Society for Women in Philosophy (UK) Conference
FEMINIST EPISTEMOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITIONS
Hosted by the Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy (CRMEP), Kingston University
With support from the Institute of Philosophy (SAS)
18–19 November 2011
London, Kingston University
ONLINE REGISTRATION NOW OPEN: http://fass.kingston.ac.uk/activities/item.php?updatenum=1766
Alessandra Tanesini (University of Cardiff)
‘From Margin to Centre: Feminist Epistemology as Socially Responsible Epistemology’
Respondent: Kathleen Lennon (University of Hull)
Gillian Howie (University of Liverpool)
‘Is There a “Continental “Feminist Epistemology?”’
Respondent: Alison Stone (University of Lancaster)
Kirsten Campbell (Goldsmiths, University of London)
‘Feminist Epistemology and Psychoanalytic Theory’
Respondent: Stella Sandford (Kingston University)
Miranda Fricker (Birkbeck College, University of London)
‘Feminist Epistemology as Social Epistemology’
Respondent: Stella Gonzalez Arnal (University of Hull)
PARALLEL SESSION SPEAKERS:
Tracy Bowell, University of Waikato, Aotearoa/New Zealand
‘The Virtues of Feminist Standpoint Epistemology’
Aaron Creller, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa
‘Developing Multiple Epistemologies: Making Space for a Capacious
Approach to Knowledge’
Annaleigh Curtis, University of Colorado at Boulder, USA
‘Just Interpretation: Feminist Standpoint Theory and Experimental Philosophy’
Barrett Emerick, St. Mary’s College of Maryland, USA
‘A Defense of Doxastic and Affective Voluntarism’
Dieuwertje Dyi Huijg, University of Manchester
‘Epistemic Confusion at the Feminist Activist Locus of Intersectional
Dis/advantage: Some Questions for Standpoint Theory’
Roxanna Lynch, Swansea University, Wales
‘Assessing the Epistemological Assumptions behind the Ethics of Care’
Sarah Mattice, University of North Florida, USA
‘Intersections and Interventions: Chinese and Feminist Epistemologies’
Mariana Szapuová, Comenius Univesity, Bratislava, Slovakia
‘Feminist Epistemology and the Social Turn: Perspectives on the Knowing Subject’
Iris van der Tuin, Utrecht University, Netherlands
‘Diffraction as a Methodology for Feminist Epistemology’
Sorana Vieru, University of Bristol, UK
‘Epistemic Privilege and the Philosophy of Science: Against Feminist
Standpoint Theory in the Natural Sciences’
Full schedule, including parallel sessions, is here.
In French law, it is now illegal to cover one’s face in public – a law which, by design, impacts upon Muslim women who choose to wear a niqab. Get caught wearing one, and you could find yourself hauled to a local police station, required to identify yourself, and (if referred to a local court) given a 150 Euro fine or required to take citizenship classes.
Since the law was introduced in April, niqab-wearing Muslim women have reported increased discrimination, such as being prevented from getting on buses or entering cinemas or cafes; and Islamophobic attacks, verbal and physical, have reportedly gone up.
A former law student and convert to Islam tries to go [swimming] when the beaches are quiet. The last time she went for a dip with her mother and 10-year-old daughter on a Sunday afternoon, a sunbather called the police. A group of officers arrived and hurried across the sand saying: “But Madame, what are you doing?” “I said: ‘I’m drying myself.’ They wrote in their notebooks, ‘Swimming in niqab.'” Stephanie, who prefers not to give her surname, was summoned by the local state prosecutor. She arrived at court and agreed to lift her veil so security guards could check her identity, but they refused to allow her access until an exasperated prosecutor buzzed her in himself.
It’s almost comical, were it not so appalling.
Here’s the kicker: the law’s in place, makes life worse for some women, seems to be divisive and fuelling discrimination – but no fines or penalties have *actually* been given yet. Why not? Because, argue lawyers, an imposed fine could be appealed, and an appeal could go right up to the European court of human rights, which may well rule the law in contravention of freedom of religion and other personal liberties. More here.
The Turkish football association has come up with a radical solution for tackling hooliganism – by banning men from stadiums. Teams sanctioned for unruly behaviour by fans are instead only allowed to admit women and children aged under 12 to watch games.
On Tuesday, more than 41,000 women and children attended Fenerbahce’s match against Manisaspor in Istanbul.
Fenerbahce’s 1-1 draw with Manisapor kicked off after players from both teams hurled flowers at the fans, while the visitors were greeted with applause instead of the more customary loud jeers.
The home side’s captain, Alex de Sousa, said: “This memory will stay with me forever. It’s not always that you see so many women and children in one game.”
Maybe if they hurled flowers at the men, the men would be nice, too. Just a thought…
Read more here. (Thanks RW!)
How funny that the day “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” would cease to have effect in the U.S. military, someone would write me asking me to reminder her of the source of an article I’d recommended a year ago, on the history of the terms ‘heterosexism’ and ‘homophobia.’
It seems a fitting day on which to reiterate my recommendation of Gregory Herek’s article, “Beyond Homophobia” (Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 2004).
In common speech, heterosexism has been used inconsistently. It has often served as a synonym for homophobia. Some authors, however, have distinguished between the two constructs by using heterosexism to describe a cultural ideology manifested in society’s institutions while reserving homophobia to describe individual attitudes and actions deriving from that ideology.
After carefully tracing the history of ‘homophobia,’ Herek advances his argument for distinctions beyond this important but limited term.
I offer some preliminary thoughts about three general arenas in which hostility based on sexual orientation should be studied. First, such hostility exists in the form of shared knowledge that is embodied in cultural ideologies that define sexuality, demarcate social groupings based on it, and assign value to those groups and their members. Second, these ideologies are expressed through society’s structure, institutions, and power relations. Third, individuals internalize these ideologies and, through their attitudes and actions, express, reinforce, and challenge them. I refer to these three aspects of antigay hostility as, respectively, sexual stigma, heterosexism, and sexual prejudice.