Women applicants?

[bar_scene_gambler]

Do you think the general atmosphere in routine philosophy seminars, paper presentations etc is more hostile than it is in any other discipline? Since philosophy chiefly progresses by a ruthless tearing apart of arguments etc..could it be that that just intimidates women more than anything else?

I don't think that's it. It makes women seem far too meek. Realistically, I doubt the aggressive nature of philosophy (or many philosophers) is any more intimidating to women than it is to men, at least, not aggression qua aggression. Perhaps, with other contributing factors, but not on its own. 

[philosophe]

Hi friends, female applicant here. I must say, I understand why there is a dearth of women in philosophy.

 

You have no idea how much crap I've been getting from friends and family. Things a la "are you sure you want to do this?" "the job market..." "won't you want to have a family?" "seven years!?" "prime baby time" etc.  

 

They point to the number of women who succeed in getting their PhD, as if the fact that I might fail implies that I shouldn't even try. I've been feeling that glass ceiling, and I haven't even been accepted anywhere yet. It's a shame.

 

It's like, if I were applying to top law schools I would receive things like "good luck, I hope you get in," but throw in that it's philosophy, and that it's for a PhD and suddenly it's a shit show. And I come from Los Angeles and Boston, so it's not like I'm in a conservative, stay-at-home area. 

 

Anyone else getting this reaction? 

[philosophe]

Also, as a woman interested in primarily epistemology and logic, I've noticed that most women in the field tend to be on the social and political end of the phil spectrum. I think it's interesting that even in philosophy, many women are in traditional female areas that consider things like moral/ethical quandaries, rather than cold M&E. Not to stereotype, (obviously, because I don't fall under this category) but that has been my experience and I wonder why this is. 

 

I agree that old, white men tend to be the gate keepers. I also think that it's harder to be "taken seriously" as a female philosopher. I had a brilliant Hume scholar for a professor, and when she got pregnant all the male students would talk about was the size of her boobs. 

 

There's something about walking into a room in a suit that gives you instant authority in a way that walking in in a dress never can. 

[m-ttl]

It's shocking if the said biases are offered by such distinguished old philosophers. It's the prime vocation of philosophy to question, introspect and abandon prejudices. I guess they aren't philosophers then, just great grand SCHOLARS of philosophy. 

 

It's not shocking at all, actually. Those who are privileged by their positions in society (i.e. Straight white men in this case, the majority of tenured professors you're talking about) rarely seriously question or attempt to dismantle their privileges. The kind of "questioning" you're discussing is more the work of social sciences, certainly sociology, LGBTQ or Gender studies, as well as different tracks of ethnicity-based studies. 

 

 

Do you think the general atmosphere in routine philosophy seminars, paper presentations etc is more hostile than it is in any other discipline? Since philosophy chiefly progresses by a ruthless tearing apart of arguments etc..could it be that that just intimidates women more than anything else?

 

I'm going to make a guess and say that's not the case. Or rather, the hostility itself would be fine, it's the gendered hostility that is likely a turn off to female philosophy students. For example, my upper-level classes in art history are mostly women, especially classes which discuss nudity, the body, etc. Art history has only recently made the shift to be inclusive of women in the field (my female professors had male professors in their PhD programs assuming they were not cut out to do their work because they were women), and this has benefitted the field as a whole greatly. 

 

However, this semester, one of my seminar classes is comprised of about 10 women and 1 man, plus our female professor who is quite well respected. And immediately he began to make gendered (and microaggressive) comments. He joked we would all be a "handful, if we were being honest with ourselves", he made unnecessary comments about typical "feminine" research topics being "fought over" [because all girls want to research 'girly' things, right? And we're "all" apparently catty about it, to boot], he was rude when one of us explained she turned down a chance to go to Paris, demanding to know "What young woman would do that?" -- her explanation? She was in Cairo, participating in the revolution. He continued to talk down to her as if she was a ditz. Every time he opened his mouth to say something, it was backhandedly demeaning. This man isn't every male student I've run into in art history, but he's not unusual either. He's not an odd one of the bunch.

 

I'm not unfamiliar with direct and blunt criticisms in my field, and I doubt female phil students are either. But there is a large difference between respectful dialogue between peers who are treated as equals, and using "tearing down arguments" in partnership with subtly sexist rhetoric which implies women aren't on the same level as their male scholarly counterparts.  More than anyone else, I would say women (and especially WOC) are used to aggressive and demeaning language, even if the aggressions are subtle or micro-aggressive. I have no doubt that women are used to receiving this kind of language, because it is so common regardless of the field -- but if the field is built upon an already aggressive method of thinking, in addition to being backed by remaining "old boys clubs", and has a mostly male distribution, you will be hard pressed to find that women are going to be attracted to additional resistance to their presence in the classroom. 

[m-ttl]

Also, as a woman interested in primarily epistemology and logic, I've noticed that most women in the field tend to be on the social and political end of the phil spectrum. I think it's interesting that even in philosophy, many women are in traditional female areas that consider things like moral/ethical quandaries, rather than cold M&E. Not to stereotype, (obviously, because I don't fall under this category) but that has been my experience and I wonder why this is. 

 

I agree that old, white men tend to be the gate keepers. I also think that it's harder to be "taken seriously" as a female philosopher. I had a brilliant Hume scholar for a professor, and when she got pregnant all the male students would talk about was the size of her boobs. 

 

There's something about walking into a room in a suit that gives you instant authority in a way that walking in in a dress never can. 

 

That "something about it" is called misogyny. 

 

Just a heads up. 

 

The problem everyone is trying to name here is misogyny. Why are there "traditionally female areas"? Because misogyny has forced women into the less respected aspects of any field. Why are old white men gate keepers? misogyny. Why does a classroom full of male students immediately disregard a woman's experience and expertise because she has breasts and they want to treat her like an object? Misogyny. 

 

Why are "dresses" less authoritative than suits, and why are women belittled and mocked for wearing pantsuits in an effort to combat this? misogyny. 

 

And when you, as a woman, assume these ideas and agree with them it is internalized misogyny, but still misogyny. 

 

The very assumptions made in this thread are directly aggressive towards women simply for being women-- it should come as no surprise why any intellectual woman might want to avoid this. 

[philosophe]

Because misogyny has forced women into the less respected aspects of any field. 

 

I think it's important to recognize that ethics / social / political philosophy are as respectable as any other area of philosophy. Simply divergent.

 

Also, I know many respectable female philosophy students who have very happily chosen these areas. I don't think misogyny accounts for the entirety of this trend that I have seen in my experience. I'm simply wondering why I am the only woman who has listed  "Epistemology" as a primary interest. 

[philosophe]

Additionally, there's no need to be rude, or accuse each other of internalized misogyny. This should be a forum for positive debate and encouragement. 

[m-ttl]

Additionally, there's no need to be rude, or accuse each other of internalized misogyny. This should be a forum for positive debate and encouragement. 

 

Implying women appear less authoritative when they are wearing dresses is internalized misogyny. I am not telling you you are a misogynist. It is not personal, and has nothing to do with being rude. It is simply a mindset which has been taught to people which is misogynistic in nature. You think a thing because that was the way you were socialized to think, and that thing is a product of misogyny in our society. It does not mean I am being accusatory or rude by pointing this out. 

 

If I am wrong in pointing out women are often more prevalent in "less respected/rigorous" parts of different fields because they are often "guided" there/to subfields that are more "feminine/emotional", that is fair. But I'm not trying to be nasty, I'm merely pointing out why you think what you do, and why you would say something like that. 

 

It has nothing to do with what I think of your personal character, and everything to do with how we as a society as socialized and internalize harmful stereotypes and ideas about authority and power. 

Edited January 18, 2014 by m-ttl

[catwoman15]

You know, there's something to be said for internalized misogyny in philosophy. Namely, the way that women think of themselves and treat themselves, especially with regard to their philosophical abilities, is often due to being socialized in a misogynist society. We suffer more often from impostor syndrome, we're less likely to feel like we have an 'innate' ability to do philosophy, we don't seek help as often from professors because we feel like we're stupid, or too dull to be helped even.

 

Also, feeling unauthoritative in a dress stems from the fact that you'll be seen as less authoritative. When you teach, students will question your competence, your credentials, and your authority. They will ask you on dates. They will treat you like their friend. One thing that will help you feel more authoritative is to do "super hero" poses, intentionally put your hands on your hips and look in the mirror for two minutes. (like, there have been studies on this, it works y'all) Take up more space than you ordinarily would, you will be more confident.

 

As to philosophe's notice that women flock to the "less rigorous" sub-disciplines. You're right. But there's a chicken and egg question at the root of it. Was it seen as less difficult, so women (thought to be less capable), made easier headway? Or, did women make headway, and then it seemed less difficult because women entered it? [There's some evidence to the later, given some empirical data, but it would have to be generalized from other fields.]

 

Even still, I'm in one of those "softy" disciplines, but it's strange, because I don't do "Feminist Philosophy of X." Whereas all the other women in my department do. So, even within these softy subspecialties, women are further segregated heavily to the feminist version of that kind of philosophy. I have no doubt that some women do it because the men make it difficult to make headway, and the less men you surround yourself with, the more supported you will be/feel.

 

It's a complicated problem, but the solution isn't to blame women for internalized misogyny. Because, to a certain extent, it is advantageous to individual women to follow misogynist norms (so-called, benevolent sexism) while still being bad for women as a whole because misogyny is bad for women as a whole. The solution isn't to yell at each other about how much sexism they've internalized, the solution is to build solidarity and get men (and women) who have power and authority as allies in the struggle.

[m-ttl]

I hardly consider pointing out a problem "yelling" at anyone, nor do I consider it worthy of negative reputation points. Again, I did not blame anyone, I simply explained why such an idea would be held by someone. 

[catwoman15]

You're right. But we all know there's misogyny in the field (in fact, we know better than anyone else, having been at its hands). We know that white men are the gate keepers because misogyny. But pointing out that someone has internalized misogyny is not going to HELP anyone on this thread. It isn't going to give the women the resources, confidence, or support that they need to succeed. But I'm also hesitant to buy into a monocausal narrative of the problems, they can't all be at root caused by misogyny and internalized misogyny (I guess you could buy into that if you wanted to be vulgar about it, but I don't.).

 

One person saying that dresses are less authoritative than suits is pointing out the sexist norms of culture. Perhaps it could have been more delicately stated, to capture the nuance that there isn't anything intrinsic about it, but rather that it's socially constructed to seem that way. But the poster probably isn't wrong that a dress is less authoritative than a suit, because we live in a sexist culture and a sexist world.

 

I didn't downvote you, and I'm not going to tone police you, but constructive comments are more helpful than merely pointing out that misogyny is everywhere. Believe me, I know it, and it seems like Philosophe knows it too given the nature of her first post. What, I think, was behind the comment was apprehension and fear, apprehension that she would ever be seen as an expert, and fear at what she's gotten herself into. A little understanding, a little care for each other at this juncture is helpful and can still address the complicated problems of the profession.

[sacklunch]

Hi friends, female applicant here. I must say, I understand why there is a dearth of women in philosophy.

 

You have no idea how much crap I've been getting from friends and family. Things a la "are you sure you want to do this?" "the job market..." "won't you want to have a family?" "seven years!?" "prime baby time" etc.  

 

They point to the number of women who succeed in getting their PhD, as if the fact that I might fail implies that I shouldn't even try. I've been feeling that glass ceiling, and I haven't even been accepted anywhere yet. It's a shame.

 

It's like, if I were applying to top law schools I would receive things like "good luck, I hope you get in," but throw in that it's philosophy, and that it's for a PhD and suddenly it's a shit show. And I come from Los Angeles and Boston, so it's not like I'm in a conservative, stay-at-home area. 

 

Anyone else getting this reaction? 

 

To be fair, I don't think this is unique for women. I get the exact same shit from my family, though I'm sure a bit less on the biological 'prime' for making a baby. Even still, my mom frequently reminds me that I will run out of time to find a lady because I have moved around so much for school. In the same way, the humanities in general prompts the 'good luck getting a job' comments, I think regardless of gender.

[sacklunch]

Perhaps I have done more harm than good. Sorry folks, I stand corrected. <3 

Edited January 19, 2014 by derewigestudent

[catwoman15]

I'd just like to say, here, that philosophy is unlike a lot of other humanities and social sciences, hell, even biology has better numbers of representation than us. I also would like to say that when you're a man, it's not always the case that you will notice misogyny in action (this is called privilege blindness).

 

I'm an advanced graduate student, I have the best cv of any graduate student who isn't job hunting in my department. Yet, first year men in graduate school (all in their twenties) have all taken it upon themselves to explain these things to me: how the library works, how to write an abstract, how to make a powerpoint presentation, how to grade an essay, how to find an article in a database, and finally, the crown, how to write a seminar paper (which they have never written, because they're new to grad school). The problem isn't just old men, the problem is young men too. They've been educated probably by men, most of their peers have been men, and they have been socialized into a deeply sexist culture.

 

ETA: This is not to say that every man I've met has been terribly sexist. Some have been generally great, and only done a few problematic things, some haven't done any, and some have done some really awful stuff. But, philosophy is a hard place to be a woman.

 

If you doubt this, please read beingawomaninphilosophy.wordpress.com and you can see what women go through NOW in philosophy departments, conferences, and events.

Edited January 19, 2014 by catwoman15

[sacklunch]

Makes sense. 

 

I'm curious, what do you think about higher admissions rates for women in fields that traditionally have fewer women? I have had this conversation with half a dozen women in my field (religious studies), a field that has historically been dominated by men (and is in some subfields). For example, some of these women have been given more scholarship money, larger stipends, and so on, because they have traditionally been underrepresented, in order to increase the overall pool of women in the field. I am fairly indifferent about this, though I do think there should be more representation by women in many/all underrepresented fields (even if only historically). So, for example, if two applicants have similar stats and the one thing that separates them is gender, should the woman or even man be given priority? Or even simply, should women be given more scholarships in order to attend graduate school (esp. masters programs) on account of their sex? On the flip side, I know this happens in some fields with men, for instance fields like Public Health, which is almost entirely dominated by women. I have had this same conversation with men in the field (masters) and they said they had received on average more aid and acceptances than their women peers (who had either equal or higher stats). Was sagen sie?

Edited January 19, 2014 by derewigestudent

[jamc8383]

But pointing out that someone has internalized misogyny is not going to HELP anyone on this thread. 

 

I am going to politely disagree.  Recognizing the problem, acknowledging the problem is the first step to overcoming the problem.  

 

When someone wonders aloud if women steer clear of a discipline because they are "intimidated" or bemoans the fact that someone in a dress will be taken "less seriously" than someone in pants, that's (unacknowledged) internalized misogyny.  In a blink of an eye, one is following a chain of signification that goes: dress signifies woman signifies emotional (read: not serious) that stands in contrast to an oppositional chain that goes: pant signifies man signifies rational (read: serious).  One has to recognize and deconstruct these misogynistic associations for him/herself if we're ever to see an end (god, wouldn't it be amazing) of misogyny.

[maxhgns]

TBH, I found a number of things in your post, derewigestudent (the one I'm quoting from) to be problematic, but I don't think it would be productive to tackle them all one by one. Instead, I just want to say something quick in response to this, because it's an argument I see often (and which I used to make myself, to my great shame):

 

I think most of this is true. Though, again, I think the same problems are applicable to men. Why are there 'traditional male roles' as well? 

 

 

 

Yes, there are traditional male roles and fields. And yes, men are sometimes at a disadvantage thanks to these norms. The difference is that we're not oppressed by them, because they're not part of a network of systematically disadvantaging factors. And that's a big, big difference.

 

 

Ah, what the hell. One more small thing: the fact that one does not perceive problematic behaviour does not entail that it's not there (absence of evidence and all that). Unfortunately, it doesn't even mean that it's not going on right in front of one's eyes.

 

EDIT: Typo.

Edited January 19, 2014 by maxhgns

[sacklunch]

TBH, I found a number of things in your post (the one I'm quoting from) to be problematic, but I don't think it would be productive to tackle them all one by one. Instead, I just want to say something quick in response to this, because it's an argument I see often (and which I used to make myself, to my great shame):

 

 

 

Yes, there are traditional male role and fields. And yes, men are sometimes at a disadvantage thanks to these norms. The difference is that we're not oppressed by them, because they're not part of a network of systematically disadvantaging factors. And that's a big, big difference.

 

 

Ah, what the hell. One more small thing: the fact that one does not perceive problematic behaviour does not entail that it's not there (absence of evidence and all that). Unfortunately, it doesn't even mean that it's not going on right in front of one's eyes.

 

 

Well said. I don't mean to equate them, and perhaps I have. For that I apologize. I am generally a relativist and my nihilism gets the best of me, on most days. It's sometimes hard to care much about anything and anyone else, accordingly. Though it's good to be shown when one is wrong, and for that, I thank you. 

 

cheers

[catwoman15]

I am going to politely disagree.  Recognizing the problem, acknowledging the problem is the first step to overcoming the problem.  

 

When someone wonders aloud if women steer clear of a discipline because they are "intimidated" or bemoans the fact that someone in a dress will be taken "less seriously" than someone in pants, that's (unacknowledged) internalized misogyny.  In a blink of an eye, one is following a chain of signification that goes: dress signifies woman signifies emotional (read: not serious) that stands in contrast to an oppositional chain that goes: pant signifies man signifies rational (read: serious).  One has to recognize and deconstruct these misogynistic associations for him/herself if we're ever to see an end (god, wouldn't it be amazing) of misogyny.

 

 

I see where you're coming from here, and generally I agree. It just seemed to me from philosophe's post that she was already aware of it. She seem to be expressing (I thought) a fear of being seen as less competent and authoritative than her man-peers. This is because it came on the back of another post about how she felt she was being treated in a sexist way and looking for camaraderie. The next series of posts were very forceful with her about how what she was talking about (what every is talking about) is misogyny and internalized misogyny. (Which I had already said)

 

I think the objection was pointed more toward the fact that the poster seemed apprehensive and afraid of joining a pretty sexist culture (professional philosophy). Also, I don't think women choosing specializations is necessarily due to internalized misogyny, and probably has more to do with the implicit bias against women doing math and the effect of stereotype threat on a woman who chooses a 'hard' specialty like M&E.

 

In other words, we don't really disagree here, I just disagree in this instance that the poster was unaware that she was talking about a sexist standard.

[catwoman15]

I've gotten a lot of PMs about this, so I'm going to drop this right here. Here's some funding opportunities for students looking to fund graduate school who are members of underrepresented groups. You can apply for these as you apply for graduate study, or in your first year of graduate study:

 

·       American Association of University Women

·       Fulbright Foundation Research Grants (for students seeking to study at the graduate level outside of the United States, or international students looking to study in the US)

·       Mellon Foundation

·       Gates Foundation

·       Ford Foundation Fellowship Program

o   -Predoctoral Fellowship: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/pga/FordFellowships/PGA_047958

·       American Indian Graduate Center

http://www.aigcs.org/scholarships/graduate-fellowships/

·       Point Foundaton (funding opportunity for queer students)

http://www.pointfoundation.org/

[catwoman15]

Hey everyone, 

 

This is a really nice opportunity too, and it's available for 'prospective' philosophy phds, so even if you're not in grad school yet, you can (AND SHOULD!!!) apply.

 

http://uchv.princeton.edu/workshops/mentorship.php

[wandajune]

Hey everyone, 

 

This is a really nice opportunity too, and it's available for 'prospective' philosophy phds, so even if you're not in grad school yet, you can (AND SHOULD!!!) apply.

 

http://uchv.princeton.edu/workshops/mentorship.php

 

Thanks for sharing this!

I'm a woman applicant, just noticed this thread actually and read through your earlier posts. I appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts on the issue and your experiences as a grad student. 

[MattDest]

My advisor recently posted some thoughts about the scarcity of women in philosophy and how we might begin to ameliorate it. I'd be interested to hear thoughts about that here. It also includes a link to the wonderful opportunity that catwoman has pointed to. 

[wandajune]

I don't know if I'm just oblivious to a lot of these problems, or if I'm just insanely lucky to be in a department with professors who are highly encouraging of female students and with male peers who are respectful and take me seriously. Reading all these things about the climate for women in philosophy almost worries me that I'm going to get to grad school and have a bit of a shock. 

[Table]

My advisor recently posted some thoughts about the scarcity of women in philosophy and how we might begin to ameliorate it. I'd be interested to hear thoughts about that here. It also includes a link to the wonderful opportunity that catwoman has pointed to. 

 

I was completely surprised by this:

Stop treating us like sex objects. We know you usually can’t help it. It’s automatic, a product of evolution. But you can control it if you think hard enough about it. So, stop staring at our breasts when you talk to us. Stop discussing our butts when you think we can’t hear you. Treat us in a gender-neutral way.

 

?!?!!

Treating women like sex objects is not an automatic product of evolution. You can always help it. 

 

I think Linda Shapiro's suggestion is a really good idea:

While these suggestions are helpful, we've had a lot of success with something quite simple: the chair sends letters congratulating the A-range students in our intro classes. A number of these students are prompted to take more philosophy classes, or even declare a major, by these letters (we know this anecdotally, because students often relate that the letter encouraged them). Many of these students are women. We've been doing this for about 4-5 years now. We currently have about 45% female minors, and about 34% female majors.

 I think, for a variety of reasons, it's especially easy for young women to underestimate their performance in intro philosophy courses. I think having someone reach out to you to say you've done well can be hugely encouraging. 

Edited January 28, 2014 by Table