15 thoughts on “Men edit your Thought

  1. Not sure whether you’re being sarcastic, Andreas.

    But in case you’re not – once more with feeling! We think all-male lineups like this should be avoided, regardless of how the lineup became all-male (so, even if it was pure coincidence). But in any case, I’m not sure why you’d assume that it “must be coincidence” – have a look at the info linked from the GCC page to see why we think all-male events/volumes/etc are often the result of more than mere coincidence. (That’s not to say they’re often the result of malicious or conscious sexism – but implicit bias can have major efforts on things like this.)

    And these editorial positions were all invited, not applied for.

  2. Ah, but surely any female working in these fields knows just how supportive this particular group is of women! They have female graduate students actively engaged in cutting-edge research; they are excellent mentors, in tune with the challenges that confront women in both the sub-fields in question and the discipline at large; they have been visibly engaged in departmental and discipline-wide conversations about how to improve the climate for women in philosophy; they understand the importance of including women in invitations to reading and research groups; they have an excellent reputation of developing appropriately collegial working relationships with women in their departments and areas of specialty; and they would certainly have considered the gender balance in choosing editors for the journal. (I’m refraining from inserting what I think is an unnececessary emoticon here.)

  3. Well done, 9:10. It would be viciously unfair to suggest, on the basis of such meager evidence, that their professional conduct is sexist as a matter of intention or even of “implicit bias.” Perhaps they are simply indifferent to the inclusion of women–in the true, if not exactly historical, spirit of gender-blind philosophy. Or perhaps, for whatever regrettable reasons beyond their control, no suitably qualified women could be found.

  4. Surely it is because women just don’t like to edit journals. They are too concerned about real-world issues and things that involve people to care about pages.

  5. Surely the fact that each individual in a group is an upstanding non-sexist man who works to improve the conditions for women in philosophy does not remedy the fact that all of the individuals in the group are male. (I’m sorry if I misread the tones in the above comments. First ones aside, I couldn’t tell which were sarcastic and which weren’t.)

  6. Anonymous 12:31: We’re walking a very fine snark line here. After all, the individuals in question are all named in the announcement. And universal claims about any domain, including this one, are generally false. I think it is best to leave it to readers to determine whether the claims made at 9:10 are true.

  7. Jonathan Schaffer and Ross Cameron are both outstandingly supportive of women in philosophy. So as regards whoever is responsible for this, I doubt that either of them are. The editors are the likely culprits, not the subeditors.

  8. I’m generally with the GCC, I think, but, genuine question: Why think we should extend it to journal editors? We shall see, but I suspect that this journal won’t be any worse than any others (and will likely be better than many) in terms of publishing papers by women. Shouldn’t we judge them by what they publish rather than by the gender of the subject/main editors? (And, let me repeat that there’s strong evidence to suggest that at least some of these people will do what they can in their role as subject editors–which may be nothing, depending upon how blind the review process is–to ensure that women get a fair share of journal space.) Speaking of blind review, if Thought practices double (or triple, I can’t keep track of what is what) review, then who cares if the editors are all men? (I’m not sure they will, this is just a question about what, exactly, the negative effects will be on women in this case.)

  9. Anonymous, insofar as fancy editorial positions like this are – much like invitations to conferences or collected volumes – marks of professional prestige, then it’s disconcerting when an editorial group of this size is composed entirely of men. There are several bad effects that one might worry about here. Firstly, anything that’s public like this (whether a conference, a volume, a committee, an editorial board, etc) and is male-only promotes and reinforces stereotype threat. Secondly, groups like this come about as the result of invitation. And even the best-intentioned among us are prone – due to implicit bias – to invite men in the first instance, because men come to mind first. That’s harmful to women, because invitations of this kind are marks of merit and can help careers. I suppose what I’m saying is that all-male editorial boards are problematic for pretty much the same reasons all-male other stuff is problematic.

    We also shouldn’t rule out the possibility that female editors might make somewhat different choices and have somewhat different preferences and interests than male editors. But whether or not that’s the case, the above reasons still apply.

    The goal of the GCC is to raise awareness of a systematic phenomenon – the commonness of all-maleness in philosophy (particularly in invitation-only venues). An editorial board seems to me to be one among many instances where we might see – and wish to direct attention toward – this phenomenon.

Comments are closed.