Gendered Conference Campaign

The Gendered Conference Campaign aims to raise awareness of the prevalence of all-male* conferences (and volumes, and summer schools), of the harm that they do. We make no claims whatsoever about the causes of such conferences: our focus is on their existence and effects. We are therefore not in the business of blaming conference organisers, and not interested (here, anyway) in discussions of blameworthiness. Instead, we are interested in drawing attention to this systematic phenomenon. (We also have an awesome theme song. And an interview about the theme song can be found here.)

The harms: All-male events and volumes help to perpetuate the stereotyping of philosophy as male. This in turn to contributes to implicit bias against women in philosophy, which very likely leads even those genuinely committed to gender equality to evaluate women’s contributions as less good than men’s. (It may also in some cases be caused by implicit bias, which means that women’s names will leap less easily to mind than men’s, but that is not our topic here.) For a quick discussion, go here. It also perpetuates stereotype threat, which very likely keeps women from performing as well in philosophy as they otherwise would. For some longer discussions, you may want to look at Sally Haslanger’s and Jenny Saul’s papers on the topic. (Jenny’s is a download from the right hand side of her page.) We would like these harms to stop, and we think that a significant step toward achieving that is drawing people’s attention to some of their causes.

See also our FAQ for the quick run-down!

* By ‘all-male’ we mean all-male lists of invited speakers.

Some all-male conferences (just a few– to get more click on the category Gendered Conference Campaign):


Imprecise Probabilities


Mathematical Depth

Conference on Values

Exploring the Interfaces 2: Implicatures, Alternatives, and the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface

Progic 2013

Philosophy in Comparative Perspectives

Workshop on Randomization and Related Topics in Causal Inference

Does Morality Need Religion?

Neuroscience and Pragmatism

The Collective Dimension of Science

Peter Singer Conference

Understanding Others

David Hume and Modern Philosophy

Property, Markets and Morality

Propositions and the Aim of Semantics

Epistemic Inclusiveness and Trust

The Authority of Science

The Normativity of Meaning

Scientific Philosophy: Past and Future

The Future of Philosophy of Science

Salzburg Conference for Young Analytic Philosophy: SOPhiA 2011

Nominalism: A Reassessment.

The Nature of Desire

Interfaces of the Mind.

The Life and Mathematical Sciences in Early Modernity

British Society for the Philosophy of Science.

Being a Human Being, Being a Person

Want to avoid a gendered conference, but not sure what to do? Try the suggestions here.

(An update: There have been a ton more all-male conferences, so many that we have not been able to keep up with them lately!)

There are now several petitions that in one way or another support the goals of the gendered conference campaign. Here’s our official one. Here’s one from NewAPPS, which is more specific in its content. And here’s an interdiscplinary one from Virginia Valian and Dan Sperber.

212 thoughts on “Gendered Conference Campaign

  1. This is an important ongoing task!

    I did both speak to this conference organizer, who defensively asked me for a list of appropriate women philosophers. I duly sent him a list of just some of the many women philosophers who could speak on this subject … but I received no answer.

    Take a look at the conference website and schedule:

    There are four women speaking, but none are philosophers. In contrast, there are at least eleven (white) male philosophers speaking.

    What do you think about also speaking/writing to the guys who agree to participate in such exclusionary conferences?

  2. People who agree to participate don’t generally know the full speaker list when they agree, so it’s a bit tricky. But I do think it would be good for *everyone*– speakers and audience– who find themselves at an all-male conference to raise the issue for discussion. (I think casual conversation is the most effective way to do this, but others may differ.)

  3. Good point, Jender. I had said to JT on email that I thought it was a good idea, but you’ve pointed out a real problem. I like your alternative.

  4. This particular conference has been on the early modern philosophy calendar for six months, with speakers listed … In casual conversation, I raised the matter with someone who I thought had accepted an invitation, but it turned out he declined for other reasons. And I’ll be happy to raise the matter with some of the other participants when I next see them.

  5. I’ve wondered if this blog is sufficiently well known for the opening sentence to seem natural.

  6. We made a new category “gendered conference campaign” and I have been rooting through posts to see to which it applies.
    So now, if you select the “gendered conference campaign” label in the category list, you will find the posts which were spotlighted.

  7. This probably sounds pedestrian, in a way, but FaceBook is a great way to get such ideas out, as is LinkedIn. I don’t have my foot in the conference arena any more because I teach in a community college and rarely get to submit any longer. However, when I do submit or attend, I prefer feminist ideologies present (and, frankly, the company of women academics who are, well, feminists)

  8. Women want to see more women speak at conferences, but it’s very difficult to get women to speak! Even if the organizers do the work of finding good female candidates and tracking them down (while sitting back as male speakers submit proposals without being asked), most of the women don’t seem to want to put themselves up on a stage with the label of “expert” over their heads. I’m frustrated by this but also guilty of stepping back rather than stepping up myself. Motivating organizers is a good start but motivating women to speak is the other half of the solution.

  9. Hi all,

    I just wanted to let you know that you are having an effect. I saw a CFP for a volume where all of the invited contributors were male. Inspired by your “Gendered Conference Campaign”, I wrote to the editors, pointed out their inadvertent omission as politely as I could, explained why it mattered, and suggested a list of women who they might invite. I got a very positive response and was assured that some of the women on my list would be invited soon. I really do think that they hadn’t noticed.

    I’d rather not say who this was, or who I am, since it all (apparently) went so well — there is no need to call anyone out. Indeed, it’s better if people imagine this happening in many different areas of philosophy.

    Thanks for inspiring me to do this, and thanks for spreading the good word.

  10. @snow: You’re right, many women feel they 1) don’t have anything important enough to say 2) don’t consider themselves “experts,” and 3) are reluctant to “self-promote.”

    We need to change that.

    I’ve been on my own one-woman gendered conference campaign/mission for awhile – see here :

    And I offer online public speaking coaching for women through my website here:

    Thanks to Feminist Philosophers for this campaign :)

  11. “You’re right, many women feel they 1) don’t have anything important enough to say 2) don’t consider themselves “experts,” and 3) are reluctant to “self-promote. We need to change that.”

    “…most of the women don’t seem to want to put themselves up on a stage with the label of “expert” over their heads.”

    Snow & Susan: my thoughts exactly. This has to do with the internalization of sexist expectations, for example, women are not “allowed” to be “selfish,” and so it translates into a reluctance to self-promote. Patriarchal society has taught women to think of themselves as lesser beings, and thus non-deserving of self-aggrandization.

  12. I like the idea of this campaign. I also think the point about conference programs on which there are many male philosophers but the only women on the program are non-philosophers is important. I have noticed this not only in conferences but in anthologies, too.

    I wonder if at some point extending the campaign to anthologies might be a good idea.

  13. Here is another one. The invited speakers are all male. From the list of contributed papers, it is clear that there are women in this field who were willing and able to come had they been invited.

    Dear Colleagues,

    We kindly remind you of the upcoming conference ‘Theory-Ladenness of
    Experience’ which will take place at Heinrich-Heine Universitaet
    Duesseldorf (Faculty of Philosophy, Building: 23.21, Room: 00.46a),
    March 10-11, 2011.

    The aim of the conference is to bring together philosophers,
    psychologists and cognitive scientists whose work contributes to our
    understanding of the scope and limits of theory-ladenness phenomena,
    where these are broadly construed to include the domains of perception,
    scientific evidence and language. Related topics to be discussed: the
    modularity of mind, nonconceptual content, the epistemology of evidence
    and the semantics of observational terms.

    Invited Speakers:

    William Brewer (Illinois)
    Allan Franklin (Colorado)
    Martin Kusch (Vienna)
    Robert McCauley (Emory)
    Athanassios Raftopoulos (Cyprus)
    Markus Werning (Bochum)

    Anybody wishing to attend the conference please let us know via e-mail:

    The conference program (which includes a number of contributed talks)
    can be found on the following website:

    We look forward to welcoming you to the conference.

    The Organisers,
    Ioannis Votsis, Michela Tacca and Gerhard Schurz

  14. Very nice idea to try this new approach. But just so that it’s clear: will you still be sending letters to conference organizers when it’s a 100% male lineup of speakers? And if yes, has the text been changed so as to reflect the new approach?
    But anyway, I think focus on the *consequences* rather than the *causes* of the phenomenon is likely to have a positive effect.

  15. Rather discouraging, this University of Toronto graduate student conference, sponsored by the Philosophy Department, features only male speakers. The conference theme is freedom (!). In the past 12 years, only one of the keynote speakers has been a woman.

    This year’s lineup:

    Friday, April 15th, 2011
    All presentations will take place in room the first floor seminar room of the Jackman Humanities Building.
    8:00 – 9:00
    Light Breakfast
    9:00 – 10:00
    ‘Outing Frankfurt: Autonomy, Self-Constitution, and Self-Acceptance’
    Etye Steinberg (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
    Commentator: Benjamin Wald
    10:15 – 11:15
    ‘Freedom and the Environmental Crisis’
    Joe Kirby (Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto)
    Commentator: Luke Davies
    11:30 – 12:45
    Lunch Break
    12:45 – 1:45
    ‘Scotus and Aquinas on Will, Freedom and Ethics’
    Jeff Steele (University of South Florida)
    Commentator: Ian Drummond
    2:00 – 3:00
    ‘Incompatibilism and the Exclusion Thesis’
    Joshua Hollowell (University of California, Riverside)
    Commentator: Geordie McComb
    3:15 – 5:00
    Keynote Address
    ‘Freedom: A Geography of the Issues’
    Philip Pettit (Princeton)
    5:30 – 7:30
    Jackman Humanities Building, 4th Floor (Rooms 418 and 419)
    Saturday, April 16th, 2011
    All presentations will take place in room the first floor seminar room of the Jackman Humanities Building.
    8:00 – 9:00
    Light Breakfast
    9:00 – 10:00
    ‘An Existentialist Account of the Role of Humor Against Oppression’
    Chris Kramer (Marquette University)
    Commentator: Jacob Weinrib
    10:15 – 11:15
    ‘Against Republican Liberty’
    Andreas Schmidt (Oxford University)
    Commentator: Mark Schranz
    11:30 – 1:30
    Lunch Break
    1:30 – 2:30
    ‘Two Senses of Freedom in Augustine’
    Tyler Huismann (University of Michigan)
    Commentator: Michael Siebert
    2:45 – 3:45
    ‘Theft, Law, and Liberalism’
    Kieran Aarons (DePaul University)
    Commentator: Luke Roelofs
    3:45 – 6:30
    6:45 – 8:00
    Conference Dinner
    The HOST, 14 Prince Arthur Ave.

  16. Has anyone else noticed that the overwhelming majority of the conferences on this list are being held outside North America (mostly UK, Europe and one in Australia)? Is this just a coincidence?

  17. Via What We’re Doing, moved to here (thanks, Monique!, I’ll add it to the list):
    Discouraging, this graduate student Philosophy conference at University of Toronto appears to have an all-male lineup. In the 11 years that the conference has been running, only once was the keynote speaker a woman.

    “Freedom and Freedoms”
    11th Annual Graduate Student conference in Philosophy, April 15-16, 2011

    Friday, April 15th, 2011
    All presentations will take place in room the first floor seminar room of the Jackman Humanities Building.
    8:00 – 9:00
    Light Breakfast
    9:00 – 10:00
    ‘Outing Frankfurt: Autonomy, Self-Constitution, and Self-Acceptance’
    Etye Steinberg (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
    Commentator: Benjamin Wald
    10:15 – 11:15
    ‘Freedom and the Environmental Crisis’
    Joe Kirby (Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto)
    Commentator: Luke Davies
    11:30 – 12:45
    Lunch Break
    12:45 – 1:45
    ‘Scotus and Aquinas on Will, Freedom and Ethics’
    Jeff Steele (University of South Florida)
    Commentator: Ian Drummond
    2:00 – 3:00
    ‘Incompatibilism and the Exclusion Thesis’
    Joshua Hollowell (University of California, Riverside)
    Commentator: Geordie McComb
    3:15 – 5:00
    Keynote Address
    ‘Freedom: A Geography of the Issues’
    Philip Pettit (Princeton)
    5:30 – 7:30
    Jackman Humanities Building, 4th Floor (Rooms 418 and 419)
    Saturday, April 16th, 2011
    All presentations will take place in room the first floor seminar room of the Jackman Humanities Building.
    8:00 – 9:00
    Light Breakfast
    9:00 – 10:00
    ‘An Existentialist Account of the Role of Humor Against Oppression’
    Chris Kramer (Marquette University)
    Commentator: Jacob Weinrib
    10:15 – 11:15
    ‘Against Republican Liberty’
    Andreas Schmidt (Oxford University)
    Commentator: Mark Schranz
    11:30 – 1:30
    Lunch Break
    1:30 – 2:30
    ‘Two Senses of Freedom in Augustine’
    Tyler Huismann (University of Michigan)
    Commentator: Michael Siebert
    2:45 – 3:45
    ‘Theft, Law, and Liberalism’
    Kieran Aarons (DePaul University)
    Commentator: Luke Roelofs
    3:45 – 6:30
    6:45 – 8:00
    Conference Dinner
    The HOST, 14 Prince Arthur Ave.

  18. Dear profbigk, sorry to be so slow to what you believe is a long-dead topic. Since I went to the panel tonight unprepared by the blog, I guess I thought my (to me) fresh dismay mattered. Apparently, I’m beating a dead horse that everyone else has moved on from. However, if you want to know what it was like to go in and watch the panel without knowing that the panel was made up entirely of men, and then leave a panel for the first time ever in anger after 12 years of trying to keep your head up as a woman in philosophy, I can tell you. But from now on, I and all the other women trying to make a go of it will remember to read the blog before attending a panel. For sure, though, I’ll just keep my mouth shut. Here I was thinking women were supporting one another rather than pointing out that, “well, look, everyone has known philosophy has been sexist for centuries, and you still went to grad school? Didn’t you read our comments?”.

  19. 61 and 62, I don’t want to butt into this exchange, but since prof is a dedicated feminist well able to appreciate the shock you, anon, experienced, let just remain hopeful this will get sorted out.

    I can imagine it was a nasty shock. There was a time when we perhaps didn’t notice. And we are trying where we can to change it.

  20. 60: I’m with you, as I was when I wrote the post. But this was a horrendously heated debate over here, and I think ProfBigK just didn’t want it all to start up again!

    Please *don’t* keep your mouth shut. Thank you for speaking up.

  21. Yes, what Jender said.

    Disagreeing with a comment is entirely compatible with being supportive. I regret that Anonymous took my post to indicate anything other than disagreement with the first sentence in comment #60. Comment #62 is a violation of our blog policies regarding commenting, available at the “Our Policies” tab at the top of the screen.

  22. I was at the panel last night. I wish anon has stayed. I understand leaving out of anger and frustration, but I’m glad that the women who stayed did stay as they asked the best questions by far.

  23. Just by being a female in many circles you are immediately ignored. I appreciate your post, but I have no idea how to break this ceiling.

    I was forced to start my own business because I lacked employment alternatives. I am a female, a minority and over 40, with two graduate degrees…employment is limited for someone like myself, and I am happy I had the ability to shape and create my own employment and reality. The problem of gender disparity is only escalating and getting worse in the United States. We live in very sad times!

  24. Hey feminist philosophers & your followers! I’ve been tracking this post since it first appeared.

    I’m an active advocate for women speakers on stages around the world, and blog about the issue on a fairly regular basis. Here’s one of my more recent “rants,” which will surely be of interest to you (and in which I have a link to this page):

    Here’s some history with respect to my personal mission as an avid TEDster to get more women on TED stages in particular:

    I also have a Twitter and Facebook campaign to increase women’s voice on social media. I will soon follow with a website called See more here:

    If anyone would like to collaborate with me on any of these initiatives, I would be delighted to work together. Keep making your voices heard!

  25. “All-male events and volumes help to perpetuate the stereotyping of philosophy as male. This in turn to contributes to implicit bias against women in philosophy, which very likely leads even those genuinely committed to gender equality to evaluate women’s contributions as less good than men’s.”

    Would the same argument fly for, say, physically handicapped, White vs. Coloured, hetero vs. homosexual invitees? So much as I value diversity, I fail to see what is so distinctive about the gender issue.

    Also, conference organizers often face an academic reality where 80% of the potential invitees are males (as a matter of fact). The aim of a conference organizer is to bring together the speakers that best fit the specific scientific aims that she/he pursues. Sometimes this can lead to an overrepresentation of a specific gender, sometimes the other way round.

    Anyway, I can’t see why occasionally occurring gender imbalance leads to “implicit bias against women in philosophy”, or evaluating women’s contributions as less good as men’s. We are not in the 1950s any more.

    Most primary school teachers are women, but I think (and hope that you follow me) they are on average neither better nor worse than their male colleagues. Same for philosophers: just because most of the crowd are males, no reasonable person would infer to the academic superiority of males or another bullshit.

    I am a liberal, both in the American and the European sense of the word, and I think freedom (here: whom to invite at conferences) should not be restricted by campaigns founded on questionable empirical arguments.

  26. There are so many replies to make that I could not do justice to all the counterarguments possible, but I shall try. I invite Anonymous to further peruse the many posts and comments available on this blog over the years (feel free to check our ‘bias’ (396 posts, wow!) and ‘gendered conference campaign’ categories in the Category list, or search the blog on the terms ‘gendered conference’).

    To ask if an argument about all-male events would fly for a mixed variety of some visible and some not-necessarily-visible differences sets up the reader to conclude it would not fly. But the categories aren’t analogous.

    The gendered conference campaign has never required that gender be distinctive from all other types of difference. But since this is the Feminist Philosophers blog, our prioritization of gender opportunity should be self-evident. Priorities are not always justified by exclusivity.

    To state that gender imbalance ‘occasionally occurs’ implies that it is always an accident. This is a mistaken implication, since organizers are not mere forces of nature. At issue is the very possibility that one could be more intentional and thoughtful about one’s choices. By its very nature, implicit bias is implicit; evidence that biases, when brought to the fore, can be reduced is offered in posts on this site.

  27. (Apologies if there’s a place other than GCC for all-male lineups in an extended book series, or if this particular series has already come up for discussion…)

    With nineteen great (male) philosophers being written about by nineteen current (apparently all male) commentators, The Routledge Philosophers series adds to the message — intended or not — that women need not be part of our discipline’s conversation:

  28. Shoot, I replied to your post over there, Catarina, but I was so diverted by Mike Otsuka’s objections that I forgot to say: Hey, Catarina, interesting post, and thanks for telling us about it!

    I blame teh interwebs for the ease with which I get distracted.

  29. Women feminists,one would have thought,would not want to keep following patriarchy in its philosophical rut,or any other rut that is old paradigm.Women feminists need to strike out on their own,but has any woman feminist ever said that?If you are academics,you are on an old paradigm,patriarchal gravy train.For feminists,there is no need to get off the gravy train just because it is patriarchal,but at least you could realise that as feminists you have to make your own frame of reference.
    Patriarchal academic/commercial philosophy is a Machiavellian enterprise,dedicated to the perpetuation of the status quo.There has been some talk about censorship on the internet lately,and a campaign of sorts to stop,reduce rather,censorship on the internet.The most debilitating censorship,however,is that practiced by people who think themselves progressive,but shut their ears and eyes to unpalatable truths.Leave the dead to bury the dead.Stop running after a place under the table at the forum dedicated to keeping things as they are,or else,stop trying to fool others by portraying yourselves as feminist.Real feminists are not fooled by faux-feminists playing at pretending.

  30. I wondered if the gendered conference campaign would also consider other situations. One that comes to mind is the panel that drew up the European Research Index for the Humanities (ERIH) journal rankings in philosophy. These rankings have come for heavy criticism. The panel of five was a panel of five men. This may be worth raising, but I don’t think it has been flagged elsewhere.

  31. Thanks for writing, Confused. I am surprised to realize that we haven’t attended to this in years! A quick search of the blog suggests we haven’t turned attention to this since 2007.

    I’m confused at your comment that there was a panel of just five, however. Can you provide a link to an online source for that information? I thought the ERIH rankings were more complicated, and their own page claims, “Over 140 researchers from 28 countries participated on a voluntary basis in the work of the ERIH panels in the two rounds.” [I’m finding this on

    I am happy to note that since we first wrote about the journal rankings, Hypatia’s designation was reconsidered. It was previously described as an interdisciplinary journal of some regular citation. It is now in the “INT2 Sub-Category: international publications with significant visibility and influence in the various research domains in different countries.”

  32. Call for participation

    Workshop in Cologne
    March 5, 2012

    DFG Research Group Causation | Laws | Dispositions | Explanation

    Claus Beisbart (University of Dortmund)
    Barry Loewer (Rutgers University)
    Alexander Reutlinger (University of Cologne)
    John T. Roberts (University of North Carolina)
    Markus Schrenk (University of Cologne)

    Loewer: “Two Accounts of Laws and Time”
    Schrenk: “Do Better Best Systems Accounts deliver the Metaphysics, Epistemology or Pragmatics of Laws?
    Beisbart: “Big or Bug? A Skeptical Guide to Humean Chances”
    Reutlinger: “Ceteris Paribus Law = Statistical Law?”
    Roberts: “Counterfactuals, Norms, and Natural Modality”

    Please register by sending an email to Arno Göbel: We can offer only a limited number of places. The Deadline for registration is February 26, 2012.

    If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the organizer:


  33. Aristotle on Discovery and Justification

    To be held at Pittsburgh University, March 23-25

    Organizers: Allan Gotthelf (Pitt), Jim Lennox (Pitt), Greg Salmieri (UNC-Chapel Hill)
    We will have papers from: Robert Bolton (Rutgers), David Charles (Oxford), Alan Code (Stanford), Pieter Hasper (Munich), Joe Karbowski (Notre Dame), and Michael Peramatzis (Oxford); and comments by: James Allen (Pittsburgh), Jim Lennox (Pittsburgh), Ben Morison (Princeton), David Reeve (UNC-Chapel Hill) and Joel Yurdin (Haverford). Chairs will include: David Bronstein (Boston Univ.), Andrea Falcon (Concordia), Michael Ferejohn (Duke), and Allan Gotthelf (Pittsburgh). We will begin with an introduction to the issues by Greg Salmieri, and end with a Roundtable discussion led by Jim and Greg.

    N.B. Andrea Falcon (Concordia) is male.

  34. Here is another (mostly) all-male conference in the philosophy of science (see also #83 above). Elisabeth Lloyd is giving the inagural lecture, which is great, but all eleven of the accepted papers were written by men.

    POBAM: Philosophy of Biology at Madison

    2012 Program

    All sessions will be held at the Pyle Center (location info)

    Thursday – 5/31

    7:00pm – 9:00pm – INAUGURAL LECTURE
    “The Logic of Research Questions: Adaptationism in Action in the Case of the Female Orgasm”
    Elisabeth Lloyd (Indiana)

    Friday – 6/1
    9:00am – 10:15am – “Really Statistical Explanations and Genetic Drift”
    Marc Lange (UNC)
    Chair: TBD

    10:30am – 11:45am – “Random Sampling, Offspring Distribution, and Genetic Drift”
    Yoichi Ishida (Pitt) & Alirio Rosales (UBC)
    Chair: TBD

    1:45pm – 3:00pm – “The Relaxed Forces Strategy for Testing Natural State
    Theories: The Case of the ZFEL”
    Derek Turner (Connecticut College)
    Chair: TBD

    3:15pm – 4:30pm – “Optimality Explanations: Equilibrium, Idealization, and
    Collin Rice (Missouri)
    Chair: TBD

    4:45pm – 6:00pm – “How to Misidentify a Type Specimen”
    Matt Haber (Utah)
    Chair: TBD

    Saturday – 6/2
    9:00am – 10:15am – “Replacing the Consensus on Evolutionary Groups”
    Matt Barker (Concordia)
    Chair: TBD

    10:30am – 11:45am – “Is Population Genetics Hopeless?”
    Robert Skipper (Cincinnati)
    Chair: TBD

    1:45pm – 3:00pm – “Causal Foundations of Quantitative Genetics”
    Jun Otsuka (Indiana)
    Chair: TBD

    3:15pm – 4:30pm – “Developmental Causation and the Problem of Homology”
    David Baum (Wisconsin)
    Chair: TBD

    4:30pm – 5:45pm – KEYNOTE
    Allen Orr (University of Rochester)

    Sunday – 6/3
    9:15am – 10:30am – “A Critique of Shapiro and Sober on Epiphenomenalism and Natural Selection”
    Andre Ariew (Missouri)
    Chair: TBD

    10:45am – 12:00pm – “Some Perplexities Arising from Temporal Variation in
    Bruce Glymour (Kansas State)
    Chair: TBD

    2012 program selection committee:
    Marc Ereshefsky, University of Calgary
    Sandra Mitchell, University of Pittsburgh, HPS
    Denis Walsh, University of Toronto

    2012 organizing committee:
    Elliott Sober (chair)
    Hayley Clatterbuck
    Michael Goldsby
    Casey Helgeson
    Matt Kopec
    Elena Spitzer
    Naftali Weinberger

  35. Apparently, nominalism is for men only:


    eidos, the Center in Metaphysics of the University of Geneva, and CUSO (Conférence Universitaire de Suisse Occidentale) are pleased to announce the conference “Nominalism: A Reassessment”. The conference will focus on nominalism about properties rather than nominalism about numbers, propositions or abstract objects in general.

    Dates: September 17-19, 2012
    Venue: University of Geneva, Switzerland
    Nominalism about properties is a traditional view according to which all existing entities are particulars. Specifically, nominalism rejects universals or properties in general. The conference aims to address issues in the history of nominalism, the problems and objections faced by different versions of nominalism, whether historical or contemporary, the relations between different varieties of nominalism, and any other philosophical issues about nominalism.

    Paolo Crivelli (University of Geneva)
    Richard Glauser (University of Neuchâtel)
    Philip Goff (University of Liverpool)
    Markku Keinänen (University of Turku)
    Fraser MacBride (University of Cambridge)
    John Marenbon (University of Cambridge)
    Joseph Melia (Oxford University)
    Claude Panaccio (UQAM)
    Alexander Paseau (Oxford University)
    Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (Oxford University)

    For further information, please contact or visit the
    website at eidos (

    Organising Committee
    Ghislain Guigon (University of Geneva)
    Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra (Oxford University)

  36. A workshop at Notre Dame with an all-male lineup of speakers:

    Ancient Skepticism, Voluntarism, and Science
    University of Notre Dame
    210-214 McKenna Hall
    11 May 2012

    The idea of warranted suspension of belief – that there are conditions under which one should ascribe neither truth nor falsity to certain kinds of proposition – is famously associated with Pyrrhonian skepticism, as discussed by Sextus Empiricus. The idea of voluntarism in contemporary epistemology and the philosophy of science – that reasonable beliefs with respect to certain kinds of proposition admit of voluntary control, and that the subject matters of reasonable belief are subject to voluntary choice – has come under increasing scrutiny. This workshop aims to explore some nascent connections between these ideas in ancient philosophy, epistemology, and the philosophy of science.

    9:00-9:25 Coffee
    9:25-9:30 Welcome

    9:30-10:40 Michael Williams, Johns Hopkins University ‘The Pyrrhonian Problematic, Then and Now’

    10:50-12:00 Casey Perin, University of California, Irvine ‘Conflicting Appearances and Norms of Belief’ [note: Casey Perin is male]

    12:00-1:20 Lunch

    1:30-2:40 Richard Bett, Johns Hopkins University ‘On Pyrrhonism, Stances, and Believing What you Want’

    2:50-4:00 Otávio Bueno, University of Miami ‘Realism and Anti-Realism About Science: A Pyrrhonian Stance’

    4:10-5:20 Anjan Chakravartty, University of Notre Dame ‘Suspension of Belief and Epistemologies of Science’

  37. And here, as far as I know, is another all-male conference (11 speakers)

    Extended Cognition and Epistemology

    Place: Pakhuis de Zwijger, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
    Date: June 6-7, 2012
    Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology

    According to the thesis of extended cognition, cognitive processes do not need to be located inside the skin of the cognizing agent. Humans routinely engage their wider artifactual environment to extend the capacities of their naked brain. They often rely so much on external aids (notebooks, watches, smartphones) that the latter may become a proper part of the cognizing mind.

    The thesis of extended cognition has been influential in the philosophy of mind, cognitive science, linguistics, informatics, and ethics, but, surprisingly, not in contemporary epistemology. The discipline concerned with one of the most remarkable products of human cognition, viz. knowledge, has largely ignored the suggestion that her main object of study might be produced by processes outside the human

    The purpose of the conference therefore is to examine the impact of extended cognition on epistemology. Papers presented at the conference have gone through peer-review already, for an upcoming special issue of Philosophical Explorations on the topic of “Extended Cognition and Epistemology” (guest-edited by Andy Clark, Duncan Pritchard and Krist Vaesen).

    The contributors are:

    Fred Adams (Delaware)
    Ken Aizawa (Centenary)
    Ronald Giere (Minnesota)
    Sanford Goldberg (Northwestern)
    Richard Menary (Macquarie, Sydney)
    Evan Butts (Geneva)
    Adam Green (Innsbruck)
    Stephen Hetherington (New South Wales, Sydney)
    Michael Kirchhoff (Macquarie, Sydney) and Will Newsome (Macquarie, Sydney)
    Paul Loader (Sussex)
    Tom Roberts (Exeter)

  38. […] Gendered Conference ontstond nadat wetenschapsters voor de zoveelste keer uitnodigingen langs zagen komen voor wetenschappelijke congressen waar alleen mannen spreken. Zij vonden dat zó 1800 dat ze organisatoren van congressen aan gingen spreken op hun gedrag. Want er zijn allerlei redenen waarom vrouwen buiten de boot vallen, en veel van die oorzaken komen neer op vooroordelen, automatismen, en mannen die mannen uit hun eigen netwerk voordragen. Met hun campagne verwachten de filosofes meer bewustwording te bereiken en praktische oplossingen aan te dragen voor meer diversiteit in de wetenschap. […]

  39. I see you caught the Nature of Desire conference. Of course if it had been called the Obscure Object of Desire things might have been different.

  40. We did, Margaret Atherton! But didn’t get a chance to email the organizers on this occasion (at least, I don’t think we did, don’t remember a co-blogger notifying the rest of us). Plenty of female members in that organization, so I’m a bit surprised there aren’t any invited female speakers. I should’ve asked what happened there. (Sadly, there are too many all-male line-ups to keep up with!)

  41. Feyerabend 2012

    Invited speakers:
    Joseph Agassi (Tel Aviv University and York University)
    Matteo Collodel (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
    Matthew Brown (University of Texas, Dallas)
    George Couvalis (Flinders University)
    Stefano Gattei (IMT Institute for Advanced Studies)
    Ronald Giere (MCPS, University of Minnesota)
    Paul Hoyningen-Huene (Leibniz Universität Hannover)
    Struan Jacobs (Deakin University)
    Ian J. Kidd (Durham University)
    Martin Kusch (University of Vienna)
    Gonzalo Munévar (Lawrence Technological University)
    Eric Oberheim (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin)
    John Preston (University of Reading)
    Howard Sankey (University of Melbourne)
    Jen-Jeuq Yuann (National Taiwan University)

  42. A mostly male conference on social understanding. 2 out of 17 speakers are women. None of them is a philosopher. (I guess about 50% of the guys are philosophers, but that’s a rough guess.)

    Note also how one of the women gets a 45 min, not a 60 min slot, presumably because she is a junoir researcher. Some of the guys get that lower-status treatment as well. Most don’t.

    Workshop Social Understanding – Evolution, Culture, Development

    September 27-29, 2012
    Ruhr-University Bochum



    09.00-10.00 Dan Sperber (Budapest/Paris), Morality and reputation in an evolutionary perspective

    10.00-11.00 Rineke Verbrugge (Groningen), The evolution of higher-order theory of mind.

    11.30-12.30 Albert Newen (Bochum), Cooperation and Social Understanding.

    14.00-15.00 Raimo Tuomela (Helsinki), Collective Intentionality and Social Groups: A Culture-Gene Based Evolutionary Argument

    15.00-16.00 Gary Bente & Thomas Dratsch (Cologne), Analyzing Cultural Patterns in the Production and Perception of Nonverbal Behavior.

    16.15-17-00 Katharina Krämer (Cologne), Behavioural and Neural Differences in Social Engagement during Cross-Ethnical Interactions

    17.00-18.00 Shinobu Kitayama (Michigan), Understanding the self and other in social
    context: A cultural neuroscience approach

    28.09. Friday

    09.00-10.00 Philippe Rochat (Atlanta), The Gaze of Others in Development

    10.00-11.00 Ulf Liszkowski (Nijmegen), Using theory-of-mind

    11.30-12.15 Leon de Bruin (Bochum), The development of intentional understanding.

    14.45-15.45 Shihui Han (Peking), How do we understand and share others’ pain? The effect of social group relationship.

    15.45-16.30 Piotr Winkielman (San Diego), Emotion, Imitation and Embodied Social

    16.30-17.30 Kai Vogeley (Cologne), Neural correlates of social understanding

    29.09. Saturday

    Theories of social understanding

    09.30-10.30 Shaun Gallagher (Memphis), Why all understanding is social.

    10.30-11.30 Tobias Schlicht (Bochum), Social skills. A defense of Enactive

    12.00-13.00 Corrado Sinigaglia (Milan), Action experience and goal ascription.

  43. A boys only line-up in the backyard of well-known feminist crusaders and not a word said! What a shame!

    * A Workshop on Political Philosophy *
    * “Europe, between Kantian cosmopolitanism and crisis of civilization”*
    Thursday, October 11th
    Université libre de Bruxelles, Campus Solbosch, Avenue Jeanne, 44, 1040 Brussels, 12th Floor, Salle Doucy

    10h00 Emiliano Acosta (Ugent) : “Oppressive and emancipating Cosmopolitan Discourses. An introduction to the problem of cosmopolitanism.”
    10h30 David Engels (ULB) : “La crise de l’Union européenne et la chute de la république romaine – quelques analogies.”
    11h00 Coffee
    11h15 Quentin Landenne (ULB) : “La crise de la démocratie européenne et le cosmopolitisme kantien”.
    11h45 Martin Deleixhe (ULB) : “The blurred boundary between the right of sojourn and the right of residence”.
    12h15 Discussion 13h00 Lunch
    14h00 Marco Bazzan (Univ. Padova/Toulouse) : “Les enjeux européens de la dispute entre Kautsky et Lénine”.
    14h30 Jan De Vos (Ugent) : “Neuropolitics and cosmopolitanism”
    15h00 Coffee
    15h20 Laszlo Kosolosky & Jan De Winter (Ugent) : “Well-ordered science, and how to obtain a more fair research agenda”
    15h50 Discussion
    16h30 Bart Raymaekers (KUL) : “Cosmopolitanism: Kantian inspiration?”

  44. I think this one is a problem (and note that Vincent Hendricks is behind it):

    5th Copenhagen Lund Workshop in Social Epistemology
    6 and 7 December, 2012
    Lund, Sweden

    Avizier Tucker (University of Austin, Texas): Modeling the Generation of Knowledge
    Bert Baumgärtner (UC Davis): An Agent-Based Model of Millian Mingling
    Carlo Proietti & Erik J. Olsson (Lund University): Pluralistic ignorance, informational cascades and higher order beliefs
    Chris J. Thompson (Cambridge University): An epistemic case for deliberative democracy
    Fabrizio Cariani (Northwestern University): Why deliberate?
    George Masterton (Lund University): Does Laputa solve Goldman’s problem?
    Gustavo Cevolani (University of Bologna): Belief merging and truth approximation
    Peter Brössel (University of Bochum): To be announced
    Raphael Künstler (University of Provence): Information cascade and the division of cognitive labor
    Rasmus K. Rendsvig (Copenhagen University): Dynamics of the Bystander Effect

    By 26 November at

    Principal Investigators
    Erik J. Olsson (Lund) and Vincent F. Hendricks (Copenhagen)

    Frank Zenker and Carlo Proietti

    Department of Philosophy & Cognitive Science
    Kungshuset, Lundagård, 222 22 Lund, Sweden

  45. Mathematical and Conceptual Foundations of Physics
    The call for papers announces yet another conference organized by an all-male committee & an all male lineup of invited speakers. I know that there are a number of women in this field, too. (Doreen Fraser, Hilary Greaves, Alisa Bokulich, Katherine Brading, and more.)

    It is also troubling that this announcement follows on the heels of another problematic (gendered) conference sponsored by the same Center, which was noted on this blog recently. That one featured only male speakers, too: ( )

  46. Looking for anthologies on the ethical issues related to climate change
    . . . what do I see? This all-male volume from O. U. P.!!!

    (And the papers are described as “seminal” — ugh: )

  47. thanks for posting content not meant to be posted on a blog. like mail-adresses with an @ so that each and every webcrawler (including google) can find it and send spam to the adressees. ever heard about netiquette for ALL? makes me very sympathetic with your campaign…

  48. from description of Logica 2013 conference, Invited speakers are Johan van Benthem, Michael Dunn, Volker Halbach and Michiel van Lambalgen

  49. At the APA, no less: a double header. Hard to believe. Shows how important the GCC is.

    CPP Book Signing and Panel Organized for the Eastern Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association

    Book Signing:

    At the December 2012 Eastern Division meeting of the American Philosophical Association in Atlanta, GA, the Committee on Public Philosophy will host a book signing event on December 29, 2012, from 2-4 PM in Imperial Ballroom B at the Marriott Marquis in Atlanta, GA.

    Five philosophers are participating and have written books that show the impact of philosophy on public life. They include
    John Lachs, Stoic Pragmatism
    Jeremy Wisnewski (with R.D. Emerick), The Ethics of Torture
    John Shook, The God Debates
    Carlin Romano, America the Philosophical
    Robert Talisse, Democracy and Moral Conflict.

    Each author will say a few words about writing for the public about pressing philosophical matters and will then meet visitors and sign books available for purchase (cash or check). Come meet the authors and enjoy some philosophical discussions. You can also read our initial press release about this event here, which includes a brief summary of each book.


    We are also sponsoring the following panel featuring Jim Sterba’s work:

    “Can Moral and Political Philosophy Really Provide a Foundation for Public Policy or is it Question-Begging All Around? A Panel on Jim Sterba’s Work”

    Sunday, December 30th, 9:00-11:00 a.m., Session VI-J, Room TBA @ the conference

    David Cummiskey (Bates College)
    John Lachs (Vanderbilt University)
    James Sterba (University of Notre Dame)
    Moderator: Eric Thomas Weber (University of Mississippi)

  50. A new conference series on Philosophy & AI was initiated recently.
    So far, ZERO out of TWENTY invited speakers are women. Here are the details and links:

    2013: PT-AI Conference, Oxford, 21 & 22 September 2013

    “Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence” has SEVEN invited speakers, all male.

    “This is the 2nd Conference on ‘Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence’ (the first conference was in 2011).

    Vincent C. Müller, University of Oxford (FHI) & Anatolia College/ACT

    Invited Speakers
    Theodore Berger (University of Southern California, L.A.)
    Selmer Bringsjord (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY)
    Jack Copeland (University of Canterbury, NZ) – TBC
    Daniel C. Dennett (Tufts University, Boston)
    Luciano Floridi (University of Hertfordshire/University of Oxford)
    Murray Shanahan (Imperial College, London)
    Michael Wheeler (University of Stirling, Scotland)”

    2011: PT-AI Conference, Thessaloniki, 3 & 4 October 2011

    The 2011 conference had THREE invited Keynote speakers, all male — and SEVEN additional speakers, all male. So, 13 out of 13 male. Here is the topic and speaker list:

    “Artificial Intelligence is perhaps unique among engineering subjects in that it has raised very basic questions about the nature of computing, perception, reasoning, learning, language, action, interaction, consciousness, humankind, life etc. etc. – and at the same time it has contributed substantially to answering these questions (in fact, it is sometimes seen as a form of empirical research).”


    Vincent C. Müller, Anatolia College/ACT & University of Oxford

    Invited Keynote Speakers
    Hubert Dreyfus, University of California at Berkeley
    James H. Moor, Dartmouth College
    Rolf Pfeifer, Zurich University

    Invited speakers:
    Mark H. Bickard, Lehigh University
    Nick Bostrom, University of Oxford
    Brian Cantwell Smith, University of Toronto
    Ron Chrisley, University of Sussex
    Antoni Gomila, University of the Baleares
    J. Kevin O’Regan, CNRS, Paris
    Matthias Scheutz, Tufts University, Boston
    Oron Shagrir, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
    Aaron Sloman, University of Birmingham
    Tom Ziemke, University of Skovde”

  51. UPDATE on PT-AI 2013. The post above reported that SEVEN out of SEVEN of the invited speakers at PT-AI 2013 were male. It appears that one of the speakers dropped out, and two were added. But, both of the additional invited speakers are male. So, this is to report that EIGHT out of EIGHT of the invited speakers are male.


    PT-AI 2013 – “Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence”
    Oxford, St. Antony’s College


    Jean-Christophe Baillie (CSF, Aldebaran Robotics, Paris)
    “AI: The Point of View of Developmental Robotics”
    Theodore Berger (University of Southern California, L.A.)
    Selmer Bringsjord (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY)
    “What Does Watson 2.0 Tell Us About the Philosophy & Theory of AI?”
    Daniel C. Dennett (Tufts University, Boston)
    “If brains are computers, what kind of computers are they?”
    Luciano Floridi (University of Hertfordshire/University of Oxford)
    “Enveloping the World – How Reality Is Becoming AI-Friendly”
    Stuart J Russell (UC Berkeley)
    “Rationality and Intelligence”
    Murray Shanahan (Imperial College, London)
    “Consciousness, Artificial Intelligence, and the Frame Problem”
    Michael Wheeler (University of Stirling, Scotland)
    “AI and Extended Cognition”

  52. This is kind of ridiculous. I’ve been following a trail of blogs all morning lamenting the “lack on women” in philosophy. I’ve been watching as you organize conventions, seminars, write books, and post angry misandric screeds about it all.

    But the saddest fact is that NONE of you recognize a brilliant woman philosopher that’s staring at you right in the face. Not only had she contributed greatly to the field, she’s created her own branch of it. Her books have been best sellers for DECADES. The NYTimes readers chose her seminal work as the “most influential book they’ve ever read, second only to the bible” for the last twenty years.

    Her name is Ayn Rand.

    And because most if not all of you are on the Left politically, you ignore her, marginalize her, call her names… in short, you do all of the things you lament the rest of the world does to women in philospohy in general – to her, in particular.

    If any of you had any ounce of credibility, you’d be celebrating her achievements, you’d be trying to get girls interested in her at an early age, and you would push for her works to be required reading in philosophy departments everywhere.

    But just like Clarence Thomas “isn’t really black”, Rand “isn’t really a woman” because she doesn’t fit your political tastes… so you on the Left dismiss her without a second thought.

    So while you lament the dirth of women in philosophy, and point the finger at “male power structures”… the biggest woman philosopher arguably in the last 100 years is being ignored – because of YOU.

  53. Hannah Arendt, Phillipa Foot, G.E.M. Anscombe, Christine Korsgaard, Susan Wolf, Rae Langton, Susan Nieman, Martha Nussbaum, Julia Annas, Judith Butler, Judith Jarvis Thomson, Nancy Cartwright, Patricia Churchland, Simone de Beauvoir, Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva, Rosa Luxemburg, Mary Midgley, Iris Murdoch, Onora O’Neill, Mary Wollstonecraft, etc. Just a sampling of some fascinating and brilliant female philosophers (as if there gender matters) who I have had the benefit of learning from through their works or first-hand, and whom are frequently cited and respected throughout the philosophical community.

    Gender inequalities do still persist – this is beyond dispute. But to cherry pick a few conferences whose speakers are all male and concluding from this that sexism in philosophy is incorrigibly rampant is not only ridiculous but so fallacious that it is surprising how many philosophers, aspiring and practicing, believe this to be so. Over a third of all Phd’s in philosophy in the U.S. have been granted to women over the past decade and most of the top universities have philosophy departments that comprise such an even ratio of male to female that it barely warrants mention.

    It is unfortunate that philosophy and philosophers of the past have espoused brazenly sexist beliefs. Yet to not acknowledge or appreciate the vast change in gender relations that have occurred for the better in past years, in philosophy departments and society at large, is to evince a blindness to progress that is not only demoralizing but deluded. Work still needs to be done; yet the notion that the only admirable goal is for there to be a 1:1 ration of male to female in philosophy departments and that 50% of all articles cited should be from and by female authors is ludicrous. All would be much better if we could try to move beyond gender so that when we encounter cases of sexual harassment, for instance, our ire should not be augmented by the fact that the victim is a woman and the harraser a man.

  54. @Samanatha: do you have links to back up your assertions re gender parity? particularly at seminars, conferences, summits, workshops etc.? I would love to check them out…


  55. Great blog here! Additionally your web site rather a lot up very fast!

    What host are you the usage of? Can I get your associate
    hyperlink to your host? I desire my website loaded up as quickly as yours lol

  56. thanks for posting content not meant to be posted on a blog. like mail-adresses with an @ so that each and every webcrawler (including google) can find it and send spam to the adressees. ever heard about netiquette for ALL? makes me very sympathetic with your campaign…

  57. I really feel that women will make better philosophers because they are
    by nature “introverted” and self centered. They can feel emotions correctly. And they have intuition too…..
    It is said: Julius Caesar’s wife dreamed Caesar being killed in an official function the night before he was murdered. The next day, when Julius Caesar was about the leave the palace, his wife begged him not to go and attend the function. But Caesar told it seems: You are a lady. What will the roman people think that I did not attend the function because a lady told me not to. He also told that his friend Brutus will be will him. What danger can come to him ….and the great Caesar died. Sometimes listening to a woman might save your life…may be reading women might save lives also…If women stop producing babies the human race will come to an end.

    If god has given rights to women to produce babies (for which they undergo painful physical processes in their anatomy right from puberty), their philosophy must also be considered.
    I myself am a philosopher. You can visit my site and say something about my observations.

  58. @Gokula Anand: “I really feel that women will make better philosophers because they are
    by nature “introverted” and self centered. They can feel emotions correctly.”

    Philosophy is not about emotion; it’s about logic. Anyone who’s taken a first year philosophy course knows this.

  59. I disagree with both the quoted and the stated claims in 162. For the role of reason, see Damasio’s Descartes’ Error for starters. His claims about the limits of reason are well respected in the cogsci community.

    Philosophy’s Myth of Reason is actually harmful. As long as we insist that eg ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’ is full of sound logical arguments, we neglect a host of very important questions. Among these is the question of how some people are allowed to have very original ideas.

  60. @annejjacobson: I’m not sure how you can really dispute the role of reason. Above all things, philosophy is a search for Truth (capital T). And Truth – whether it comes from a friend, an observation, or just an internal emotion – eventually has to be proven as such. Emotion results from the processing of Truth, it doesn’t preceed it.

    The FACT is, you saw a car wrecked in an accident. Your emotions about it stem from the fact that it’s YOUR car. If it was someone else’s car, your emotions would be completely different. But the fact still remains, the car was wrecked. Emotions come from the processing of truth, they aren’t the cause of it. How you feel about something cannot take precedence over the actual something you’re “feeling about”. Truth without emotion is still truth; emotion without truth is psychosis.

    Phineas Gage taught us a lot – but the truth remains: he had a railroad spike driven through his head. That is the one indisputable fact. Everything else – what he felt about it, what his friends felt about it, what Dimasio felt about it – are all after-the-fact interpretations and are prone to error.

    I have read Descarte and understand the limits of reason…but emotion is far more limited in discussions of universal truth, than is reason.

  61. […] which address or ameliorate the problem of low female representation (maybe a mild something along these lines? There’s some real value in these efforts to broaden the […]

  62. Another all-male philosophy of physics conference:

    If you click on past years’ programs at this conference, you will find many instances of all-male programs.

    Additionally the conference is invite-only (even for attendance) which seems likely to help perpetuate old boys’ networks.

  63. Men talk about Plato’s Statesman:
    Plato’s Statesman
    November 20-22, 2014
    Boston College


    Conference sponsored by the
    Department of Philosophy, Department of Classical Studies, Department of Political Science,
    College of Arts and Sciences, and Institute for the Liberal Arts

    All sessions take place in McGuinn Hall, Rm. 521
    Thursday, November 20
    10:00-11:00 Drew Hyland, “Stranger Than the Stranger: Axiothea”
    11:10-12:10 Günter Figal, “Finding the Right Concepts: On Dialectical Method in Plato’s Statesman”
    12:20-1:20 Noburu Notomi, “Reconsidering the Relations between the Sophist, the Statesman, and the Philosopher”
    2:45-3:45 Eric Sanday, “Care and the Intelligibility of Τὰ Πράγματα in Plato’s Statesman”
    3:55-4:55 Gary Gurtler, “Transformations: Platonic Mythos and Plotinian Logos”
    5:00-6:30 Reception (McGuinn Hall, Rm. 226a)

    Friday, November 21
    10:00-11:00 Walter Brogan, “The Time of Politics: The Relation between Sovereignty and Law in Plato’s Statesman”
    11:10-12:10 Robert Bartlett, “Political Science and the Problem of Law in Plato’s Statesman”
    12:20-1:20 Shane Ewegen, “Where Have All the Shepherds Gone? Socratic Withdrawal in Plato’s Statesman”
    2:45-3:45 Burt Hopkins, “The Philosophers in Plato’s Trilogy”
    3:55-4:55 Nickolas Pappas, “The Movement toward Greek Philosophy in Plato’s Statesman”
    Saturday, November 22
    10:00-11:00 James Risser, “The Art of Example in Plato’s Statesman”
    11:10-12:10 Michael Naas, “From Spontaneity to Automaticity: Polar (Opposite) Reversal at Statesman 269c-274d”
    2:00-3:00 Robert Metcalf, “Syngrammatology in Plato’s Statesman”
    3:10-4:30 Mitch Miller, “Intuition and Logos in the Eleatic Trilogy, with a Focus on the Visitor’s Joke at
    Statesman 266a”
    4:30-6:00 Reception (McGuinn Hall, Rm. 334)

    One can reach the main (Chestnut Hill) campus of Boston College from Boston by the “B” branch of the MBTA Green Line. Information on parking at Boston College is available here. –Miles Rind

  64. Is there any evidence that the all-male conferences are the result of discrimination? If 70% of potential speakers and commentators are male there is 2.8% chance of all ten people being male. Since there is more than 40 such conferences that you would expect an all-male conference. If 90% of potential speakers/commentators are male then the probability is 34%. If you don’t have the maths I can’t believe this is a real problem.

  65. Michael Price: Your comment centers on chance and probability. However, conferences are not organized by chance. As you can see in the FAQ, we do not rely on evidence of intentional discrimination. If you are interested in challenges to your belief in the non-problematic natures of all-male conferences, please see the FAQ, also linked to in the OP:

  66. […] The situation of women in philosophy has received a lot of attention lately, including the Gendered Conference Campaign for philosophy developed back in 2009. Including women in academic venues (conference invitations […]

  67. I would like to give an update on the link I posted above. I wrote to the organizer and told him I would like to attend the workshop (interesting topic), but that I have a policy not to attend workshops in which no women were invited. This led to a (genuine, heart-felt) apology, an acknowledgement that there was, in fact, an oversight and that no one involved in the workshop had even thought about whether or not there were any women involved, and an invitation for me (a woman) to give a talk, since another presenter was unable to attend. Although the oversight is indicative of too many workshops here in Germany, I was encouraged by the admission of the oversight and the willingness to remedy the situation. In other words, bringing this issue to philosophers’ attention CAN have an impact.

  68. A masterclass on Newton’s Philosophical Projects. Three invited speakers, all men. I KNOW there are lots of women in this field. Many of the most distinguished in the field are women, in fact. Plus, in mentioning the thinkers that Newton engaged with: three philosophers, all men (Descartes, Bacon, and Leibniz). No sign of women philosophers speaking or being spoken about. Here is the announcement:

    Master-class on Isaac Newton’s Philosophical Projects
    6-11 October 2015,
    Institute for Research in the Humanities
    University of Bucharest

    Invited speakers: Rob Illiffe (Sussex), Niccolo Guicciardini (Bergamo),
    Andrew Janiak (Duke University)

    Organizers: Dana Jalobeanu, Kirsten Walsh

    The purpose of this master-class is to discuss and to set in context some
    of Newton’s philosophical, scientific and theological projects. It aims to
    address a number of well-known (and difficult) questions in a new context,
    by setting them comparatively against the natural philosophical and
    theological background of early modern thought. By bringing together a
    group of experts on various aspects of Newton’s thought with experts on
    Descartes, Bacon and Leibniz, the master-class facilitates
    interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary perspectives. The activities of
    the master-class will consist of lectures, reading groups and seminars, as
    well as more informal activities (tutorials, and discussions). The
    master-class will be set within the interdisciplinary environment of the
    Institute of Research in the Humanities, University of Bucharest. It aims
    to bring together 15 students (post-docs and graduate students) coming from
    different fields and willing to spend 5 days working together within the
    premises of the Institute, and under the supervision of leading experts.


    Apparently only men have something to say about analytic theology and human persons…

    Thomas Atkinson (University of Liverpool), Joseph Diekemper (Queens University, Belfast), Joshua Farris (Houston Baptist University), Jonathan Loose (Heythop College, University of London), Benjamin Matheson (University of Gothenburg) and Dominic Robinson (Heythrop College, University of London).

    This event is being held to follow the launch of The Ashgate Research Companion to Theological Anthropology, which is edited by two of the conference speakers, Dr Joshua Farris and Prof Charles Taliaferro.

  70. In keeping with the Philosophy of Religion Sausage Fest theme, the preliminary schedule of the conference of the Austrian Society for Philosophy of Religion (on “Gottes-Beziehungen”) features zero women or other gender minorities. Apparently there are no women in Austria who are qualified to talk about Philosophy of Religion. (No website available.)

  71. Philosophy of Mathematics Workshop
    Mathematical aims beyond justification

    Date and venue

    10-11 December 2015
    Rubens Auditorium
    Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts, Hertogsstraat 1, Brussels, Belgium

    Invited speakers

    Jeremy Avigad (Carnegie Mellon University)
    Alan Baker (Swarthmore College)
    Ronny Desmet (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)
    Jean Paul Van Bendegem (Vrije Universiteit Brussel)

  72. […] This year’s Brian Rudrick Visiting Scholar, Professor Jennifer Saul from the University of Sheffield, is an internationally renowned expert on both the philosophy of language and feminist philosophy. She is the author of Lying, Misleading, and What is Said: An Exploration in Philosophy of Language and in Ethics (2013), Substitution, Simple Sentences and Intuitions (2007), and Feminism: Issues & Arguments (2003), as well as many noted articles. In 2011, Professor Saul was awarded Distinguished Woman Philosopher by the Society For Women in Philosophy. She is founder and co-blogger of the well-known Feminist Philosophers blog, as well as spin-off blogs What Is It Like to Be a Woman in Philosophy, What We’re Doing About What It’s Like, and This is What a Philosopher Looks Like. She is also the co-architect of the influential Gendered Conference Campaign. […]

  73. Men discuss PF Strawson’s “Bounds of Sense”:

    Here are the speakers:

    M.G.F. Martin (UCL / Berkeley)
    Paul Snowdon (UCL)
    Ralph Walker (Oxford)
    Anil Gomes (Oxford)

    Showing that in 2016, the all-male conference is alive and well. I’m tempted to send them a letter, but I am a junior woman and don’t think it would go over well.

  74. So far as I can tell, 9 of the 10 speakers at this Trust & Belief Workshop at Cambridge are male. Just 1 of the 10 is a woman. This is a topic many women work in (I work in this area and just offhand, I can think of several women who work in it, and I’m sure a bit of research would yield more).

    Is it time for a New Gendered Conference Campaign? Calling out conferences that do not have at least 20% women speakers (and more, say 40%, for ethics)?


    Day 1, Tuesday 12th April

    10.00 – 10.30 Welcome
    10.30 – 11.30 Richard Holton (Cambridge) “Trust, belief and the reactive attitudes”
    11.30 – 12.30 Chris Thompson (Groningen & Trusting Banks) “Trust without reliance”
    12.30 – 14.00 Lunch
    14.00 – 15.00 Katherine Hawley (St. Andrews) “Is trust Gettierizable?”
    15.00 – 16.00 Tony Booth (Sussex & Trusting Banks) “How epistemic akrasia works (and what it tells us about trust)”
    16.00 – 16.30 Break
    16.30 – 17.30 Nikolaj Nottelmann (Southern Danish University) “Closing the door on Doxastic Voluntarism: how not to interpret ascriptions of blame”

    Day 2, Wednesday 13th April

    09.30 – 10.30 Boudewijn de Bruin (Groningen & Trusting Banks) “Doxastic and epistemic freedom: a political approach”
    10.30 – 11.30 Fabienne Peter (Warwick) “Epistemic trust in oneself and others”
    11.30 – 11.45 Break
    11.45 – 12.45 Conor McHugh (Southampton) “Against the Taking Condition”
    12.45 – 14.00 Lunch
    14.00 – 15.00 Tom Simpson (Oxford) “Trust, belief and the second-personal”
    15.00 – 16.00 Rik Peels (Free University, Amsterdam) “Ignorance, trust, and control”

  75. Second International Conference on Philosophy of Mind
    University of Minho, Braga (Portugal), September 21-22, 2016.

    Conference themes: Thought and Perception

    Keynote speakers:

    – Prof. David Papineau (CUNY – Graduate Center)
    – Prof. Tim Crane (University of Cambridge)
    – Prof. Charles Travis (King’s College / University of Porto)

  76. Check out — if you would like to start similar sites for other fields, we will be happy to help.

  77. Was kind of excited about using this book for a comparative philosophical project…then noticed there are no women contributors. From the publisher’s website: “Together with the contributors, [the editors] argue that after decades of critique, interreligious comparison deserves to be reconsidered, reconstructed and reintroduced” – but apparently not by any women.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s