Leaving Amherst
I’m back. Jetlagged, tired, and back.
I listened to that Point of Inquiry interview this morning and it wasn’t too bad. At the time I thought I was doing more futile muttering than turned out to be the case. As I was leaving the studio (which is in a room at the Center) I was called into the office across the hall by Norm Allen, the reviews editor of Free Inquiry; he wanted me to do a review of Infidel. They seem to like me at that place. Very wise of them.
I tell you what though: it is a boys’ club. I’m sorry to say that, but it is. (You know it is, you CfI people, if any of you are reading this. Look up the hall, look down the hall; look up and down the other hall; you know what you see. Consider, and repent.) That’s probably not entirely its fault though: on average women seem not to be as interested in this kind of thing as men are. I find that highly irritating, and also all the more reason for me to remain very interested, and to redouble my efforts to annoy everyone within hearing on the subject. If there are fewer women, then the women there are have to be all the more noisy and obstreperous.
We took a picture of Jeremy showing off his biceps yesterday, and we’ll post it here eventually. We explored Buffalo on Saturday, walking some 700 miles in the process; he took a picture of me in Delaware Park, hot and sweaty and pleased with myself; we’ll post that eventually too.
I’ll get back to less lame or footling or frivolous posting soon, but give me a minute to get over the jetlag and to catch up on sleep.
Okay, time’s up.
I imagine you’ve already noticed, OB, but aside from you, this blog is mostly a boys’ club too. Most of those posting comments seem to be men. I’m a woman, but again, obviously in the minority. Have no idea why.
I always found it weird being one of the few women at philosophy events. I think it draws you into ways of being that are not necessarily your own…though I don’t mean to suggest anything as simple as “boys are nasty” and “girls are nice.” Hey…I’m happy to say I’ll have an article in FI soon. So the female presence is at least slightly on the rise.
Welcome back.
I just got work in the mining industry and I am amazed – it seems to have gone from about 8% female to about 40% in the last 10 years. A big improvement,IMO.
Welcome back, OB.
I could unmask myself here, but I am sure it can be done over an Ale or a glass of red.
The wind-up was reasonably amusing, if a little unfair.
I follow all the blog entries- but I use an internet connection from office so I don’t have the time/freedom to make as many replies as I would like. Ditto at home, where I have two small children.
I was at a refugee do last year in Toronto, and I couldn’t help noting that the vast, vast, vast majority of everyone (particpants, lecturers, organizers) were women. Also in my office dealing with refugees. Also government civil servants in immigration/refugee affairs whom we work with.
My mother is a profesional philosopher of education based in Tehran University. She lectures at home, she doesn’t travel abroad because she also has children/teenagers at home and she doesn’t feel comfortable leaving them alone. (Note: the majority of her students are female) Her brothers are also in the academic world. They attend every single conference in their fields all over the world. I rarely see them at home. Their wives are housewives- one of them is
divorced. Do I see some correlation here?
And BTW, when I went to the refugee thing last year, I got a lot of flak from EVERYONE, including “sophisticated” western-educated and European men and women, for leaving my babies behind.
Sorry for the monologue, but I have thought a lot about female participation on the workplace.
Men interested in work of the intellect do not have the temptation of “Men’s Studies” to distract them into anti-intellectualism.
No, Paul, that’s what “Sports Management” is for.
Paul got dissed.
I think blogging in general is pretty male dominated, although I couldn’t say why. In terms of philosophy, in the department I’m taught in there are plenty of female undergraduates, but most of the postgrad teachers are male, and most of the lecturers are male. There are 20 full lecturers, and only 2 are female. Again, I have nothing interesting to say about why that would be the case.
Having said all that, by far the most in demand philosopher is a woman (apparently, I don’t know much about it). She’s never around, cause she’s always getting massive grants, and has actual work to do, travelling around and stuff like that.
R.W.: please explain. What is sports Management and how is it against the intellect by rejecting Reason, rules of evidence etc in favour of feelings/victimology etc?
“I imagine you’ve already noticed, OB, but aside from you, this blog is mostly a boys’ club too.”
I have noticed, but the ratio is better here than it is at CfI, and furthermore here it’s entirely self-selecting whereas at CfI it isn’t – in other words at CfI it is related to hiring and promotion, which is not the case here.
Just for one thing I was the only woman on the ‘Beyond Belief’ program – something I didn’t even notice until a few days before it took place. I mentioned that fact to one of the students and she said yes indeed and other students had noticed that (probably rather more promptly than I did).
They really need to do better – but I’m not confident that they will – because it really is boys’ clubby: it’s not just a matter of numbers, it’s atmosphere and ways of thinking.
Rude of me to go public with it when they’ve been so nice to me, but really I think they need to be subject to some pressure. Entitities of this kind should not be male preserves.
That’s another reason it’s a little odd to say ‘aside from you, this blog is mostly a boys’ club too’ – aside from me is a pretty big aside, after all. In the sense that matters this blog (if blog means Notes and Comment) isn’t a boys’ club at all, it’s a woman’s club: I write it. If blog means B&W as a whole [B&W isn’t a blog] it still isn’t a boys’ club, because I provide all the content except for the articles (which I select, edit, format, post etc). Males outnumber females here in the comments, but – well, they’re all in my power. mwahahaha.
But seriously. I think it does kind of matter that B&W is run by a woman, because as I say women are a bit scarce in this area.
Of course it is hugely important that the website is run by a woman. I just meant that your readership (I could be wrong, but I don’t think so) appears to be mainly male, if those commenting on the blog and articles are an accurate sample of the majority of said readership. Maybe there’s a big swath of women reading which just doesn’t provide feedback. If there are other women around, I hope they make themselves more visible.
I got into a minor spat with my Dad and sis a few months back about my prejudice for materialist, rationalist approaches. It was a bit odd: my dad played the old ‘that’s a very masculine way of looking at the world’ canard (meaning that as a criticism), while it was left to my hippy sister (herself not a big fan of rationalism) to oppose his claim… Assumptions about gendered thinking? Plus ca change…
“What is sports Management and how is it …in favour of feelings/victimology etc?”
Ask Jose Morhino !
Paul Power the Troll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_management
To my mind, sports management is about as intellectual/academic as Home Economics.
And on another note, this may have slipped your mind, but there are some male students in Women’s Studies departments, and certainly men on college boards and on the faculty who approve the creation of a Women’s Studies discipline at whatever college.
You seem to be looking for a reason to attack women and their academic interests, so, I don’t know, maybe people like you are the ones who could benefit from a little woman-centered education.
Ah, the readership – yes, maybe so. Which is too bad if true. We’ll just keep slowly patiently chipping away…
Being realistic just for a moment… women’s studies programs are tiny interdisciplinary entites that aren’t draining much talent away from other things. Their existence can’t be the reason why there aren’t many women in philosophy or philosophy-ish places like B&W and CfI. Philosophy is too combative and not concretely human enough for some women…but doesn’t really have to have either of these drawbacks.
Good point, Jean. Also, philosophy departments have historically, genuinely been boys’ clubs (there’s that term again). I had a professor in college who recently told me what a tough time she had getting her PhD in philosophy in the sixties. She was the only woman in a group of male students, with a male professor/advisor, and trust me, they weren’t at all concerned with creating a friendly atmosphere. It takes a while to weed that kind of stuff out, though I think we are doing pretty well for less than a half a century later.
Some of my (all male) colleagues are much nicer than me (!) but I’d say most are pretty cut-throat aggressive. For example, the whole point of listening to a talk is to come up with a way to tear the speaker to shreds. Supportive feedback not permitted! I think there’s an increasing awareness though that this might not be Good.
I wonder though if Difference Feminism does play a role in the non-presence of women at skeptical sites and think tanks. I think it probably does: I think there is a pretty strong meme that women are not supposed to think in that way: that real women are empathetic and supportive to the exclusion of being rational or logical or combative.
Well, supportive sounds more fluffy, but I don’t think empathy is any less useful than reason or logic. I don’t think many of us would care to be around people who counted themselves as completely rational and logical, but unmotivated when it came to understanding or caring about other people. None of these things has to exist in isolation. You can be empathetic without being some kind of cracked out-PoMo loving-Derrida worshipping-superhero of Queer Studies. And you can be rational and logical without it making you an emotionless robot.
Just thought I’d point out that my wife tells me that she reads B&W at work when she can, but says that she doesn’t have time to comment. But when she’s at home and has the time, she rarely uses her laptop. (I think she doesn’t comment because she fears negative feedback.)
BTW, she’s more the rational and combative type than the empathetic and supportive one.
Again, I don’t understand why everyone takes a polarized view of empathy and reason. It seems totally unnecessary to me.
It doesn’t seem like it’s any meme or theory that’s doing it, but the way that women actually are, at least right now. There are certainly those who like to spar (I do, if it’s not to the very death) but I find it easier to spar with men, sadly enough. Among women, there’s always this anxiety about whether somebody’s feelings are going to be hurt. Takes all the fun out it! As for abstraction–my sister-in-law is a mathematician. Got tenure doing heavy duty math stuff, then got interested in how math is taught to elementary school students. My interests have gone from very abstract to relatively concrete over the years too. It’s hard to explain. I hate to say it’s because I’m wired for the people-oriented job of childcare, but it might just be true. You know, what with evolution and all…
R.W., it’s not that I take a polarized view, it’s that some people do – that was the point of the ‘to the exclusion of’ in italics.
Jean,
Mm. Maybe. How depressing.
(I’ve just spent two and a half weeks listening to Jeremy say ‘It’s hard-wired!’ several times a day. I’m tempted to go all Blank Slate on everyone’s ass.)
I noted that, OB. I was replying to Doug that time since he said his wife was more the rational/combative type and not the empathetic/supportive type. He set it up as a dichotomy. I need to learn to specify who I’m talking to.
R.W.: you assumed wrong. I’m attacking the subject of Women’s Studies, not the unfortunates who do such courses.
And I attack for its hostility to reason and rules of evidence, not its obliviousness to them, unlike – apparently – sports management.
I will say, on Paul Power’s side, that victimology is tiresome.
OB–yeah, kind of depressing. There is something refreshing about a blank slate. I’m not sure that I have one though It’s not blank but not all one thing either, happily enough.
Jean – Yeh. When I say I’m tempted I mean it would be a kind of apostasy, because I don’t hold a Blank Slate view at all in fact. But having a non-BlnkSlt view of course leaves plenty of room for individual variation.
OB I spoke obscurely. A blank slate’s a nice idea…how nice for everyone to get a fresh start in all ways. Just not true, what with Steven Pinker and all that jazz. When it comes to gender it’s hard to say, though…but that’s a long story.
This was your statement, Paul:
‘Men interested in work of the intellect do not have the temptation of “Men’s Studies” to distract them into anti-intellectualism.’
Your implication here is that men are not distracted into the same kind of anti-intellectualism as women. I find that implication very chauvinist. Women don’t solely own the blame for Women’s Studies. There are men and women who run colleges who have elected to have those departments and who have allowed them to the departments to become bloated with all kinds of charlatans spouting all kinds of nonsense. On another note, I honestly don’t think the concept of “Women’s Studies” is entirely flawed. The status of women in politics, history, economy, etc., is something legitimate and worth study and which already exists in most Women’s Studies programs. Get rid of all the PoMo theory, and I think it becomes a solid academic focus.
Some typing errors in that last comment; I was getting a little heated. Excise “them to” from “the departments to become bloated” and it’ll all make sense.
By the way, Jean, I never defended victimology. I merely meant to state that it is ridiculous and misguided to place all the blame for it on women.
I thought there was a grain of truth in Paul Power’s otherwise inflammatory remark! It would take forever to identify exactly what…
Victimology. Never even heard the word before, but it does seem like too much blaming someone else is a bad idea. I’m getting into platitudes here. I didn’t mean to imply, R. W., anything about your view of it. It sounds like our reactions to women’s studies are about the same.
I seldom comment, but read Butterflies & Wheels regularly, and I’m terribly grateful that Ophelia is not only as interesting and provocative as she is, but is a ‘she’ as well. I’ve noticed a distinct “gentleman’s agreement” among the women I know that we really should not disagree. What I call “Thanksgiving Table Diplomacy” promoted around the calendar — avoid controversy and pass the potatoes, bringing up all the lovely things we have in common. “It’s more important to be nice than ‘right.'” Women are supposed to be supportive and reassuring. No debate; no disagreement; no honest discussion of contrary views, unless it is to “celebrate our diversity.” That’s a sign of spiritual maturity, evidently. Even in a discussion group.
As the only secular humanist among neo-pagans, New Agers, and Spiritual Seekers, it’s hard. They love to jabber about their beliefs, and back them up with heavy combinations of pseudoscience and postmodernist “all paths to truth are valid” — all paths, except, evidently, rational skepticism, which is apparently the egotistical, narrow, mean one. These women consider themselves progressive feminists. Of course.
I am a bit of a convention junkie, and have gone to a fair amount of Council for Secular Humanism events. I have yet to do one of the CFI summer sessions, though, and when I found out OB and JS were on the program I was ready to bite myself in frustration. I can’t afford it yet! So you have to do it again!!! I have all your books!!!! Please — even if it’s a Boy’s Club (I was there for the grand opening of the new building, impressive as all get out)
“As the only secular humanist among neo-pagans, New Agers, and Spiritual Seekers, it’s hard.”
Do you work in an occult bookstore or something, Sastra?
The Pagans, New Agers, and Spiritual Seekers have always been pretty easy for me to avoid.
R.W, You would be surprised at how common those types of beliefs are these days.
I would say the majority of people at my place of work would hold beliefs that could be classed amongst those listed.(I live in secular NZ)
R.W., I completely agree with you that nothing prevents people from being both reasonable and empathetic. In fact, both attributes are virtues to be valued. I was referring to my wife’s personality type just to indicate that, even though she doesn’t comment on N&C, I don’t think it has anything to do with her being female*, because her personality is far from the stereotypical female one. If only she were empathetic… I wish! (She’s basically supportive, though, and I’m no more empathetic than she is.)
*She doesn’t deal well with criticism/negative feedback, though. Is that a female thing? Probably not, but what do I know?
R.W.: you should stop jumping to enormous conclusions based on your own misreadings of what people mean.
“Your implication here is that men are not distracted into the same kind of anti-intellectualism as women. I find that implication very chauvinist”. It would be chauvinist to say that men are not anti-intellectual while women are. But I did not say that. It’s interesting that you mistake an assault on Women’s Studies as a slur on women.
I think some women who would otherwise be interested in philosophy with its attendant rigour are being led astray into Women Studies courses of the type we’re discussing. That’s all.
Memes? A discussion of Memes? On B&W?
Skating a little close to “fashionable nonsense with that concept, are we not?
All right, Paul, if that’s what you intended. It certainly didn’t appear that way. You stated men don’t have “Men’s Studies” to be drawn into. I’m just saying that Women’s Studies departments are not sororities; men are involved as well.
“All right, Paul, if that’s what you intended.” There is no “if” about it. I have twice explained what I meant. Stop implying I am dishonest.
“It certainly didn’t appear that way.” Since you accused me of chauvinism after I explained that “I’m attacking the subject of Women’s Studies, not the unfortunates who do such courses” I question the amount of effort you made, if any, to understand what I was saying.
“I’m just saying that Women’s Studies departments are not sororities; men are involved as well.” That may be “just” what you are saying now, but along the way you’ve accused me of being a “troll” and a “chauvinist” and of “looking for a reason to attack women and their academic interests”, claims you’ve not explicitly withdrawn.
And how about “maybe people like you are the ones who could benefit from a little woman-centered education”? Isn’t education supposed to be centred on the person being educated ?
Paul, your comment came across to me as less a slur on women’s studies and more a slur on women. I’m not going to explicitly withdraw my claim that your comment was chauvinistic because I still believe it was. If you think it wasn’t, so be it. In the end, who really cares what I think?
To me, the tone, in light of the context, is aggressive. This was not a comment thread dealing with the follies of Women’s Studies; it was about the dearth of women at think-tanks like CFI and in philosophy programs. And anyway, who is to say that female would-be philosophy students are being wooed and absorbed into Women’s Studies? What do you have to back that up?
Education should, naturally, be centered on the person, free of genuine bias. Given that women have been given the short end of the stick for most of the history of formalized education, it’s a miracle the system is beginning to resemble something fair.
RW–
No, I don’t work in an occult bookstore. But it seems as if all the liberal adult women in my area who read, think, and enjoy interesting discussions on topics other than their kids and their busy schedules are “spiritual but not religious” — and this is the catalyst for most of the “deeper” discussions. As you know, that phrase translates to anything and everything, usually, in my experience, with a heavy emphasis on respect for all paths and ways of knowing, belief in a Higher Power, and a desire to foster the evolution of Consciousness as it progresses towards the holistic union with the Enlightened Cosmic Consciousness. And oh yeah, save the planet and George Bush sucks.
I live in a small town in a conservative area of the Midwest. I take what I can get.
Understood, Sastra. It is tough when intelligent people have wacky ideas. One of my closest friends is fantastic; creative, smart, ambitious, and also totally wacky when it comes to her ‘existential’ beliefs. Is very into ghosts, psychic “stuff”, and yes, quite sympathetic to the “all paths lead to the same truth” kind of thing. I just try to avoid those kinds of discussions with her.
“I have yet to do one of the CFI summer sessions, though, and when I found out OB and JS were on the program I was ready to bite myself in frustration. I can’t afford it yet! So you have to do it again!!! I have all your books!!!!”
Oh – sorry, Sastra! I know the feeling.
I think I’d do it again if asked, but JS is quite sure he won’t be asked again because he devoted most of his lectures to skepticism about the humanist part of secular humanism. I’m not sure he’s right about that: Free Inquiry for instance does contain plenty of non-humanist criticism. Anyway – we’ll see.
“I live in a small town in a conservative area of the Midwest. I take what I can get.”
Many of the students were in exactly that situation, if you swap ‘the South’ or ‘Texas’ for ‘the Midwest.’ In fact that datum produced a shift in JS’s thinking. We have a running disagreement over the whole subject of what he calls ‘religion-bashing’; it always ends up in the same place, with him telling me he just can’t empathize because it’s not like that in the UK; he can intellectually grasp why religion seems threatening in the US but he can’t feel it. I tend to find this slightly exasperating, because I don’t quite see why grasping it intellectually isn’t enough; but anyway he is now able to empathize somewhat more because of his experience over the two and a half weeks at CfI. He got friendly with several people from small towns in conservative areas, and he got a much better sense of how terrible it can be. And at the welcoming dinner that opened the second module – the one at which he was supposed to give opening remarks, the one we were so late for because of lingering too long in Seneca Falls – all the participants were asked to stand up and say a little about themselves; there were several new people who gave rather impassioned accounts of conservative small town life. When it was time for JS to say his few words he said he was feeling rather sheepish – about his long-standing inability to empathize. He meant it, too – he found the whole thing quite moving.
Maybe I should do a post about this. It’s interesting…
I should also get JS to do a post about it. I think we talked about that at the time, or I did – I think I said ‘you ought to do an N&C about this.’ I don’t remember what he said. He and Cheryl are in New York for another few days, but I might lean on him when he gets back.
R.W.:
Well done. In addition to piling a charge of dishonesty onto the other calumnies you’ve thrown in my direction, you’ve come out with this inanity: “I’m not going to explicitly withdraw my claim that your comment was chauvinistic because I still believe it was. If you think it wasn’t, so be it.” What makes you think you know better than me what I meant? Get over your arrogance.
“To me, the tone, in light of the context, is aggressive.” Very nice: presumably calling someone a troll and using words like “chauvinistic” is the way of universal peace and sisterly love ?
Paul:
I’m beginning to lose interest and am quitting this argument after I finish this comment. Your remark about women offended me. You think it shouldn’t have — okay, I get that now. We disagree fundamentally and it’s clear now we’re not going to construct some harmony between our two perspectives.
I never said that my response to you wasn’t aggressive. However, your comment about women, which I considered aggressive in the context of this thread, came out of nowhere; there was no provocation. I became snarky because I was put off by what you said and how you said it.
I sympathise with Sastra. You meet a nice, bright, talented, funny woman you would like to be friends with and then a few hours in she starts asking you about your star sign.
Groan. Yeah, I’ve been there. More than once. Oh those inward cringes when suddenly the conversation veers to astrology or near-death experiences or (gawdelpus) poltergeists.
What’s the corollary of this? “I met this nice, simpatico, amusing woman & I thought we would be friends, but then she began to point out contradictions in what I said, that I hadn’t established the premises of my argument and that I was asserting rather than proving my case.”
Heh!
Or at least…I met this nice, simpatico, amusing woman & I thought we would be friends, but she’s just completely deaf to spiritual subjects; it’s sad…
Or I met this nice, simpatico, amusing woman & I thought we would be friends, but she turns out to be a Virgo and I’m an Aquarian, so we won’t be able to get on.
R.W.:
You still don’t get it. When I wrote ‘Men interested in work of the intellect do not have the temptation of “Men’s Studies” to distract them into anti-intellectualism’ I obviously implied that if “Men’s Studies” did exist then men would be as distracted into anti-intellectualism as women are by Women’s Studies. So my comment was aimed at Women’s Studies and not at women. You continue to claim that I made some derogatory remark about women that could apply only to women even after I explained – more than once – that you were misreading what I wrote.
I am very impressed how you keep trying to play the innocent. “I never said that my response to you wasn’t aggressive. ” But you did attack me for being aggressive: “To me, the tone, in light of the context, is aggressive”. So what, one may ask, unless you want a double standard that allows you alone of all commenters to be aggressive while no one else may be. Further, I may be as aggressive towards obscurantism here as Ophelia will let me be. Other people say far worse, such as that all religions are blackmail and lies. That’s the context we are all in here.
The way this normally works is :
a person makes a comment; another person, a stranger to the first, misconstrues the comment and attacks it; the first person explains the misunderstanding (which could be down to bad phraseology) at which point the second person withdraws the attack. Everybody is happy. This happens thousands of time a day on the Internet. I am wondering what makes you so special.
Paul:
You appear to be misunderstanding me as well. I dislike repeating myself, and really have no idea why I’m continuing with this, but here we go:
-When I wrote ‘Men interested in work of the intellect do not have the temptation of “Men’s Studies” to distract them into anti-intellectualism’ I obviously implied that if “Men’s Studies” did exist then men would be as distracted into anti-intellectualism as women are by Women’s Studies.-
Talk about playing innocent. I don’t know if this is just poor comment construction or you’re trying to back away from what you actually said. You are still stating in your comment that men are less often distracted into anti-intellectualism than women. I tell you that men are already as distracted into anti-intellectualism BY Women’s Studies as well as all the other wishy-washy thinking traps in academia that both sexes fall into. Men do not require “Men’s Studies” to rack up the same tally of intellectual mistakes; you appear to be saying (groan, this is so boring now) that BECAUSE there happens to be no Men’s Studies, men naturally make fewer intellectual blunders. I think that’s crap.
What I was also trying to say about my own irritation with your comment was this: You made what I interpret(ed) as a sexist comment; I responded out of aggravation which, I felt, in light of the sexism, was justified and provoked. This offense-response dynamic must occur millions of times a day on the internet and off.
The only claim I withdraw is that you are a troll, and I remain unconvinced that your comment was as fuzzy and innocuous as you are claiming it was.
To employ a cliche, why don’t we just “agree to disagree” now and leave it at that? This is becoming very tedious.
I think youre absolutely right about it being a boy’s club, Ophelia. For what it is worth, in my time here, five of the six employees I have hired are females, but that is a drop in the bucket in this place.
Ah, hi, D.J. Yeah…it badly needs more women in some of those offices with names outside. I might rattle Joe’s cage on the subject. He should at least feel guilty!
1) “You are still stating in your comment that men are less often distracted into anti-intellectualism than women”
Nope. Never said it and never implied it. The topic is why there are so few women in sites like this. I am saying that the sort of women who would otherwise be here are distracted into the anti-intellectualism of Women’s Studies. You are incorectly assuming that everyone – men and women – interested in intellectual things would come to sites like these. I think most have other intellectual interests that keep them away, time and energy being finite.
Now withdraw the other slurs, please.
2) “..you appear to be saying … that BECAUSE there happens to be no Men’s Studies, Men naturally make fewer intellectual blunders”. I would never be so stupid. I do not equate anti-intellectualism with intellectual blunders. Irrationality is the default in eveything. See one of my favourite books for enlightenment :http://www.amazon.co.uk/Irrationality-Stuart-Sutherland/dp/1905177070/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/026-7664637-3157235?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1185724647&sr=8-1