someone used their privilege to do something!

[chibi]

two philosophers have used their professional standing within their community to take a stand and not accept invitations to participate in male only events, see here

they have also challeneged their colleagues to do the same

it is a v male dominated field, but apparently 20% are women - they aren't all stupid, or too busy washing their hair, or phobic about public gatherings

how great would it be if this extended into other fields - i am thinking of the recent amnesty event that was all-male see here

this is how paradigms get shifted, i think

But we gave you evidence. There are all-male conferences going on, and only one in five philosophy academics are women.

You know roughly half the human race are women, right?

Something can be worrying, with no studies to demonstrate it's being worrying, you know. What would the study say? 'In an extensive survey, we found that, indeed, one in five is rather different from 50/50, and all-male conferences are full of men and not women?'

I find it shocking you can suppose (supposition, tut tut) that there's 'nothing wrong' in philosophical academic when there are so many fewer women than men there. An absence of women doesn't strike you as something 'wrong'?

I used to be an academic philosopher (at a Russell league university). I'm now a research scientist. I think what these two are doing is bloody brilliant.

Here's some thoughts. Back when I was lecturing in the subject philosophy was the only discipline in the arts faculties of most universities to have more men than women even at undergraduate level. I remember having an interesting discussion with a housemate (who's still a professional philosopher) about the typical style of argument in philosophical debate which tended to be very aggressive and adversarial. As he pointed out, this is a gendered thing - women tend to be socialised to dislike this style of argument, whereas a certain type of man thrives on it (interestingly, I quite liked an adversarial spat, he disliked them intensely - both of us, btw, believed strongly that gender is a social construct, so weren't going to make the mistake of thinking that this came down to testosterone levels or some such essentialist, reductionist crap). His comments, and those of students I taught made me change my teaching style totally - you can have just as good and intellectually rigorous a discussion while being cooperative rather than confrontational. So I suspect that a lot of academic philosophy is conducted in a way which alienates women, members of minority groups, and so on.

Incidentally, this is true of the university sector more broadly. For instance, women are paid less, not just because there are more male professors, but because at every single level in academia (lecturer A, lecturer B, senior lecturer, reader, professor) women are paid on average less than their male counterparts. This came to light in a government report under Blair's watch, and not surprisingly was dismissed with a "well we can't afford to set it right" wave of the hand (the feet of clay of the left wing on women's issues is another bugbear of mine). Add to that the publish-or-die mentality which makes fitting a career round having children, and the general back-stabbiness of universities (you're usually competing with rival groups, not cooperating) and universities are pretty shit place to work if you're female.

That's interesting, lurcio, I'd not thought about styles of argument and socialization but it makes sense. I wonder if that is changing?

Btw, I am about both the philosophy and the research science. That's pretty cool! How did you find the transition? Do you find the science more woman friendly?

(Ignore me if I'm being nosy)

uppercut please can you provide evidence that all male conferences are the optimal scenario (it doesn't have to be limited to philosophy or even academia)

Back in a mo, just gotta play batman

@Lurcio

I would like public speaking to be more taught. But I also think it's about more than that - I know women who've done the debate team at school who become tongue-tied when they end up in class with men, and it's not because they don't know how to debate, it's that public speaking usually has clear rules, and a university class sometimes doesn't. And some people even think it's somehow a good thing that the shy get shouted down because they'll 'learn to fight their corner', which IME isn't true.

Enjoy the batman, lurcio!

I like utopia. Let's live there.

can i come too?

i will bring snacks

Will join you in feminist Utopia bearing and pombears later - batman is being replaced by bathtime. Interested to discuss debating style, the differences between presenting to an audience in philsophy vs. science (and throw in a few ideas about female standup).

Sounds good! Utopia, pombears, a philosopher ... can we invite Margaret Roper, too?

OK, the philosophy to science thing- started out in science, went into philosophy of science, had series of fixed term contracts which dried up, was lucky enough to get funding for a second PhD and went back into science. I loved philosophy and was probably better at it than I am at science, but it's a bit of a glass-bead-game in some ways, sort of self absorbed, so actually I rather like doing stuff that's useful. And I like being out of academia - I work in government R&D now (not going to say where as liable to get politically complicated), and it's great - v. family friendly, lots of couples where both partners work a 4 day week so they can share childcare, gradually increasing number of female managers, current head of R&D is a woman. And interestingly, the place has a stellar international reputation (regularly comes in top 3 of similar research institutes worldwide), which to me shows you can do good work without being cutthroat competitive psychos or working 60 hour weeks. (I've posted this link on other threads www.igda.org/why-crunch-modes-doesnt-work-six-lessons, but it's worth posting again, because I think it indicates that our long hours culture has damn all to do with productivity and hell of a lot to do with functioning as a mechanism of social exclusion, making sure that women and indeed anyone who actually wants a work-life balance and time with their family gets marginalised). I even made it to a conference this year (single parent so can't leave DS behind) - it had childcare, and I took DS along too (lovely colleagues pitched in to help entertain him on the one evening poster session I had to do).

I was an academic philosopher too, and although the initiative described in the op seems potentially useful, from my personal experience I would disagree quite strongly that philosophy tends to be conducted in a more adversarial and aggressive way than other disciplines. On the contrary by its nature it requires practitioners to be constantly aware of the manner of which they conduct an argument, constantly self-questioning. Of course no one lives up to that fully, but at least it is present as a regulatory ideal and that makes it a little easier to catch discriminatory practices and attitudes.

Philosophers are usually much much much easier to disagree with constructively than other people, and the conduct of philosophy in my experience is profoundly cooperative. The low numbers of women is of course a problem though, and positive discrimination clearly has some kind of a role to play.

Oaty - out of interest, what was your area? I suspect styles of argument may vary a bit from one sub-discipline to another (and from one department to another). I did come across some very supportive environments, but also some debating-as-a-form-of-blood-sport ones too. Generally the more technical bits (philosophy of maths, philosophy of physics, logic) were less adversarial and more collegial in my experience (though even more male dominated, probably because of a double whammy of maths and physics in this country being male dominated, then philosophy is too, so philosophy of --- doubly so).

I agree that in an ideal world philosophy should allow for the sort of focus on argument rather than personality that you describe. But often in my experience it fell short. (I remember one university open day where my department did a "philosophical question time" session, where one of my colleagues got a bit carried away and when asked "what can philosophy bring to discussion of any given topic in everyday life", answered "Philosophy can bring calm rational dispassionate discussion to any issue." We all found it bloody hilarious in retrospect, but at the time it was pretty embarrassing).

Your colleagues sound lovely lurcio.

I think I agree with you about long hours.

oaty - not my thing, so excuse me, but is it possible undergrads are different from grown up philosophers and maybe that's where women get discouraged? I'm just wondering - my best mate at university was a philosopher and her tutor was a great bloke but some of the other students were a bit of a trial. That could just have been personal though.

Ladies, could someone prove to me how women were disadvantaged by not having the vote, having to leave their jobs on marriage and getting paid less for the same work?

That'd be ace, ta.

Rubbish, ennis, them female types probably wanted not to vote and such like.

LRDtheFeministDragon
"But we gave you evidence. There are all-male conferences going on, and only one in five philosophy academics are women.

You know roughly half the human race are women, right?"

That job sectors should therefore reflect the exact ratios of [insert group] in their workforce is simplistic nonsense. As for "all-male conferences"... oh dear... mustn't let the men gather in case a spontaneous Patriarchy hive-mind forms. You've yet to demonstrate these conferences damage female academic careers.

LRDtheFeministDragon
"Something can be worrying, with no studies to demonstrate it's being worrying, you know."

Otherwise known as paranoia.

LRDtheFeministDragon
"What would the study say? 'In an extensive survey, we found that, indeed, one in five is rather different from 50/50, and all-male conferences are full of men and not women?'"

"I find it shocking you can suppose (supposition, tut tut) that there's 'nothing wrong' in philosophical academic when there are so many fewer women than men there. An absence of women doesn't strike you as something 'wrong'?"

You've regurgitated a piece of paranoid, quota-obsessed, ideology that states anything less than a 50/50 gender distribution obviously indicates discrimination, regardless of whether active discrimination can be shown to exist.

chibi
"uppercut please can you provide evidence that all male conferences are the optimal scenario (it doesn't have to be limited to philosophy or even academia)"

Given that's not a claim I've made... no, thankyou.

Find for or against it, for yourself.

You're just making things up now. I never said what you attributed to me. Knock it off, if you can't argue with what we're actually saying, it's not going to help to make up arguments.

It's not paranoia to be worried about the experiences of women academics.

^"Something can be worrying, with no studies to demonstrate it's being worrying, you know."

Otherwise known as paranoia^

Then much of medicine is based on paranoia, since research is done on the basis of something being worrying to someone.

This is an Internet forum, not an academic journal. Studies could add to the discussion if they exist, but in there absence silence is a very poor alternative. We are here to discuss our ideas. Maybe studies will come out of it one day, or maybe they aren't necessary.