Initially senior, well known philosophers were mostly compliant with regard to the feminists' power grab, because it didn't threaten them personally and it allowed them to look 'progressive' without having to do much or really give up any privileges themselves. Now, however, I've begun to hear grumbles in high places. The power grab is large and some real spoils are falling to the FPs. How can we consolidate this resistance and take back our discipline?
What are these spoils you're talking about? Jobs? Grants? Book contracts? Without more details, it's hard to figure out what you're claiming here and if it's true.
And the award for today's least substantiated comment goes to...
Some examples: - OUP now advertises its teaching volumes as containing lots of fem stuff- Jobs: anyone on a hiring committee knows the pressures to hire women.- Conference invites, unless one is fine with being shamed in very public fora.- The creeping norm of having a fem phil specialist in every dept.- The capture of the APA.- The imposition of ridiculous codes and best practices.
It's pretty scary when you think about it like that.
- OUP now advertises its teaching volumes as containing lots of fem stuffHere is some relevant background, in a comment by Morgan Thompson at http://www.newappsblog.com/2013/06/why-do-women-leave-philosophy-and-so-early-on.html"Looking into the gender distribution of authors in current intro textbooks was a bit depressing. I looked at ~20 intro to philosophy textbooks published since 2000 and I found that women make up only ~6% of the authors. Of the total number of pieces by women, ~44% of the articles were on feminism, sexism, abortion, etc. Five of the textbooks included one (or more) pieces by Ayn Rand. Without entering the debate about whether or not Ayn Rand's work should be read in philosophy courses, I would expect that her work is not assigned by the majority of instructors using those five textbooks."There is a market demand, by at least some people, for textbooks that do better than this, so OUP is responding to that demand. What's the problem here? If you think that the OUP textbook textbook is crap because is has more female authors (and more female authors outside of just selections on feminism, sexism, abortion, etc.) use one of the other ones.
Wait, I assumed that by 'fem stuff' 4:19 must mean 'feminist stuff." Did they instead really mean 'women authors' or 'works by women' by the term 'fem stuff'??? Wow. Some people clearly don't take a minute to think about how they sound, huh?And I guess lots of things are pretty scary for 6:09 if people merely asserting things like 'there is a norm of x' and 'anyone knows y' counts as good evidence for x and y.
6:45, here is what I saw at http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780190200237/book/-----About the BookIntroduce your students to philosophy with the most widely used, trusted, and comprehensive topically organized collection of classical and contemporary readings available.[...]The seventh edition features eleven new readings, including eight by contemporary women philosophers, and an expanded ancillary program that offers a wealth of resources for students and instructors.[...]"I am pleased to see the addition of several works by female authors. That is certainly a positive change... The organization is excellent and is one of the book's great strengths."—Shane Gronholz, University of Colorado, Boulder"This introduction to philosophy provides the instructor with unparalleled latitude in designing their course. The book includes both historical and contemporary readings in all areas of philosophy, including metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics, and political philosophy. It also includes important readings by female philosophers, something that is sadly lacking in most other introductory texts."—Aleksandar Pjevalica, University of Texas, El Paso------
For the OUP book, 12 out of the 73 readings are by female authors, about 16%, and 4 of those 12 are on topics like abortion and race. Here is the list, taken from http://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/9780190200237/book/toc/Table of Contents*=New to this EditionPART II: GOD AND EVILB. The Problem of Evil* 10. Marilyn Adams, "Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God"* 12. Eleonore Stump, "The Mirror of Evil"* 13. Louise Antony, "For the Love of Reason"PART IV: MINDS, BODIES, AND PERSONSD. Freedom, Determinism, and Responsibility* 39. Susan Wolf, "Sanity and the Metaphysics of Responsibility"PART V: ETHICS AND SOCIETYB. Kantian Ethics48. Onora O'Neill, "Kantian Approaches to Some Famine Problems"C. Aristotelian Ethics50. Rosalind Hursthouse, "Right Action"D. Justice and Equality* 55. Annette Baier, "The Need for More than Justice"E. Contemporary Moral Problems* 56. Judith Jarvis Thomson, "A Defense of Abortion"* 57. Rosalind Hursthouse, "Thomson's Arguments"58. Debra Satz, "Markets in Women's Reproductive Labor"* 60. Linda Martin Alcoff, "Racism and Visible Race"PART VI: EXISTENTIAL ISSUES70. Susan Wolf, "The Meanings of Lives"
7:04 and 7:22 have convinced me. A book with 1/6 women authors and a couple of reviews that point out that this is preferable to 1/24. And not a peep of resistance from the usual lamestream suspects. It's clear that every spoil I hold dear is at risk of immediate confiscation, every wave or particle of enlightenment under threat of extinguishment. What can we do about this, brothers? How can we defend ourselves?
8:56, my snark-o-meter may need adjusting, but just to be clear: I am 7:04 and 7:22, and 7:04&7:22=6:13. (Not 4:19!!) So I was posting the excerpts from the OUP site to help bolster the case that there isn't any problem with the book, rather than as evidence that it's part of the powergrab by teh femphils.
Apologies 10:35 - it's one of the delights of this blog that the same information is often presented by two different people as evidence of either a problem's extremity or of the absence of a problem. You could have been responding to either position based on the comments above, and I guessed wrong.
I'm curious about the pieces by Stump and O'Neil. I've heard they are good philosophers but I'm not familiar with their stuff.
The danger here is the high incidence of lame-ass philosophy among the high priests of the feminist conspiracy. All the intellectual content of a SJW Twitter post, but WAY WAY WAY more words.
11:55: slippery-slope fallacy and spraying around a bunch of MMB/MRA buzzwords don't make for a convincing response. The OUP volume was presented as an example of the "feminists' power grab" because it was advertised as "containing lots of fem stuff." When you look at what's actually going on with the volume, it's a pretty feeble example the teh femphil conspiracy.
The OUP volume looks mostly fine, with only the Alcoff paper as a nod to the far realms of PC. So I didn't say anything about it. None of the people I was referring to were in it. I am speaking from having read their papers.
"teh" is a misspelling of "the".
The idea that a book is improved for no other reason than having more female authors is sexist and that anyone should think it is is proof of the success of the feminist project of insinuating female privilege.
I'm not sure why the inclusion of Alcoff's paper has to be a concession to PC and hence evidence of the femphil takeover. It's under the Contemporary Moral Problems heading - are racial questions not important to contemporary moral problems? And if the implication is that Alcott herself isn't up to scratch, I'm not sure who's doing more influential work on the fundamentals of philosophy of race - she's very widely cited both within and outside philosophy circles. Unless there's something i don't know about that paper it seems an odd one to get all worked up about.
I'm not sure why anyone would think the inclusion of any of those papers would be taken to be evidence of a 'femphil' takeover. If you're talking about Kantian ethics, it would be odd not to include O'Nell. Similarly, if you have a section on VE, it would be bizarre not to include Hursthouse (and it would be odd to have an intro book that included ethics without talking about Kantian ethics and VE). Thomson? Also clearly a central figure. Wolf? ditto. Also, it seems pretty clear now that what the OP was objecting to was the inclusion of women, rather than the inclusion of feminist philosophy. The only papers on that list that could plausibly be considered 'feminist' are Thomson ans Satz. But they're just papers - and clearly papers that are both excellent and central - on two important ethical issues. We're supposed to start a revolution and 'take back our discipline' and that OUP volume is meant to be evidence of what we need rescuing from? Please.
2:34, teh femphils want more women regardless of their philosophical qualities. Hence it is an example of femphil influence. Notice how all three of the blurbs praise the increase in females by mentioning that the new additions are by female authors? 12:26, as you may well know, Alcoff is a speppie. Maybe her contribution to the volume is above speppie-level but I doubt it. It would really surprise me, actually. I take back the following if her contribution turns out to be worthwhile: 'Get off our philosophy lawn or we fuckin' shoot ya!' That is the only right response here. Or do you want a speppie to spoil what was first a decent Oxford volume? Of course I have no objection to philosophy of race, that is, _analytic_ philosophy of race. Do you disagree with or have doubt about the proposition that analytic philosophy is a pleonasm? If so, why?
6:29, if you want to claim that 'teh femphils' want more women regardless of philosophical qualities, then in order for something to be an example that shows 'teh femphils' influence, then you need a case in which it looks likely that someone was included in a volume *because they are a woman* rather than *because their work was worthy of inclusion*. Which of the papers by women listed do you think is obviously not worthy of inclusion? (That is, you think it is true that the only plausible explanation for the inclusion of the work is that the person is a woman, and it is not plausible to suppose that the paper simply was worth including on its own merits).
Nice modal argument 8:11.
8:11, you don't need a case in which (it looks likely that) someone was included just because she was female. A case in which several philosophers praise a volume just for including extra females is enough. That shows how far teh femphil indoctrination reaches. If you still don't get it: the point is that to teh femphils, gender or sex is relevant and quality is (almost) irrelevant. Expect femphils to whine about quality when a contribution criticizes their ideology.
2:27, now you're just being dishonest. You claimed that 'the femphils' want more women *regardless of philosophical qualities*. Now you're shifting your argument to claim that 'gender is relevant' and 'quality is (almost) irrelevant.' while trying to pretend that it's not you who is changing your position, it's me who is 'still not getting it.' You also don't have evidence for your claim that philosophers are praising the volume *just* for including extra women. In fact, one of the quotes cited above, which refers to the fact that the book includes *important* work by women, directly contradicts your claim that 'several' philosophers are praising the work *just* for including women, and quality is (almost) irrelevant. So you're left with one quote to establish your claim: ""I am pleased to see the addition of several works by female authors. That is certainly a positive change." When this refers to a book in which the additions are clearly works of high quality, how is it supposed to support your claim that 'the femphil indoctrination' means that people think that "gender is relevant and quality is almost irrelevant"?
Some spoils, claimed by threat of public shaming:- journal space for feminist/diversity stuff. - conference invitations. - mandatory quota of citations to women.
God I hate people who use Facebook to announce their latest paper or book.
I don't see anything wrong with it at all. It seems like a completely appropriate thing to do. Many of the poster's friends are family members or actual friends, who will be happy to hear of their relative's/friend's accomplishment. Others are friendly acquaintances who will either be pleased or won't care. Many will be philosophers. Some of these will be interested to know that a paper or book on that topic is forthcoming. Others will not care and scroll on by. A few will be consumed with envy and resentment. And we're supposed to not post our forthcoming publications on FB to placate those assholes?
Narcissistic personality disorder.
This generation is so quick to pathologize everyone and everything, whatever happened to the normal human fact that people need attention?
Dear Philosophers,You guys love to diagnose each other with personality disorders. Narcissistic seems to be one of your favorites. First of all, you're not qualified to make psychiatric diagnoses [well, maybe some of you are also psychiatrists with MDs]. And so, I'm not sure why you're trying to do a job you're not qualified to do. I can say that it doesn't seem like you do it for the same reasons that psychiatrists do it- that is, it doesn't seem like you're making these diagnoses to help your colleagues. And it doesn't seem that way because usually these "diagnoses" are accompanied with some negative comment about the diagnosed's character. So, you're doing something you're not qualified to do, with the intention to harm your colleague. Awesome. Second of all, you don't only harm your colleagues when you do this, but you harm people who are genuinely suffering from various mental disorders. And maybe you don't care about people with narcissistic personality disorder because you believe in something like inherently bad character. Fine. Maybe there is such a thing. Jury's still out on that one. But I'm sure you agree that people behave in unpleasant ways for a variety of reasons, not all of which are grounded in inherently bad character. Sometimes people have been knocked around in ways you don't know about and don't understand. And sometimes they react by acting out in ways they wouldn't had they not been so-knocked around. So have a little compassion for those people- maybe some of them are some of your colleagues. Thirdly, take a look at yourself for a second. If you're in this business, you're most likely a bit self-absorbed. It's okay, nobody's perfect. Own it, and if you don't like being self-absorbed, find ways for you to become less so. Either way, be honest with yourself and others about your own narcissistic tendencies before you run around tearing other people down.I've been called all sorts of names by philosophers over the years. Sometimes they've been way off and had me all wrong. Other times they've been on to something, but didn't have the whole story, and made no attempt to get it. Either way, I'm telling you, it hurts. So please stop.And finally, yes, thank you 11:47. It is perfectly normal to want attention. From,Another PhilosopherPS: If Facebook is upsetting you, consider taking a break.
1:18, you seem more in need of a break than anyone. Sorry you were triggered. Get a grip.
Naah, 1:18 is right but doesn't go far enough. I'm looking forward to everybody bragging about their student evals. on facebook. I mean, it's just an elitist bias that assumes only publications and books are major philosophical achievements. It's perfectly normal to want attention and nobody's perfect. Be honest with yourself and admit you want to post your evals along with everybody else. I can't wait to constantly hear about all the little triumphs in each and every person's life! Let's start with me. Here's some recent posts I made that, I think you will agree, are fairly important and interesting. I don't think it's fair to restrict them to my hundreds of FB friends:7.13.15 - proud to announce I've finished a manuscript review. Rejected that sucker!7.9.15 - a student saw me staring at my computer screen and asked if I was feeling all right. Yay, they really do care! #teachablemoment7.5.15 - Looked at some abstracts. #workinghard7.4.15 - Just FYI but I'm planning on writing a paper this month. It's going to be awesome! Updated my cv under "In preparation."
1:18, no one is "harming" you, you self-absorbed narcissistic weirdo. Grow up and get a life.
Those are funny 1:36, and if I saw them, I'd probably LIKE them. I know you're triggered 1:20, but what am I? :P Okay, bye.
That wasn't about just me 1:52, and some of it wasn't about me at all. But have I been harmed by philosophers? Sure. Have I harmed other philosophers? Apparently... Fine: yes. Are the harms we do to each other, like, REALLY bad on a scale of 1 to REALLY bad? No, they're not. But I don't see what's wrong with saying something in an effort to make our work environment a bit more pleasant.
Facebook status update: My 2004 piece on epistemic judgment and thought experiments now has 4 citations, bringing my h-index up to 3! (I am posting this because people who work in this area probably want to know about recent developments and up-and-coming work.)
I am your humble servant, 1:18.
I can't tell if you're laughing with or at me, 2:07. I'm going to assume with, so thanks? I realize that open letters are annoying. But this was an anonymous one, and so, less annoying.
You have demonstrably poor judgment as to how annoying you may be. That is a symptom of any number of personality disorders!
Finally some sense on Daily Wuss, though of course Justice Whineberg informs us that he run the post by his betters before allowing it:in affording some members of underrepresented groups entry into old boys’ clubs, these changes only address the boys part of the problem with old boys’ clubs. The broader problem is that these are clubs, bastions of exclusion that afford their members unfair and unearned privileges.
The Bellingham thing is pretty sickening. A recent FB post:There has been a great outpouring of appreciation for the BSPC in the last week, which (as those who were present for the part of the outpouring that occurred during the conference will have noticed) I found completely overwhelming. I’ve been at a loss for words since the whole thing started, but I just want to say that all of the kind sentiments have meant a great deal to me. It’s nice to be appreciated, but also, more importantly, I am very much encouraged by the fact that so many people are so passionate about making philosophy better. What’s next?Also, thank you so much to Elizabeth Harman, Mark Balaguer, Adam Elga, Ishani Maitra, Christopher Meacham, Maya Eddon, Alex Guerrero, Sarah Moss, Brian Weatherson, Eric Swanson, Carrie Ichikawa Jenkins, Sara Bernstein, Tyler Doggett (Teal Doggett), Susanna Schellenberg, Laurie Paul, Ted Sider, Mark Heller, Jill North, Sarah McGrath, Ross Cameron, Elizabeth Barnes , Jonathan Schaffer, Andy Egan, Anne Barnhill, Michaela McSweeney, Leroy Elliott, Kate Manne, Teresa Blankmeyer Burke, and everyone else for all the kind words. You made me cry, but I’m smiling now.
Let's make philosophy better by providing childcare and disability accommodation to the in-crowd!
It is one thing that those in the in-crowd are likely to help each other on the job-market, I guess that is called networking. Don't get me wrong, networking embodies for me the end of meritocracy in academia, but I guess at this stage it is just the nature of the beast.But what is more worrisome is that due to philosophy being a small discipline with few "important" journals it is more or less the in-crowd that sets the research agenda and what is considered "interesting". It is rarely the case in philosophy that you cannot ignore work of people you don't know or like. In the sciences or math however, where there is a greater consensus on things, ignoring a particular work in your area is most likely very bad for your research as it slows down your progress in making discoveries.I guess it is just that: philosophy has at best very opaque standards for quality and importance, at least not as clear as the hard sciences. Therefore there is more place for cronyism to fill this lack of direction.
I'm always reminded of a quote from the journalist Christopher Caldwell:“One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.”"
"Radical" is wiping the floor with Weinberg over at DN.
Or... "radical" over at DN is rehashing metametablog talking points about the feminist takeover in deliberately vague language, without even a token effort to relate this to the subject of the post (which is the cliqueyness of invited conferences + volumes). JW is for some reason engaging with equally unilluminating responses. Can't we call this one a tie?
The topic of the post is also the fake progressiveness of the new "inclusivity" in philosophy. So radical's comments are on point.
Nothing new, but an important point:"I’d be all in favor of ranking candidates by overall advantage, rather than picking one aspect of disadvantage and let it trump all others, which seems to be the de facto current APA approach. Remember: of all the underrepresented groups, women is the one with the most members of the upper/upper-middle class. Coincidence?"
Weinberg believes that upper-class women (who in fact are highly privileged and receive preferential treatment in job hiring over better qualified males) are being oppressed by "The Patriarchy". He's batshit crazy.
I doubt people like Weinberg or Schliesser even believe that. They've just invested a lot of their popularity in siding with that faction. It's paying off for them. So far.
It's not as though those upper class women aren't oppressed by the patriarchy. It's just that, on balance, they're quite likely to be much more privileged than you random poor Appalachian white male. What matters is overall advantage. This is obvious, but if you raise it you're confronted with vague claims about intersectionality and the obvious falsehood that affirmative action isn't zero-sum.
11:49, so in your view these leftist lunies aren't just lunies. They're downright dishonest too. That's even worse.
Interesting exchange at DN where Shelley Tremain takes an anonymous poster to task for using ableist language -- the objectionable words apparently are "insane paranoia" and "right wing loons".That is nuts.
Classic Tremain! Nobody is offended, and she can't come up with a reason why they should be, so she refers people to her footnotes to Foucault. If you need Foucault to make your point, you've already lost the argument.
its brilliant the reference to her own stuff is greatback to the golden days!
I object to your ableist use of 'nuts'. Go read some Foucault.
Everything the anti-"ableism" types write comes off as parody. They're in on the joke, right? Andy Kaufman would be proud.
I object to your use of "brilliant". Some people are like that, and you don't know what it's like to be in their shoes. They have quite a different existence and probably a lot of suffering, and it is a diagnosable condition. You shouldn't sling such a word around, it's normalist.
They do have a lot of suffering: it's hard to tune out all the idiots. How the brilliant are not all completely mental is beyond me. I'm just intelligent, and I consider suicide about once a week.
The word "brilliant" is annoying when it's applied to people and not their work.
3:41 is apparently not brilliant.
"Go read some Foucault."Laura Kipnis read Foucault, and ended up facing the NU Einsatzgruppen.
I've been called brilliant. Various tests have made people say that. But it's not writing any papers for me.I've also been called dumb. And various tests have probably made people think I was kinda okay. So, whatever. Who cares? Apparently me. You win. Later.
http://insearchofanideal.com/2015/08/14/continual-unstoppable-growth/I'm worried. Please don't do anything rash Barath, you are not alone.
Bharath is either going to commit suicide or become a successful cult leader. Imagine a middle-aged Indian man speaking the words of that post in a melliflous, seductive voice while looking deep into the eyes of his followers...definite cult potential. Go for it BV!
I sympathize with #50 at the Daily Nous clique post, which reads:"The situation you outline in (1) happened to me, and I had a complaint lodged against me. I asked two people in my department who work in my area to have lunch with me and talk about my paper. Someone in the department who doesn’t work in the area dropped in to pick up her mail, noticed that we were talking, and left. Later that day she lodged a complaint against me–apparently she was offended that she wasn’t invited and she attributed the non-invitation to sexism. I had two meetings with the Director of Graduate Studies to see if I should be disciplined. I was officially cleared, but of course she didn’t keep the complaint to herself, so the whole department heard that I was sexist.So no, it’s not obvious to everyone that it’s okay get together with friends to talk philosophy."Something similar to this happened to me when I was a graduate student. Several of us got in trouble for meeting to workshop papers we were all writing for a seminar. Everyone taking the seminar was invited, and other interested graduate students were invited too. One of the other interested graduate students felt the invitation was insincere and poorly timed though, and she registered a formal grievance. The one lasting mark this ordeal left on the department was that students became very cautious about talking philosophy on campus, lest we be accused of excluding someone.
Oh god, 6:24. This kind of crap brings back memories!I (male) shared an office with other graduate students (male and female). One female student asked to no longer be included in conversations about M&E, since she had moved on to another field. She just didn't want to have anything to do with M&E anymore (fair enough -- it's not for everyone!). Later that semester, she told the women's lunch group (yes, the department had an official, university-funded, lunch meeting from which men were excluded) that her male officemates had excluded her from conversations about M&E, and that this was creating a hostile work environment. Prospective students were subsequently warned that year, I later learned, to avoid the M&E students who shared office XYZ, since they didn't think that women could do M&E.Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Yet another reason that feminists suck. I'm not joking. They suck and are a plague on every field and profession that they get their claws into.
I don't think there's any sort of justification for these bizarre kinds of complaints (it seems like people file formal complaints when a "Hey, I'd really like to be included" would solve the problem ...) BUT women are often excluded in ways that men don't realize. Men are often automatically invited out to bars or included in reading groups, but women (who are in the minority, usually) have to work harder to get "in" socially. This can be frustrating. If you are single, dudes don't want to "give you the wrong idea" --- if you are with someone, they also don't want to perceived as expressing interest or spend too much time with you. If you are married (it's weird), people just sort of think that if they are men, they should only invite both you and your partner to things together. And if you have kids, people just assume you never want to be included. Calling this sexism is hyperbolic, filing a complaint is just terrible. But it might be good to think about why these sorts of things happen, and what can be done to nip it in the bud.
On the contrary, it is men that have to work harder to get "in" socially. Women are automatically included. No one gives anyone "the wrong idea" - that's paranoia. if you know the group of graduate students at a department, then the "excluded" ones are all - without exception - men, usually socially awkward men. After all female graduate students like to be around attractive men, and certainly not in the vicinity of socially awkward ones.
Wrong, 8:16. Socially awkward female here. Excluded in grad school- and weirdly socially campaigned against. Not sure why that was really necessary, but whatever.
Fair enough, 8:58. You have my sympathy, and welcome to the refuge of the socially excluded.
7:29 here. I readily admit that socially awkward people are also excluded. It's probably not really helpful to compare social dynamics across departments, as I am sure there are too many individual factors at play to make meaningful generalizations. I've observed women being automatically excluded, having to work their way in. Maybe at other schools women are included and awkward men are on the outside. I guess I just wanted to flag that women can sometimes be excluded for reasons revolving around their gender/sexuality (Of course, they can be *included* for these reasons, too; my friends and I have often run into the problem of being included as quasi-dates, like "hey, let's have coffee and discuss the reading" --- and then there are worries about giving someone the wrong idea, which can backfire into total exclusion when one has to make things clear ... ).
8:58: Let's hear it for social awkward females in philosophy. I wasn't socially excluded in grad school, but I really worked at it to avoid being bullied. Afterwards when I was too busy at my first jobs to surmise what my attitudes should have been (to like to cook food for potlucks, to like to gossip and tell stories and seek social status, to like to do ethics and feminism, tp defer to senior males regardless of whether they were full of it, to compete with whatever women were deemed similar in age or career level to myself but not to compete with the men, to enjoy personal displays and being the center of attention apart from any teaching or conferencing duites), I failed. The more socially awkward I became, the more apologetic and socially awkward I became. A major mechanism for exclusion is to get people to exclude themselves, by making them feel ashamed of their low social status. Since social status is so intermingled with mechanisms generally considered sound and used for career advancement on the basis of merit, this has an unfortunate for everyone effect in philosophy. Far from the eccentric genius image that once was (and maybe still is to some extent for men), the idea now is that if one does not carry herself with the aplomb of a teenaged singing star, one is signalling professional malfeasance. Not in reality, but that's how people read it.
"to like to do ethics and feminism"Omg - do you hate women? Are you some kind of MRA transmisogynowhatsimacallit?"If one does not carry herself with the aplomb of a teenaged singing star, one is signalling professional malfeasance."Ha - you beat the "debutante" joke. Welcome again to the refuge of the socially excluded.
In a not-too-distant possible world, a tenured, white, male, well pedigreed, and highly judgmental Scottish metaphysician - let's call him "Kross Scameron" - takes to Facebook to complain about a recent post on Daily Nous, one that directly threatens a practice he has often personally benefited from: "What's the problem with only advising female graduate students that let me sleep with them, and then using my research funds to pay for our trysts at conferences? If I want to use the allure of money to attract a female round to my house to talk philosophy and then sleep with me, I can - some random person doesn't have the right to join us. If we decide we want to rent a room on a ranch in Arizona instead - that's still okay, and it's still not the case that people have the right to be able to join in. If my university pays my salary, which is what allows for this little romantic getaway, that's still okay - on a par with them buying this female graduate student a computer. Calling this quid pro quo sexual harassment doesn't suddenly make it bad. I'll sign up to the idea that the NEH shouldn't fund our doing this, e.g., but I don't see what's meant to be wrong with us doing it."
I don't get it.
I can think of a hundred or so disanalogies between invite-only conferences and adultery with graduate students, so I suspect the possible world is in fact quite distant.
Yeah, I agree.Although I'd be sympathetic to a straight reply to whatever, uh, Kross actually wrote. (I don't do Facebook, but I get the gist from the parodic version.)
He's got some strange restrictions on who can see what on his FB.
Oh, I get it now. He was complaining about people complaining about the Arizona horseback riding trip. That makes sense. And it's annoying, and makes me frustrated with that group. But you kinda made it sound like he's some philanderer, 11:39. A bit discouraging to be around? Sure, sometimes- not always. But Jesus, 11:39- way to try and fail to start a nasty rumor.
Anybody who does anything like this on Facebook is prima facie untrustworthy for a bajillion reasons. If it's philosophical, do it in philosophical contexts; if it's personal, do it in personal contexts. Don't do any of it in this weird private-but-really-very-public "social media" way, especially if it involves thumbing your nose at "haters" or whatever is going on here. You'll look like a goddamn high schooler.
No one has any idea what this weird insider conversation above, started by 11:39, is about. If you want to post weird unintelligible things, go ahead. But it's unintelligible to anyone except your own clique of insiders.
5:07 AM and zorn,I can think of a hundred or so disanalogies between them too. But just because you agree with some conclusion doesn't entail that you should endorse just any ol' shitty argument for it. In particular: even if you agree that invite-only conferences are okay, if you were to justify this by saying "hey, it's kind of like what I do when I have beers in my backyard with my close friends - and surely it's okay for me to have beers in backyard with my close friends!"...then you're offering a shitty argument. That was what the parody was meant to show.
I kind of get that, but since I haven't seen the original subject of the parody (nor do I have any idea of how to find it), I can't tell whether you're right or not.
A reader shared this with us in reference to the comment at 11:39 PM:"I'm writing to ask you to remove this comment...The latter part of the comment is in quotes as if that's actually what Cameron's facebook post read (it didn't), and so many (including some of your commenters) have assumed that's in fact what Cameron posted. It's not what he posted though, and attributing that content to him is potentially slanderous."If 11:39 would like to clarify their comment, we invite them to do so.
Are you kidding? It's obviously a parody.Thanks for making me feel less clueless by comparison!
I will say that I assumed 11:39 was a paraphrastic parody of a Cameron Facebook comment.
Would someone please post the original non-parody for comparison?
I thought it was a parody, but as someone who isn't Facebook friends with Cameron, I couldn't tell if the parody was accusing Cameron of being some philanderer, or what was going on. Only after 5:07 said something about a disanalogy between invite-only conferences and adultery with graduate students, did I figure out exactly what it was a parody of. Before I thought that maybe it was trying to parody some content that 11:39 thought was supposed to be some denial or cover-up of some affair. Now, I don't know Cameron (or Barnes) well enough to be Facebook friends with them. But I guess I know them well enough to think they're about the last people to be involved in weird adultery with grad student scandals. But if I didn't know them at all, I'd think the poster might be trying to expose some scandal like that. That's a bad and I think slanderous result, so I'm glad that people have cleared it up to the extent that nobody would think that now.
Agreed, 6:42. Clearing things up > deleting posts.
Obvious parody is obvious. Do we really need to spell this out?
Did the mods have permission to quote what this "reader" shared? I hope so, otherwise that's a little disconcerting: write in to the PMMB mods asking for something to get deleted, and they publish your email publicly. As usual, more mod transparency here would be good.
If it's not obvious what's being parodied, and one of the candidates is that some sort of attempt to cover up adultery with grad students, when what's really being parodied is a defense of invite-only conferences, then yes, it needs to be spelled out.Also, we don't know who wrote in, we just know what they happened to write.
That seems approximately correct, 8:13, especially if you haven't been following the latest twists and turns in the philosophy blogosphere. I'd like to see the original, though. Without it, whatever humor may be in a parody is hard to appreciate...
Thanks for agreeing with me 9:09. But if Cameron wanted everyone to see it, he would have set the status to public- which I don't think he did. I don't feel like encouraging whichever one of his "friends" posted this parody to be even more duplicitous. I don't really know Cameron. We've yelled at and agreed with each other on Facebook a few times. He seems okay, and just one of many people who partake in clique-ish, invite-only events... But so am I, I guess- or I have been. And I'm not really trying to pick on him or anyone else here... Although, people love to anonymously pick on each other by name here.
Is he saying that said Scotsman is having an open relationship?
5:22, I suggest you contact your department's PENMA representative for interpretive assistance.
A comment Whineberg won't allow:A major purpose of these invite only events and groups is to signal to the gatekeeper what papers are the anointed ones. By the time they’re under review at some top journal or other the referees will know whose work they are reading (remember: many top people only review for top journals) and will be well aware that they need to keep the in crowd happy if they want their own work to continue having a relatively easy ride.
You might be on to something there. But I think the "gatekeepers" might be in a bit of denial that they are the gatekeepers. I guess the 200,000/year + salaries aren't good enough clues. I'm not sure why people want SO much.
200 K a year is yesterday's news. The star system has pushed it up to 250-300 now. Plus sabbaticals and all.
Why didn't they just go to law school or a STEM subject with a ton of really high-paying non-academic track? Whatever. But I will be happy with 72 and tenure. Sabbaticals would be ridiculous- where did that whole thing come from?
Yeah I've heard anecdotally of positions for superstars that are upwards of 300k/year, plus sabbaticals whenever you want, plus like a 0/1 teaching load.Underpaid grad students and riding the poverty line adjuncts are doing the majority of teaching in these departments, in order to allow superstars to have these kinds of positions and lifestyles. It's sickening.
Mean at NYU for Fulls in all disciplines: 190Mean at NYU for Associates in all disciplines 107That's not out of line for New York.
Sure, the mean for all disciplines is about what you'd expect. But (according to the gossip mill, anyway) the male philosophy profs toward the beginning of the alphabet are doing a lot better than that mean.(However, I don't think NYU philosophy exploits adjuncts, and it's hard to feel sorry for their grad students, so this may not be a great example.)
This is turning RATHER Smokerish. A few quick points:1. sabbaticals are standard fare for people with research assignments and extremely useful. You have no idea how important it is to escape teaching and committee work to focus on your stuff. You normally have to write up a work plan and then satisfy the administration that you were productive. A sabbatical is not a vacation!2. 300K for people at the top of this business is peanuts, and for the same effort they would make much more in another field.3. As 10 pm points out, try living in NYC on 100K or even 190 for a year and then talk to me.4. Other philosophers are not your enemy. Blame the neo-liberal policies and administrations that we have little to no power over. 5. 4:21 don't give me any HORSESHIT about a paygap in academia. When you control for things like RANK, SENIORITY etc...there is no gap. Shove your rumormill.6. As argued elsewhere, most adjuncts won't be employed at all in a more just system and have to take some responsibility for their life choices (since we are already wagging fingers at the career decisions of the high-flyers).
It's true, living in New York City on $190,000 is quite trying. You can only get maid service once a week, and sometimes you have to take the SUBWAY. Yick! And box seats at the Met? Fuggedaboutit!Fucking adjuncts should stop complaining. They don't have to pay Greenwich Village rents.ACCOUNTABILITY: look it up, bitches.And FUCK YOU.
5:33, "4. Other philosophers are not your enemy. Blame the neo-liberal policies and administrations that we have little to no power over." Really? You could barely manage on $190K, but are still the "victim" of the "neo-liberal" oppressors? Wtf? You live in luxury and then spew your paranoid self-obsessed right-wing vomit over those beneath you?
5:33am, the median income in NYC is a little over $50k. You're talking about how trying it is to live on nearly four times that. You're a clown. You also lament that people don't understand how important it is to take a sabbatical and just focus on your stuff. Some faculty manage to produce work without sabbatical; they're just better at managing their time than you.
5:33, Are you KIDDING ME? It's SO HARD to live in nyc on 100k/year?!?!?! I have done it on a fraction of a fraction of that and was quite comfortable.You need some perspective.This is why many people coming from philosophy from lower SE backgrounds feel so alienate. Because there are people running their mouths about feeling victimized by having to live on 100k/year.
This is the car crash of identity politics: a clique of networked individuals (many entitled upper-class women who know nothing of oppression), fashioning their clubs and cliques, the privileged masquerading absurdly as "victims", promoting their own self-interest, and excluding those they regard as their social and political inferiors.
Yes. Other philosophers are not the enemy. Fine. I'll give you that. But I too have lived and worked in NYC as an adjunct and bartender. I made peanuts as an adjunct, but I did pretty well as a bartender until I injured myself several ways and I can't safely do that work anymore. I've never been in the position of being tenured and making even close to 100K. But I hope to be TT pretty soon. I'll get back to you then, but I'd like to think I'd be super generous with my time, money, and power.And I don't read The Smoker, but last I checked, metametablog was a step down from that, so I guess it's flattering to call this "smokerish". Lol.
Heh, that's right. Commenters at PhilAnon used to call threads "smokerish" sometimes, and I felt like I knew what it meant there, but it's hard to understand it as derogatory here!
PhilAnon is a step up from The Smoker? Oh wait, PhilAnon is the smoker for tenured people, so they make fun of comments that sound like they're from the intenured. I get it. This blog is just weird and pointless. Well... I guess it has some point, but I'm not sure what. I just got used to coming here and talking anonymously to grumpy people. I guess it's an outlet for "identity politics" grumpiness? I'm grumpy that philosophers are sexist, racist, or selfish/ hypocritical. A lot of people are grumpy that philosophers care about sexism or racism. But I guess everyone here is grumpy that philosophers are selfish/ hipocritical. And I guess people need anonymous forums to really talk about how grumpy they are about these things. I dunno. That's my guess....
I'm grumpy at how irresponsible most philosophers in positions of power are, at a time when history is calling us.
*hypocritical(Damn)Also: what is history calling on us to do?
I'm not grumpy. I'm procrastinating.
'Intenured' is a good word.It's way better than 'intransparent' (invented by the DN 'clique' post writer).
Damn again, 3:58. I like DN. I think it's doing a pretty good job of keeping it real and positive at the same time. Any anyone who is here knows, that's not easy.
The 'clique' post isn't positive. It's only point is to run down stuff that other people have done.I mean, maybe the running down is deserved (I don't know much of anything about these selective conferences), but that's the only point of it. Not positive at all.
No. That's not true. The clique post forces us to reflect on our selection processes. I think that's good. I've been asked to do some cool things by friends. They were great things and I got a lot out of doing them. But I'm not sure if it was exactly fair that I got to do them while other people- in some cases, people who haven't been so nice to me and others, were not invited. I'm not sure if that was fair either. I don't think the post takes down BPSC or Arizona Metaphysics (and one other that I didn't recognize). I think it forces its organizers, all of whom are very well accomplished and but perhaps more importantly for present purposes, extremely well connected, to reflect on their invitation practices. What's so bad about that?
New poster in this thread here. Nothing is so bad about that, but I wish we could just shut the fuck up and do some philosophy sometimes. The more navel-gazing there is about whether the right people are represented or have a seat at the table or whatever, the more I think this whole discipline is just smoke and mirrors and I've been fooling myself. Here is an intuitive proposition: If philosophy were consistently valuable and truth-directed, it would be fairly easy for practitioners to tell who was doing really good philosophy, and so conversations of this sort would seem less pressing: just invite the people who are doing well and don't invite the people who are doing poorly.
6:23, I wish that were true. But on the bright side, philosophy is truth-directed even though its practitioners can't always tell what's good- or sometimes they just don't care who's doing good philosophy, and just invite people who they like.
well in defense of inviting those who one likes ... ive spent my time around some really unpleasant philosophers -- difficult to deal with, talk to etc. Some of these people are my colleagues. some of the assholes are good philosophers but naturally why wouldnt i gravitate to those i like to be around and are good philosophers when i am organizing something? btw i should add i am a no-one at a crap place so not defending anything or anyone
Yeah, I think being invited places shows that people like working with you even if it doesn't prove that you're a really strong philosopher. Being accepted through a blind review process shows that people who don't know you, like what you have to say philosophically- but doesn't say anything about what it's like to work with you.
Another that Justin Weinberg won’t permit, this time in response to Michael Smith:‘‘I thought of it as helping tear down a hierarchy, not as creating one.’ But how did the older generation get their position? Well, they had their discussion group, and clubbed together and formed Philosophy & Public Affairs and published their papers. And they thought they were helping to tear down a hierarchy, and not creating one. So you can see how, from the outside, it all just looks like one clique replacing another. And people understandably begin to wonder, is that all philosophy will ever be?’This moderation of comments like this on behalf of Michael Smith strikes me as similar to Brian Weatherson on behalf of Gideon Rosen in the 2004 thread (tar.weatherson.org/2004/12/07/philosophical-perspectives/): protection of big names, who are big enough to defend themselves, and probably don’t even want to be defended in this way.Which leads to a wider issue: can we really be critical, have reform, is the limit is not offending people, or calling out their perceived shortcomings?
Weinberg permitted other comments replying critically to Smith.
Only seemingly those by a senior member of the profession
Probably -- but how would he know that yours wasn't by a senior person?I suspect there was something else he didn't like about yours -- maybe naming PPA was out of bounds? Although he did host a very critical discussion of PPA's practices too, so I dunno.
It's a bit odd given his insistence elsewhere in the comments about the need to show specific examples and not just write in general terms."Give me specific examples! But you better not name any names or journals!"
True.I was just speculating, anyway. I don't really have any idea why he didn't approve your comment. And I am not defending his policy/practice in general -- not at all.
REQUESTCould someone please post this on Daily Nous for me? There's a section where they are discussing legalizing prostitution.Read Chris Hedges:http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_whoredom_of_the_left_20150308
"truthdig"? Please. Isn't Hedges a conspiracy theorist?
No, not at all. He is very progressive, and a pacifist, though (and a good enough and prolific enough writer that there may be those who wish to paint him as a conspiracy theorist in order to put people off). And very smart. With many year's experience as a top level journalist. I find his discussion as philosophically subtle and as interesting as any going on on the DN. I think people there who care about the issue would enjoy reading him.
Come on, 10:53. You know "conspiriacy theorist" these days is meant to refer to anyone who goes outside the official bounds for criticism of the state.
Shutup, 10:55. You know we're philosophers here and smarter than everyone else and definitely not restricted in our criticisms by any forces or structures, other than the force of logic. There's no one not a member of our club who could have deeper, more considered or more original thoughts, nor as developed arguments, nor as decisive arguments. How you can tell if someone is a member of our club? Whether kids from Harvard and Michigan or maybe even Illiniois or Texas, or maybe Oxford, who study with the most prestigious philosophers in their department, cite him.
"He is very progressive, and a pacifist,"There is nothing "progressive" about pacifism, unless you happen to think marching people into death camps or raping and decapitating women is "progressive".
What a bizarre thing to say, 11:05. So your view is that pacifists advocate the violence of death camps and the violence of rape and the decapitation of women? Or is it instead that your view is that the only answer to violence is the violence of war?
"Or is it instead that your view is that the only answer to violence is the violence of war?"No, that is not my "view", you weirdo. But your indifference to genocide and brutality is noted, thank you.
Another bizarre and rather threatening thing to say. What does it mean to say that you are "taking note" of atittudes you attribute to some putatively anonymous commentator? And how dare you make assumptions about my attitudes toward genocide and brutality. Again, I don't think you know what pacifism means. You are either a troll or a thoroughly confused person.
1:03, if it is not your view, then please explain your remark at 11:05. There you seem to say that if someone is a pacifist, then they are in favor of deathcamps, rape and decapitation. Your mention of rape and decapitation brings to mind what one hears through the newspapers about a certain state's enemies in the present era. So you seem to be against whatever is the view that you understand by "pacifism" on account of pacifism being against war with whoever are the currently declared state's enemies. That is, your ire seems based on politically committed hawkishness with respect to current engagement with the currently declared state's enemies. Is that correct? In addition you seem to think that if someone is against war, that person is not progressive.Please enlighten me if I have misunderstood your stance at 11:05. (I am assuming that 11:05 is the same person as 1:03.) I'm just trying to give you the benefit of doubt. But maybe nihilism has already infected most of us, like in a vampire movie where the vampires win.
"Your mention of rape and decapitation brings to mind what one hears through the newspapers about a certain state's enemies in the present era."The victims of "rape and decapitation" that I mentioned are Muslim women, not "a certain state", you unhinged conspiracist nutcase.
OK, so I guess know criticism of US policies is allowed here, nor mention of anyone who seriously criticizes them (such as Hedges), on pain of being called a conspiracy theorist. I guess I'll just add that you have said enough and done enough here for me to realize you are not trolling, but really believe your stance. How sad.
*Not allowed here
Here is one reason we might prefer philosophers, 1:56 - They know that you cannot infer a universal from one instance. (Or zero instances in terms of "criticism of US policies". You didn't criticize a US policy; you said, "Don't trust the newspapers!" or something like that.)
I didn't say don't trust the newspapers.I said read Chris Hedges, who is a pacifist and a progressive.Then someone...you?... said that pacifism is not progressive to the fact that (in this person's opinion) pacifists support rape, decapitation and death camps. My response was to ask what this meant and I got snark and being accused of being a conspiracy theorist. That's what happened.
word left out above (but I did type it)*due to the fact that
If you are not capable of inferring what was meant there that is also a sign you should not be a philosopher. That poster (not me) clearly meant that pacifism is too strict to be moral - it'll disallow wars and interventions that would be enormous net goods. This is an empirical question that I personally don't feel qualified to talk much about, but by and large I'll side with the person who isn't citing Chris Hedges and whose reaction to, say, ISIS beheadings isn't something along the lines of "Oh, that's convenient. The US doesn't like ISIS, right? Hmm... Wonder why that's in the papers. Hmm."
You really got going on mention of newspapers. I'm not quite sure what's going on in your head. My only point in mentioning newspapers is that that is how I and most people come to learn who the declared enemies of the US and other states are. We know this because that's where it is announced. Nothing about any point I was making hinged on any claim about newspapers. The topic of newspapers has nothing to do with pictures of beheadings, which you keep bringing up. Your misunderstanding of what I say is as if formed to a pre-cut template.
As for pacism, I recommend reading Bertrand Russell. See whether he would agree with you that pacifism is too strict to be moral. I also recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on pacifism. Here is a quotation from SEP that may interest you:"One conceptual difficulty here is that when peace is defined negatively, pacifism appears as a reactionary response to war and violence. Discussions of peace thus often employ negative terms and creative neologisms to express the concept of peace: “nonviolence,” “nonwar,” “nonkilling,” “nonconflict,” or “nonwar.” Peace advocates will however insist that peace should be understood as a primary concept connected to cooperation, harmony, and positive human relations and that it is a mistake to understand peace in merely negative terms." I only recommended Chris Hedges for his interesting discussion of prostitution. And I mentioned in an offhand way that he was a pacifist. Which seemed to get you all worked up and bent out of shape. Weird. But actually, now that I consider it, his pacifism IS tied to his stance on prostitution, because both are tied to his discussions of the trajectory of unchecked unmodified extreme capitalism. He thinks prostitution is a natural consequence of late stage capitalism when it is let loose without sufficient checks and balances, as is the need for constant war. That doesn't mean every war is generated by and internal to an exploitative system of course.
"... come to learn who the declared enemies of the US and other states are"Interesting use of propaganda phrase "declared enemies". By this, you mean that noble freedom fighter, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi who raped the aid worker Kayla Mueller and who leads those "progressive" revolutionaries ISIS, who decapitate Syrian women?
You didn't read what I wrote, did you? (to 2:59)So I'm not allowed to use the word "declared"? I didn't know it was a propaganda phrase. Can you please explain to me how it works to induce false or preferred ideas? To me, to declare someone an enemy means that they are an enemy. You got problems with that way of understanding how the word works?Or would you prefer to spend your space introducing allusions to and visions of violence into our headspace, over and over and over?
3:12 is 2:43 btw.And no, 2:49, I'm not going to meditate on and surround myself with pictures of violence, as you seem to wish. And you are batshit if you want to associate the word "progressive" with ISIS. Do you have a background writing speeches for teapartiers or Fox?
2:43, "... the trajectory of unchecked unmodified extreme capitalism."E.g., societies like those of Western Europe, North America and Australasia, that have state-run welfare systems, state-run health systems, state-run education systems and state-run pension systems, which consume 30-50% of GDP through public and corporate taxation? Whose governing parties are frequently democratic socialists? That's what you mean by "unchecked unmodified extreme capitalism"? These countries - with their welfare systems and democratic socialist leadership - are examples of "unchecked unmodified extreme capitalism"? What do imagine a "modified" version might be, exactly? North Korea, perhaps, where the tiniest deviation is punished by execution using anti-aircraft guns?
Read Chris Hedges, 3:20. He can explain it for himself. It's not my thing, I'm only trying to help you.
I think Hector 5:53 at DN just called all women whores.Sure there are some hedges, but they seem political/diplomatic rather than definitional.
I propose putting him on the invite list for the next exclusive metametablog conference. Purely a matter of merit, you understand.
Meh. Most people are whores of one sort or another. Selling sex for money or status isn't any worse than selling your soul for the same.
That was in reply to 4:27, but I guess it's fine as a standalone comment.
I agree with you, but the question whether it is good or bad is a different question from whether some guy posting on DN thinks that all women operate that way. I didn't really know that people who would be posting on a philosophy blog had such thoughts about women (despite all). It seems very primitive to me, and as a woman, it makes me feel filled with disgust.
Wait a minute. I don't see this Hector person saying "all women operate that way". He seems to disavow just that claim, in fact (and implies that some men operate that way too, it seems to me):"The old adage is, “women use sex to get status, men use status to get sex.” I don’t think it’s quite as gendered as that, but regardless, the sex for status trade has been going on for as long as our species has been around..."A little reading charity, please! To quote an old adage is not to endorse it wholeheartedly, much less to endorse a strengthened formulation of it with a universal quantifier out front!
Good point, 10:47. But you must concede that asking for charity in reading on this blog, of all places, is quite funny.
(I'm 9:25.) As a woman, I wouldn't be surprised if someone posting on a philosophy blog did feel that way. (I don't know that Hector does, specifically.) I've heard too many guy conversations to think that, magically, no philosophers hold women in contempt. I could also say the same with the genders reversed. I bet there are racist, puppy-loathing philosophers, who flood Facebook feeds with Buzzfeed quizzes, too, and maybe they also comment. Oh well.
Perhaps you might consider reading the relevant science?
It is strange that sentences like "Several standard sex differences replicated across cultures, including women s greater valuation of social status and men s greater valuation of physical attractiveness" (from the article 12:00 links to) get translated into "women are whores" or worse, "all women are whores". How in the world can one take sentences like the former (or what "Hector" said) to be equivalent to either of the latter?
12:30 here again. Come to think of it, I have a theory. People who say that men and women are different (as Shackelford, et. al. do, in their own way) have, in sundry times past, tended to be misogynists (or perhaps inadvertent supporters or beneficiaries of patriarchy). So when folks hear sentences like "the women we asked often said they care more about status than did the man we asked", they immediately connect this with past pro-patriarchy maneuverings and react accordingly. What we should all probably do, instead, is slow down, read carefully, and think more before supposing that the offending sentences are synonymous with offensive slogans like "women are whores" or exhibiting any negative reactive attitudes.And on that hopeful note I bid you all a good night.
Well I appreciate the suggestions that I should be charitable, and give a charitable reading, but though I feel charitable towards the person, I don't see how I can give a more charitable reading to what he happened to write in that particular comment. 10:47, you quote what he wrote, including the phrase "[not] quite as gendered as that" but I already granted in my original comment at 4:27 that he hedges his claim. On review, it continues to look to me like a sort of diplomatic hedge or else a generic hedge of the kind that we learn always to add to our generalizations, lest someone catch us with an outlier of some sort and miss the point of our assertion. The basic idea is that he looks at women that way, and to me that comes wrapped up with a whole slew of assumptions about how people should live their lives and when they are successful in life and when not. So for one example among many, if I am a woman and not married to someone rich, on his view I would be a failure in life. (For he pretends to give no negative judgment to a person living to exchange sex for status and money, and instead suggests that it is the way women are supposed to be, qua women.) Thus I think the comment is concerning not because or not primarily because of how it makes me feel as a woman to know that people around me in philosophy have the view that women by and large are whores and seek superficial things like status and money, but because it comes with a whole bunch of retrogressive expectations of what people should be like, which, the commoner these expectations are, the more likely they are to affect government policies and laws and thus end up ruining my life. To be charitable to the person who wrote the comment and gave me an opportunity to rant a little, let's not talk about Hector the actual commentator, but Hector*. What I want to say about Hector*, but not Hector, is that he is ruining my life. I wish he would stop putting people in a box. The wider context of the discussion in which his comment occurs of course is whether prostitution should be made legal, and it is very interesting that some people thinking about this issue are trying to work=in ideas about what is fundamental to women. It's tantamount to saying that someone who is an actual slave is there in that situation because he has a slave mentality.
It's a little ironic that so much disgust is expressed over the saw “women use sex to get status, men use status to get sex.”The first part is thought outrageous. But how about the second part? Isn't that the exact accusation leveled against men time and again? Isn't that why society must introduce all manner of protections so that women can thrive? Why is it OK to assume that men seek to exchange status for sex, but horrible to think that a number of women might exchange sex for status?
Well, because status comes with more responsibility. So if someone is taking advantage of their status, then we think they're failing to fulfill some duty they have. Most people also think its good to encourage people to pursue goals and work towards getting status. And to accuse someone of using some underhanded means rather than hard work, doesn't seem very encouraging.
And with sexual attractiveness comes responsibility too, right? But you miss the point. Everyone assumes as a given, and a natural state of affairs, that men exchange status for sex. But the idea that women would use their sexual attractiveness to get greater status is false, a canard, and an outrageous misogynistic thought?
"So if someone is taking advantage of their status, then we think they're failing to fulfill some duty they have." No. By definition, status entails advantage. This is what "status" means. You have merely redefined a moralistic term "responsibility" to refer to something you emotionally disapprove of and try to insist, without argument, that these two are tied together. In a liberal society, they are not tied together, because people are, whether you like this or not, free. Your personal emotional feelings are irrelevant. A higher status person may fly around on planes, receive better treatment, purchase fancy technology and expensive wine, and attract pretty females or attract high-status males. Should someone with increased capacity to do something refrain from it merely because of your moralistic disapproval? Why? You merely presuppose what you need to prove. You need to prove that it brings "responsibility". But, outside an authoritarian society, it doesn't. It merely brings greater capacity. A higher status person (a male or female) may do as they please with their status, notwithstanding any personal feelings of others, including envy or disapproval.
"Thus I think the comment is concerning not because or not primarily because of how it makes me feel as a woman to know that people around me in philosophy have the view that women by and large are whores."It would be a bizarre phenomenon for someone to assert the biologically false claim that "all women are whores". The evidence strongly contradicts this. Human females have low promiscuity levels, and focus their mating strategies quite carefully, identifying males who display certain fitness indicators.
12:27, you may be confusing "whore" with "slut". (I don't think all women are either, for the record. Heck, I'd be better off, at least carnally, if more women were the latter...)
"Come to think of it, I have a theory. People who say that men and women are different (as Shackelford, et. al. do, in their own way) have, in sundry times past, tended to be misogynists (or perhaps inadvertent supporters or beneficiaries of patriarchy)."I have a theory too. Sometimes, when scientists conduct a study, and that study comes to certain conclusions, then those conclusions are supported because they are true.I swear to God, sometimes that happens.
Troll bait alert!
The Ghent Balloon is back, and he is flying high over Amsterdam with bursts of hot air.
He's so awesome. I love this:Building on Ruth Chang's observations, I have repeatedly called attention to the fact that the intellectual reflexes that are cultivated in the profession undermine our ability to function as a moral community because they undermine the proper functioning of the moral sentimentsHe's called attention to this fact repeatedly, and still nothing happens. When o when will they listen??
That's a really interesting thought. I will ponder.
Don't you dare, 1:23. Mock, mock, and only mock.
I'm not good at it, and don't really like doing it and certainly don't like it when I am the target. I am completely unafraid to admit when an idea is new to me, which this one is, if you give full consideration to the idea that moral sentiments may have function properly or not. (I am completely unafraid because most ideas I hear are not new to me, so it doesn't feel humbling at all.) So I don't have anything to prove by mocking someone, which is what I think is happening when people mock people in philosophy. What are they trying to prove, exactly? That they know more than they really do, that they've been there, done that, have vast minds? What does it mean to suggest that the other person (usually a PhD who has made commitments and efforts towards acquiring and sharing knowledge) deserves their scorn?I do not enjoy mocking people. However, I enjoy pondering a lot. So I'll do that. (p.s. What is it like to be a mocking-people-enjoyer? Honest question. Can someone tell me the phenomenology?)
delete "have" in the second sentence, 4th line
It's a fleeting feeling of pride and satisfaction followed by crushing guilt.
Part of it is just regional/upbringing. I hail from a land of sarcasm and mocking one-liners where you're expected to be able to dish it out and take it. (I'm not 9:17, 10:37, or 3:30, but I've mocked and been mocked plenty.)What is it like to be a mocking-people-enjoyer? (...Can someone start a beingamockingpeopleenjoyerinphilosophy blog?) Depends on who's around. Sometimes funny as hell, sometimes tedious.
Oh, I often enjoy a good mock.In fact, it's almost impossible for me to imagine someone who doesn't enjoy mocking Donald Trump. I mean, what's not to love?
What is it like to be a mocking-people-enjoyer? Well, it's fucking enjoyable, for one. Almost tautologically so.
OK, 3:52 here. I shall now evaluate your answers and tell you what I have discerned about your characters on the basis of those answers. I will use time stamps as ambiguous names for answers and people.4:08: My felt tendency, on the first reading, was that 4:08 was the best. It directly answers the question and indicates fluency with emotional terms. It is also nicely expressed, with a little alliteration followed by a mirroring of my suggestion in the post that targets don't like being mocked. 4:08 makes me feel completed. Quite elegant. I bet the person who wrote it was a straight A+ student. I definitely like 4:08.4:19: 4:19 is scientific and also sensitive to context. He or she takes the objective view -- the view from nowhere or from above -- standing outside his/her own region and upbringing to point out its relevance to how it might feel to mock. He imagines things from the point of view of the mocked and the point of view of the mockee, and he also takes into account the audience before saying whether mocking is funny or not. 4:19 wants to take into account all the variables. I would trust 4:19 with highly important tasks. 4:30: Ha! Donald Trump. Mockingbird, as 4:30 calls himself, is probably a great teacher. After all, 4:30 has given me a concrete example to which I can relate! His/her answer forces me to identify with the mocker and thus know from the inside what it is like to mock. For as Mockingbird says, who doesn't enjoy mocking Donald Trump? Shall I admit that I am not an exception? But I actually am not sure I enjoy it, even though I posted that thing on FB. And honestly, not everyone in my FB audience understood it to be a mock, which was disturbing. Here's another question. Why isn't Mockingbird satisfied with being a number? He/she names himself Mockingbird, but why? I think he/she is attempting to tell me that mocking is loveable. I love you, Mockingbird.4:43. 4:43. 4:43. Oh, please. Such an easy shot, such low hanging fruit. 4:43 is a classic philosophy fuck (line out) philosophy mock. It is perfect, paradigmatic. It is self-hating, as the classic philosophy mock is. You read it, and you have to question everything about your life, like whether it was worthwhile to go into philosophy and whether concepts without intuitions are empty. How does 4:43 KNOW that mocking is enjoyable? He doesn't deign to reveal himself at all; is it concepts all the way down for him/her? He/she could be a frustrating lover. Still, maybe 4:43 gets to take the prize from 4:08? I'm not sure. Is it a mock of a mock?
I am a spectacularly intuitive lover, as it turns out. However, this may emerge in part from being pleasantly well-endowed (see last week's thread).
Until it isn't 4:43, until it isn't. And thanks 3:52 = 6:16. I'm glad I completed you. But unfortunately, you're wrong that I was a straight A+ student. In fact, I'm a bit of a loser because I do a lot of things that make me fleetingly delighted, which end up crushing me in the long run. But it's nice to hear that I might have been "tending towards truth" or however someone put it on this blog yesterday.Also, people have been nicer to each other around here for the last two days or so. Good job, people.
I'm betting 4:19 is Australian.
I bet 8:13 is Australian because I thought 4:19 had my background- which is not Australian. Maybe it's safe to induct on two cases here.
No guessing nationalities. Only extent of moral development or deepest fears. 4:19 is obviously the most advanced morally, subtracting out that we only have the evidence of a couple of sentences in each case.
The MOST advanced!? Now I hate 4:19. Good going 10:47.
And so I mocked her in magnificent measure.Or was it that I mocked myself alone?I wish that I might be a thinking stone.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.