on art and pornography have come to the fore in, for
example, the 2009 conference at the University of Kent, “Art,
Aesthetics and the Sexual” and the upcoming conference at the
Institute of Philosophy in London titled “Aesthetics, Art and
Pornography”. The Edinburgh Women in Philosophy Group wishes not only
to shed feminist light on these issues, but to bring the discussion to
Scotland, where we hope to attract feminist theorists, philosophers,
sociologists and art historians.Here is the link to find out more about the event.
And here is the link to register.
A modest registration fee of £15 or £5 concession is being charged to cover
administration and catering costs.The workshop has been generously supported by the University of
Edinburgh Philosophy Department and the Scots Philosophical Association.
I think one of the first new expressions I heard on my first trip to Newcastle-upon-Tyne went something like, “O aye, he’s a stirrer that one is.” So this sober post has a bit of mischief-making behind it.
According to the abstrat below, many Americans are unaware of how great income inequality in American is. And even conservatives want something better than what we have got. The authors say that they wanted to insert the desires of ordinary Americans into debates about optimal income distribution. But they must realize that the relationship between what people say they want in judging income distribution and what they will vote for are hardly securely connected.
Anyone who has worked on implicit biases knows that people who are, e.g., trying very hard to be fair to all their students may nonetheless produce biased grades. And that’s just one example. Desire and action can fall apart. One thing in the political sphere that has interrupted the connection between desire and actual voting behavior in the case of income distribution is the persuasive leadership of conservative factions. Or, ironically, the desire leads to votes for candidates who think the government’s doing nothing is the best state of affairs. Let trickle down work; do not indulge the “laziness” of the welfare recipients, and so on. (Note: this views are being reported, but are not endorsed!)**
In the political sphere one hope is that we get a leadership who can make vivid the effects of doing nothing, and actually help to change behavior. We may not have such a leader, as we once thought we did. But in any case, that raises the question of whether leadership in academia could be more effective. So far the APA has hardly been a help. Perhaps we should try to energize deans or department chairs.
Should we try a petition and a set of action guidelines to be sent around to chairs? What sort of petition might stir things up? What sort of guidelines could there be? Should the guidelines come monthly, with perhaps different areas for different months?
Building a Better America—One Wealth Quintile at a Time, by Michael I. Norton and Dan Ariely2.
Disagreements about the optimal level of wealth inequality underlie policy debates ranging from taxation to welfare. We attempt to insert the desires of “regular” Americans into these debates, by asking a nationally representative online panel to estimate the current distribution of wealth in the United States and to “build a better America” by constructing distributions with their ideal level of inequality. First, respondents dramatically underestimated the current level of wealth inequality. Second, respondents constructed ideal wealth distributions that were far more equitable than even their erroneously low estimates of the actual distribution. Most important from a policy perspective, we observed a surprising level of consensus: All demographic groups—even those not usually associated with wealth redistribution such as Republicans and the wealthy—desired a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo.
**This may be a chaitable interpretation. That is, one might be willing to say on a poll that one would prefer a more just society where there’s less violence, for example. At the same time, one might want one’s privileged life most of all, so the disconnect between desire for equality and voting behavior looks more like plain selfishness.
And ad for this book came across my inbox today. It’s for a new book by two professors emeritus from the University of Toronto, sharing their wisdom with their target audience of graduate students and junior faculty members. The most egregious thing about this presumptuous book (as if two old guys’ experience can tell the young all they need to know to navigate the world of academia) is the photo on the cover. So you want to be a professor? For starters, it helps a whole heck of a lot if you’re a nerdy-looking white guy (with a bow tie, tweed optional). Can we please stop perpetuating this ridiculous stereotype of who can be a professor?
Catriona Mackenzie and Jacqui Poltera, 2010. “Narrative Integration, Fragmented Selves and Autonomy.” Hypatia 25(1): 31-54, and
Andrea C. Westlund, 2009. “Rethinking Relational Autonomy.” Hypatia 24(4): 26-49.
Commentaries are by: Paul Benson (University of Dayton); John Christman (Pennsylvania State University); James Rocha (Louisiana State University); and Natalie Stoljar (McGill University), with replies by Mackenzie and Poltera, and Westlund.
Have a look, and join in the discussion! (Longtime readers like me might be confused by the fact that the link goes to the SGRP blog. But that’s where it should go– all symposia are now on the blog.)
Go to Google *today* and you’ll get a fabulous little cartoon of modern dance pioneer Martha Graham. (Thanks, J-Bro!)
KAMPALA, Uganda — Uganda’s parliament appeared Wednesday to have dropped plans to debate a controversial bill that once proposed the death penalty for some gays and lesbians following an outcry from U.S. leaders and rights groups.
For more, go here.
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis – also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Post-Viral Fatigue Syndrome – is a chronic and debilitating condition, which affects its sufferers in a range of different ways, causing extreme fatigue, muscle weakness, digestive problems, heart failure, pain, and sometimes death. Most of those affected can no longer work, although some can still manage a part-time job. Some people with the condition are affected severely and become bedbound for years, unable to wash themselves or go to the toilet unassisted. Doctors have little idea what causes it, and there is currently no cure, although some people do recover. Despite an increase in awareness of the condition, it can still take a long time to receive a diagnosis, and despite its severity, M.E is not always taken seriously by medical professionals. The problems are compounded by a lack of research into the condition. You can read more on the M.E. Research UK website. The Action for M.E. webpage has suggestions for things you can do to help. Finally, for an insight into what it is like to live with severe M.E., and how you may be treated by some members of the medical profession, have a look at this site.
A group designed to connect Black philosophy graduate students and junior faculty for the purposes of helping the former gain tenure-track jobs and the latter gain tenure.
You can join the FB group here. (Thanks, Sally!)
Breastfed babies are 30 per cent less likely to develop behavioural problems, according to the latest evidence that breast really is best.
To assess the effects of breastfeeding on behaviour, Maria Quigley at the University of Oxford and her colleagues collected data from more than 10,000 mothers in the UK.
When their infants were around 9 months old, each mother was asked whether she breastfed her baby and for how long. When the children reached the age of 5, their behaviour was assessed using a questionnaire completed by the mother.
This so-called Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) is used to identify behavioural problems including anxiety, clinginess, restlessness, lying and stealing in youngsters. The team also noted the mothers’ socioeconomic status, education, smoking and relationship status, as these are all thought to influence offspring behaviour.
After accounting for these factors, the group found that babies exclusively breastfed for at least four months were 30 per cent less likely to exhibit a range of social and behavioural problems or score abnormally high on the SDQ.
As others have noted, this at best assesses what mothers who breastfeed *think* about their children’s behaviour, and that’s important. Also, it neglects the possibility that something else– like having a lifestyle conducive to breastfeeding– could be the common cause of breastfeeding and less fussy children (assuming they actually are less fussy, rather than just being perceived that way).
Interestingly, even the experimenters seem to think it’s likely not to actually be the breastmilk itself but the attachment that results from all the time feeding. If that’s right, then (a) one should emphasise that there are other ways to form said attachment (involving fathers, bottles or both); and (b) the US model– little if any maternity leave, but lots of pressure to pump– isn’t going to bring the benefit.
(Thanks, S and L!)
Link here.
When the story first surfaced in January, it struck some as so unlikely that they questioned its veracity. Many women in science, however, said that the story rang true to them. Maybe they hadn’t experienced exactly the same thing, but they said they had seen plenty of senior male faculty members who were clueless at best and discriminatory at worst about responding to students or faculty members who become mothers.
The story was that a department chair in the veterinary school at the University of California at Davis had polled a class on what grade he should give to a student who had to miss some quizzes because she had given birth. On Monday afternoon, the university released a statement from Edward Feldman, chair of the medicine and epidemiology department, in which he apologized for the incident in his class, and said that he was complying with the university’s request to step down as chair.
We reported on this story earlier here.
I’m glad he’s apologising and stepping down, but is it really an adequate *punishment* to relieve someone of the endless admin duties of chairing a department?
Thanks, J!
Tanya McDowell is homeless, but wanted to enroll her son in kindergarten. (The nerve!) Now she’s being charged with “stealing education” for him, because in order to enroll him she claimed an address that she didn’t have (because, being homeless, she had no address). For more, go here. To sign a petition in support of her, go here.
(Thanks, Synaesthetik!)
No, not the shameful plans for higher education (see here).
Rather, still shamefully, 1 in 5 councils have cut services for deaf children. This further restricts access to the kinds of support needed for deaf children to access and fully participate in education. Details here.
Recent Comments