A pink picture and a blue picture are worth a thousand words each….

If you’ve ever wondered about girls and pink and boys and blue, you should definitely go look at In Kids’ Rooms, Pink Is for Girls, Blue Is for Boys at Slate.

JeongMee Yoon’s “The Pink and Blue Project” began when her 5-year-old daughter wanted to wear and play with exclusively pink clothing and toys.

Realizing her daughter was part of an international phenomenon of gender-specific marketing campaigns, Yoon began photographing American and South Korean children in their bedrooms with their collection of pink and blue objects, highlighting the powerful gender-oriented marketing pitch toy companies such as Mattel make to children and parents.

To create the series, Yoon took an approach not unlike that of the strategic marketing campaigns she wished to capture.”

"The Pink Project I" Lauren & Carolyn and Their Pink Things, 2006 (l) "The Pink Project II" Lauren & Carolyn and Their Pink & Purple Things, 2009

Go read the rest of the story here.

Can we stop talking about women’s looks? Please.

Read How the ‘System of Beauty’ Hurts Female Politicians in The Atlantic.

Talking about their looks makes women running for office seem less competent, less effective, and less qualified — even when it’s just praise and compliments.

“A study released Monday sheds new light on last week’s foofaraw over President Obama’s comment that his friend and supporter California Attorney General Kamala Harris was “the best looking” AG in the land.

Sponsored by Name It. Change It., a project of the Women’s Media Center and She Should Run, the March survey of 1,500 likely voters nationwide found that no matter what is said about a female political candidate’s appearance, it has a negative impact on what potential voters think of her.”

Emphasis mine. Now go read the rest of it here.


Speaking of google. . .

After seeing the depressing gender search suggestions supplied by google, I was inspired (as I have been before) to trawl through the always-amsuing list of google search terms that have led people to our blog this week.

To the five of you who arrived this week searching for “camel toe pad” — You should probably speak to your veterinarian about that. Unless by “camel toe” you mean the way your ladybits look in leggings, in which case please stop using those words to mean that.

To the two of you who arrived searching for “high school hotties” — Move along.

To the two of you who arrived searching for “fuck the patriarchy” — Right on.

And finally, to the person who arrived searching for “spiderman’s penis” — Um. . .

Men compare perspectives on philosophy

Here’s the line-up for tomorrow’s Dialogues: Philosophy in Comparative Perspective colloquium. Can you spot the missing perspective?
“Meaning: Problems and Solutions from an Indian Perspective” by special guest speaker J.L. Shaw (Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand)

“Scientific Dualism and Theological Materialism: Avicenna and the History of Philosophy of Mind” by Muhammad Ali Khalidi (York University)

“Schopenhaur and Indian Thought” by R. Raj Singh (Brock University)

“Indirect Unity: Merlaeu-Ponty and Nagarjuna on the Human and Non-human” by Michael Berman (Brock University)

“Non-Violent Warriors: Marcus Aurelius and The Bhagavad-gita” by Kenneth Dorter (University of Guelph)



UPDATE (June 5):

Feminist Philosophers just received the note below, an important one, from Muhammad Ali Khalidi, one of the speakers at this conference. We generally close comments on Gendered Conference Campaign posts, but Dr. Khalidi ends his very thoughtful (and most welcome) note by asking readers’ advice. So, I’ll open the comments for folks who wish to provide advice.  (For what it’s worth, it’s not clear to me that Dr. Khalidi *needs* advice; he makes some really excellent points in his note, reproduced (with permission) below:

As one of the speakers at the event flagged above, I’d like to explain the circumstances behind my accepting the invitation to speak.  When I was invited to speak at this event, I wrote back to the organizers saying that I was a signatory to the GCC petition and that I couldn’t accept unless they made an effort to invite a woman to speak at the event (at that point, I think only one other speaker had been decided).

I won’t quote the response because I didn’t ask permission, but the gist of it was that the organizers were staunch supporters of the GCC and their frequent events feature a large proportion of female speakers (which I verified online, http://www.philosophyandculture.org/2012MC.html), but that they might not be able to locate a female speaker for this particular event. Also, I was told that they were restricted by their budget to inviting speakers from southern Ontario, so they could not guarantee that they would be able to find a female speaker on this specific (rather esoteric) topic, namely interactions between western philosophy and Indian and Islamic philosophy.

So I was faced with a choice, to accept and possibly be part of an all-male line-up or to decline and to stick up for a different type of under-representation in academic philosophy.  Since the event was meant to bring to the fore under-represented traditions in philosophy, ones which are not usually taken seriously by mainstream philosophy departments, I weighed the possibility of lack of female representation against the chance to speak on the Arabic-Islamic tradition.  The idea behind the event was to talk about the inter-connections between these other philosophical traditions and western phil.  In fact, I would argue (and did) that at least in the case of Arabic-Islamic tradition, it’s actually part and parcel of what’s called “western philosophy” but has been edited out of the canon and is now usually ignored or treated as a separate curiosity. Also, for what it’s worth, half the speakers were members of “visible minorities” (to use the Canadian terminology), which are also grossly underrepresented among academic philosophers.  So that’s how I made the decision to accept the invitation to an all-male event.  Does trying to overcome one form of underrepresentation justify possibly acquiescing in another?  In this case I decided that it was, but any comments from other readers on how to handle such situations would be welcome.

Nature (a follow up)

Earlier we posted about the special issue of Nature for International Women’s Day, and there are some follow ups in the most recent issue. I thought readers might be especially interested in the letter from Tina M. Iverson (Vanderbilt), Sexism: A revealing experiment; the variance, corresponding to when her first name was available to reviewers, in her personal experience obtaining grants fits very well with the data on implicit bias we often discuss.

Surely, the sample size is small, and the replicates low, but the results are still striking and fit well with a larger pattern.