Gendered philosphy stereotyping...barf

[PGP]

  Came across this gem: https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/gendered-conference-campaign/

I think I need another hobby, coming across this stuff hurts my brain.

  Gendered Conference Campaign December 10, 2009

 

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 atSally 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.

 

[iHuman]

All I can think of to say in response to that....

That & I need an asprin now....

[J. D. Stembal]

The scary part is that this was posted five years ago. Now we know why bomb threats get called into Men's Rights conferences in the present day.

[Mister Mister]

  If a man is successful, it's just because he's a man, knowingly or unkowingly benefitting from an inherently sexist system.

 If a woman is successful, it's because she has earned it despite an inherently sexist system.
 

If a woman is not successful, it's because of the inherently sexist system.

If a man is not successful, it's because he's a loser.

 So for women there is a "social safety net", but not for men.  If no one wants a particular woman to speak at their conference, she can appeal to pity and cries of sexism, and everyone will listen and give sympathy, regardless of whether she actually has something interesting or valuable to say.  But there is no such defense for a man whom no one wants to hire.  And no gratitude for any successful male thinkers who bring value to people.  Just more of the same Victorian chivalry bullshit.  Thank you to Karen Straughan for helping me to see this.

[iHuman]

  If a man is successful, it's just because he's a man, knowingly or unkowingly benefitting from an inherently sexist system.

 

 If a woman is successful, it's because she has earned it despite an inherently sexist system.

 

If a woman is not successful, it's because of the inherently sexist system.

 

If a man is not successful, it's because he's a loser.

 

 So for women there is a "social safety net", but not for men.  If no one wants a particular woman to speak at their conference, she can appeal to pity and cries of sexism, and everyone will listen and give sympathy, regardless of whether she actually has something interesting or valuable to say.  But there is no such defense for a man whom no one wants to hire.  And no gratitude for any successful male thinkers who bring value to people.  Just more of the same Victorian chivalry bullshit.  Thank you to Karen Straughan for helping me to see this.

Funny you posted that, I had a Feminist Relative try to use the same total Illogic on me earlier this week, which I promptly shot down in flames with raw facts and logic to such a thorough extent that she reacted not with a counter argument but with pathetic attempts at insulting me, and now that relative will no longer speak to me.  

(Oh well, Her Loss Not mine)

 

It's almost funny how Feminists of what I call the "Frothing at the Mouth" Variety do that.  

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Of course, what's the most telling, is that instead of making their own all-female philosophy conferences, which would render "the stereotype that philosophy is male" as false, they aim to have all-male conferences shut down. Very philosophical, I must say.

[J. D. Stembal]

Of course, what's the most telling, is that instead of making their own all-female philosophy conferences, which would render "the stereotype that philosophy is male" as false, they aim to have all-male conferences shut down. Very philosophical, I must say.

 

 

"I say we take off and nuke the entire Patriarchy from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." - Ellen Ripley

[PGP]

I came across this also:

 

Towards the genderless society: equitable for female wellbeing and male health? 

http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.43380!/file/HEDS-DP-09-01.pdf

 

It is a discussion paper on the health and longevity implications of a genderless society. Some excerpts:

 

 

 

"This discussion is also related the sixth discussion point by Tsuchiya and Williams (2005), on

why the health inequality between the genders may not be an inequity. Because men have more

advantages in socio-economic status and opportunities than women, men’s disadvantage in

lifetime health may be compensated for if we look at their overall well-being. In other words,

Tsuchiya and Williams (2005) assume that a disadvantage in a given sphere of life can be

substituted or compensated for by an advantage in another sphere. On the other hand, Månsdotter

et al., (2004; 2006a) state that this substitutability view clashes with the genderless society since

the latter requires virtual equality of women and men in all important spheres of life and does not

accommodate trade offs across different spheres. How do these two positions relate to each

other?

If women have more advantages in a particular sphere of life and men have more advantages in

another, this will not be regarded as genderless, even if the overall well-being of men and women

across the spheres may be roughly comparable. This is because genderlessness implies that once

genuinely equal opportunities are offered to men and to women, and once the asymmetric value

system is removed, then there is no reason to assume biological sex will have much impact on

what people aspire for in life. Thus, not only opportunities in different spheres of life will be the

same for men and women, so will be the actual choices people make. Furthermore, the argument

that it may not be inequitable that men have a lower ELQ provided this is compensated for in the

socioeconomic domain potentially clashes with more liberal approaches in general. What about

the preferences and choices of these people? Some men may want to have more lifetime health

even if it meant less socio-economic opportunities. Many women actually seem to want to enjoy

more socio-economic status even if it meant poorer lifetime health. The individual dimension of

the gender system means that human identity is very much determined by collective opinions

about “the proper woman” and “the proper man” (Harding, 1986). Could a society be regarded as

equitable, where people are “forced” to live their life under a particular combination of health

prospects and socioeconomic prospects, simply determined by their sex (or for that matter, any

other randomly allocated accident of birth)?

 

In the genderless society, women and men will participate more or less equally in various spheres

ranging from unpaid childcare to high-level politics. Such a future should also entail that

preferences and what is actually achieved (as a result of free informed choice), is independent of

one’s sex. Hence, once this state is reached, there would be no conflict between the two ethical

positions regarding the substitutability across the domains of well-being. The conflict is hence, if

and how society should act after a commitment towards gender equality but before reaching this

stage; what is the price acceptable in terms of restricting individual freedoms for the purpose of

achieving gender equality of preferences. For now, we leave this as an open issue for a public

debate, and concentrate on the genderless society and possible health trends. "

 

 

 

"A move towards the abolition of gender will most likely involve two strands with contrasting

health implications. The first is the one where women move into spheres that have traditionally

been regarded as male, and as a result, expose themselves to higher levels of health risks. The

second is one where men move into spheres that have traditionally been regarded as female. If

men are to benefit from the lower health risks traditionally enjoyed by women, they will also

have to reduce their labour market activities at the same time

. In this respect, a re-assessment of what constitutes high status masculinity would be good for men’s health, and, to the extent that

this is in line with what women want, it will be good for women’s well-being as well, if not their lifetime health or ELQ. 

 

The above seems to imply that if we are to achieve equality in ELQ between the sexes any time

soon, this may well involve curbing, or even reducing female ELQ, at least in the developed

world. In the developing world, it may be possible to “soft land” to a point with minimal sex gap

in ELQ without going through a phase where female ELQ needs to diminish. But even then, the

process will probably be associated with reduced growth in female ELQ: it cannot grow faster

than male ELQ for the sex gap to reduce. "

 

 

It's an interesting read. I don't really know what to think about it. It might take me a while to regain my faculties.