The Girl Detective has an excellent post up at Feministe, arguing that “the very structure of academia is hurting women’s chances at securing full-time jobs”. It’s largely based on her experiences as a white part-time English instructor on the US. I’d be very grateful for thoughts from others with different experiences.
“Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”** May 30, 2008
And here it is: The AAUP’s the “2007-08 Report on the Economic Status of the Profession“. For those who don’t want to pore thru the whole thing, here are the “highlights”. Enjoy! ***
Have you been wondering whether you’re fairly paid compared to the guys? Whether women are fairly represented? What happened to all those who don’t identify happily as one or the other? Have you really, really, wondered? After all, you should have been able to predict these answers: No. No. Everyone is male or female.
But have a look. Warning: the details are depressing. !
**Thanks to Percy Bysshe Shelley
***hat tip to the PJMB
Feminist theory and empirical predictions March 2, 2008
Interesting case, if alarming linkage, which is indicated by the stress:
Body dissatisfaction and disordered eating were compared across groups of college women from China ( n= 109), South Korea ( n= 137), and the United States ( n= 102). Based on cultural differences in the amount of exposure to Western appearance standards, particularly the thin-body ideal, sociocultural theory ( Thompson, Heinberg, Altabe, & Tantleff-Dunn, 1999 ) would predict that body dissatisfaction and disordered eating would be highest in the U.S. sample and lowest in the Chinese sample. In contrast, based on the speed and pervasiveness of changes in women’s roles, feminist theory ( Bordo, 1993 ; Jeffreys, 2005 ) would predict that body dissatisfaction and disordered eating would be highest in the Korean sample and lowest in the U.S. sample. Multidimensional measures indicated the highest levels of body dissatisfaction and disordered eating in the Korean sample and the lowest levels in the U.S. sample, indicating that predictions derived from feminist theory were a better fit to the data than predictions derived from sociocultural theory. Results indicated that theoretical understandings of body dissatisfaction must recognize not only differences between Western and non-Western cultures, but also differences among non-Western cultures.
Abstract from:
“BODY DISSATISFACTION AND DISORDERED EATING AMONG COLLEGE WOMEN IN CHINA, SOUTH KOREA, AND THE UNITED STATES: CONTRASTING PREDICTIONS FROM SOCIOCULTURAL AND FEMINIST THEORIES.”
Jaehee Jung
Forbes, Gordon B.
Psychology of Women Quarterly; Dec2007, Vol. 31 Issue 4, p381-393, 13p
More on the ethics and epistemology of implicit bias March 2, 2008
Via the excellent SGRP blog, I’ve just learned of a really interesting article on implicit bias, by Erica Roedder and Dan Kelly. It deals with lots of the issues that have come up in our discussions here (most recently here), but does so in a much more systematic way. Among other things, they consider the idea that we should, when marking students, increase the marks of those we are likely to be biased against. And that we should do this simply on the basis of the probability of such a bias, since we cannot expect to have introspective knowledge of it. Moreover, they consider the idea that we should do this *even if* there are no studies examining the role of implicit biases in marking (because perhaps we have enough knowledge about such biases in other areas to predict a marking bias). Of course, another option is to do what is increasingly standard in the UK, and mark all work anonymously. (When this came in, it reportedly led to a huge increase in Firsts for women. I haven’t got a good reference for this, but would love to get one!) Anyway, go read the paper– really interesting and important stuff.
A Modest Proposal: Mandatory Vasectomies February 14, 2008
Reader S. has passed on to me this proposal, from a letter to the editor of the Toledo Blade. Could be really good for getting some in-class discussion going!
Control men’s bodies as well as women’sI want to know why it’s viewed as OK for government to control women’s bodies, as proposed by some, and yet we don’t propose that government control men’s bodies. There would be no fertilized eggs without sperm.If it’s OK for the government to tell women that they must carry a fetus to term, whether or not she wants to do so or even if the pregnancy threatens the woman’s life, then why is it not OK for government to tell men that they must have a vasectomy, whether or not they want to do so?Vasectomies control pregnancy and are cheaper and easier than abortions or children. Actually, we could put a great number of issues to rest by controlling the original cause of all pregnancies. We could just nip this thing in the bud.Vasectomies are reputed to be reversible. So, a man could be given a vasectomy when appropriate, at puberty, and then reversed once he and a like-minded female are ready to have children. The government could mark a man’s driver’s license with a special V, so that when asked, a man can identify that he has had the procedure. Of course, vasectomies are not always reversible, but we can hope. Just as we hope that pregnancies work out well for the female, which they don’t always.I thought what was good for the goose was good for the gander. We could start the “V” campaign, V for vasectomies and V for victory over unwanted pregnancies. Men could be pro-V or anti-V, but that really wouldn’t matter as the government would have the control and final say. Let’s hear it for equal opportunity.
Jane Lynam
Women, Work and the Academy January 19, 2008
How do discriminatory attitudes and practices get so embedded in the academy that we find ourselves still struggling against them after decades of efforts to eradicate them? A pamphlet, Women, Work, and the Academy, written by Alison Wylie, Janet R. Jakobsen and Gisela Fosado, brings very recent research to bear on these issues.
The pamphlet grew out of a conference held at Barnard shortly after Summers infamous remark. The conference website is also a wonderful resource. Note the video of the keynote panel and the summaries of presenters’ remarks.
Anyone who wants to understand academic discrimination and think about effective tactics against it should read these resources carefully.
Under-Represented Groups and Stereotype Threat January 7, 2008
There has been a lot of excellent discussion lately about the under-representation of certain groups in philosophy, and what can be done about it. (This post gives links to some of it.) One force which is very likely to play a role in this (both as partial cause and effect) is Stereotype Threat. Stereotype Threat is a very well-confirmed phenomenon, in which people from groups stereotypically expected to perform badly on a task perform in stereotype-confirming ways if they are reminded of their group membership. (See Stoat’s post here.) For example, women asked to indicate their sex at the beginning of a math exam do worse on the exam than women not asked to do this. It’s not hard to see how this could have effects in philosophy. Women are stereotypically bad at e.g. logic, so being reminded of their sex could worsen their logic performance. Surely, you may argue, nobody asks women to indicate their sex at the top of a logic exam. Absolutely right, but there’s more than one way to be reminded of one’s sex, and being one of very few women in a room certainly has that effect. (As does being in a room full of people who go to men-only events together, hearing the phrase ‘lady academic’, being told that one is ‘an affirmative action hire’, to cite anecdotes from recent comments. For more on the way this works, see a post from JJ.) I use women as my example, but there are similar destructive stereotypes about other groups. It’s heartening to read, then, at Mixing Memory, that there are some very easy and effective ways to combat Stereotype Threat. Here’s one example:
Good et al. had advanced college calculus students take a practice exam that they were told would test their readiness for the upcoming real exam, and would also get them extra credit based on their score. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: the reduced-threat condition, in which they were told that the exam had been thoroughly tested, and had shown no gender differences, and the control condition, in which gender wasn’t mentioned (gender stereotypes in math are pervasive, so it’s likely simply taking a test will activate them). Male participants performed equally well in both conditions, while female participants performed significantly worse in the control condition than in the reduced-threat condition. In fact, while female participants in the control condition performed worse than male participants, the female participants in the reduced-threat condition performed better than all of the male participants.
It would be great if we could come up with easy ways, appropriate for teaching philosophy, to reduce stereotype threat. I’d love to hear any ideas that folks have. One potential problem that occurs to me is that I wouldn’t want to just focus on sex/gender stereotypes. But it’s hard to imagine a non-clunky way to combat all the many stereotypes that might affect our students. Suggestions? One thing I find myself wondering is whether teaching people about stereotype threat could help make them less susceptible to it. Has this been tried?
