I should note my own bias: Although I’ve been a dues-paying member for fifteen years, I’ve long considered the end of the APA as a good (that is, likely, perhaps even desirable) possibility.

“Stereotyped views on driving have been shaken after new research that finds women are more efficient parkers than men. The experiment, conducted by UK’s National Car Parks, showed that women’s spatial awareness has been underrated, or perhaps that males’ spatial awareness has been overrated.” More here: Women Top Men in Parking Skills, UK Study Asserts.

Men were, however, happier with their parking job than were women (even though objectively it was worse) and generally more confident about their abilities.

(Thanks, C!)

Nominations are now open for the 2012 Philosophy of Science Women’s Caucus Prize. The Prize is awarded biennially for the best book, article, or chapter published in English in the area of feminist philosophy of science within the five years prior to each PSA meeting. The winner will receive a cash award of $500, which will be presented at the November 2012 PSA meeting in San Diego, California.

The deadline for nominations is May 1, 2012. To be considered, works must have been published between May 1, 2007 and May 1, 2012. Articles posted electronically on journal websites in final (accepted) form prior to May 1, 2012 are eligible for consideration. Self-nominations are allowed but are limited to one per person.

To make a nomination, please provide information about the article, book or chapter you are nominating by clicking here.

We are women and pro-feminist men in philosophy (also from psychology, cultural studies, History-society-culture interdisciplinary program, also participants from outside universities, etc.), who have formed a Salon (inspired by the format of 18th century salons in France, one of the only and last places that were feminine but in which men and women engaged in intellectual exchanges, etc.) called “Salon Femmes et philosophie”. We are from all Montréal universities but mostly meet at UQÀM.

We meet once a month, and have many really interesting and creative actions and projects planned for 2012 – to denounce the absence of women in philosophy in Québec, to promote and network between feminist philosophers, to put forward and under the noses of teachers and authorities the works of women in philosophy, to push for more feminine content in classes, and be means to each other’s ends in the individual struggles we face alone, each solo in our seminars, surrounded by men who find that “man” is a generic term, that language, sexist as it is, is fine as it is, and that women do not quite “get” the philosophical mindframe, etc. Notably, we try to bring academia’s attention toward invisible biases, glass ceilings, stereotype effects, etc. that affect the experience of women in philosophy, in academia, and as intellectual authorities in Québec.  We are aged 18 – 45, some are parents, some queer, some are activists, some are employed and we are trying to become a diverse yet resolutely pro-feminist group.

In fact, even if your French isn’t above what a Canadian friend calls “cereal box standard”, the Facebook page seems like a useful source of news and views. I like the profile picture.

a. “You know how it is, if you’re going to say anything in a seminar, it has to be brilliant.”

b. “This is the philosophical method: someone puts up a position and everyone tries to knock it down.”

c. A dialogue:
Speaker One: It’s as though you stand on the top of a hill, and say to your students: This is my position, and anyone who wants to have their own position has to knock me off first.
Speaker Two: Yes, that’s what I do best.

First, some obvious things to say: There’s been a lot of discussion of aggressive philosophy and the antagonist philosophical style. But there’s something else that’s more moderate, and that one suspects a lot of us find attractive. That’s the vigorous “exchange of ideas” that is actually carried on with quite a bit of evaluation. If you pursue this as a professor, you might find yourself saying, “Well, that’s not a bad idea, but it isn’t as strong as the first one, and it doesn’t really answer these other questions.” Or,” yes fair point, but most people nowadays have learned that doesn’t cut much philosophical ice.” Students can be very good at summing such remarks up.

Secondly, the less obvious:  Research we looked at earlier this week strongly suggests that there’s a danger that such an environment dumbs down some students, and these students form identifiable groups.  White women and Hispanics.  It really shouldn’t be a surprise that styles in classes can have discriminatory effects, but now we are moving beyond the anecdotal to some ideas about how deeply seated the dumbed down reaction may be.

An opposite strategy:  to try to find as much worthwhile in each comment as you can, and leave off evaluating the rest.  Should one try something like that?  Do the results we reported on before show that those of us who like to stir up a vigorous and challenging debate have obligation to reconsider?  What do you think?

I need your help!

I’m scheduled to teach a graduate course in Education that will be populated with Education graduate students. I taught a graduate seminar in Education within the past year, and it went great. (I am a Philosophy professor.) So I’ve been asked to teach another, and I’m curious to know what you would recommend for this course description, particularly regarding feminist interpretations of education:

Course:

Contemporary Philosophies of Education: Contemporary philosophical approaches to educational problems and issues, including: pragmatist, analytic, existentialist, phenomenological, critical, hermeneutic, postmodern, and feminist.

Any and all help would be welcome, and I’d love to hear from you about feminist interpretations of education as well as the other traditions noted above.

The graduate students will have little background in philosophy, but most of them will have some (from our class together last year) in the history of philosophy regarding education. But other than that, I’m assuming little knowledge about philosophy, since they’re Education graduate students.

At the 2012 Joint Session there will be a SWIP UK panel of papers devoted to topics in any area of interest to women in philosophy. We solicit full papers (2000 words) plus 250 word abstract, suitable to be delivered in no more than 20 minutes with a further 10 minutes for discussion. We encourage submissions from graduate students. (As with all the open sessions, papers accepted for this session will not be published in the Supplementary Volume of the Aristotelian Society.)

The closing date for submissions is *1st March 2012*. We expect to confirm which papers have been accepted by the end of March.

Papers that are not accepted for the SWIP panel may be considered for the Open Sessions. You should also indicate when submitting the paper whether you wish the paper to be considered for the Open Sessions.

Please make sure that your submission is suitable for anonymous reviewing and attach a separate document with your name and contact details. Email submissions are preferred; please send your full paper, with an abstract, as either .doc or .pdf attachment to Roxanna Lynch (roxannajesselynch@gmail.com) or send a hard copy to: R. J. Lynch, 81 Andover Road, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 6JH
To speak at this event you will need to register as a delegate for the Joint Session. Registration will be open from Spring 2012. For more details see here:

http://www.aristoteliansociety.org.uk/jsessions/index.html

Organizers:

Roxanna Lynch, PhD Candidate, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University

Email: roxannajesselynch[AT]@gmail.com

Dr Jules Holroyd, Department of Philosophy, University of Nottingham.

Email: Jules.Holroyd[AT]Nottingham.ac.uk