CFP: The Kristeva Circle

Inaugural Meeting, October 12-13, 2012,
Siena College, Loudonville, New York

Keynote Speakers:
Noëlle McAfee, Emory University
Maria Margaroni, University of Cyprus

Kelly Oliver, Vanderbilt University
Pleshette DeArmitt, University of Memphis
Ewa Plonowska Ziarek, University of Buffalo
Sara Beardsworth, Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Elaine Miller, Miami University

Please submit abstracts (500-750 words) on any topic related to the work of Julia Kristeva, to We welcome submissions from across all disciplines. Abstracts should be suitable for blind review; include a separate document with name, paper title, affiliation, and contact information. The deadline for abstracts is March 15, 2012. The Kristeva Circle supports research on or influenced by philosopher, psychoanalyst and novelist Julia Kristeva. Our mission is to establish and advance Kristeva scholarship nationally and internationally. The Circle was established in 2011 by Fanny Söderbäck (Siena College) and Sarah Hansen (Rhodes College) with support from Kelly Oliver  (Vanderbilt University). For more information about The Kristeva Circle, please visit our website:

CFP: Feminist Bioethics Deadline approaching!


ROTTERDAM, JUNE 24-26, 2012

The International Network on Feminist Approaches to Bioethics is pleased to invite proposals for panels and papers for presentation at the 2012 Congress. The Congress theme is “Generations: Imagining the Future to Promote Health and Justice”. Submissions on any topic in feminist bioethics are welcome.

Submissions (in .doc, .docx, or .pdf format) should be e-mailed to by December 1, 2011. This e-mail address should only be used for communications concerning submissions, and not for general conference or FAB inquiries.

Paper abstracts should be 300 words, accompanied by both a descriptive title for the paper proposed and 2-3 keywords. Proposed panels should include a 300-word description of the overall topic and objectives of the panel, a panel title, and the titles of all the papers to be included in the panel. All submissions should include the names, e-mail addresses, and full affiliations of all authors. In cases of panels and co-authored papers, please identify a corresponding author.

The conference organizers welcome submissions from a wide range of disciplines, including philosophy, the social sciences, critical cultural studies (gender and sexuality studies, disability studies, race studies, etc.), law, public health, and others. We particularly encourage submissions from early career researchers.

Please provide enough detail for reviewers to be able to assess your proposal for a paper or panel from the abstract. This should include a clear statement of method, thesis, and conclusion, and indicate what participants will learn from your presentation.

One or two submitted papers may be selected for plenary presentations. If you wish your paper to be considered for a plenary, please submit the full paper and indicate that you seek review for a plenary.

The theme of Generations should be interpreted broadly. Topics may include, but should not be limited to:

– Ethical issues in assisted reproduction

– Reproductive rights

– New social patterns in reproduction (reproductive tourism, surrogacy, etc.)

– The distinctive moral status and needs of children

– Caregiving across generations (eldercare, child care, etc.)

– Protecting the environment for future generations

– Re-imagining the future

– Adoption and the creation of families

– The value and social meaning of biological ties between generations

– The next generation of feminist bioethics

– Sustaining and shaping communities over time

High Pay too High – findings of UK High Pay Commission

The High Pay Commission is an independent body set up to investigate high pay in the UK. A year long investigation culminated in the publication of a report on Monday. Those who’ve been keeping an eye on the recession will be wholly unsurprised to learn that the poorer members of society are bearing the costs of austerity cuts, whilst the top 0.1% of earners are getting richer. The Commission states that:

In 1980 top bosses were well rewarded, but they had not pulled so far away from the rest of society. Since then some of them have enjoyed an increase of over 4000% to what are now multi-million pound packages… so much wealth has been channelled to those at the very top. This is a trend that has led to such a huge rise in inequality over the period that Britain now has a gap between rich and poor that rivals that in some developing nations.

Amongst the figures quoted by the Commission, is the salary of the chief executive at Lloyds Bank (now partly owned by the State), which the Commission states has increased by more than 3,000% since 1980 to more than £2.5m – 75 times the average Lloyds employee’s salary. In 1980, it was just (‘just’ – hah!) 13.6 times the average. Lloyds have responded with the claim that “The High Pay Commission’s figures are flawed. They have compared the average basic salary of our employees to a remuneration package awarded to the CEO that includes salary, bonus and benefits. As a result they have reached an inflated number that is entirely unrepresentative of the truth” – because everyone knows that bonuses and benefits aren’t really part of one’s salary, just little treats left by the banking fairy.

A copy of the High Pay Commission’s report, including recommendations such as not-doing-salary-deals-in-secret, can be downloaded from here.

Don’t Call Me Bossy

An excellent post from lawyer Kathleen Wu, a plea to end calling women in leadership roles “bossy,” is here. Both girls and boys call girls “bossy” starting at a pretty early age. We should teach our kids to stop. Wu does a great job of connecting child age bossy-talk to the dislike of women in the work force.

“To summarize the two studies, when women who work in professions traditionally held by men (such as the legal profession) are successful, they are less liked than similarly successful men. Furthermore, those successful women are evaluated more harshly and get fewer “organizational rewards” (bonuses, promotions, raises, etc.) than their male counterparts. What causes this bias? One of the most plausible explanations is that society still tells us that there are women’s roles and men’s roles, and jobs that cater to the supposedly innate characteristics of each gender. Women are nurses, teachers and mommies — all jobs that require some empathy, nurturing and other, “softer” characteristics. Men are cops, high-powered executives and football players — jobs that require more aggression than compassion.”

The Salvation Army, Homophobia, and Charitable Giving

When you see the Salvation Army kettle this Christmas season, please pause and think before throwing in your money. The Salvation Army does a lot of good work but donors should remember that it’s also an organization that doesn’t believe in equality for gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. It’s an evangelical church that helps to pay the salaries of lobbyists fighting gay rights legislation. Last year they also refused to distribute Harry Potter and Twilight toys collected for needy children because they’re incompatible with the charity’s Christian beliefs. Surely there are better places to give.

Some web sources:

web page for salvation army

Women cyclists beware! And: Lorry drivers beware!

Apparently Transport for London have a report showing that ‘Women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by a lorry because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver’s blind spot’. In not jumping red lights, cyclists are therefore in the blindspot of drivers and liable to be crushed when the lights change.

This report has not been released: I guess reports that suggest you’re safer when disobeying laws don’t go down well -though TfL insist that, rather than being disinterested in the safety of women cyclists, the report is for policy purposes only. They have indeed brought in an awareness campaign… which has itself been criticised.

More here.

Here’s the poster as the London Cycling Campaign would like to see it:

And some useful safety advice for the cyclists among us:

  • If a lorry is in front of you, wait where you can see the mirrors until it is possible to pass it
  • You should pass a lorry only on the right and only when you are sure you have enough time and space to get far enough ahead for the driver to see you clearly before they start moving
  • If a lorry is behind you, ride where the driver has to consider your presence
  • Ride where lorries cannot pass you, or cannot pass you without changing their position on the road
  • HGVs are so dangerous to cyclists that they should be treated with extreme caution

[from London School of Cycling)