tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post899905974891673822..comments2023-08-08T00:37:45.098-07:00Comments on A Philosophy Job Market Blog: They Have Begun to Shake the DirtPseudonymous Grad Studenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00627480292942427387noreply@blogger.comBlogger160125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-20455814386541518042008-01-23T06:34:00.000-08:002008-01-23T06:34:00.000-08:00On gender roles, it would depend on the specifics....On gender roles, it would depend on the specifics. I don't think gender roles are necessarily a problem if they don't involve attributing false views about natures of women. For instance, if women are more nurturing, say (as Gilligan and many feminists argue), then it isn't anti-woman to think that it's generally a good thing if things can work out so that women are doing more of the nurturing of children. Notice that it assumes a premise. If that premise is false, then this wouldn't be a good idea. But it's a premise that much contemporary feminism assumes, and I tend to side with Gilligan on this question.<BR/><BR/>Notice also that I'm not proposing this as a requirement on any woman who hasn't taken it on willingly. Couples can certainly decide to raise their children in a fully egalitarian way, and I don't propose to force any model on them. But gender roles as tendencies can be fine, particularly if the people involved embrace those gender roles as good and as affirming of the value of what both the men and women involved are doing.<BR/><BR/>But someone who thinks that women have no place in the workforce, aren't as good at traditionally male jobs, and ought to cook, clean, and raise children without ever wanting their husbands to take part in those activities is another matter. I don't see how that more extreme version of gender roles can be grounded in a Gilligan-like view of what we should affirm as good in women and therefore encourage when women want to fulfill such roles.<BR/><BR/>As for what I'm arguing against, I thought I made that clear, but let me try again. As I've said several times, I'm not denying that there are tacit biases that can count as sexist in the extended sense we've been talking about. What the IAT tests are supposed to be finding is something I have recognized as pretty obviously true. What I'm hesitant about is calling it sexist in the same sense that most people hear the term think. When you call someone sexist, they think you're saying that they think women aren't as morally important as men, that women shouldn't ever try to find jobs outside the home, that women ought to be men's slaves, and so on. That's how the word comes across to many ordinary people when it's not qualified by terms like 'tacit' or 'involuntary'.<BR/><BR/>The reason this is important is because as philosophers we should want to convey the claim that we actually think is true, and if people are hearing something else then they won't accept what we're saying. I suspect a lot of white people will resist the claim that they are racists if you just put it that way but will be much more open to the claim that they have been affected by the effects racism in society so that they involuntarily do things that favor whites. I think you have something similar with sexism, although I don't think people's responses are quite as extreme on that for reasons I'm not sure about at this point. My hesitation here isn't that I don't agree with the substance of the claim that's being made but more that I think putting it the way it's often been put here is going to mislead many people into dismissing something that they may otherwise be a lot more open to accepting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-28592986155696900342008-01-22T04:50:00.000-08:002008-01-22T04:50:00.000-08:00What about someone who just has very robust tacit ...What about someone who just has very robust tacit ideas about gender roles? She needn't think that women are worthless. Would you count this person as sexist? <BR/><BR/>I do agree with you, however, that not all unconscious biases, which lead to certain behaviors, are necessarily sexist, but I doubt anyone was denying that. Presumably, we are talking about tacit, sexist, biases. What exactly are you arguing against? Why the defensiveness? Have you tried the IAT tests?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-15271371479499595352008-01-22T03:25:00.000-08:002008-01-22T03:25:00.000-08:00I would say that 1 and 2 are symptoms of just plai...I would say that 1 and 2 are symptoms of just plain sexism if they stem from hatred of women or from thinking women are less capable or less worthy of good jobs and equal treatment. Just plain sexism is about attitude. What you've listed are possible symptoms of such an attitude. Other things might explain such symptoms, however, e.g. being drastically misinformed, being overly charitable because of an inability to appreciate the epistemic obstacles of being in a privileged position, etc. I don't consider those things just plain sexism, even if they can count as sexism of a sort when you throw in qualifying adjectives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-37998870709632021882008-01-21T14:17:00.000-08:002008-01-21T14:17:00.000-08:00Anon 4:29, would you agree that the following are ...Anon 4:29, would you agree that the following are two species of just plain sexism?<BR/><BR/>1. Refusing to admit that unconscious, unintended biases exist in our discipline and help to explain gender disparities in philosophy.<BR/><BR/>2. Refusing to do anything substantial to correct for unconscious, unintended biases, so that gender disparities might be eliminated or mitigated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-19644435433817434932008-01-21T14:04:00.000-08:002008-01-21T14:04:00.000-08:00When I hear the word 'sexist', I think of someone ...When I hear the word 'sexist', I think of someone who has explicit negative attitudes toward (usually) women. I can certainly feel comfortable using the word to refer to involuntary and unconscious tendencies, but it wouldn't seem right to use it in an unqualified sense to refer to that sort of thing. You need a qualifier like 'unconscious' or 'involuntary' to avoid sending the message that you think the person has an outright negative attitude toward women.<BR/><BR/>I'm not entirely sure how my reference to "several people" is supposed to include "everyone who has posted on here". I made a point that a certain view is compatible with being very positive toward women and toward pro-woman advances, even if many who hold that view are sexists in the worst sense. That means someone saying that thing shouldn't, on the basis of saying such a thing, be regarded as a sexist. It's a bit unfair to reply by saying that some people who said it really were sexists. I wasn't denying that. My claim is that some saying it weren't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-25738075135970059322008-01-21T11:12:00.000-08:002008-01-21T11:12:00.000-08:004:29am:Any sexism I have seen in academia, I presu...4:29am:<BR/><BR/>Any sexism I have seen in academia, I presume, is of the unintended, negligent sort. Sexism is likely pretty covert even among non-academics. But its covertness doesn't make it less harmful, and if you are hesitant to call that sexism, then much of what systematically harms women would not be the result of sexism, and that would be a pretty weird view to hold. <BR/><BR/>I also disagree that everyone who has posted on here is happy to say that they are sexist even in the negligent sense, or even that such biases are wrong, or that they even exist at all. Some of the posts on here have suggested not just that women are mistaking blatant sexism for covert sexism, but that they are mistaken that there is any sexism at all. <BR/><BR/>I agree with you however that women who complain of having been the victim of sexism ought not to be construed as making a moral charge of blatant sexism against individuals -- that was the point of my last post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-47589547561775790712008-01-21T04:29:00.000-08:002008-01-21T04:29:00.000-08:005:59:I'd be a little hesitant to describe the kind...5:59:<BR/><BR/>I'd be a little hesitant to describe the kind of unconscious, unintended sexism you're talking about as just plain sexism without any qualifiers. Most of this discussion has not been about such factors but has been about blatant attempts to ignore women because they are seen as incompetent at philosophy. Several people defending the "benefit of the doubt" approach who have asked for more substantiation than Haslanger provides have been happy to concede that they think the unconscious, unintentional kind of residual sexism occurs. What they have been more resistant to is accepting charges of sexism of the seriously morally blameworthy kind (as opposed to the just negligent kind) without further substantiation, particularly if the claim is that it's widespread or if it's a charge against particular individuals without much evidence. Such a view is perfectly consistent with recognizing that unconscious, unintended biases occur.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-53575200175982984762008-01-20T05:41:00.000-08:002008-01-20T05:41:00.000-08:00Double-blind review favours increased representati...Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors.<BR/><BR/>Double-blind peer review, in which neither author nor reviewer identity are revealed, is rarely practised in ecology or evolution journals. However, in 2001, double-blind review was introduced by the journal Behavioral Ecology. Following this policy change, there was a significant increase in female first-authored papers, a pattern not observed in a very similar journal that provides reviewers with author information. No negative effects could be identified, suggesting that double-blind review should be considered by other journals.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VJ1-4R05HXW-2&_user=4420&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000059607&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4420&md5=2413884fd7c783e47e855acb93bb6f00" REL="nofollow">Link</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-8949345369145522332008-01-19T08:29:00.000-08:002008-01-19T08:29:00.000-08:00Is that the voice of reason/common sense that I se...Is that the voice of reason/common sense that I see peeking through now (6:25 and 5:59)?<BR/><BR/>The charges of racism and sexism are serious indeed, so it's a disservice to academia, your departments, your colleagues, and yourself to assume that these charges are the only two at play here, if they apply at all to each case we have in mind. <BR/><BR/>If we believe ourselves--philosopers--to be more reflective and in tune with what's ethical or not than other people or professions, then it's even more uncharitable to think that philosophy departments should be so riddled with sexism, etc., (as opposed to partially riddled in conjunction with perhaps other causes.)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, having been in academia for decades, I don't recall seeing _any_ instances of blatant/latent sexism or racism, though I don't doubt that they occur. I'm just puzzled why some of these posts make it sound like it's such a prevalent problem with the majority of departments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-66661444775267817792008-01-19T05:59:00.000-08:002008-01-19T05:59:00.000-08:00"Given that a charge of sexism is a moral charge a..."Given that a charge of sexism is a moral charge against people, and it's genuinely bad to assume guilt, we're in a quandary."<BR/><BR/>See, I'm not sure this is true, and I think that believing this claim might explain some of the defensiveness on this thread. Is each individual act of sexism an act for which the individual committing it is morally blameworthy? I don't think so. <BR/><BR/>It may not be one's fault that one has sexist attitudes. In fact, it may not even be one's fault that one feels compelled to persist in such attitudes, but that's much more controversial.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, as the tests that have been discussed here show, many sexist biases are not even conscious. I am sure, for instance, that my male colleagues do not even notice that when talking about a woman's philosophical work they use the pronoun 'she' much more often than they use the pronoun 'he' when discussing a man's philosophical work (in the case of man, often, they don't even use the male pronoun at all, they use only his last name). I'd bet that my female colleagues do this too, unfortunately, I don't have many female colleagues and so I have no data on them ; ) <BR/><BR/>Of course, none of this means that one doesn't have responsibility, once one knows that one has sexist attitudes, to try to change them. So perhaps to accuse someone of sexism is to bring a moral charge of negligence against that person. But I think, especially in an academic context, one should give the benefit of the doubt to the individual, and simply assume that he or she made a mistake. <BR/><BR/>What's more, a sexist act, one that contributes to the systematic oppression of women, needn't come at all from even an unconscious bias against women on an individual's part. Individual acts might contribute to a system that is oppressive, whether done in all innocence or not. Acts often have unforseen consequences, those that no reasonable person could predict. <BR/><BR/>So a charge of sexism isn't necessarily a moral charge against an individual. This is the old man-hating charge against feminists that just doesn't hold. The relationship between the large-scale oppression of women and an immoral act on the part of an individual is very complicated. Feminists have recognized this for years. Males who find themselves getting defensive in response to talk about sexism would do well to consider this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-12326604523745631472008-01-18T19:19:00.000-08:002008-01-18T19:19:00.000-08:00Damn, this topic made it to 150 posts. It's awesom...Damn, this topic made it to 150 posts. It's awesome how just a few people being racist and sexist can lead to a slew of writing!James Rochahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10768870821066002106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-5886300373122805982008-01-18T18:25:00.000-08:002008-01-18T18:25:00.000-08:00PGS, I'm sure that at least a very large part of w...PGS, I'm sure that at least a very large part of what women in philosophy have observed is genuine sexism. I'm also sure that enough cases at least might not be (see the discussion in the other thread, particularly my response to Rachel). Given that a charge of sexism is a moral charge against people, and it's genuinely bad to assume guilt, we're in a quandary. It's bad to assume of particular people that they might be exhibiting a vice that they might not be exhibiting, and it's bad not to trust people when they say they're experiencing something that most of the time is that vice, and they're having the same experience now, but it's possible that it's not that vice. Basically, you've got a conflict between two instances of the principle of charity.<BR/><BR/>My response is this. Believe them that often this is the case, but don't believe them of any particular case unless a higher standard can be met, and don't endorse any claims about what must be the only or primary explanation unless I see more careful work done to substantiate them, while giving credence to the claim enough to work through potential solutions given that there's probably something to the complaint.<BR/><BR/>Doesn't that meet most of the desiderata on both sides of the disjunction?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-82221328360866607482008-01-18T15:57:00.000-08:002008-01-18T15:57:00.000-08:00I haven't seen any studies to show that the analyt...I haven't seen any studies to show that the analytical aptitude of women is more or less than that of men. So I take that to be an open question still. If you've seen such research, please let me know.<BR/><BR/>Further, not only is that an open question, it is also not unreasonable to think that such aptitude may be different between the sexes or even ethnic groups, as I argued in previous posts.<BR/><BR/>But imagine this: what if there were evidence that women, for instance, somehow did not have the natural analytic aptitude that men have, on average? Would you believe it? Or is it so contrary to your beliefs about how the world should be that such evidence would be dismissed?<BR/><BR/>I'm not denying that racism and sexism are real culprits for many of our problems. But I just ask that we remain open to other explanations as well. I like to think that I'm a person of science, having also received a graduate degree in the sciences. But I also know that science is imperfect and open to interpretation, particularly when it comes to issues concerning the human intellect.<BR/><BR/>This is the last thing I'll say about the subject. Mr. Zero, I've enjoyed the discussion and look forward to reading more of your thoughts in future matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-11408573068736975352008-01-18T13:24:00.000-08:002008-01-18T13:24:00.000-08:0012:31,Some guy somewhere, I can't find it now, sai...12:31,<BR/><BR/>Some guy somewhere, I can't find it now, said something like this: <I>as a white male, I can't help but think that I am naturally better at philosophy than women are</I>. He went on to say that he thinks that women are "less analytic" than men, and when I pressured him on whether there were similar reasons for the under-representation of ethnic minorities in the profession, made an analogy between a certain race that he thinks make poor basketball players and a certain dog breed he thinks makes poor watchdogs. I'm not saying you agree with this stuff, but I strongly disagree with it. <BR/><BR/>I agree that engineers tend to be pretty analytic. But suppose I noticed that engineers also tended to only be white guys, and that the few women and ethnic minorities who <I>are</I> engineers were pretty strongly of the opinion that they were the victims of latent/blatant sexism and racism both in their training and on the job, and that these biases contributed directly to the dearth of women and minorities in the engineering profession. In that set of circumstances, I would be <I>pretty hesitant</I> to propose an evolutionary/biological theory, according to which women and minorities are on average less mentally able to perform the work of engineering, to explain the dearth. <BR/><BR/>I don't take myself to have any but the most crude form of anecdotal data concerning the relative "nurturing-ness" of the sexes. Although I know lots of nurturing mothers, I also know lots of nurturing fathers and lots non-nurturing mothers. <BR/><BR/>I also don't take myself to have <I>any data at all</I> concerning the possible biological origin of this feminine propensity to nurture. It seems just as plausible to me that there is a social cause of the phenomenon. <BR/><BR/>I don't think that there is anything particularly sexist about the proposal that women tend to be more nurturing that men. I do think there is something sexist about the suggestion that women are under-represented in our field (but not in other academic fields) because they are biologically predisposed to be "less analytic" than men. And I think that there is something racist about the suggestion that ethnic minorities are under-represented in our field for similar reasons. And I don't see how this view is extreme or controversial. <BR/><BR/>I also think that there is something sexist about proposing an evolution-based, biological tendency toward intellectual inferiority of women in the context of a discussion about sexism in our profession. <BR/><BR/>There is a legitimate question here: why are women and ethnic minorities under-represented in our profession. I will confess that until earlier this week I did not know why. But a bunch of women have come on this blog and posted comments saying, <I>I know why. It's because of latent/blatant sexism. For example, ...</I> Sally Haslanger, who is a full professor at MIT, tells stories about her time in graduate school in which her professors volunteered to check her for a penis when she showed unusual philosophical promise. And then white males come on and say, <I>No, it's because women are "less analytic" than men are, because of evolution, and they are therefore generally less fit to be philosophers.</I> If that doesn't strike you as pretty much totally sexist and borderline misogynist, especially considering the context, then I don't know what <I>would</I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-16075014605041918092008-01-18T13:15:00.000-08:002008-01-18T13:15:00.000-08:00I suppose the problem here, as with most other deb...I suppose the problem here, as with most other debates, is that we each think that our position is the only reasonable one. Of course, that can't be true. Either just one position is right, or everyone is wrong, or everyone somehow got part of the answer right, etc.<BR/><BR/>Again, what seems reasonable to me is that we leave open possibilities. I fully agree that there are social roots to the problem we're considering, but also that there may be biological or evolutionary explanations (but not justifications for any sexism or racism in hiring). To deny that there are other possibilities seems premature, especially without a full review of the credible evidence, or lack thereof, for X that is casually mentioned throughout this thread. I've seen evidence for both of our positions, again as is the case for most charged debates.<BR/><BR/>Again, no one here is saying that any class of persons is "less intelligent" or "stupider" than any other. I had said that some classes may have different natural aptitudes; this is not a judgment but an observation. This seems to be the crux of our disagreement, Mr. Zero. <BR/><BR/>If genetic engineering is possible, to breed some animal to have certain features and aptitudes, then it's also possible for nature to do this through natural selection. In fact, the odds of different ethnic groups, for instance, all evolving on the same path, all having the same aptitudes, seem very low. We can already see that some tribes have members who are much taller than those of other tribes, etc.; so we know that different geographies can exert different evolutionary pressures. So why deny this, if not for the sake of political correctness?...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-64924328790114229762008-01-18T11:00:00.000-08:002008-01-18T11:00:00.000-08:00I've been accused of having an "extreme" position....I've been accused of having an "extreme" position. I don't see how my position is extreme. I believe that:<BR/><BR/>1. Women and ethnic minorities do not possess less native intelligence, analytical ability, reasoning skills, or overall fitness to do philosophy than white males.<BR/><BR/>2. There is no credible, scientifically legitimate evidence that women and ethnic minorities are in any way less intelligent or otherwise fit to do philosophy than white males. <BR/><BR/>3. There is no credible, scientifically legitimate evidence that the under-representation of women and ethnic minorities in philosophy faculty, philosophy grad school, undergraduate philosophy majors, or upper division philosophy classes has a biological or evolutionary basis.<BR/><BR/>4. There is lots of credible, scientifically legitimate evidence that the tendency for women and minorities to underperform academically has social, not biological, origins. There is evidence, for example, that girls are better at math than boys at the elementary school level but worse than boys at the high school level, and that this is caused by latent sexist attitudes. There is evidence that the differential in academic performance that is "apparently" tied to race is actually tied to socio-economic factors, which are themselves tied, via a <I>social</I> problem, to race.<BR/><BR/>5. There exists latent racism and sexism in the profession of philosophy. I have not been personally victimized by it, but I know lots of people who have, I have read lots of testimony about it here and in other places, and I have seen it happen in these threads. When someone says, <I>for a long time, I wondered if it was just me, but then I thought about it a lot, talked about it with other people a lot, and observed that the dynamic was different if I was talking one-on-one with a white male, or if I was in a large group of white males</I>, and then someone else says, <I>No, it's not sexism, you're probably just obnoxious</I>, I take that to be an instance of sexism. <BR/><BR/>6. If there is already evidence of racism and sexism in society at large, and of its presence in the profession, and there is no evidence of any biologically determined stupidity amongst women and ethnic minorities, the credible hypothesis is that the fact that these groups are under-represented in our profession has social, not biological or evolutionary, roots. <BR/><BR/>How is that an extreme view? I honestly thought that this was the only reasonable view. I thought that this was the only view that an educated, enlightened, socially responsible person could have. I thought that educated people were supposed to be able to see this psuedoscientific evolutionary hokum for what it is, give it no quarter, and work to find and eliminate the true, social roots of the problem.<BR/><BR/>Am I wrong? I am not wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-64314171309087969012008-01-18T10:39:00.000-08:002008-01-18T10:39:00.000-08:00To pick up on a comment I saw somewhere in here......To pick up on a comment I saw somewhere in here...<BR/><BR/>Are overweight people really more discriminated against than others? If so, is there a lack of overweight faculty members in academia? Shouldn't we also urge departments to hire more fat people in the interest of diversity, since many university students are also fat and may appreciate having an instructor of the same body-type to identify with?<BR/><BR/>Is it un-PC to even ask these questions? Or does it show that PC can be taken to an extreme? I don't know. But what I do know is that I can eat a large pizza in a single sitting...mmm, pepperoni...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-16967858501156050132008-01-18T10:26:00.000-08:002008-01-18T10:26:00.000-08:00Mr. Zero,I do have to say that I appreciate your r...Mr. Zero,<BR/><BR/>I do have to say that I appreciate your replies and willingness to engage here. I'm concerned, though, that you're still misunderstanding my position. I never said, and I don't seem to recall anyone else here saying it, that women or minorities are somehow "stupider", on average or otherwise, to anyone else.<BR/><BR/>I'm simply asserting that it shouldn't be surprising that categories of people, whether based on biology or profession, can have different aptitudes. Wouldn't you agree that taller people, on average, are better at basketball? And engineers are more analytical than most other professions? And mathematicians are better at math than others? And philosophers are better at philosophy than others?<BR/><BR/>It is neither here nor there to say that someone or some class of people on average has natural aptitude for analytical thinking or academic philosophy. And this position doesn't preclude the possibility that women can be excellent philosophers, and I know many who are.<BR/><BR/>I'm still confused why you and others are so insistent that everyone must be rcognized as having equal capabilities, on average. That's plainly false with respect to physical qualities such as strength and height, so it doesn't seem to be that much of a leap to suggest that such differences exist or can exist with respect to mental faculties.<BR/><BR/>For instance, do you believe that on average women are more nurturing of children (or maternal, for lack of a better word) than men? I do, but this is not to say that many men are not excellent fathers or nurturers. I'm just saying that there is more of a natural inclination with women to be nurturing towards children. Does this mean that men are stupider or somehow inferior to women? Absolutely not. This quality too is neither here nor there with respect to such a question.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, it's disappointing to see that there would be so much PC-related intolerance here and that some are quick to call a position "racist" or "sexist". Those minds are already made up and not open to free inquiry. I admit that racism and sexism are alive and well, but I also think that there are or can be other explanations (which may or may not be justifications) for the white-male dominated departments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-58029459529620407502008-01-18T09:52:00.000-08:002008-01-18T09:52:00.000-08:00Just in case any one ever reads the comments throu...Just in case any one ever reads the comments through, let me please correct something I said: Re the IAT, I meant to say that if you take longer with linking good terms with white faces, then you'll come out having a bias against whites.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-88931553324003735482008-01-18T09:40:00.000-08:002008-01-18T09:40:00.000-08:00There seems to be two extremes here: Mr. Zero is t...There seems to be two extremes here: Mr. Zero is taking the usual liberal line that sexism and racism are the cause of societal ills such as white male-dominated academic departments, and on the other side we have the usual conservative denial that race or sex, when it is irrelevant, has anything to do with human decision-making. <BR/><BR/>Neither position is credible; rather, it seems more likely that the truth is somewhere in the middle, as it is for many complex and polarizing issues. Anon 12:31, therefore, seems to have a plausible, middle-of-the-road explanation. So why Mr. Zero might want to censor it seems more to be related to rigid liberal dogma rather than reason. Just one observer's opinion...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-75747720090645040622008-01-18T09:04:00.000-08:002008-01-18T09:04:00.000-08:00Ok, anon. 12:31.I agree that intelligence has a bi...Ok, anon. 12:31.<BR/><BR/>I agree that intelligence has a biological foundation. The brain has a biological foundation. What I disagree with is that women and ethnic minorities are stupider, on average, than white males. This view, which I take to have no factual basis, support from evolutionary biology, or any other credible source, is a form of racism/misogyny. <BR/><BR/>Look, I thought these debates had been resolved. I thought that all the bogus science trying to show the superiority of the white male had been debunked. I thought that educated, reasonable people knew that. <BR/><BR/>And who said <I>all</I> instances of white male dominance are the result of sexism? Obviously, not <I>all of them</I> are. But just as obviously, a lot of them are. Look around. Look at the instances of racism and misogyny on these comment threads. Look at the reports of racism and misogyny on these comment threads. It's clearly a significant factor. <BR/><BR/>I like this very much: "if you say "yes", then you've admitted to thinking that there are mental differences between philosophers and non-philosophers; and if so, why can't there be mental differences between men and women?" <BR/><BR/>It's hard to know where to start pointing out the problems with that "argument." 1. Racism and misogyny are still a pretty serious problems in this country. Go read the NY Times article I posted up there somewhere. So I deny that philosophers are much different from the general public on this one. We ought to be, but we apparently aren't. <BR/><BR/>2. I think that, on average, philosophers tend to be <I>smart</I>. If we're different from the general population, that's how we're different. But <I>philosopher</I> is not a biological category, so the analogy from philosopher/non-philosopher differences to white-male/non-white-male differences is weak.<BR/><BR/>3. I also reject as tortured and awful the suggestion that the presence of racism and sexism in philosophy is evidence that there is a biological basis for it. <BR/><BR/>What's so unreasonable about the position that the relative absence of women and ethnic minorities in philosophy is due to a biological tendency of women and minorities to be unfit to be philosophers? Wow. That's a pretty amazing question. Really mind-boggling.<BR/><BR/>You must mean, other than the fact that it and the attitudes it stems from are completely racist and misogynist, and that racism and misogyny ought to be stomped out of existence. <BR/><BR/>So, in addition to that, I also think that this attitude serves to prevent women and ethnic minorities from entering the profession, which I think is sad and awful because I think that there are many members of those groups who could make excellent contributions to the discipline. <BR/><BR/>Also, apart from your inexpert, bogus speculation about the possible evolutionary basis for this lack of diversity in the field, there is <I>no evidence</I> of any such basis. Many racists and sexists have searched for a genetic explanation for the sad fact that women and minorities tend to underperform academically, but they can't find anything concrete. The credible view is that these problems have a social origin. <BR/><BR/>Also, I am proud to be an intellectual descendent of the enlightenment. The enlightenment philosophers decided that they would look to reason, not baseless superstition, to solve man's problems. That freedom and democracy were primary values. (I realize that a lot of enlightenment figures, such as Kant and Jefferson, were racists. I think, though, that racism and misogyny are inconsistent with enlightenment values.)<BR/><BR/>And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure I'll think of much more to say after I've had my coffee.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-63938715147267217572008-01-18T08:39:00.000-08:002008-01-18T08:39:00.000-08:00Wow, I'm impressed 12:31. Your middle school under...Wow, I'm impressed 12:31. Your middle school understanding of evolutionary science has convinced me that women are determined from birth to be worse at and less inclined to do philosophy. I'm going to go tell all the incredibly smart female philosophers I know that they are resisting nature and should probably look into getting themselves knocked up, putting their hair in curlers, and donning a terrycloth bathrobe. Amen, praise Jesus. Keep fighting the good fight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-60248267015569517672008-01-18T08:01:00.000-08:002008-01-18T08:01:00.000-08:00Mr Zero and 12:31I thinks its pretty well accepted...Mr Zero and 12:31<BR/><BR/>I thinks its pretty well accepted now among scientist and other theorists that there is no biological foundation for what we commonly refer to as "Race". <BR/><BR/>See Naomi Zack's book The Philosophy of Science and Race for details.Natehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09053975242033595947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-64535533167054958792008-01-17T22:07:00.000-08:002008-01-17T22:07:00.000-08:00Ok, Mr. Zero,If you believe race, sex, and other p...Ok, Mr. Zero,<BR/><BR/>If you believe race, sex, and other physical traits have a biological foundation, why is it so hard to believe that mental or intellectual traits can also have such a foundation? Is the mind not based on the physical brain which, we just agreed, is subject to evolutionary pressures?<BR/><BR/>It would be great if everyone were truly equal in all aspects; we would at least not need to have discussions such as this or real harm from discrimination or worse. But men, women, aborigines in Australia, Eskimos, etc. are built differently physically and (apparently it needs to be argued) mentally (though it really doesn't unless you're some throwback dualist). Some are mentally hardwired with the skill to survive in the bush, some for the cold, some for hunting, some for gathering, and so on.<BR/><BR/>Our brains are extremely delicate organs. Any slightest change can produce significant mental changes. So any slight evolutionary pressure could easily cause the average brain structure or women to be different than that of men.<BR/><BR/>But this is not to say that I don't think there's racism, sexism, in philosophy departments; I absolutely do. I'm just saying that likely not all instances of white male domination is a result of racism or sexism. <BR/><BR/>Think of it this way too: If racism and sexism are so obviously worng but rampant in academia, why does it still exist, perpetrated by philosophers who apparently don't share the same moral compass as most others? Are we philosophers really that socially and ethically retarded? (And if you say "yes", then you've admitted to thinking that there are mental differences between philosophers and non-philosophers; and if so, why can't there be mental differences between men and women?)<BR/><BR/>This is to say that a *possible* likely answer to why philosophy departments are so male dominated is not rampant racism or sexism, but perhaps, also or as its own reason, some biological or evolutionary foundation such that men are more inclined to do academic philosophy or at least analytical philosophy.<BR/><BR/>What's so unreasonable about this position that you want to violently quash it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1944513327283802005.post-39313577658503823992008-01-17T22:03:00.000-08:002008-01-17T22:03:00.000-08:00Mr. Zero writes: "a person whose wife is a woman, ...Mr. Zero writes: "a person whose wife is a woman, and who believes that women are "hard-wired" to be "less analytic" than men--and again, I have a hard time reading that as anything other than "stupider"--is a misogynist."<BR/><BR/>Let's not conflate sexism and misogyny. Both are problems, but they're different problems. They overlap in places, but it's worth preserving the distinction.<BR/><BR/>Sexism is (unwarranted) sex-based bias. It can be conscious or unconscious, quite damaging, but needn't involve any feelings of ill-will. The jolly old male prof who just doesn't think women can do philosophy might be sexist without being at all misogynistic (he may even be delighted when his low expectations are dashed).<BR/><BR/>Misogyny is hatred of women. A misogyninst may or may not think women are inferior (much misogyny stems from a sense of inferiority, insecurity, and fear). The jilted job applicant who wants to throw blame can feel a misplaced misogynistic rage. <BR/><BR/>A good reason to keep the issues somewhat separate is that there are different paths to cure. Misogyny is an emotional disorder and needs to be addressed at that level, much as any rage disorder needs to be. Sexism, on the other hand, needs to be combated by education and constant vigilance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com