Women applicants?

[gr8pumpkin]

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. 

 

I have no idea why this absolutely correct, spot-on analysis has two down-votes.  I wish my quota for up-votes wasn't filled for the day.

[gr8pumpkin]

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.

 

I think people can't be reminded "misogyny is everywhere" enough.  From where I'm sitting m-ttl is being piled on for seeing "internalized misogyny" for what it is, accurately, and calling it by its name.  That's not "yelling" at anyone.  That's not even "not constructive."  I think it's quite constructive to challenge someone to think about ways socialization can lead to that very thing, one's own internalized misogyny.

[gr8pumpkin]

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

 

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.

 

"Very high emotion"?

 

Wow.  Just, wow.  Are you trying to offensively stereotype your female respondent?  You just forfeited all "I am not a misogynist" claims, dude.

 

I would also point out that in the grand scheme of things that the confrontation of misogyny wherever it may lurk is hardly "the popular opinion."

[gr8pumpkin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansplaining