Venting Thread

[psm1580b]

36 minutes ago, Shawn3007+ said:

Finally, since I don't live in the states, this is only my perception of the situation, it could be that programs downright discriminate against women and people of colour. If you have some research on it I'd love to read it. (<not sarcasm)

In the United States (and other places, sure, but this is the focus of this discussion) the discrimination need result from any conscious view of others as inferior. We have ingrained, unconscious, perspectives of each other, (pernicious stereotypes) which unconsciously color how we are perceived both in terms of moral value and as epistemic agents. The cages which confine certain peoples and prevent them from the same opportunities that privileged persons have are already in place. Doing 'nothing' (ie, pretending racism, sexism, ableism, etc, do not exist), maintains the cage. The barriers are still there and will remain unless forcibly removed. I'd take a look at some of the work of people like Rebecca Kukla, Kristie Dotson, and definitely read some of the work on oppression by Marilyn Frye, and others. 

 

[Cecinestpasunphilosophe]

5 hours ago, MVSCZAR said:

Oh god. I don't even know if I said words and I may have insulted the entire Catholic Church. Oh god. 

Please, tell me more  

[MentalEngineer]

37 minutes ago, Abendstern said:

I just want to add one thing to this conversation before I keep my mouth shut and enjoy seeing the women here trounce all of the sexist arguments flying around. That is, I think we should consider what we, as future grad students, can do to help change things (whether or not you are a supporter of affirmative action). I think one big way would be to really acknowledge the fact that women and minorities usually face a sort of constant drag on their confidence. Many of them admirably overcome this, but we (namely, white, male, heteronormative men) should be particularly cognizant of the fact. Yes, argue your point an do it well, but then sit back, listen, look for someone who might feel left out and ask them their opinion. Be charitable when someone is speaking, and don't just tear down their argument. Amend it -- build it up -- and *ask* them if that was what they meant. Don't talk over them or cut them off -- allow some breathing room. A lot of the more sexist views I've been reading here seem to misunderstand the nuance of this dynamic. To be fair, I've often missed this nuance. Like a lot of us here, I tend to argue my point forcefully -- in a way that I wouldn't recommend. But I've come to see in my professional life certain women who, despite being annoyed and upset about some unfair thing that has happened, instead just sort of sit there and take it (in a way that infuriates me, because it's so unfair to them). It's not that they face a situation that I wouldn't face -- it's that society has taught them not to be confrontational in a way that I wouldn't think twice about being. It's a kind of societal conditioning that men (at least men like me) really don't have to deal with as much. 12 men in a classroom with one women -- even a forceful one -- is a really unfortunate situation for everyone in that room. And consider the fact that hearing diverse opinions benefits us men too.

I personally would like to ask the women of this forum: what can we do to be better allies? What is it that we might do in the philosophy classroom (or beyond) that particularly annoys you, and how can we fix it while still maintaining our ability to engage with you in substantive philosophical inquiry? Maybe we can open this up to another thread to jumpstart that sort of constructive discussion?

Here's my clumsy way of seconding this point:

The thing I learned the most at my MA was how to shut the fuck up. (I know. My classmates are laughing. None of you knew me before. Trust.) If you've never tried it, try it. First, I was stunned by how many times someone else would say the thing I was thinking much better than I'd formulated it, as if it was somehow alien to think that other people could notice the same points. Then I started noticing all the things people said that I would never have thought of that were way more interesting than whatever I was dying to say. Then I noticed that - shocking - more often than not the second kind of points weren't coming from the other white dudes. Shutting up is an experience.

I'm still really bad at it (I cut off Andrea Westlund talking about Karen Jones today, FFS), but I think I'm better than I was when I started. God knows I highly recommend it.

ETA: Also, if you're like me and you have pronounced nonverbal reactions to philosophical inquiry, sit on your hands. Save the wild gesticulating for after you have tenure.

Edited February 18, 2016 by MentalEngineer

[MVSCZAR]

2 hours ago, Abendstern said:

I just want to add one thing to this conversation before I keep my mouth shut and enjoy seeing the women here trounce all of the sexist arguments flying around. That is, I think we should consider what we, as future grad students, can do to help change things (whether or not you are a supporter of affirmative action). I think one big way would be to really acknowledge the fact that women and minorities usually face a sort of constant drag on their confidence. Many of them admirably overcome this, but we (namely, white, male, heteronormative men) should be particularly cognizant of the fact. Yes, argue your point an do it well, but then sit back, listen, look for someone who might feel left out and ask them their opinion. Be charitable when someone is speaking, and don't just tear down their argument. Amend it -- build it up -- and *ask* them if that was what they meant. Don't talk over them or cut them off -- allow some breathing room. A lot of the more sexist views I've been reading here seem to misunderstand the nuance of this dynamic. To be fair, I've often missed this nuance. Like a lot of us here, I tend to argue my point forcefully -- in a way that I wouldn't recommend. But I've come to see in my professional life certain women who, despite being annoyed and upset about some unfair thing that has happened, instead just sort of sit there and take it (in a way that infuriates me, because it's so unfair to them). It's not that they face a situation that I wouldn't face -- it's that society has taught them not to be confrontational in a way that I wouldn't think twice about being. It's a kind of societal conditioning that men (at least men like me) really don't have to deal with as much. 12 men in a classroom with one women -- even a forceful one -- is a really unfortunate situation for everyone in that room. And consider the fact that hearing diverse opinions benefits us men too.

Thanks, bro. It's good to know there are thoughtful men in our discipline, although I never doubted it. 

[TheChosenOne]

2 hours ago, Abendstern said:

I just want to add one thing to this conversation before I keep my mouth shut and enjoy seeing the women here trounce all of the sexist arguments flying around. That is, I think we should consider what we, as future grad students, can do to help change things (whether or not you are a supporter of affirmative action). I think one big way would be to really acknowledge the fact that women and minorities usually face a sort of constant drag on their confidence. Many of them admirably overcome this, but we (namely, white, male, heteronormative men) should be particularly cognizant of the fact. Yes, argue your point an do it well, but then sit back, listen, look for someone who might feel left out and ask them their opinion. Be charitable when someone is speaking, and don't just tear down their argument. Amend it -- build it up -- and *ask* them if that was what they meant. Don't talk over them or cut them off -- allow some breathing room. A lot of the more sexist views I've been reading here seem to misunderstand the nuance of this dynamic. To be fair, I've often missed this nuance. Like a lot of us here, I tend to argue my point forcefully -- in a way that I wouldn't recommend. But I've come to see in my professional life certain women who, despite being annoyed and upset about some unfair thing that has happened, instead just sort of sit there and take it (in a way that infuriates me, because it's so unfair to them). It's not that they face a situation that I wouldn't face -- it's that society has taught them not to be confrontational in a way that I wouldn't think twice about being. It's a kind of societal conditioning that men (at least men like me) really don't have to deal with as much. 12 men in a classroom with one women -- even a forceful one -- is a really unfortunate situation for everyone in that room. And consider the fact that hearing diverse opinions benefits us men too.

I personally would like to ask the women of this forum: what can we do to be better allies? What is it that we might do in the philosophy classroom (or beyond) that particularly annoys you, and how can we fix it while still maintaining our ability to engage with you in substantive philosophical inquiry? Maybe we can open this up to another thread to jumpstart that sort of constructive discussion?

Great post. I too am interested in what the women of this forum have to say.

[dgswaim]

Anyone here from the Indianapolis area? Gonna be there for the next few days presenting at a conference on scientific realism stuff (hopefully will be a nice distraction from constant email checking).

[Establishment]

10 hours ago, Shawn3007+ said:

but should a program change the standards of admission just to make everyone feel "comfortable"?

Literally no one is saying this.

[502845824]

I think we can all agree on two things: (1) the original rant-poster is a sexist loser, and (2) we all busted, hauled, broke, tore, and worked off our asses for years on end to get where we are -- some far more than others because they were unfairly judged based on race, gender, and class, which should be among the absolute most trivial of facts about a person in regard to their philosophical skills. So can we move the discussion to a separate thread and restore peace in the venting thread? 

[FoxAndChicken]

Here's my vent: This morning we didn't have hot water and so I took a cold shower and now everything is terrible and I am cold. 

[jjb919]

19 minutes ago, FoxAndChicken said:

Here's my vent: This morning we didn't have hot water and so I took a cold shower and now everything is terrible and I am cold. 

That's a good vent. Cold showers are the worst.

[philosophe]

5 hours ago, MVSCZAR said:

Thanks, bro. It's good to know there are thoughtful men in our discipline, although I never doubted it. 

The person who downvoted you must've done it by accident, right? Edit: JK I see her dissenting opinion, although I don't think *you* deserved a down vote yourself. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by philosophe

[philosophe]

50 minutes ago, oldhatnewtricks said:

I think we can all agree on two things: (1) the original rant-poster is a sexist loser, and (2) we all busted, hauled, broke, tore, and worked off our asses for years on end to get where we are -- some far more than others because they were unfairly judged based on race, gender, and class, which should be among the absolute most trivial of facts about a person in regard to their philosophical skills. So can we move the discussion to a separate thread and restore peace in the venting thread? 

agreed!

[bechkafish]

1 hour ago, FoxAndChicken said:

Here's my vent: This morning we didn't have hot water and so I took a cold shower and now everything is terrible and I am cold. 

 You definitely win the shittiest morning award.

[FoxAndChicken]

Just now, bechkafish said:

 You definitely win the shittiest morning award.

I'm not sure if I want to say that I can actually top my own award. But I totally failed a math test yesterday, and grades were posted today. I got a solid 5.5 out of 10. Though it could be worse. The exam grades apparently ranged from 2.5 to 10. 

[bechkafish]

 

1 minute ago, FoxAndChicken said:

I'm not sure if I want to say that I can actually top my own award. But I totally failed a math test yesterday, and grades were posted today. I got a solid 5.5 out of 10. Though it could be worse. The exam grades apparently ranged from 2.5 to 10. 

See? 2.5 person is probably having a WAY shittier morning now...

[FoxAndChicken]

Just now, bechkafish said:

 

See? 2.5 person is probably having a WAY shittier morning now...

I actually suspect I know who it is. (Small class size.) This one guy single-handedly caused us to get through like half of the material in a previous class because he asked questions that made everyone be like wut. Why? 

Granted, I also clearly have no idea what's going on, but I have no sympathy for him given that in said previous class (Math Logic, which is totes my jam) the prof was presenting a concept. 

"Say I'm selling Sudokus. I want to convince you that this can be solved, and any approach I want to use to show this ought to have three things: It should be sound (if I tell you it's solvable, it should actually be solvable), It should be complete (I should be able to make a judgement on every sudoku given to me), and it should be zero-knowledge, because if I fill it out for you, it's ruined the point of it. Now, any two of these three are easy to come by. Can someone explain why?" 

And so I raised my hand because this is pretty straight forward. "Well, your three strategies for getting any two would be accept all, reject all, and fill out the sudoku." 

This guy raises his hand and is like "It's not clear to me what zero-knowledge means... Why is what she said able to get that?" So, given that it was my proof, and if it wasn't clear, I should clarify, I start to be like "Well, if you accept all of them, it means you don't need to look at it. But the downside is that you also will be taking a bunch of sudokus that can't be solved..." And he cuts me off like "Shut up FoxandChicken, we know you already took this class before." 

And now I hate him.

Also, I hadn't taken that class or covered the material before that.  

[bechkafish]

Whattt. Wow, BITTER MUCH, 2.5 guy? That's crazy. You're allowed to hate him. You have the blessing of a stranger on the internet. 

[FoxAndChicken]

6 minutes ago, bechkafish said:

Whattt. Wow, BITTER MUCH, 2.5 guy? That's crazy. You're allowed to hate him. You have the blessing of a stranger on the internet. 

Yeah, he was really rude about it. Though this is the venting thread, I feel like I'm being excessively negative. So. Uh. Good news! I have some I think... I learned to program yesterday! My friend gave me directions like "This is how while and if and for work... make something that does this thing." Please disregard that 1. My desktop is in my contacts folder. I don't know how that happened. 2. I'm a logic major who has studied recursion theory, but is just learning coding senior year, despite being "a computer person" since I was like eight. 3. I skipped the 'hello world' stuff because my friend was like "You know what sounds fun? MATH." About two hours after I walked out of failing a math exam. YOLO? 

[bechkafish]

That's awesome! All I did yesterday was drink some coffee and hang out on the couch, you should be hella proud that you just up and learned a new skill. Also, GAMERCAT.

[FoxAndChicken]

11 minutes ago, bechkafish said:

That's awesome! All I did yesterday was drink some coffee and hang out on the couch, you should be hella proud that you just up and learned a new skill. Also, GAMERCAT.

I luff the GAMERCAT. I use the sticker pack on everything.

[gughok]

In other news, I've been writing and submitting sci-fi shorts to online magazines for the past month to keep me distracted - got two rejections this morning.

The magazines are five times as prompt as grad schools, so at least I've got some flow of information in my life.

[bechkafish]

10 minutes ago, gughok said:

In other news, I've been writing and submitting sci-fi shorts to online magazines for the past month to keep me distracted - got two rejections this morning.

That's fantastic! The writing/submitting, obviously, not the rejections. What kind of sci-fi do you write? What kind of sci-fi do you read? If Frank Herbert and Robert Heinlein were hanging off of a cliff and you could only save one...

(These are the really important questions they should be asking in introductory ethics courses, btw.)

[MentalEngineer]

1 hour ago, bechkafish said:

That's fantastic! The writing/submitting, obviously, not the rejections. What kind of sci-fi do you write? What kind of sci-fi do you read? If Frank Herbert and Robert Heinlein were hanging off of a cliff and you could only save one...

(These are the really important questions they should be asking in introductory ethics courses, btw.)

Look, I like RAH. Like, like like RAH. But anyone who chooses to save him over Herbert should go over the cliff too.

[MVSCZAR]

17 hours ago, Cecinestpasunphilosophe said:

Please, tell me more  

They asked me why I like continental philosophy. Well, I didn't prep for the interview at all. So I said something like, because I grew up Catholic, and I think that Continental philosophy took it's place. And then one guy was like, "What does that even mean?" And I said, "Because continental philosophy has the whole spectacle of the mass, and is built on faith and doubt. The catholics only give lip service to doubt, but the continental philosophers really do it." Or something like that, and then something about how continental philosophers are better catholics than catholics are. eeeeeee. And then, because I just had to fit the pretentious continental stereotype, quoting my friend (Sartre's godson) quoting Sartre saying "There is no god, but our job in life is to find him." So, let's hope there are no theists in the adcom.... Of a Catholic institution...

[Cecinestpasunphilosophe]

7 minutes ago, MVSCZAR said:

They asked me why I like continental philosophy. Well, I didn't prep for the interview at all. So I said something like, because I grew up Catholic, and I think that Continental philosophy took it's place. And then one guy was like, "What does that even mean?" And I said, "Because continental philosophy has the whole spectacle of the mass, and is built on faith and doubt. The catholics only give lip service to doubt, but the continental philosophers really do it." Or something like that, and then something about how continental philosophers are better catholics than catholics are. eeeeeee. And then, because I just had to fit the pretentious continental stereotype, quoting my friend (Sartre's godson) quoting Sartre saying "There is no god, but our job in life is to find him." So, let's hope there are no theists in the adcom.... Of a Catholic institution...

Fantastic.

I often try and argue that the Continental/Analytic divide is a false dichotomy precisely because of Catholicism - I think Catholic philosophy (which I know is a loaded term, and I want to use more broadly than either Gilson's narrow conception or the traditional understanding of Catholic philosophy = neo-Thomism) is a robust tradition that genuinely tries to bring together Analytic and Continental methods and thinkers. And it's a tradition that's able to bring together thinkers as diverse as Anscombe/Geach (the more 'traditional' 'Analytic' philosophers) and Merleau-Ponty. So I find it interesting to see you arguing that, rather than transcending the divide, Catholic philosophy was actually supplanted/?sublated? by the Continentals!