Women applicants?

[Mavngoose1]

It wasn't out of fear. It was more about timing. Though I stand by my question, it was insensitive to ask right now. I am a little shocked by the response though. The second I attempt to critique anything, I'm accused of oppression. How that's philosophical, I'm not sure.

Who accused you of oppression? 

[jailbreak]

There are a million possible explanations of the lack of women+minorities in grad school/professorships phenomenon. It is unfortunate that the only explanation that is allowed to be publicly supported is the position that the power-hungry white man is asserting his dominance and forcing out all of the women and minorities and making them all feel unwelcome, etc. 

 

Says the white man who hijacks the thread entitled "Women applicants?" (a thread for FEMALE APPLICANTS to express their own private concerns!)

 

(If you are still too thick: You say it's ridiculous to suggest that "the power-hungry white man is asserting his dominance" and "making women and minorities feel unwelcome." Maybe you should reflect on what draws you, a white man, to assert YOUR dominance -- or try to! -- by coming into the only thread currently active in the philosophy forum for female applicants to discuss their concerns and trying to make US feel uncomfortable about expressing those concerns. Is our position really so absurd, in the end? And might it be possible that, as women in philosophy, we might have epistemic authority on what the issues keeping women out of philosophy might be? And might it be a little presumptuous for you, a white man in philosophy, to claim to know better than us what the climate is really like?)

 

TL;DR: STFU.

[TheVineyard]

It wasn't out of fear. It was more about timing. Though I stand by my question, it was insensitive to ask right now. I am a little shocked by the response though. The second I attempt to critique anything, I'm accused of oppression. How that's philosophical, I'm not sure.

 

Welcome to the world of questioning the popular opinion. I thought that philosophers were more willing to actually engage in arguments and reason instead of level direct personal insults and attacks, but I am learning that some of the "best and brightest" are not able to do so.

You were right about your facts, and the way you were treated was more akin to an angry mob than a collection of soon-to-be PhD students. Men are far more likely to score in the highest couple percentile than women on intelligence tests. In psychology it really isn't a contestable claim. Now, the reason for why this is the case is under dispute. It largely boils down to the typical nature vs nurture explanations. I really have no opinion on it, but one possible explanation is that it is nature, and if it is nature then that would be a possible explanation for why there are more men than women teaching at top schools. I do not wish to defend this interpretation of the data, but I'm sure I will be lambasted for merely bringing it up.

 

I'll link one such study again in case anyone didn't catch it in my first post: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289606001115

 

Says the white man who hijacks the thread entitled "Women applicants?" (a thread for FEMALE APPLICANTS to express their own private concerns!)

 

(If you are still too thick: You say it's ridiculous to suggest that "the power-hungry white man is asserting his dominance" and "making women and minorities feel unwelcome." Maybe you should reflect on what draws you, a white man, to assert YOUR dominance -- or try to! -- by coming into the only thread currently active in the philosophy forum for female applicants to discuss their concerns and trying to make US feel uncomfortable about expressing those concerns. Is our position really so absurd, in the end? And might it be possible that, as women in philosophy, we might have epistemic authority on what the issues keeping women out of philosophy might be? And might it be a little presumptuous for you, a white man in philosophy, to claim to know better than us what the climate is really like?)

 

TL;DR: STFU.

Wow. Very high emotion, very poor reading comprehension.

I never said it is "ridiculous to suggest" the power-hungry white man explanation. Instead, I said it is ridiculous that nobody is allowed to suggest ANY OTHER explanation. I don't think that the powerful white man hypothesis is stupid, I have no problem with someone raising it. My problem is that you can't even challenge it without being intentionally misread and attacked by people like you.

Edited February 27, 2014 by TheVineyard

[nietzschemarket]

It wasn't out of fear. It was more about timing. Though I stand by my question, it was insensitive to ask right now. I am a little shocked by the response though. The second I attempt to critique anything, I'm accused of oppression. How that's philosophical, I'm not sure.

 

Nobody actually accused you of oppression, as far as I can see. They simply questioned your source, which was a tabloid. I think that maxhgns is spot on: we are not as aware of our implicit biases as we'd like to believe. There is plenty of 'hard data' to support this. 

Edited February 27, 2014 by nietzschemarket

[TheVineyard]

 

 

They simply questioned your source, which was a tabloid.

 

 

You think these responses are a fair example of people "simply questioning a source?" Is this how philosophy PhDs question sources?

 

Has this thread now devolved into satire or are we all still being entirely serious? Wow, people... 

 

 

 (Nevermind, I see that Goose posted it. And... WOW)

 

 

 

 I think I may have lost brain cells from reading it, however. I'd best turn back to my grading instead: at least my students rot my brain at a slower pace!

 

Curses. Sarnath'd. Ah well, now you've lost some cells too.

 

 

Also, I provided the source for him just moments after he posted. I don't see anyone actually interested in apologizing to Roll or acting like his position is batshit crazy anymore (because really, it isn't crazy, its common knowledge in freshman psychology class).

Edited February 27, 2014 by TheVineyard

[Hypatience]

Would the other women in this thread be interested in a new thread where just the women among us are invited to post? I am considering starting one a little later in the decisions process so that we can discuss schools, visits, and shared concerns without wading through pages and pages of frustrating garbage. 

[Hypatience]

Another possibility is that maybe some of us could get in touch with each other via PM and get a Facebook message thread going. I know I've heard some climate stuff about various schools that I'd only be willing to share privately, and I'm sure there are women here in the same position. Possibly we can pool our gossip and help each other out!

[Cottagecheeseman]

Would the other women in this thread be interested in a new thread where just the women among us are invited to post? I am considering starting one a little later in the decisions process so that we can discuss schools, visits, and shared concerns without wading through pages and pages of frustrating garbage. 

I'm not a woman but I think this would be a wise thread. However I have no idea how you could regulate such a thread!

[philosophe]

Another possibility is that maybe some of us could get in touch with each other via PM and get a Facebook message thread going. I know I've heard some climate stuff about various schools that I'd only be willing to share privately, and I'm sure there are women here in the same position. Possibly we can pool our gossip and help each other out!

 

I'd be happy to do that. Anyone else interested?

[Silly_Socrates]

Another possibility is that maybe some of us could get in touch with each other via PM and get a Facebook message thread going. I know I've heard some climate stuff about various schools that I'd only be willing to share privately, and I'm sure there are women here in the same position. Possibly we can pool our gossip and help each other out!

I'd be interested. 

[jailbreak]

Would the other women in this thread be interested in a new thread where just the women among us are invited to post? I am considering starting one a little later in the decisions process so that we can discuss schools, visits, and shared concerns without wading through pages and pages of frustrating garbage. 

 

Yes. Very interested. Thanks

[Hypatience]

OK, women who want in on the FB infoshare thread please message me. 

Edited February 28, 2014 by Hypatience

[jailbreak]

Wow. Very high emotion, very poor reading comprehension.

I never said it is "ridiculous to suggest" the power-hungry white man explanation. Instead, I said it is ridiculous that nobody is allowed to suggest ANY OTHER explanation. I don't think that the powerful white man hypothesis is stupid, I have no problem with someone raising it. My problem is that you can't even challenge it without being intentionally misread and attacked by people like you.

 

Doesn't change the fact that you felt the need to hijack a thread that very clearly wasn't for you (and that, in particular, very clearly wasn't the place for "challenging" posters' experiences with sexism and climate issues).

[TheVineyard]

Doesn't change the fact that you felt the need to hijack a thread that very clearly wasn't for you (and that, in particular, very clearly wasn't the place for "challenging" posters' experiences with sexism and climate issues).

 

And how ironic it is that you are trying to bully, exclude, and make unwelcome others who wish to participate in a discussion.

Also, I did not challenge anyone's personal experiences. Again, reading comprehension. I am challenging the attitude that is taken when discussing this, in particular the fact that we are not allowed to even hold anything that resembles an alternate viewpoint.

Edited February 28, 2014 by TheVineyard

[Monadology]

I'd also like to add that in addition to philosophers sometimes confusing their valuing of rationality for their being rational, philosophers are trained at precisely the sorts of skills that make rationalization of problematic behavior (and the evasion of genuine, practical correctives) very easy. 

[BeatBackBones]

Would the other women in this thread be interested in a new thread where just the women among us are invited to post? I am considering starting one a little later in the decisions process so that we can discuss schools, visits, and shared concerns without wading through pages and pages of frustrating garbage. 

I'm interested, too!

[MeonticDodals]

Hey guys, I'm a black lady philosopher, clearly.  as to the blatant shortage of women in academic philosophy. In the initial stages of researching programs, I quickly noticed that the overwhelming majority of faculty and past and present graduate students were white men. 

 

I found a several arguments that stated the intense/confrontational culture within philosophy programs turned off many women who were initially interested in philosophy and this causes them not to purse it on the graduate level or at all. This sounds overly convenient to me because most people, regardless of gender, are not interested in this type of discourse, so why are the demographics so uneven?

 

To push this a step further, women of color in philosophy are unreasonably absent , too. I didn't decide this until I was done surveying schools because applying to any PhD program really is a niche-y type of thing; considering we're only applying against 300 people, many of which across multiple program choices.

 

But, I'm a black lady philosophy, Adrian Piper is a black lady philosopher and Linda Martin and Anita Allen and so on. Surely, we're not the only ones. Where are the others at? Do they just not purse philosophy on the graduate level? Why not? Are they being reject to programs because of possible academic disadvantages that have made them unattractive candidates? 

 

Further, are female applicants at an advantage as URMs? Some of the programs I researched had a lot of material and resources for diversity initiatives/student life support, but many universities had nothing about diversity at all, which gave me pause. 

My institution is actively looking to recruit more female grad students, and, as such, their files tend to get more attention. I don't know whether this translates to higher acceptance rates, like what Duke's statistics indicate.

[jailbreak]

And how ironic it is that you are trying to bully, exclude, and make unwelcome others who wish to participate in a discussion.

Also, I did not challenge anyone's personal experiences. Again, reading comprehension. I am challenging the attitude that is taken when discussing this, in particular the fact that we are not allowed to even hold anything that resembles an alternate viewpoint.

 

Do you really not see the problem with coming into a thread directed at women applying to graduate school in philosophy and then insinuating that perhaps there are just fewer smart women than smart men?

[TheVineyard]

Do you really not see the problem with coming into a thread directed at women applying to graduate school in philosophy and then insinuating that perhaps there are just fewer smart women than smart men?

 

A guy got crucified for saying that women are less likely than men to be in the top 2% in intelligence tests. I just cited the study that he had hinted at. Like I said several times, this is basic knowledge of anyone who took a psychology class in college. It's nothing revolutionary. I didn't "come into this thread" and bring it up, I just provided the citation that others were looking for.

[nietzschemarket]

Can you cite the results from the study you linked to that suggest that, "...there are 8 times as many brilliant men as brilliant women..."? That is the claim that Rollontheground made. 

 

And you're right, it's not revolutionary at all to suggest that men are more intelligent than women. From Aristotle to Larry Summers, it has been quite common throughout history to denigrate the intellectual capacities of women. Colonialism and slavery were (actually, are) justified in part by the "common knowledge" that non-europeans were intellectually deficient savages. 

It's not as if this "common knowledge" exists in a void of pure reason.

Edited February 28, 2014 by nietzschemarket

[PhD applicant]

Can you cite the results from the study you linked to that suggest that, "...there are 8 times as many brilliant men as brilliant women..."? That is the claim that Rollontheground made. 

I was curious about this too, so I decided to do some research to answer your question and my own... (and I'm a total nerd who looks for excuses to do research)...

 

 

Men performed better on this test

• Gallagher, Colin, and Teresa Burke. 2007. "Age, gender and IQ effects on the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test." British Journal Of Clinical Psychology 46, no. 1: 35-45. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed February 28, 2014).

This study showed men higher in math, and women higher in writing

• Kaufman, Alan S., James C. Kaufman, Xin Liu, and Cheryl K. Johnson. 2009. "How do Educational Attainment and Gender Relate to Fluid Intelligence, Crystallized Intelligence, and Academic Skills at Ages 22–90 Years?." Archives Of Clinical Neuropsychology 24, no. 2: 153-163. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed February 27, 2014).
• And this paper might explain why - females had larger thalami, correlated to higher verbal IQ: Xie, Yuhuan, Yian Ann Chen, and Michael D. De Bellis. 2012. "The Relationship of Age, Gender, and IQ With the Brainstem and Thalamus in Healthy Children and Adolescents: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Volumetric Study." Journal Of Child Neurology 27, no. 3: 325-331. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed February 27, 2014).

This paper (laughably?) suggests that reading requirements for males should be lower because their gender makes them worse readers, LOL

• Share, David L., and Phil A. Silva. 2003. "Gender Bias in IQ-Discrepancy and Post-Discrepancy Definitions of Reading Disability." Journal Of Learning Disabilities 36, no. 1: 4. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed February 28, 2014).

This study showed females out-perform males through age 25, even with the same IQ

• Sheree J., Gibb, Fergusson David M., and Horwood L. John. 2008. "Gender differences in educational achievement to age 25." Australian Journal Of Education (ACER Press) 52, no. 1: 63-80. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed February 27, 2014).

This study showed that we do show some accuracy in judging others' intelligence based on their appearance (like gender)

• Murphy, Nora A., Judith A. Hall, and C Colvin. 2003. "Accurate Intelligence Assessments in Social Interactions: Mediators and Gender Effects." Journal Of Personality 71, no. 3: 465-493. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed February 27, 2014).

This study showed that women with schizophrenia have preserved emotional and semantic processing whereas men lose their visual-spatial processing advantage

• Scholten, M. R. M., A. Aleman, and R. S. Kahn. 2008. "The processing of emotional prosody and semantics in schizophrenia: relationship to gender and IQ." Psychological Medicine 38, no. 6: 887-898. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed February 28, 2014).

 

That's how far I got before my brain wanted to go back to hulu.

[catwoman15]

I think this is really apropos, so I'll just drop it right here.

 

http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#educate

 

An excerpt:

 

" It’s someone who belongs to the group of people you’re discussing and they’re Not Very Happy with you. Apparently, they claim, you’ve got it all wrong and they’re offended about that.  They might be a person of color  or a queer person. Maybe they’re a woman, or a person with disability. They could even be a trans person or a sex worker. The point is they’re trying to tell you they know better than you about their issues and you know that’s just plain wrong. How could you be wrong?"

[nietzschemarket]

http://philosophicalspaces.wordpress.com/2014/02/18/what-can-you-do-to-help/

[Establishment]

I'd also like to add that in addition to philosophers sometimes confusing their valuing of rationality for their being rational, philosophers are trained at precisely the sorts of skills that make rationalization of problematic behavior (and the evasion of genuine, practical correctives) very easy. 

 

This is going into my quote box.

[gr8pumpkin]

 However, I see tons of fellow liberals merely assume that they couldn't possibly dislike Obama or Clinton for any other reason, (just like you are doing regarding me and my arguments) and I call them out for it.

 

This is an excellent point.  I dislike them both for not being liberal enough.