philosophy meta-forum

Study on gender and prestige effects

Paul

120 day(s) ago

(1) I'm not seeing how the question of the comparative rate of harassment in philosophy as opposed to, say, physics has any bearing on the question of whether women in phil grad school have a harder time than men in phil grad school.

(2) Title IX policy, as well as many surveys and studies, typically control for context, content, and frequency. That's why on many climate surveys I've filled out, I've had to answer questions like "If you have been subjected to [blah blah blah], please tell us how many times / please tell us where this took place" et cetera.

(3) Title IX policy at any university has been pretty clear on this. The question is whether the conduct in question adversely affects the learning environment for women as a class, and I actually had to go through training that specifically handled "edge cases" like "You look really nice today."

(4) Actually, rude comments about clothing choice, weight, deeply held religious beliefs, hair, and class status all fall under either sexual harassment policy (if the rude comments are directed at women and not men) or other workplace protection laws. Though academics treat their workplaces as the Wild West, there are pretty extensive legal protections in place that are supposed to prevent workplace discrimination of any kind, including discrimination based on religious beliefs, age, appearance, and class.

Finally, sexual harassment needn't be so severe that it takes over a woman's life and makes it impossible for her to reach her professional goals in order to be a problem. For it to be illegal, it suffices that the sexual harassment creates an environment where women have a significantly worse experience than men. This is why I'm using my own case as an example. On paper, I didn't have any more problems than any of my male colleagues. Off of paper, I was stressed out, unhappy, had lots of time eaten up by departmental and title 9 meetings, and had a significantly lower quality of life. That's all you need for a hostile work environment and for grad school to be harder for women than for men.

Sojourner

120 day(s) ago

Thank goodness someone is here to tell me that I'm speculating in an uncharitable manner! Unlike the other commenters here, who think it's plausible that women are lying on department- internal surveys in order to get special advantages or have been duped into believing that they are being victimized because of the femphil conspiracy!

Idiot,

The evidence that there are biases in favor of women in the discipline were already right in front of your face. You didn't notice them, so we patiently showed them to you. They aren't things anyone is hiding. We went so far as to hammer them into your face so that you couldn't miss them. But all you could do is grin like an imbecile and say that we must be referring to a covert "femphil conspiracy", when anyone with half a brain and minimal attention can see that feminists are openly launching Gendered Conference Campaigns, saying that they want to hire a woman for their next position, and so on. And then we have the facts of who gets jobs and how many publications they have. But you still wear your stupid grin and think this must be a conspiracy theory. That's not just stupidity: it's aggressive, smug stupidity, which is a different thing entirely.

The entire world of intellectual life, everywhere, is more stupid now, thanks to your involvement on this blog. Please go away. You are a hopeless case. You are easily recognizable from former blogs, too, ThatKid. Get lost. Please.

The studies are available if you use google.

Paul

Ah. But you don't mention the names of the studies, or the journals in which they appear, or even the authors who published them. That's because you don't know a single one of those studies. You just act like you do, after referring to hordes of them. You have no intellectual integrity. You are not advancing this or any other conversation. Just stop.

Paul

120 day(s) ago

Sojourner, if someone like you is telling me that I am afflicted by "aggressive, smug stupidity" and that I have "no intellectual integrity," then I must be doing something right. (I do sometimes grin like an imbecile-you caught me!)

So, what are all of these ways in which women are so advantaged by this field? So far, we've got the GCC and affirmative action in hiring. What else are people pissed about? I'd like to hear.

Philippa

119 day(s) ago

You need to celebrate that probably weaker candidates were hired because they were women?

Genevieve

That's not how I see things at all. Suppose you learned that in recent years, though African-Americans were only 14% of the population, they received nearly 20% of undergraduate degrees at prestigious institutions. Would this imply that "weaker" candidates were getting degrees? Would it be occasion for anger or sadness? Not at all. This would be evidence, I'd think, that the world is more just than it once was. It would be good evidence that someone is doing something right. That's how I think about evidence that shows that women are more likely (not by a huge margin, mind you -- men still get most of the jobs!) to get jobs than men. Our world is more just than it once was.

Jacobus

119 day(s) ago

What an imbecile.

Raimundo

119 day(s) ago

You need to celebrate that probably weaker candidates were hired because they were women?

Genevieve

That's not how I see things at all. Suppose you learned that in recent years, though African-Americans were only 14% of the population, they received nearly 20% of undergraduate degrees at prestigious institutions. Would this imply that "weaker" candidates were getting degrees? Would it be occasion for anger or sadness? Not at all. This would be evidence, I'd think, that the world is more just than it once was. It would be good evidence that someone is doing something right. That's how I think about evidence that shows that women are more likely (not by a huge margin, mind you -- men still get most of the jobs!) to get jobs than men. Our world is more just than it once was.

Philippa

That's absurd. First, the world come become "more just" through the hiring of weaker candidates. Second, are we in the business of advancing philosophy or advancing the interests of marginalised groups?

Philippa

119 day(s) ago

That's absurd. First, the world come become "more just" through the hiring of weaker candidates. Second, are we in the business of advancing philosophy or advancing the interests of marginalised groups?

Raimundo

Both!

Were the two -- advancing good philosophy or advancing justice -- to ever come into conflict, there's not an obvious answer about which one you should pick. Or so it seems to me. You think the answer is obviously the former, though? Or am I not understanding you correctly?

Edmund

119 day(s) ago

Were the two -- advancing good philosophy or advancing justice -- to ever come into conflict, there's not an obvious answer about which one you should pick. Or so it seems to me. You think the answer is obviously the former, though? Or am I not understanding you correctly?

Philippa

Yes, clearly one should promote justice even at great cost. What I'd like to see, though, is more of a case for why disproportionately hiring women promotes justice.

Peg

119 day(s) ago

It doesn't. It's yet another injustice. You can't make up for a past harm by benefiting an unrelated person. It doesn't work the other way either. I can't punish a stranger to get back at someone else for something they did decades ago. It's absurd to think otherwise. (Even primitive vengeance cultures require some kind of connection stronger than race or gender.)

SJWs have this confused. The students at Evergreen (and the awful BLM movement) make this problem clear. They think that evil white men must be punished to make up for the sins of some of their ancestors.

They'll give you the reply that contemporary evil white men have benefited from the sins of their ancestors, as if this make it appropriate to punish them now. It doesn't.

Curt

119 day(s) ago

Philippe: suppose wealthy Jim Lowell received preferential treatment in getting a philosophy position, while Gertrude Hernandez had an unfairly hard time because it was harder for people with her genitals to receive an education. But Gertrude worked very hard and became a successful teacher instead, and devoted her life to social justice. Gertrude' s son, Barry Hernandez, then applies for a job in philosphy, after putting in years of hard work; but the job is given instead to Jim's daughter, Elizabeth Lowell, even though Hernandez is more qualified, because of the same problem his mother faced: the search committee felt he had the wrong genitals.

Justice? If so, why?

posts per page.