philosophy meta-forum

Lemoine demolishes the femphil narrative on underrepresentation of women

Emma

195 day(s) ago

With hard, masculine facts. Leiter reports:

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/06/the-underrepresentation-of-women-in-philosophy.html#more

Eva

195 day(s) ago

"If I liked meaningless jargon and poorly argued, empirically uninformed nonsense, I would have pursued a PhD in another field and perhaps I would have written a dissertation about why the fact that white people make ethnic food is a symptom of white supremacy. But instead I chose a field in which people have traditionally avoided that kind of bullshit and I would like it to stay that way."

Nice.

That burrito fiasco is unreal.

Simone

195 day(s) ago

I can't stand his pompous editorializing, but I have to admit that when he sticks to statistical analysis, he does a pretty good job of modelling the way we *should* be looking at a lot of these issues.

I still think we ought to systematically extirpate sexual harassment in the profession, and that we need more women, and I don't think it's a bad thing to advantage women in some ways on the job market. But we don't need to be statistically incompetent to make those points.

Rosa

195 day(s) ago

Yeah, he's a poor writer, but I appreciate his analysis.

Also, masculine facts?

Brian

195 day(s) ago

English is not his first language, considering that he writes quite well. He's also a logician.

Rosa

195 day(s) ago

The things that make him a poor writer are not attributable to the fact that he is a non-native speaker (needless high school satirist level editorializing), but perhaps are attributable to his being a logician.

Roderick

195 day(s) ago

Also, masculine facts?

Rosa

I believe they call it sarcasm.

Axel

195 day(s) ago

Odds that this will be discussed by Whineberg, Femphil, etc?

Simone

195 day(s) ago

The things that make him a poor writer are not attributable to the fact that he is a non-native speaker (needless high school satirist level editorializing), but perhaps are attributable to his being a logician.

Rosa

I concur. And FWIW he and I share the same first language.

Sylvia

195 day(s) ago

There seems to be some chatter on facebook about this post, but I'm not friends with some of the usual suspects. Can anyone tell if there are any half-decent responses?

Grace

195 day(s) ago

"It’s interesting that, when you talk to people in private, almost everyone agrees that women get some kind of preferential treatment (even if some think it’s justified), but most of them would never say that in public."

Almost.everyone.agrees.

What an asshole. No doubt he talks to people who confirm his own biases.

Enver

194 day(s) ago

"It’s interesting that, when you talk to people in private, almost everyone agrees that women get some kind of preferential treatment (even if some think it’s justified), but most of them would never say that in public."

Almost.everyone.agrees.

What an asshole. No doubt he talks to people who confirm his own biases.

Grace

He's presumably talking about the advantage women get on the job market. For what it's worth, in all of the departments I've been involved with, this has been common knowledge among grad students and faculty. As Lemoine says, many people think it's *justified*. But hardly anyone seriously denies it; the evidence (both statistical and anecdotal) is too stark.

Grace

194 day(s) ago

And his latest ....

"it’s also unlikely that someone who actually cares about this would know how to hack a website."

Yeah, cos girlies can't code. Or something.

Bertrand

194 day(s) ago

"it’s also unlikely that someone who actually cares about this would know how to hack a website."

We (the admins of this forum) have been warned by the admin of a previous metablog that there is some person or group out there who has attempted to hack and shut down uncensored philosophy sites in the past. It would not surprise me at all if this is who is responsible for hacking Lemoine's site.

Roger

194 day(s) ago

"It’s interesting that, when you talk to people in private, almost everyone agrees that women get some kind of preferential treatment (even if some think it’s justified), but most of them would never say that in public."

Almost.everyone.agrees.

What an asshole. No doubt he talks to people who confirm his own biases.

Grace

Serve on a search committee. You'll see. The pressure comes from all sides.

Karl

187 day(s) ago

There seems to be some chatter on facebook about this post, but I'm not friends with some of the usual suspects. Can anyone tell if there are any half-decent responses?

Sylvia

A friend who works on the demographics of philosophy (i.e., it is one of their research interests) says that they do not think that what Lemoine calls "The Official Narrative" -- that "women are underrepresented in philosophy because sexism is pervasive in the field'' -- is actually that widely endorsed. Instead they say that most people working on the demographics of philosophy think that there is sexism in philosophy, but the extent to which this explains the underrepresentation of women is a matter of dispute. A few people in the comments then suggest that Lemoine's explanation is consistent with the Official Narrative, and note that the post could have been put forward as part of the Official Narrative, just without the "fiesty culture war zesty spice" tone of Lemoine's. (That said, others in the comments vehemently object to Lemoine's argument and offer very bad objections to it.)

Catharine

187 day(s) ago

It's not generally compatible with the sexism explanation to say that women are proportionately interested in different things. You'd have to supplement that with some further explanation for how that came to be before women get to college. Lemoine did leave that open. But the official story, at least the one proposed by SJWs, is that the sexism in higher ed explains the difference. It doesn't. That's what's important about Lemoine's analysis. We don't need to revise our syllabi. We don't need more women in the classroom to turn things around. We need to look elsewhere for an explanation. Why are women not as interested in philosophy? That's the burning question. Good luck answering it.

Anne

186 day(s) ago

Still no rebuttal from the New Consensus crowd?

Josip

186 day(s) ago

It's not generally compatible with the sexism explanation to say that women are proportionately interested in different things. You'd have to supplement that with some further explanation for how that came to be before women get to college. Lemoine did leave that open. But the official story, at least the one proposed by SJWs, is that the sexism in higher ed explains the difference. It doesn't. That's what's important about Lemoine's analysis. We don't need to revise our syllabi. We don't need more women in the classroom to turn things around. We need to look elsewhere for an explanation. Why are women not as interested in philosophy? That's the burning question. Good luck answering it.

Catharine

God has made men and women different, and naturally suited them to perform different roles, for their own personal flourishing, and for the general harmony of society. But hardly anyone within professional philosophy would dare admit this, so we all spend our time looking for alternative explanations for the obvious. What is the result of this willful rejection of the truth? Society is crumbling.

We are now, for instance, living in a society where a boy can win state track titles in the girls 100m and 200m. This was unimaginable even five years ago. But now everyone acts like we have to accept and encourage it.

http://usatodayhss.com/2017/connecticut-transgender-sprinter-andraya-yearwood-wins-two-state-titles-amidst-controversy

We have turned our back on God, and now we are reaping what we have sown.

Theodor

186 day(s) ago

I suspect the "we turned our back on God" post is a troll. Obviously there are many plausible explanations for men and women having different patterns of interest that don't amount to "God has made men and women different, and naturally suited them to perform different roles..."

Andy

186 day(s) ago

I suspect the "we turned our back on God" post is a troll. Obviously there are many plausible explanations for men and women having different patterns of interest that don't amount to "God has made men and women different, and naturally suited them to perform different roles..."

Theodor

The fact that you assume it was a troll only shows how far gone into darkness you really are. Sad.

Ian

186 day(s) ago

I suspect the "we turned our back on God" post is a troll. Obviously there are many plausible explanations for men and women having different patterns of interest that don't amount to "God has made men and women different, and naturally suited them to perform different roles..."

Theodor

The fact that you assume it was a troll only shows how far gone into darkness you really are. Sad.

Andy

Ha.

The Yearwood track win is absurd though. All the boy did was grow his hair out. He isn't even on hormones. He has a fucking mustache for Christ's sake. CT must be under some kind of spell. What a bunch of idiots. Stand up the trannies. Tell them, sorry, they can't play on the women's teams. It tough luck. There aren't enough of them to form there own division. So a few trannies won't get to run. Oh well. At least all the other girls will have a more level playing field.

Semenya's 800 meter win in Rio was ridiculous. But things were a little more complicated there. Yearwood is an entirely different story.

Joan

186 day(s) ago

Philosophy deserves better trolls.


Allowed tags: 'p', 'b', 'em', 'blockquote'. URLs are automatically linkified.
posts per page.