University of Utah, Salt Lake City
October 12- 13 2017
***DEADLINE FOR ABSTRACTS, May 15***
• Dr. Kristie Dotson
• Dr. Adam Hosein
• Dr. Theresa Lopez & Dr. Brian Chambliss
• Dr. Kate Manne
• Dr. Mari Mikkola
• Dr. Jennifer Mueller
• Dr. Victoria Plaut
• Dr. Flannery Stevens
• Dr. Ásta (Sveinsdóttir)
CALL FOR POSTER PRESENTATIONS: There will be a poster session associated with this conference, to be held on its first day. Up to eight participants will be invited to present their work. Accommodation costs & registration for poster presenters will be covered. We may also be able to contribute a small amount to travel costs, but the amount (if any) is to be determined. For examples of papers/presentations within our theme, please see the programs from past conferences: http://biasincontext.weebly.com/programme.htmlhttp://biasincontext3.weebly.com/programme.html
Abstracts should be prepared for anonymous review, and submitted via email by the 15th of May 2017. Submissions should be made to Louise Pederson, administrative assistant, at email@example.com.
For more information about the conference (including information about the venue and program details), see: www.biasincontext4.weebly.com.
Readers may be interested to see the proposal for MA studies in White Power (critical white studies), lead by Nathaniel
Coleman, which is being considered as an addition to the UCL curriculum. Details of the proposal are available here, and feedback can be given. This feedback may make an important contribution in determinations of whether this MA program will be incorporated into the curriculum. Do take a look and leave a comment if you see fit!
Pinky Mosiane was murdered at her place of work, the Anglo Platinum owned mine in South Africa. This article brings to light the context of that murder: one in which formal moves towards gender equality (the Mining Charter prescribing that 13% of employees should be women) have not been accompanied by changes in material conditions that ensure the safety of women (and indeed men) working in those environments. Sisonke Msimang writes:
although women are now being sent underground in greater numbers, nothing has been done to make mines safe spaces in which they can work free from sexual harassment and violence.
Women’s increased participation has been accompanied by informal practices (within problematic bonus structures which incentivise risk taking) in which women are treated as inferior workers and sexually exploited in exchange for their ‘share’ of the team bonuses:
In mines where women are part of underground teams, their male colleagues often resent their presence, suggesting that they are unable to mine as quickly. To meet team targets for production bonuses, a practice of bartering sex for bonuses and substitute labour has evolved. Essentially, female miners are coerced into stepping aside to enable their teams to meet the bonus targets. They receive a reduced share of the financial reward that goes to the team. Often, they are also forced to have sex with their colleagues in order to qualify to receive the bonus payments.
The judiciary have suggested that the rape and murder of women in mines is a ‘gender specific issue’, rather than a safety issue, and as such not a matter for investigation by the Chamber of Mines.
With the prospect of father’s day ahead over the weekend, Laurie Shrage (left) has a piece for the New York Times confronting the issue of ‘forced fatherhood’, and whether (in limited contexts, namely, those in which women can in fact access contraception and abortion services) women’s reproductive autonomy is unfairly greater than that of men. In an instance in which a woman becomes pregnant without the consent of the male partner to the pregnancy (e.g. due to contraceptive accident), she suggests that we have an unfair case of ‘forced fatherhood’. In such cases, a man is required to undertake the significant (at least) financial responsibilities that he has not voluntarily undertaken.
‘just as court-ordered child support does not make sense when a woman goes to a sperm bank and obtains sperm from a donor who has not agreed to father the resulting child, it does not make sense when a woman is impregnated (accidentally or possibly by her choice) from sex with a partner who has not agreed to father a child with her.’
Policies that require biological fathers to take on such financial responsibilities are punitive, she argues, and can be viewed as a way of controlling sexual behaviour (in the way that inability to access abortion punishes women for being sexually active).
Moreover, rejecting this policy that requires the biological fathers to undertake financial responsibilities could open up ways of conceiving fatherhood that move beyond biological relationship (I like this point: as my two siblings and I write our father’s day cards, only one of us will be celebrating our biological father, but he’s a father no more and no less to each of us!).
This raises many interesting questions about what grounds parental responsibilities, and has -unsurprisingly – generated considerable response from the feminist blogosphere.
Here’s my take on the objections that have come up (after the break):
Many congratulations to Sue Mendus, Professor of Political Philosophy at York University, who has received a CBE in the UK Honours System.
Sue has been honoured for her services to political science. (Readers will also recall that Sue was one of a number of philosophers who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry into press standards earlier this year).
Hearty congratulations, Sue, from all at Feminist Philosophers!
I’m putting together my reading list for next term’s module on distributive justice, and aiming that it NOT be a total sausage fest. I’m finding it surprisingly easy – so many great women political philosophers!
There are two topics I (and perhaps other interested readers?) would really benefit from reading recommendations on:
a) prioritarian principles (either arguing for or being critical of them), and
b) so called left-libertarianism. Any ideas?
So its time to meet Casey Legler, the female male model. There’s an interview with her talking about her work as an artist and as a male model here. Interesting to see gender being treated so flexibly.
Readers may be interested to see Rebecca Reilly-Cooper’s discussion of unwanted touching & hermeneutical injustice, in her post for The Philosophers’ Magazine Blog. The importance of credibility & being believed in naming one’s experiences seems acutely salient in the UK context, where a number of victims of (as he is now regarded) predatory sex offender […]
Society for Women In Philosophy (SWIP) UK – Call for Papers
SWIP UK Panel at the Joint Session of the Mind Association and Aristotelian Society, University of Stirling 6-8th July 2012
At the 2012 Joint Session there will be a SWIP UK panel of papers devoted to topics in any area of interest to women in philosophy. We solicit full papers (2000 words) plus 250 word abstract, suitable to be delivered in no more than 20 minutes with a further 10 minutes for discussion. We encourage submissions from graduate students. (As with all the open sessions, papers accepted for this session will not be published in the Supplementary Volume of the Aristotelian Society.)
The closing date for submissions is *1st March 2012*. We expect to confirm which papers have been accepted by the end of March.
Papers that are not accepted for the SWIP panel may be considered for the Open Sessions. You should also indicate when submitting the paper whether you wish the paper to be considered for the Open Sessions.
Please make sure that your submission is suitable for anonymous reviewing and attach a separate document with your name and contact details. Email submissions are preferred; please send your full paper, with an abstract, as either .doc or .pdf attachment to Roxanna Lynch (firstname.lastname@example.org) or send a hard copy to: R. J. Lynch, 81 Andover Road, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 6JH
To speak at this event you will need to register as a delegate for the Joint Session. Registration will be open from Spring 2012. For more details see here:
Roxanna Lynch, PhD Candidate, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University
Dr Jules Holroyd, Department of Philosophy, University of Nottingham.
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.
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)