Read about it here.
Month: December 2018
How many Barbies are you giving this season?
I’d guess that most readers of this blog are not thrilled at the idea of buying one Barbie, still less a flock to distribute among the girls they give presents too. However, a recent op-ed In the NY Times argues that anti-Barbie feelings are a prejudice that valorizes boys toys – and so signs of masculinity – over a femininity in girls.
Eschewing femininity in girls while embracing masculinity in boys (and girls too) sounds initiatively pretty bad. The writer misses, however, the extent to which the icons on each side encode, and propagate, particular values. It would be very hard to copy Barbie, though not impossible. But her presence can still make clear societal values concerning weight, skin color and wardrobe. Be thin! Lighter is better! Wear the trendy! It isn’t that being thin is bad, but the message that thinness is the preferred look can, surely we all know, be harmful.
Is my negative reaction right? What do you think? One quasi-objection might be that for younger people what I’ve called icons are in fact less gendered. What difference might this make?
A bad couple of weeks for women in philosophy
It’s been a terribly sad couple of weeks, as philosophy has lost two really important women, both far too young: Maite Ezcurdia and Fiona Cowie.
CFA: NY SWIP
If you’d like to offer a paper-in-progress for discussion at a Spring 2019 SWIPshop, please submit an abstract (up to 750 words) to email@example.com by January 20, 2019.
For more information about The New York Society for Women in Philosophy, go to: http://www.nyswip.net.
We accept submissions of abstracts on any topic in the philosophy of gender, feminist philosophy, feminist theory, queer theory, and related topics. This year we are also welcoming papers on the scholarship of any contemporary or historical woman philosopher (on any philosophical topic).
We are planning three workshops for the spring semester, to take place at the philosophy conference room at Baruch College, Vertical Campus, 55 Lexington Avenue in Manhattan, on Fridays from 6:30pm-8pm. Selected presenters are expected to provide a finished paper one week before the workshop to be distributed to attendees in advance. At SWIPshop we have refreshments and workshop the paper.
SWIPshop is a place for philosophers of all genders, all philosophical traditions, and all professional levels (graduate students, junior faculty, senior faculty, emerita) to meet as equals and discuss their work in a supportive environment. Graduate students, in particular, are encouraged to attend SWIPshop and present their work.
When making selection decisions, we prioritize work by junior scholars and graduate students, and aim to have workshops on a diversity of topics.
–The SWIPshop Committee:
Amy Baehr, Kimberly S. Engels, Cara O’Connor, Andreea Prichea, and Kamili Posey
CFP: Interrogating Disability and Prostheses
Special Issue: Women, Gender & Research, 2020/1
The meaning and significance of bodily differences, norms of embodiment, and imaginaries about (‘proper’) personhood are central problematics within feminist studies, disability studies and feminist bioethics alike. These problematics relate not only to differential experiences and contexts for living particular lives, but also to associated social and institutional power-relations, hierarchies and policies, as well as to the material and technological circumstances that in different ways shape – limit and make possible – different ways of living.
In this Special Issue we invite papers that critically examine diverse phenomena of disability, whether physical or mental, congenital, acquired, or age-related, from feminist perspectives.
In particular, contributors are invited to think critically and creatively about disability in relation to the objects, notions or metaphors of ‘prostheses’. Prostheses can be thought of in relation to a diverse multitude of phenomena – from wheelchairs to hormone replacement therapy – that in different ways shape and reshape not just functionality, but the very fabric of human lives, particularly in the context of disability. In addition, the prosthetic metaphor is operationalized in a wide range of contexts, evoking a blending of human and technology to triumphantly overcome the ‘natural’ limitations of the ‘ordinary’ human body.
The development of increasingly sophisticated technologies that can aid individuals with disability (e.g. high-tech prostheses, brain implants, exo-skeletons, intense pharmaceutical interventions, etc) have changed drastically the modes through which disability is represented and understood in mainstream and alternative cultures. In consequence, the use and/or incorporation of prostheses cannot be read as simply utilitarian and in disability (and similarly in organ transplantation) is often associated with a dysphoria that indicates the difficulties of identity reformation (Sharp 2006; Sobchack 2010; Shildrick 2015). Despite a biomedical reading of prostheses as always therapeutic and often literally life-saving, recipients may tell a different story of how the incorporation of non-self elements into the body can cause disruption in one’s phenomenological experience and therefore to the sense of self – an issue not just about enduring physical discomfort but mental distress that far exceeds the positivist claims made for biotechnological interventions. The patterns of inclusion and exclusion, and categories of normal and abnormal, and natural and artificial, that generally circulate in western societies, contribute further to the ambiguities and contradictions that problematise each act of incorporation.
The Special Issue welcomes contributions that unsettle the familiar certainties of modernist thought by exposing all the gaps, fissures and aporia between the ideal and the actual that render some lives – often those of people with disabilities – unsustainable. Interdisciplinary
approaches and approaches that bring an important gendered dimension to these considerations, as well as analyses of the diverse aspects of social injustice and local and global inequalities as related to health and ability, are particularly encouraged.
Topics may include, but are not limited to:
Gendered representations of disability and prostheses
Disability and the posthuman
Gender affirming/transforming prostheses
Technologies and materialities of disability
Queering concepts and practices of prostheses and disability
Norms of embodiment, personhood and ‘healthy’ bodies
Disability, crip and feminist theory/methodology
Disability/prostheses and feminist bioethics
Disability policies and inequality
Lisa Käll, Associate Professor, Department of Ethnology, History of Religions and Gender Studies, Stockholm University.
Jonathan Mitchell, Ph.D. Student, School of Philosophy, University College Dublin.
Tobias Skiveren, Ph.D. Student, School of Communication and Culture, Aarhus University.
Morten H. Bülow, Ph.D., Coordination for Gender Research, University of Copenhagen.
Deadline for abstracts (max 300-word + up to 100 word author bio): February 25, 2019
Deadline for articles: August 25, 2019
All contributions must be in English and should be submitted to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Guidelines for contributors: http://koensfoeskning.soc.ku.dk/english/kkof/guidelines/
For more information about the journal Women, Gender & Research / Kvinder, Køn & Forskning, see: http://koensfoeskning.soc.ku.dk/kkf or http://koensfoeskning.soc.ku.dk/english/kkof/
FPQ 4.4: Epistemic Injustice and Recognition Theory
On behalf of my co-editors, I am happy to announce the publication of Volume 4, Issue 4 of Feminist Philosophy Quarterly. This special issue of peer-reviewed articles on the topic of Epistemic Injustice and Recognition Theory is guest-edited by Paul Giladi and Nicola McMillan, and includes contributions by authors Matthew Congdon, Anna Cook, Michael Doan, Debra L. Jackson, Andrea Lobb, José Medina, and Louise Richardson-Self, followed by an afterword by Miranda Fricker.
As always, we are free and open-access to authors and readers.
Check out the lovely table of contents!
Special Issue: Epistemic Injustice and Recognition Theory
Paul Giladi, Nicola McMillan, Introduction: Epistemic Injustice and Recognition Theory
José Medina, Misrecognition and Epistemic Injustice
Matthew Congdon, “Knower” as an Ethical Concept: From Epistemic Agency to Mutual Recognition
Andrea Lobb, “Prediscursive Epistemic Injury”: Recognizing Another Form of Epistemic Injustice?
Louise Richardson-Self, Offending White Men: Racial Vilification, Misrecognition, and Epistemic Injustice
Michael Doan, Resisting Structural Epistemic Injustice
Anna Cook, Recognizing Settler Ignorance in the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Debra L. Jackson, “Me Too”: Epistemic Injustice and the Struggle for Recognition
Miranda Fricker, Epistemic Injustice and Recognition Theory: A New Conversation —Afterword
Pittsburgh Summer Program in Philosophy of Science for Members of Underrepresented Groups
Who is it for?
Undergraduates from North America
Underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds
Students with disabilities
Other undergraduates from groups underrepresented in philosophy of science
For more, go here.
CFP Extended deadline BayFAP 2019 Workshop
NEW DEADLINE: 15 DECEMBER!
CFP BayFAP 2019
The 2019 Bay Area Feminism and Philosophy (BayFAP) Workshop will be held at the University of San Francisco from May 20-22. BayFAP is different from typical conferences in important ways—if you’re not familiar with it, please read this CFP carefully.
Because BayFAP is a workshop-style conference, participants are expected to read all of the papers in advance, to attend all of the sessions, and to come prepared for discussion. You should only submit or volunteer if you plan on reading all of the papers in advance and attending all of the sessions.
There are four ways to participate in the BayFAP: (1) have your paper selected for the program; (2) be a chair or commentator; (3) referee; (4) be part of the USF or Sac State philosophy departments.
Conference attendance is limited to those on the program, organizers, referees, and members of the University of San Francisco Philosophy Department and the Sacramento State Philosophy Department (i.e., faculty and students). This is due to funding and logistical constraints, together with the fact that the BayFAP is a workshop-style conference that involves in-depth discussions of works-in-progress.
TO SUBMIT A PAPER
Papers must be submitted in PDF format, and prepared for anonymous review. Please include a cover page with the following information:
The title of your paper
Your name and contact information
Word count (including all notes and bibliography)
Email your paper to bayfapworkshop at gmail dot com. The subject line of your email should read: BayFAP 2019 Submission.
The conference does not have any specific theme or topic. We will consider submissions in any area of feminist philosophy, broadly construed. The strict word limit is 8,000 words, but shorter papers (under 8000 words) have a better chance of being accepted. Do not submit published work, or work for which you wouldn’t be able to incorporate feedback from BayFAP in any subsequent published version. Authors will be notified of the organizers’ decisions by late January, 2019.
Philosophers who are unable to travel to San Francisco due to immigration restrictions or mobility issues are nevertheless invited to submit papers. If your paper is selected, we will be happy to discuss the possibility of arranging remote participation via Zoom. (There is no need to flag this with your submission. You can let us know on acceptance.)
You can also participate in BayFAP by volunteering to referee, chair, and/or comment. You do not have to submit a paper in order to volunteer. Volunteer referees should be willing and able to read up to five papers in their areas of expertise between December 15, 2018 and January 15, 2019.
Referees will be notified in early December. Chairs and commentators will be notified in early February 2019.
To volunteer at BayFAP please email bayfapworkshop at gmail dot com. If you are also submitting a paper, please send a separate email indicating your interest in being a BayFAP volunteer.
The subject line of your email should read: BayFAP 2019 Volunteer. Your email should include:
Your contact information
Your AOS and AOCs
The roles for which you would like to volunteer (i.e., referee, chair, and/or comment)
BayFAP is sponsored by the Fleischacker Fund for Philosophy at the University of San Francisco. We have a (very!) limited budget to assist with costs for participants who lack access to research funding.
Relaunch: Simone de Beauvoir Studies
Announcing the relaunch of Simone de Beauvoir Studies!
Simone de Beauvoir Studies (SdBS) is currently accepting submissions. Please find more information including the call for papers for the first special issue, “Beauvoir in Conversation,” and a call for guest editors at http://www.brill.com/sdbs. SdBS is a peer-reviewed multidisciplinary journal dedicated to advancing scholarship relevant to the writings, thinking, and legacy of Simone de Beauvoir. SdBS places particular emphasis on recognizing diverse social, cultural, and disciplinary receptions of Beauvoir’s thought and on featuring cutting-edge approaches to the investigation of her oeuvre. In addition to articles that discuss Beauvoir’s writings directly, the journal publishes pieces that connect to central themes in Beauvoir’s oeuvre such as gender, race, sexuality, literary theory, and global politics. Articles are published in English and French.
An institutional subscription to SdBS will give students and faculty on your campus electronic access not only to the current volume of the journal (Vol. 30, Spring and Fall 2019), but also to all 29 previously published volumes of SdBS (1983-2013). To order , ask your librarian to contact email@example.com 844-232-3707 (toll free) or 860-350-0041 (for orders in North and South America) or firstname.lastname@example.org +44 (0) 1767 604-954 (for orders in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia).
1/3 of men think consent not needed if a woman flirts
Quite an appalling catalog of attitudes amongst the British public. For more, go here. (The promising bit is that there are massive age differences– younger people understand the importance of consent much better.)