Feminist Philosophers

News feminist philosophers can use

History of women philosophers and scientists at Yeditepe, Istanbul. April 7, 2015

Filed under: Uncategorized — axiothea @ 5:16 pm

Originally posted on Feminist History of Philosophy:

The Department of Philosophy at Yeditepe, Istanbul, is offering, jointly with the University of Paderborn, the world’s first Master’s program in the History of Women Philosophers.

The Department of philosophy will host an event to present the new program Joint Master Program on 9th April. The German Minister for Innovation, Science, and Research of Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, Frau Svenja Schulze, will attend the opening and  Prof. Dr. Ruth Hagengruber, head of Paderborn Philosophy Department, will give a talk entitled “2600 Years History of Women Philosophers”. The event will take place in German and Turkish – program below. Everybody welcome, please share!


yeditepe program

View original



Filed under: Uncategorized — jennysaul @ 5:11 pm


From here.

Thanks, H!


Professor filing Title IX suit against Harvard

Filed under: Uncategorized — magicalersatz @ 12:31 pm

Kimberly Theidon – formerly a tenure-track professor at Harvard – is filing a title IX suit against Harvard university, claiming she was retaliated against when Harvard denied her tenure after her department unanimously voted in her favor. Theidon had been a vocal advocate for victims of sexual harassment and assault at Harvard, and had allegedly been cautioned that these activities could interfere with her tenure case.

More details here can be found here.


‘A Rape on Campus’ was a failure of journalism April 6, 2015

Filed under: Uncategorized — magicalersatz @ 5:07 pm

In the wake of the incredibly damning Columbia Journalism review of the Rolling Stone article ‘A Rape on Campus’ – which shows systematic failures at all levels, from basic reporting and fact-checking to editorial oversight – Rolling Stone continues to spin the narrative that their failure was primarily one of being overly sensitive to (and perhaps overly trusting of) an alleged rape victim. (In doing so, of course, they continue to heap as much blame as possible on ‘Jackie’, rather than on themselves.) And that narrative appears to be working – today the NY Times calls the fault of their piece ‘a lack of skepticism’, remarking that:

On the most basic level, the writer of the Rolling Stone article, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, was seduced by an untrustworthy source. More specifically, as the report details, she was swept up by the preconceptions that she brought to the article. As much casting director as journalist, she was looking for a single character with an emblematic story that would speak to — in her words — the “pervasive culture of sexual harassment/rape culture” on college campuses.

Journalists are often driven to cover atrocities and personal traumas by the best intentions, chiefly the desire to right wrongs and shed light on injustice — in a word, empathy. It is a noble impulse that animates a lot of important and courageous reporting. But empathy can also be a source of vulnerability for journalists, lowering their defenses against bad information.

But is the failure here really being ‘seduced’ by an untrustworthy source, due to empathy for rape victims? No, of course it isn’t. The failure is not meeting even the basic minimum standards for decent journalism, standards which are fully compatible with empathy for victims.

‘A Rape on Campus’ presents statements attributed to ‘Jackie’s’ friends as direct quotations, when in fact Rubin Erdely never spoke with or interviewed these students. It also makes very serious and very pointed allegations about a specific, readily identifiable group of men without having done even basic investigating. (Rubin Erdely, for example, never asked the fraternity for a list of members which she could cross-check with a list of staff at the aquatic center. She never asked them for information about their social functions on the night of the alleged attack. And so on.) Even some very minimal reporting would have immediately raised questions about the veracity of the account as presented in the article. Her notes reveal how little she did in the way of this sort of fact-checking, but the editors at Rolling Stone let the story through regardless.

That’s not an over-sensitivity to a victim. That’s failure of journalists to do their damn job, all of which could’ve been done while treating the woman at the center of the story with compassion and respect. The bitter irony in all of this is the claim that somehow such errors come from misguided empathy for rape victims, when anyone with genuine empathy for rape victims knows how hard it is to combat skepticism about rape on college campuses, and how much anyone who investigates such matters has a duty to all victims to make sure they do so in a responsible and careful way. Rolling Stone wasn’t trying to help rape victims, they were trying to sell magazines. And as a result of not doing their jobs properly, they’ve done a horrible amount of damage to rape victims in the process.


Northwestern– the President makes it all worse

Filed under: Uncategorized — jennysaul @ 12:20 am

Philosopher Lauren Leydon-Hardy explains.

In view of Kipnis’ refusal to correct the factual inaccuracies in her piece, and as the misleading narrative propagated by her began to reverberate across multiple media platforms, at least two students filed Title IX retaliation complaints against Kipnis. Because, when a professor writes about your Title IX sexual assault complaint in an erroneous, misleading, and condescending way, that pretty straightforwardly raises questions about retaliation under Title IX. As of the publication of Schapiro’s op-ed, though, those complaints had yet even to be assigned investigators. So, here, roughly, is how this unfolded: Kipnis writes a piece in clear violation of the faculty handbook, riddled with falsehoods about students, even as she is discussing the worst thing that has ever happened to these people. And then, while there are two utterly nascent, open Title IX complaints, our university president writes an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal issuing a verdict: Kipnis’ piece is protected speech.


The Rolling Stone story and campus sexual assault April 5, 2015

Filed under: Uncategorized — magicalersatz @ 7:16 pm

Update: the full Columbia review is now available.

Libby Nelson has written an excellent editorial over at Vox about the importance of the upcoming Columbia School of Journalism Review of Rolling Stone’s partially-fabricated story ‘A Rape on Campus':

Understanding what went wrong in the UVA story is crucial, and not just for journalists. Rolling Stone’s narrative might have been false, but campus sexual assault is still one of the most difficult problems in higher education. Solving it requires accurately understanding how common it is, and figuring out how to balance the interests of victims and the rights of the accused — all things Rolling Stone failed to do.

. . .

The Columbia Journalism School report is expected to focus less on Charlottesville and more on Rolling Stone: how an explosive, criminal allegation wasn’t given even cursory fact-checking before being published in a national magazine, and why the magazine reportedly kept Jackie in the story after she said she was traumatized and asked to no longer participate.

The central question in the Rolling Stone debacle — how do you trust victims of sexual assault while thoroughly investigating their stories? — matters to everyone because it’s not just about journalism.

It’s at the center of dealing with campus sexual assault. False rape reports, on campus and off, are rare. And while it’s not clear how widespread the problem of campus sexual assault is, the best available data (which is still very flawed) suggest it’s far too common.

At the same time, victims of sexual assault often face scrutiny when they come forward, with questions about what actually happened in their experience and whether an assault actually occurred.

Colleges have a tricky line to walk: they must be sensitive to the interests of sexual assault victims while ensuring that they’re not rushing to judgment. While complaints by students who feel their reports of sexual assault were mishandled are far more prevalent, colleges are also facing lawsuits from students who were expelled after being found responsible for sexual assault who say they were not guilty.

The Rolling Stone controversy is part of a larger debate about how campuses should balance their responsibility to students who have experienced sexual assault with their responsibility to protect students who are accused. Learning how, and why, the magazine failed to temper sensitivity with responsibility might help colleges and journalists alike strike that balance better in future.

Meanwhile, a former UVA undergraduate Jenny Wilkinson has written a powerful piece in the Sunday Review detailing her own experience with rape at UVA. Her attacker was found responsible by UVA, and his punishment was having a letter placed in his file. As the Vox editorial notes, whatever else was made up in the Rolling Stone story, it’s true that UVA has never expelled anyone for rape or sexual assault, though they have expelled 183 people for academic misconduct since 1998.


Anonymous marking: better for everyone

Filed under: Uncategorized — jennysaul @ 1:39 pm

Gender stereotypes mess with judgment, as readers of this blog are well aware.  Not long ago we told you about a study showing elementary school girls getting better marks in maths under conditions of anonymity.  Now we bring you its rather predictable correlate– boys getting better marks in reading under anonymity (slightly buried in this article).


From Daily Nous: Lockwood v Tooley April 3, 2015

Filed under: Uncategorized — annejjacobson @ 11:44 pm

on ‘sexual assault on campus’.   Readers may be aware that Tooley is at Boulder and protested at the allegations of gender hostility in that department.  Lockwood has been a passionate participant in discussions on this topic.  There is a video of the encounter here:


I am at the APA, and haven’t looked at the video yet.  But I doubt our readers need me to vet it.


No commentary needed

Filed under: gendered products — jennysaul @ 1:36 pm


Thanks, R!


“Proportions of Women on the Program of the Pacific APA” at The Splintered Mind April 1, 2015

Filed under: Uncategorized — Stacey Goguen @ 1:16 pm

Eric Schwitzgebel has taken a look at the Pacific APA program, coding for gender and prestige.

“I found that 275/856 (32%) of Pacific APA main program participants were women. Although this may sound low, it is substantially higher than the proportion of women in the profession overall, which is typically estimated to be in the low 20%’s in North America (e.g., here). (275/856 > 21%, two-tailed exact p < .001; even classifying all ambiguous names as men yields 28% vs. 21%, exact p < .001).”

He also discusses issues with the sample sizes and solicits ideas about this sort of project.

” […] I found no clear tendency for women to appear disproportionately at either a higher or lower level of prestige than men.”

“Analysis of more years’ data, which I hope to explore in the future, will give more power to detect smaller effect sizes, and will also allow temporal analysis, to see how representation of women in the profession has been changing over time.”



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,478 other followers