Earlier today, Channel 4 News tweeted out a wonderful little excerpt of an interview with Dr. Emily Wilson, the first woman to translate The Odyssey into English. In the interview, Dr. Wilson discusses her surprise in discovering the number of gendered words that weren’t pejorative in the original Greek, but which were translated into English by pejoratives. Watch the excerpt here.
Four clips, not all East Coast but at least three nonetheless trying for a realism that mother’s day festivities may discourage.
UPDATE: I did not realise this was from 2015. Sorry!
Amongst other questions they were asked how they would act in a situation where they could have sexual intercourse with a woman against her will “if nobody would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences”. 31.7% of all men participating in the study would force a woman to have sexual intercourse in such a “consequence-free situation” – which is rape.
Worryingly, most men who indicated that they would commit rape did not even recognise their actions as such.
When explicitly asked whether they would rape a woman if there were no consequences, only 13.6% of participants said they would do so, a marked fall on those who had described that they would commit rape.
This weekend’s Toronto Comic Arts Festival includes among its many talks and events a panel on “Men in Comics.” Here’s the description:
Men have a long history in comics, both as readers and as characters. This panel is a chance to talk about the decisions that creators make when writing and drawing male-identified people, as well as how these creators’ experience with men in comics have shaped their work. Featuring Caitlin Major, Iasmin Omar Ata, Shieka Lugutu, and Sanya Anwar. Moderated by Eleri Harris.
This all-women panel about men is the latest in a series of such events, intended as playful reversals of all-male panels about women’s participation in various domains. (See, for instance, this all-male panel on women’s empowerment.)
Last year, PodCon featured an all LGBTQ panel on “How to Write Straight Characters,” and Dragoncon featured a last minute replacement of a “Women in Comics” panel by one similar to this weekend’s TCAF panel.
Here’s a fun Twitter discussion of these and other such panels kicked off by Canadian nerd and Dinosaur Comics creator Ryan North.
The Philosophy of Pregnancy, Birth, and Early Motherhood
In association with SWIP, BUMP & PHILBIRTH
University of Southampton
Building 65, lecture theatres B and C, and seminar room 1163
Thursday 21st June – Friday 22nd June 2018
Although philosophers have explored some issues related to pregnancy, birth and early motherhood – most obviously abortion and the value and metaphysics of coming into existence – relatively little philosophical attention has been paid to pregnancy, birth and (early) motherhood themselves. These are remarkable omissions because pregnancy, birth and early motherhood raise many interesting and important philosophical problems in metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, feminism, the philosophy of science, and other areas.
Pregnancy is unlike anything else that a human being experiences. It involves the production of a new person through a deeply intimate process that can radically transform not only the pregnant person’s body, but also their understanding, values, and who and what they take themselves to be. Pregnancy is also the nucleus of a series of unique physiological processes surrounding reproduction: conception; pregnancy; birth; post-natal recovery and breastfeeding. These processes are of great significance for individuals and society. These are key aspects of human life that are under-investigated in philosophy and are often not dealt with adequately by existing ways of thinking, because they do not fit the paradigm of humans as discrete independent individuals with firm boundaries. In these unique physiological processes, the boundaries between human beings are blurred. This may require rethinking key conceptual schemes – or even how we understand human value. This conference will aim to address such issues.
Pregnancy, birth, and early motherhood inescapably involve issues of gender. Most people who undergo these physiological processes are women. Gender expectations contribute to how we understand the duties of pregnant women and mothers. However, not all persons who are pregnant, give birth, or lactate, identify as women or as mothers, and not all mothers experience pregnancy, birth, or lactation. The conference welcomes papers that address the concept of motherhood from a variety of perspectives, including the perspectives of those who have been pregnant but do not identify as mothers, perspectives of those who identify as mothers but have not been pregnant, and trans perspectives.
These issues are not just interesting and important in their own right, but are also relevant to public policy: pregnancy, birth and early motherhood are constant issues of public controversy and policy development. For this reason one of our keynote speakers will talk about policy during the conference. The conference will also host the SWIP annual general meeting and we will organise a practical advice panel on parenting and work-life balance in philosophy.
Barbara Katz Rothman (City University of New York Graduate Center)
Elselijn Kingma (University of Southampton)
Sarah LaChance Adams (University of Wisconsin)
Maggie Little (Georgetown)
Clare Murphy (British Pregnancy Advisory Service)
Guy Rohrbaugh (Auburn University)
Stella Villarmea (University of Alcala)
Fiona Woollard (University of Southampton)
Robbie Arrell (Wuhan University)
Teresa Baron (University of Southampton)
Lior Betzer (University of Haifa)
Sara Cohen Shabot (University of Haifa)
Sara Gavrell (University of Puerto Rico)
Jean Kazez (Southern Methodist University)
Siu-Fan Lee (Hong Kong Baptist University)
Jane Lymer (University of Wollongong)
Liz McKinnell (Durham University)
Nicole Miglio (University of Milan)
Anna Smajdor (University of Oslo)
For more information, including registration, go here.
Any queries should be sent to the organiser, Suki Finn, at firstname.lastname@example.org
from a NY Times newsletter:
The brief note raises a lot of questions. A fuller article here cannot really answer them. This is because 6 year olds can too often be got to report just about anything, including grotesque rituals run by their teachers. And there are good reasons for pleading guilty even when one isn’t.
let me be clear: I mean to say that readers are NOT given deciding evidence.
Society for Women in Philosophy, Ireland
In association with (in Parenthesis)
6th Annual Conference and General Meeting of SWIP-Ireland
17-19 May, 2018
University College Dublin, Ireland
Women in Philosophy: Past, Present and Future
With 6 invited speakers
Sally Haslanger (MIT)
Nancy Cartwright (Durham University)
Siobhan Chapman (University of Liverpool)
Eileen Brennan (Dublin City University)
Kristin Gjesdal (Temple University)
Sigridur Thorgeirsdottir (University of Iceland)
This is one of the largest women in philosopher conferences. Come and join us if you can.
Click for: Conference Registration and programme (updated)
From today’s Guardian:
how can almost half a million women go missing, and nobody notice? Yet that is what we are told has happened. Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, came to parliament on Wednesday to confess that up to 450,000 older women in England may have somehow fallen off the breast cancer screening system, thanks to a computer glitch. Unravelling the real-life consequences of that is a complicated and contested business, but Hunt said it was likely there were people who “would have been alive today if this had not happened”; and that up to 270 lives may have been shortened.
There are now older women who haven’t been screened for nearly a decade during a time when cancer rates are high. It seems an important time to check on your older friends, those over 75.
There is another thing to think about: how this connects to the invisibility of older women. How in the world was the problem not noticed for eight years?
Society for Analytical Feminism
Feminist Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition
CALL FOR PAPERS
SAF Session at the Eastern Division APA
New York, NY, January 7-10, 2019
PLEASE POST AND SHARE
The Society for Analytical Feminism invites submissions for a session at the 2019 Eastern Division APA meetings in New York. The Society seeks papers that examine feminist issues by methods broadly construed as analytic, or discuss the use of analytic philosophical methods as applied to feminist issues. Authors should submit full papers of a length appropriate to a 20-minute presentation time. Papers greatly exceeding 3,500 words will not be considered.
Please delete all self-identifying references from your submission to ensure anonymity. Send submissions as a Word or PDF attachment with the subject line SAF AT APA to Kathryn Norlock (kathrynnorlock at gmail dot com). Deadline for submissions: Friday, June 1, 2018. Graduate students or underfunded professionals whose papers are accepted will be eligible for the Society’s $350 Travel Stipend. Please indicate in your email if you fall into one of these categories and wish to be considered for the stipend.
The Society for Analytical Feminism provides a forum for the discussion of issues concerning analytical feminism. Its purpose is to promote the study of issues in feminism by methods broadly construed as analytic, to examine the use of analytic methods as applied to feminist issues, and to provide a means by which those interested in Analytical Feminism may meet and exchange ideas. The Society annually organizes sessions for the Eastern Division, Central Division, and Pacific Division meetings. Membership in the Society is open to all who are interested in and concerned with issues in Analytical Feminism. Annual dues are $25 for regularly employed members, $15 for students, unemployed, underemployed, and retired members. For more information about SAF, including membership form, please visit our website: https://sites.google.com/site/analyticalfeminism/
From the Sooty Empiric.
The idea is that given that Trump et al. obviously don’t care about civility norms, you’re fruitlessly tying your hands behind your back to insist on upholding them when in dialogue with the brutes. Don’t bring a knife to a gun fight, don’t obey Queensbury rules when they’re hitting all and only below the belt, etc etc. One can see the intuition here fairly well; incivility is evidently a powerful weapon of rhetorical warfare (Trump is president!) and we shouldn’t surrender it to people who will use the power they attain by it to do very great harm to a very great many people. I think that once upon a time I would have agreed (so, vain as I am, I certainly don’t think this is an obviously wrong headed or foolish take or anything of the sort), but I’m now inclined to disagree. This post is about why I changed my mind.