Women Philosophy Prospectives 2014

[philwomen2014]

A lot has happened since we formed this group, so I thought it deserved a new thread here, one that's representative of where we're at right now, not just where we were at when we were only an idea. 

 

So here's the deal: philosophy is wonderful and choosing a school is exciting, but, as a discipline, philosophy is still working out some issues. A lot of these issues have to do with the treatment of women. Some schools are more supportive spaces for women than others, and it's not always easy for women to figure this out before accepting an offer. 

 

We are currently maintaining a Facebook group page and private message thread for women who have applied to philosophy programs this season and are considering their offers. Membership in the group is 'secret', and the group page, its members, and their posts are invisible to people who are not members. The private message thread, because it happens in the inbox, is similarly confidential. To keep things maximally secure, the private message thread is open only to women who plan to begin a PhD or MA in the fall of 2014. The group page, however, is also open to women who are applying next season (ie, who plan to begin a PhD or an MA in the fall of 2015). 

 

These venues (the group page and message thread) are meant to be safe spaces where we can chat frankly about our decisions processes and share the things that we've heard about other programs. Some of us did our BAs or MAs at schools that others of us are considering; some of us have large social networks and people we can solicit information from on each other's behalves. Sometimes we discuss climate issues more generally, whether to exchange strategies or just to share bad experiences in a place where we can count on the sympathy and support of our audience. There are around thirty of us so far, so many more than the handful I expected, and that's incredible. 

 

I was the only woman in my MA cohort and, although my program was very supportive, I sometimes felt alienated just by virtue of being an outlier (I am also a member of another marginalized group, which has sometimes contributed to those feelings). It has been a transformative experience to suddenly be connected to so many other women who share my ambitions and face the same (and often far greater) challenges. It's been amazing to have a peer group that is actively looking out for each other. I have never felt so much solidarity before, or, for that matter, optimism.

 

You can get involved by sending me a private message via these forums. I'll give you my FB information and, if you add me, I'll be able to add you to the relevant group(s). If some other member of the group feels comfortable posting her contact information publicly here, then perhaps that might be a way for women not registered on these forums to get in touch with our network.

 

If you do not have Facebook, but are a woman who is looking for information about a school, you can message me queries or just post them here -- I will gladly pass them on, and hopefully other people will reply. I think on the whole, though, one thing that makes the group feel safe is the fact that all of the participants have identities and histories that are visible to the other participants. 

 

If you are currently in a PhD program and want to make yourself available to women who are currently applying, you can post here and hopefully people will get in touch with you either via private message on thegradcafe or through other contact information (if you include any in your post). Feel free to post if you are a member of another marginalized group, too, or just feel like you might be able to offer some special insight into how things are for anyone at a particular school. If you don't feel comfortable posting, you can message me, and I can privately pass your contact information on to the other members of the group.

 

My hope is that women will continue to organize in a similar way next season and benefit from the same things that we have so far. My other hope -- one for right now -- is that more women who are currently prospectives get involved in what we're doing! 

Edited March 14, 2014 by philwomen2014

[philwomen2014]

Please feel free to link women you know who are currently prospectives to this post.

[philwomen2014]

Visibility bump

[PhD applicant]

I might get downvoted for this, but since I am frequently the only person willing to say it I'm going to:

I'm female...

I find 'female only' groups or forums just as prejudiced as 'male only' groups or forums and refuse to join them. I don't believe in an equal and opposite evil being the appropriate response to prejudice. So, I'm not joining and I think this might explain why others who are not comfortable saying this will not join either. I find this type of thing annoying. Discussing your issues in view of everyone, if you think they are worth talking about, will probably do much more to further your 'cause' than hiding in a closet.

This is probably more expressive of my general distaste for minority OR majority exclusive groups than for anyone or group of people on this forum.

[Cottagecheeseman]

I might get downvoted for this, but since I am frequently the only person willing to say it I'm going to:

I'm female...

I find 'female only' groups or forums just as prejudiced as 'male only' groups or forums and refuse to join them. I don't believe in an equal and opposite evil being the appropriate response to prejudice. So, I'm not joining and I think this might explain why others who are not comfortable saying this will not join either. I find this type of thing annoying. Discussing your issues in view of everyone, if you think they are worth talking about, will probably do much more to further your 'cause' than hiding in a closet.

This is probably more expressive of my general distaste for minority OR majority exclusive groups than for anyone or group of people on this forum.

I think the point is to provide a safe space to talk. We saw what happened with the other female philosophers thread, and how a few misogynistic males pretty much took over the thread. I'm not female, so this is just my two cents on the issue. But I think sometimes having a discussion only among those of a minority group that has frequently been disparaged in a way that doesn't attract attention and allows themselves to express themselves without having to worry about reprisal.

[TheVineyard]

I might get downvoted for this, but since I am frequently the only person willing to say it I'm going to:

I'm female...

I find 'female only' groups or forums just as prejudiced as 'male only' groups or forums and refuse to join them. I don't believe in an equal and opposite evil being the appropriate response to prejudice. So, I'm not joining and I think this might explain why others who are not comfortable saying this will not join either. I find this type of thing annoying. Discussing your issues in view of everyone, if you think they are worth talking about, will probably do much more to further your 'cause' than hiding in a closet.

This is probably more expressive of my general distaste for minority OR majority exclusive groups than for anyone or group of people on this forum.

This is right.

 

I think the point is to provide a safe space to talk. We saw what happened with the other female philosophers thread, and how a few misogynistic males pretty much took over the thread. I'm not female, so this is just my two cents on the issue. But I think sometimes having a discussion only among those of a minority group that has frequently been disparaged in a way that doesn't attract attention and allows themselves to express themselves without having to worry about reprisal.

 

Someone who disagrees with the idea that we should throw someone under the bus without trial or evidence is not automatically a misogynist. There were absolutely 0 woman-hating posts in that thread. One could rather easily argue that you are treating women as feeble, delicate creatures that cannot discuss and argue like men can, rather than strong-willed, able, and equal.

Edited March 21, 2014 by TheVineyard

[PhD applicant]

Vineyard, don't ever agree with me again. And now I need to go bash myself in the head with something.

[PerpetualApplicant No More]

In addition to what zizeksucks said, I think there are valid reasons for making the group private:

 

1) Independent of whether anyone posting is actually a misogynist or not, there's a value in having people who all agree on a basic set of issues communicating in private, so that the discussion doesn't get derailed into, e.g. a theoretical debate over what and what does not count as misogyny (a totally random example ).

 

2) Even if it were desirable (which I doubt it is, see point 3) it doesn't seem possible to make the group "female applicants plus a certain subset of male applicants who 'get it'" (i.e. won't derail the discussion, question the presuppositions, etc.) so a female only group it is: how would someone determine which male applicants are not going to violate confidence, make the space feel unsafe, etc.?

 

3) Hell, even as someone who considers himself a staunch ally, I'd feel uncomfortable joining the group: what if I act on some implicit bias of which I am not yet aware (and thus haven't yet de-biased myself from) and end up making someone uncomfortable? That'd defeat the whole purpose.

 

So, my two cents as a male applicant are similar to Zizeksucks'--I support the group. But, of course, I also support anyone's decision not to join it for whatever reason, as PhDApp has chosen to do.

Edited March 22, 2014 by perpetualapplicant

[TheVineyard]

 

In addition to what zizeksucks said, I think there are valid reasons for making the group private:

 

1) Independent of whether anyone posting is actually a misogynist or not, there's a value in having people who all agree on a basic set of issues communicating in private, so that the discussion doesn't get derailed into, e.g. a theoretical debate over what and what does not count as misogyny (a totally random example ).

 

2) Even if it were desirable (which I doubt it is, see point 3) it doesn't seem possible to make the group "female applicants plus a certain subset of male applicants who 'get it'" (i.e. won't derail the discussion, question the presuppositions, etc.) so a female only group it is: how would someone determine which male applicants are not going to violate confidence, make the space feel unsafe, etc.?

 

3) Hell, even as someone who considers himself a staunch ally, I'd feel uncomfortable joining the group: what if I act on some implicit bias of which I am not yet aware (and thus haven't yet de-biased myself from) and end up making someone uncomfortable? That'd defeat the whole purpose.

 

So, my two cents as a male applicant are similar to Zizeksucks'--I support the group. But, of course, I also support anyone's decision not to join it for whatever reason, as PhDApp has chosen to do.

 

I don't mean to be provocative here, but I do genuinely want to know if what you are describing is what you really want as a philosopher... You want a place where nobody "questions the presuppositions?" An area where you are primarily concerned with making sure that nothing you say makes anyone uncomfortable?

I would expect that to be a concern of some fundamentalist religious folks maybe, but is this really what you want as a philosopher? I would absolutely be unable to function in a place where certain facts are off the table because they might offend, or where questioning the very fundamentals is not on the table..."DUH, you might say, no shit TheVineyard wouldn't get along in that place!" Well, being around people that might disagree with me (people that in fact I HOPE disagree with me about at least some things), valuing the truth or at least the unhindered pursuit of it even when people (including myself) might be offended/made uncomfortable along the way...well that's what makes me want to do philosophy! If one of my chief concerns was making sure that everything that came out of my mouth didn't bother anyone, I would be doing public relations, not philosophy.

I am a physicalist, but the last thing I want is to be among a group of people who already agree with me. I feel uncomfortable around religious people, and much of what they say offends me, but I would never exclude them from my inquiries...I would invite them to talk about what they think, have a conversation, and hopefully make a convincing argument.

What I'm saying is that the last thing I would want, as a philosopher, is an echo chamber where only those who want to echo what I have to say are let in. However, I feel like that is exactly what is being prescribed here...and it's being done baldly and seemingly with others in agreement. I think this goes beyond my personal preference...it seems to me that the echo chamber mindset is contrary to the very essence of philosophy (if there is such a thing).

This article makes a ton of sense to me. "If the truth offends, it is our job to offend.": http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200802/if-the-truth-offends-it-s-our-job-offend

 

I understand that there are obviously huge fundamental differences in how I view philosophy and how others do...but I guess I'm wondering if what you are describing is a backslide or if you actually want to be a thinker surrounded by those who agree with you about all of the presuppositions, will never question them, and do everything they can to make you feel comfortable over challenging those presuppositions, even when it might not be easy.

 

 

 

Vineyard, don't ever agree with me again. And now I need to go bash myself in the head with something.

An idea is right or wrong on it's own. It doesn't matter who says it. Someone can be wrong about 99 things in a row, and the 100th might be correct. I would never assume that an idea you wrote down is wrong just because it was you who wrote it (hence, why I agreed with you even though I've disagreed with you in the past), and I would appreciate if you would do the same. Also, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with YOU as a person, but agreeing that an idea is a good one...so don't take my agreement personally?

Edited March 22, 2014 by TheVineyard

[dgswaim]

I don't mean to be provocative here, but I do genuinely want to know if what you are describing is what you really want as a philosopher... You want a place where nobody "questions the presuppositions?" An area where you are primarily concerned with making sure that nothing you say makes anyone uncomfortable?

I would expect that to be a concern of some fundamentalist religious folks maybe, but is this really what you want as a philosopher? I would absolutely be unable to function in a place where certain facts are off the table because they might offend, or where questioning the very fundamentals is not on the table..."DUH, you might say, no shit TheVineyard wouldn't get along in that place!" Well, being around people that might disagree with me (people that in fact I HOPE disagree with me about at least some things), valuing the truth or at least the unhindered pursuit of it even when people (including myself) might be offended/made uncomfortable along the way...well that's what makes me want to do philosophy! If one of my chief concerns was making sure that everything that came out of my mouth didn't bother anyone, I would be doing public relations, not philosophy.

I am a physicalist, but the last thing I want is to be among a group of people who already agree with me. I feel uncomfortable around religious people, and much of what they say offends me, but I would never exclude them from my inquiries...I would invite them to talk about what they think, have a conversation, and hopefully make a convincing argument.

What I'm saying is that the last thing I would want, as a philosopher, is an echo chamber where only those who want to echo what I have to say are let in. However, I feel like that is exactly what is being prescribed here...and it's being done baldly and seemingly with others in agreement. I think this goes beyond my personal preference...it seems to me that the echo chamber mindset is contrary to the very essence of philosophy (if there is such a thing).

This article makes a ton of sense to me. "If the truth offends, it is our job to offend.": http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200802/if-the-truth-offends-it-s-our-job-offend

 

I understand that there are obviously huge fundamental differences in how I view philosophy and how others do...but I guess I'm wondering if what you are describing is a backslide or if you actually want to be a thinker surrounded by those who agree with you about all of the presuppositions, will never question them, and do everything they can to make you feel comfortable over challenging those presuppositions, even when it might not be easy.

 

 

 

An idea is right or wrong on it's own. It doesn't matter who says it. Someone can be wrong about 99 things in a row, and the 100th might be correct. I would never assume that an idea you wrote down is wrong just because it was you who wrote it (hence, why I agreed with you even though I've disagreed with you in the past), and I would appreciate if you would do the same. Also, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with YOU as a person, but agreeing that an idea is a good one...so don't take my agreement personally?

This isn't really to the point of the thread, but I find it interesting (personally) as an orthodox Christian with a decidedly non-naturalist/physicalist view on reality that most of my closest friends are atheistic naturalists/physicalists. I guess I too enjoy people who disagree with me (although I seldom find that their views offend-- I don't get offended very easily).

[Glasperlenspieler]

I don't mean to be provocative here, but I do genuinely want to know if what you are describing is what you really want as a philosopher... You want a place where nobody "questions the presuppositions?" An area where you are primarily concerned with making sure that nothing you say makes anyone uncomfortable?

I would expect that to be a concern of some fundamentalist religious folks maybe, but is this really what you want as a philosopher? I would absolutely be unable to function in a place where certain facts are off the table because they might offend, or where questioning the very fundamentals is not on the table

 

You're right that if it were never allowed to question the presuppositions or certain facts were always kept off the table, then that would be a bad thing.

 

But I don't think that's the issue here.  Rather, the point is that there are certain times or places, where it doesn't make sense to be always questioning certain presuppositions.  Even if you are convinced that there is no afterlife, you're probably not going to argue that point to someone whose best friend has just died.  Likewise, sometimes it's important, even in philosophical discussions, to take certain presuppositions as given.  It would be completely pointless to have a discussion with a moral nihilist about applied ethics, if she was continually pointing out that there are no moral truths.  Instead one of two things happen.  Either you learn to avoid such discussion with that person (because they come to no good) or that other person learns to set aside her metaethical views temporarily for that sake of the conversation (this happens all the time in philosophy when critiquing others views, and indeed moral anti-realists are often more than happy to argue for or against particular moral claims).

 

So just because a group deems that it may be necessary to take certain assumptions as given does not mean that they are being unphilosophical, just that they deem it to be beneficial for the sake of the discussion, either for certain interpersonal reason or for the sake of being able to have a fruitful discussion.

Edited March 22, 2014 by DerPhilosoph

[PerpetualApplicant No More]

You're right that if it were never allowed to question the presuppositions or certain facts were always kept off the table, then that would be a bad thing.

 

But I don't think that's the issue here.  Rather, the point is that there are certain times or places, where it doesn't make sense to be always questioning certain presuppositions.  Even if you are convinced that there is no afterlife, you're probably not going to argue that point to someone whose best friend has just died.  Likewise, sometimes it's important, even in philosophical discussions, to take certain presuppositions as given.  It would be completely pointless to have a discussion with a moral nihilist about applied ethics, if she was continually pointing out that there are no moral truths.  Instead one of two things happen.  Either you learn to avoid such discussion with that person (because they come to no good) or that other person learns to set aside her metaethical views temporarily for that sake of the conversation (this happens all the time in philosophy when critiquing others views, and indeed moral anti-realists are often more than happy to argue for or against particular moral claims).

 

So just because a group deems that it may be necessary to take certain assumptions as given does not mean that they are being unphilosophical, just that they deem it to be beneficial for the sake of the discussion, either for certain interpersonal reason or for the sake of being able to have a fruitful discussion.

 

This.

 

tl;dr Context sensitivity is great, and different situations have different expectations/involve different sorts of social interaction.

 

That said, I'm not going to post on this particular topic in this thread any further; while there is nothing inherently wrong with the topic, *this is not the place for it.* If anyone wants to continue discussing these issues, I suggest they start another thread for that purpose.

Edited March 22, 2014 by perpetualapplicant

[philwomen2014]

while there is nothing inherently wrong with the topic, *this is not the place for it.* If anyone wants to continue discussing these issues, I suggest they start another thread for that purpose.

 

Co-signing this.

[philwomen2014]

Pre-deadline bump for stragglers