Feminist philosophers: Unite!

[MickeyRay]

So from the underground I have been hearing about specifically feminist oriented and "friendly" departments not taking in feminist scholars this season. I was wondering if anyone has experiences to support this and what your thoughts are. 

 

I am specifically thinking more so about applicants that are not just women, but interested primarily in feminist philosophy (although you can have other interests too!) and if you have had any trouble selling yourself as a "feminist philosopher." 

 

What would this/does this mean for the discipline?

[MVSCZAR]

13 minutes ago, MickeyRay said:

So from the underground I have been hearing about specifically feminist oriented and "friendly" departments not taking in feminist scholars this season. I was wondering if anyone has experiences to support this and what your thoughts are. 

 

I am specifically thinking more so about applicants that are not just women, but interested primarily in feminist philosophy (although you can have other interests too!) and if you have had any trouble selling yourself as a "feminist philosopher." 

 

What would this/does this mean for the discipline?

My interests aren't exclusively in feminist philosophy, and I didn't try to sell myself as a feminist philosopher, so this doesn't necessarily apply to me. But, if it adds anything to the discussion, one of my rec letter writers is a well known feminist philosopher (Linda Alcoff) and I suspect a large reason why I've gotten into the programs I did get into.

[MickeyRay]

26 minutes ago, MVSCZAR said:

My interests aren't exclusively in feminist philosophy, and I didn't try to sell myself as a feminist philosopher, so this doesn't necessarily apply to me. But, if it adds anything to the discussion, one of my rec letter writers is a well known feminist philosopher (Linda Alcoff) and I suspect a large reason why I've gotten into the programs I did get into.

Omg girl, haha your stats say otherwise. Having a huge name feminist may have helped, but knowing all of those languages and having a badass writing sample is probably all it took. Also, I am sure there is something to the fact that you had a big name feminist rec and a focus outside of feminist philosophy. 

 

It kills me that feminist philosophy is only considered supplemental to other canonical work. I think its dangerous for the discipline.

[matchamatcha]

I have researched and am somewhat interested in the feminist phil of science.  Does that count?

I definitely didn't try to sell myself as a feminist philosopher, not just because in the phil of sci, it's not seen as particularly "serious" phil of sci work, but also because I truly don't focus in it.  I did mention in UCDavis' diversity statement that I'm a fan of their commitment to hiring female philosophers, and in some statement of interests that I had done some amount of work in feminist phil of sci and feminist epistemology.

One of my letter writers works within feminist phil of biology, but perhaps isn't super well known, and given the silence in my email inbox, I can't say whether that's had an effect in my admissions.

[AgentScully]

I'm interested in Feminism and Feminist History of Philosophy, but they aren't my primary focus.

[psm1580b]

Two of the schools I applied to were strictly to do feminist philosophy. I used a paper on silencing as my writing sample to both as well as had letters from a very good feminist philosopher. Sadly, I've been rejected from one and presumed rejected from the other.  

 

[MickeyRay]

1 hour ago, AgentScully said:

I'm interested in Feminism and Feminist History of Philosophy, but they aren't my primary focus.

What is your primary focus?

[AgentScully]

2 hours ago, MickeyRay said:

What is your primary focus?

E&M in EM history

[Disgruntledlurker]

My god, first Charles Mills, and now Miranda Fricker is moving to join Alcoff at CUNY, too? I didn't apply because I heard their funding sucks... Kicking my feminist self now. Dream team assembled. 

[AgentScully]

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0306-schwitzgebel-cherry-philosophy-so-white-20160306-story.html

 

[Disgruntledlurker]

9 hours ago, Abendstern said:

It seems they took a super important and highly relevant issue facing the profession and turned it into a broadside attack on philosophy as a subject. Since when was inscrutability admired in contemporary academic philosophy? I always thought clarity was the virtue and opaque prose the vice. Again, I don't mean to minimize the general point about lack of diversity: that's obviously a huge issue -- the marginalization of those who are not white males is real. But this just seems to play into the hands of those who think that philosophy is all 'subjective' and based on 'sounding smart.' Specifically that sentiment is really sophomoric.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm glad the point is being made. I only wish they had made it without playing into the hands of the naysayers of the profession.

Yeah, I agree with you, particularly since it was an op-ed in the LA times. I agree with (and am happy to have read such a good articulation of) everything they've said. I just wish it came a cross more strongly that this acceptance of poorer philosophical form from archetypal philosophers is something that has been hidden from view (in virtue of the command that these individuals have of the cultural apparatus of smartness,or however they put it).  I know some misogynistic philosophers who have admirable clarity of thought and argument form. But they don't read feminist literature, and they don't have women's experiences, and so they manage to come to false conclusions despite reliable rational faculties. I think the sort of thinking demonstrated in this article represents a jump forward in philosophical objectivity, where the aesthetic, cultural, and other variables of the thinkers themselves are being brought into the foreground for critical evaluation. I just think this article (if read by someone outside of the profession who isn't familiar with the history of philosophy) doesn't give the problems its addressing enough context within the history of philosophy, and it does this in a way that makes philosophy sound like sophistry. 

 

Edited March 5, 2016 by Disgruntledlurker