APA Newsletter for Feminism and Philosophy
The most recent issues of the Newsletter (including the one currently in completion) were devoted to the question of the numbers and status of women in professional philosophy (explanations for why we comprise a mere 21% of professional philosophers, survival strategies, coping strategies for those who survive, and enhancement strategies to bring more women in, publication issues for women philosophers, success strategies for career survival).
This and coming years will also prove a challenge for many women in philosophy as state and federal budgets are balanced by cuts to academic and educational institutions and to public services which support those who make up the politically marginalized and vulnerable populations. These hard economic times affect all women, whether we are in professional philosophy struggling for promotion, research funding, or just to keep our jobs, or we are returning to school to improve our chances of getting or keeping work, or we are trying to keep hearth and home together, children fed, companions in good spirit, and ourselves economically viable.
It seems appropriate and timely to address a question central to the lives of many women: motherhood.
The next issue of the Newsletter will be devoted to the question of motherhood in its full breadth and depth. Essays on any topic related to motherhood will be considered.
Please format your essays according to Newsletter requirements and should be prepared for anonymous review. Length is limited to 4000 words inclusive of all endnotes and references.
Submissions must be received by October 15th, 2010.
Send submissions electronically in either Word or PDF formats to Christina Bellon, email@example.com. using an appropriate subject heading.
A very nice first-person account. It’s by the wrote the post I linked to over the weekend, with a selection of women scientists discussing Tierney’s column.
And that post is the subject of her discussion.
Case in point: That post on women in science, itself. Several hours after I hit “publish”, I realized that I’d managed to put together a panel on diversity made up of nothing but white people.
I didn’t set out to do that. But it happened, nonetheless. And it still furthered discrimination, by making it appear as if there aren’t women of color scientists worth talking to, and by implying that their perspective on the issue wouldn’t be any different from a white woman scientist’s. Neither of which is true. Without intending to, I left out the people who didn’t look like me. And because I have the privilege of seeing myself reflected in the media often enough, I didn’t notice the point of view that was missing until after I’d already published the story.
(Thanks, Mr Jender!)