The Collectively Male Dimension of Science

Kind of ironic for this one to be all-male, given the traditional association between women and things communal (and all the work by women on scientific communities). Ah well. Add it to the list.

(Thanks, M!)

UPDATE: I’ve sent this letter:


I’m one of the bloggers at Feminist Philosophers, and I’m writing to let you know that your conference has been added to our Gendered Conference Campaign. Here’s a little bit of information about the campaign: “The Gendered Conference Campaign aims to raise awareness of the prevalence of all-male conferences (and volumes, and summer schools), of the harm that they do. We make no claims whatsoever about the causes of such conferences: our focus is on their existence and effects. We are therefore not in the business of blaming conference organisers, and not interested (here, anyway) in discussions of blameworthiness. Instead, we are interested in drawing attention to this systematic phenomenon.”

You’ll find more here, and the post about your conference is here.

I’d like to emphasise once again that we are making no claims about how your conference came to have an all-male list of invited speakers. We are not blaming you for this. We’re interested in it simply as part of a widespread, systematic phenomenon with bad effects.

Best wishes,


4 thoughts on “The Collectively Male Dimension of Science

  1. Well, it is puzzling. I think it must be because they are talking about computers and computations!

    About that I notice that as long ago as 1999 Read Montague and Steve Quartz were saying, “… Early investigators thought that the really important problem was to find the functions or computations being implemented by the brain independent of the specifics of their implementation using biological components. This view is now seen as impoverished … .”

    As far as I can see, this impoverished picture continues to attract many philosophers. Supposing they hold to this picture, there is a delicious irony in the picture of the male philosophers getting together to consider whether there is anything to be gained from having a social dimension to science.

    That may be too neat to be true.

  2. Something like the struggle for Science to converse about something that skims the significant.

    to make a fatigue of its own considerations.

    did the description of its presentation even make it to University level?

    an establishment of ken?

    really the scientist seems to work without any realization of the philosopher, and never learns to manage the word science in his consciousness.

    the incorrect use of epistemology.

  3. This is really upsetting given the absolutely central role that female and feminist philosophers of science have played in developing a social model of science. I can think of at least 2 dozen excellent, high profile female keynotes for this conference.

  4. Great work – I think you might mean “systemic” and not “systematic,” which would refer to the pervasiveness of the phenomenon, rather than it’s well-organized or methodical nature.



Comments are closed.