Sally Haslanger on Women in Philosophy

As a lone woman in both my philosophy graduate class and department, I can imagine that both experiences would have contained less intensely stressful times had there been at least a few more women around. One question, though: if your conclusion is true about grad school environments, what prevents an extension of it to all environments in which women will be philosophizing?

I think one implication of this very interesting paper is is how important the ‘mainstreaming’ of feminism / gender theory is. I’ve taught feminism / gender theory at every institution I’ve worked out (which means not just optional units on ‘gender’, but working a gender perspective into (supposedly) ‘non-gender-related’ units). But as a man, I guess I’m quite unusual in this. As long as gender theory is identified as a minority pursuit, pursued by women, then this kind of disadvantage is likely to continue. ‘Gender’ is not an arcane specialism pursued by women, for women!

My philosophy department, while still strongly weighted towards men, in both faculty and graduate students, does at least seem to be aware of the problem and trying to fix is (not the least of which because at least two of the female faculty members are actively trying to fix it).

My experience has actually been one that modifies Haslanger’s a bit – when students and professors have found out what I’m training in (bioethics), many get this look like they just swallowed a sourpatch kid. Instead of the automatic assumption that women are doing ethics or history of philosophy, there seems to be this attitude of “but why in the world would you want to do that” – perhaps a holdover from the time when that was the assumed path of a woman in the field.

(I actually, recently, had one professor ask me why I would want to do something so useless, that amounted to nothing more than standing around kibitizing about problems instead of doing something useful. Gee, thanks…)

“It seems blindingly obvious to me (but I’m willing to stand corrected, of course) that individual women, whatever their individual merits, have a better shot at success in grad school if there is a critical mass of other women in the program…

…convinces me that graduate admissions committees should work very hard indeed to achieve gender balance.”

If anything I think the first premise would lead to different conclusions. Assume a world where the ratio of qualified and interested male applicants to female applicants is 4:1 (maybe not true in philosophy, but try engineering, economics, etc.). Assume also that the chance of any given woman making it through the program and getting a tenure track job is directly proportional to the number of other women in her program.

In this world, rather than every graduate program aiming to have 20% women, you would get a higher proportion of women making through to the end if admissions committees stopped caring about gender at all and allowed, over time, women to volunatrily cluster in a handful of programs where they could realistically be 50% of the students overall.

In a way, this issue gets at one of the core problems with promoting diversity: Do you promote diversity within institutions or between institutions? When dealing with minority populations, you often can’t do both. To use an example, womens’ colleges are 100% un-diverse with respect to gender. But higher education as a whole is more diverse given the existance of women’s colleges, which operate on a non-standard model.

9: Who’s going to drop their program first?

Directly in response to the assertion that graduation times for women are lower in colleges with women:

I have no proper statistical evidence, but flipping through the Survey of Earned Doctorates (2003 edition), it appears the median graduation time for men and women are the exact same, with the exception of engineering (women graduate quicker) and social sciences (women take a little longer). Women make up about 17.1% in engineering and 54.4% in social sciences.

*I KNOW* that this isn’t conclusive, but an initial overview doesn’t support this hypothesis. Moreover, it appears they graduate at the same clip.

barry-

I fully agree. This survey only measures those who complete the degree. But at the same time, we can at least begin to assert that those who get past that drop-out point (qualifiers, dissertation), women tend to graduate just as quickly.

I think we can at least do Harry the favor of negating or supporting part of his claim.

sd — good, I thought of that. I also thought of the much more depressing inference some people less optimistic than me might make that, since a given program will find it hard to get a critical mass, they shouldn’t admit any at all. I didn’t go into the difficulty of achieving any particular critical mass given the individualised nature of the admissions decision, and the fact that all the people who turn you down do so on April 15 when the people just down your list have just accepted other places. But, fortunately, I just don’t think there is a dearth of qualified women candidates. Far from it.

ms — not sure I understand your question. I agree with Sally that much more should be done, I just think that, despite what I said in the above paragraph, achieving something close to gender balance in admissions is a relatively easy-to-achieve short-term goal with a high propsects of both short-term and long-term pay-offs.

grand moff texan — I can tell that you’re insulting me, but i can’t quite tell what you’re insulting me about. Clarify!

See, this is one of the reasons I’m glad I’m an engineer and not in the “soft” sciences.

what, because you believe that the engineering faculty treats women fairly and behaves in a welcoming manner to them? This would certainly overthrow a lot of people’s preconceptions.

I’m sure each admissions decision does influence the ability of other students to learn. But I can’t see why this should count over individual merit and potential for success.

What’s really so bad about alienation? Maybe I’m taking the lone scholar ideal too seriously, but if your odds are so marginal enough that your cohort will make the difference between success and failure you shouldn’t be doing a PhD. PhDs are supposed to be about independent research, a supervisor and a library should be all you need.

As a woman in the midst of graduate work at a top Leiter ranked philosophy program, I find being one of the only women in my program incredibly isolating and demoralizing. Though I have suffered no direct discrimination, I am constantly aware of being one of the only women in the room and the way in which expectations of my work are effected by my gender.

I doubt that the members of the mainly male faculty I interact with on a daily basis have any idea at all how deeply unhappy I am in my department, mainly as a result of being one of so few women.

The one time I was (grad) student rep on the admissions committee, I learned that the faculty agreed on admitting students who were academically successful and traditional. There was only one fusty sexist (who thought being a vegetarian gave him a free pass), but the others, for various reasons, thought the point was to admit the people most likely to finish fast, publish and get tenure. Nontraditional students, people switching from law or medical school, and people who worked full time to pay for night school – all were thought too risky, too likely to need “coddling”. I tried to suggest that while admitting thirty students, one risky choice was really not much risk at all, but was outvoted.

Of course the committee prided itself on having admitted a good number of middle-to-upper class women and foreigners as well as men, with a few working-class kids passing as middle class. Lots of children-of-academics too, people who swim in the culture like berries in yogurt.

I thought, and think, the solution is mentoring, teaching people with diverse but fascinatng skills and interests. This relationship-building would help individuals whatever the aggregate numbers. But, you know, that’s so unprofessional.

From what I’ve heard and seen as a student, it seemed that women in male-dominated fields had a ball and were treated like royalty, simply because there were so few of them; not sure how it is in the upper echelons, though.
Bwah. I’m not sure how it is in academia, but when I left the computer sciences to go get my “soft” degrees, I had been in the field a decade, and still faced the same discrimination and need to prove myself in my work that I had the day I started.

To this day, I have absolutely no problem of grabbing the chin of any male I’m talking to and lifting his face up to my eyes. (And yes, it really was that bad in the computer industry. I’ll spare you the numerous stories of sexual harassment that became the kind of thing you just ignored, or you’d never get any work done. And it was endemic – Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, startups – anywhere you went, female and techie was oddball enough that the men behaved badly.)

dsquared: No, of course not, but it should matter less, since skill in hard sciences by definition is more objectively measurable.

That comp.sci attracts horribly antisocial boys is a separate problem. I think I can assure you, sg, that these boys don’t get very far with their charming attitude in business (oh yes, I do know their kind) – they might have before, but there’s a serious cost to that kind of attitude, one that nerd-worship couldn’t weigh up for forever.

(btw, my impression is that we’ve come a long way in rejecting nerd-worship in Europe, far more so than they have in California – and I work for a Linux company)

Anonymous Graduate Student @22:
My sympathies; I know how you feel, though I have thankfully made it through the other end. (Email me at philosomapherATgmail.com if you’d like some friendly support!).

I am glad that this paper has been written (Thanks, Sally!). There are many philosophers who are taking this seriously, but it is difficult to change the culture. From my own experience, it is often difficult to speak up about such matters, lest you be marginalised even further. Even well-meaning male academics, who are quite genuinely concerned about this problem, seem oblivious to (and hostile to observations about) the different attitudes and behaviours they exhibit towards female colleagues.

I’ve never been into a nightclub, and I don’t think I’ve read even as much about them as you.

I have been to a disco once, but that was a disco in Ulaanbaatar…

At the risk of revisiting some ancestral hostilities, why does Haslanger bang on about ‘philosophy’ when really her evidence is about analytic philosophy departments, not continental ones — which don’t show up in the Leiter rankings very prominently. Much of what she describes relates to the hard science, hard boiled, hard nosed masculinism of analytic places that even men inclined to the more humanistic sides of philosophy suffer from.

“First, it may be that the stereotype of the lone scholar fits men better than women, and this is contributing to the belief that women “don’t belong” in philosophy.”

The idea of a lone scholar isn’t only a stereotype (or a cliche), it’s also what university regulations actually say a PhD is about. If you do a PhD you have to write it yourself, put your name on it, and sign a declaration that is is your work and only your work. People who can’t do that genuinely “don’t belong” in philosophy.

Harry’s post is based on a implicit idea of graduate research is all about, which I completely disagree with. He thinks that admission committees create the very good to which they are controlling access to – a nice environment in which you’ll recieve lots of help and support toward getting a doctorate. That’s pretty much the opposite of the traditional view that the good that comes with getting a PhD is that you’ve proven you can work on your own and produce an original contribution to knowledge. You’re proved yourself capable of doing independent scholarly research, and are in a different league to people who can’t do this without other people giving them lots of pointers and emotional support.

Academica is changing, and graduate students are having to do more courses and are getting more help and support and hand-holding. I think this is destroying the good to which admission committees are controlling access, rather than creating it.

leederick’s conception of graduate school is very convenient for the lazy professor. I basically think that the purpose of graduate school is to educate/train people to become as good practicioners as possible of the discipline (and good teachers etc). Part of my job is teaching graduate students. I certainly needed to be taught, myself, and had the good fortune to be taught by several good philosophers who were also good teachers. I can think of two particular interactions with my own supervisor, one of which lasted half a day, and the other about 10 minutes, in each of which I made huge strides forward, my supervisor having calculated exactly what I needed. The idea that one needs an environment in which to learn is not incompatible with the idea that in some relevant sense one is the ‘sole’ or ‘independent’ author of one’s dissertation. But only a genius or a fool thinks of their own ‘sole’ authored work that they could have done it without help.

Shorter leederick: “I have no friends, and I don’t see why anyone else needs them either.”

Harry, there’s something strange about the way you’ve switched from talking about peer group in the post to supervisors in comment #38.

I basically think that the purpose of graduate school is the old fashioned idea of having professors guide students in doing independent research. So I’m not going to argue with #38. But if that’s the case why judge students on how they influence the ability of other students to learn? I’ve no problem with admitting professors on that basis (and that *is* radical, professors typically get hired based upon research quality) but I can’t see why students should be judged based on the emotional needs of people who want to form a codependent relationship with their peer group. Why’s that their job, and what’s that got to do with what a PhD is about?

The important relationship is the supervisor-student one, not the peer group one. I found there was an overwhelming concern with group learning with other students and a suportive student environment when I was in grad school. Frankly, the student environment focus is what’s very convenient for the lazy professor, because that’s much easier to do than the important stuff of providing quality one-to-one contact with a supervisor.

I’m not in the least saying students should be abandoned by supervisors – I’m a traditionalist and think that’s very important. It’s the idea that the wider grad school environment is critical and that this is what people are trying to get in the club to access (your thesis above) which I’m gunning for.

i’m not sure if this is what sally haslanger’s point was, but here’s what i take harry’s point to be (if it’s not your point, harry, it’s at least compatible with your point): philosophy is inherently social. it’s a dialectic. even if a philosopher writes alone, the philosophy written is part of a dialectic with other philosophers. thus, doing philosophy is social. one benefits academically from being in an environment that is conducive to such dialectical exchanges. (e.g., reading groups, exchanging papers with colleagues, discussing your blossoming ideas with fellow philosophers.) if you want your graduate students to do well, then you’ll try to provide such an environment. the point is not that admissions committees ought to cater to the emotional needs of graduate students. the point is that graduate students in philosophy (and professors of philosophy!) will do better if they are in a supportive social environment. they will benefit from being able to freely and openly discuss their ideas. and, unsurprisingly, women and non-whites feel more able to freely and openly discuss ideas when there are more women and non-whites (respectively) around. so, admissions committees should try to provide a supportive social environment in which people freely and openly discuss their ideas.

shannon, lindsey, don’t you get it? leederick doesn’t need other people. if they would only leave him alone, he would think so much more clearly. what a wonderful world it would be for him if everyone would just fuck off and die already and leave him in peace with the library. oh, and his supervisor too. he can stay. until the degree, at least. then he can go. sorry, but he needs his peace and quiet so he can do his work.

of course, if your point was about the world that socialized being inhabit, your comment was right on, lindsey.

Shannon and Lindsey have it exactly right.
Philosophy is discursive. Almost all good research is produced through dialogue with other philosophers. A very important part of training as a professional philosopher is learning how to engage constructively in this dialogue. Would-be philosophers need to learn how to ask good questions, how to defend their ideas and how to handle discussion without being defensive or threatened. This takes practice. But it’s difficult to get that practice when you feel marginalised, and when your attempts to join discussions are ignored or shouldered out.
(I had a few very strange moments once I left graduate school: I would say something in a group discussion, and my colleagues would turn around and listen to me! It was like having loud music turned off while you’re trying to shout over it. Still doesn’t happen all the time, but it’s a wonderful improvement).

leederick, good, I’m glad that, contrary to your previous comment, you believe that teaching is important. But as shannon and lindsey and brucetta say, one major difference is how we conceive of philosophy as an activity (I don’t know who you are, so don’t know whether you’re a philosopher or not). I conceive of it as fundamentally cooperative. Some of the cooperation is done with dead people (with their presumed permission). I think that whether one learns to do that well depends on a host of factors including one’s social environment in grad school.

I don’t know how well I’d have learned (or thriven in my pre-tenure years) if I’d had to cope with the behavior that Sally describes, that I have heard many times from others (including some of these commenters) and occasionally observed myself. Maybe it would have been a brilliant spur to my own determination. I’m glad I haven’t had to find out, and don’t really think of that as revealing that I’m co-dependent or otherwise unusually psychologically flawed.

I said in my post that reversing the roles doesn’t aid the imagination much. But here’s an experience I have had — that of being the sole father in a group of parents of toddlers. I think the women involved actually wanted to be welcoming to a man (a friend of mine kept bringing me along). But in fact it was very uncomfortable for me (and, I think, for them). In this case, not especially important for me or them; but in the case of grad school, a good deal more so.

Not, of course, as important as eliminating poverty, or averting or stopping terrible wars, or many other great evils. And of course, if you’re in no position to improve the quality of a workplace, but are just on the receiving end of prejudice/slights/discrimination/harrassment/etc, then borealis’s attitude is probably a good one to adopt. But I’m not on the receiving end of any of that, and like most tenured academics Sally and I both have some ability to influence the quality of the environment in our own departments, and, through papers like hers and discussions like this, in others. Indifference would, again, be very convenient for us.

In response to 52:

It’s hard to know what to make of this response, Sally, except that you’re an elitist. While you’re right that the analytic depts dominate the Leiter rankings, most active philosophers in North America — if you deign to include the ones in the minor departments — are non-analytic. And perhaps even most practising philosophers are women, and they have an easier time in those downmarket departments. I don’t speak with authority on this matter. But it’s worth YOUR taking it seriously since you pretend to be speaking for philosophy as a discipline. In fact, I might be so bold as to suggest that philosophy’s recent fixation on the Leiter Report has only exacerbated the alpha-male tendency in the field, which you yourself seem have to have gotten sucked into. Put it this way: Suppose you were to find that gender relations were more equitable in lower ranked departments, would you be willing to move to one of them in a geographically hospitable location? Or, have I missed your strategy for reversing the gender bias endemic to the top ranked departments?

On the social vs. anti-social point. My own experience at a very good graduate department was that I learned more from the other students than from the professors — and this is no complaint about the professors. I was more willing to try out possibly dumb ideas with the other students and as a result I got more correction there than I did in interactions with faculty. The faculty at my graduate department were largely responsible for creating the environment that worked this way by treating us better than any other department at that university treated graduate students at the time. (This is not to say there were not problems on occasion but that the department did work at creating a good environment.)

Any department that does not think about the climate it is creating for its students is ignoring a factor which is highly relevant to the education its students receive.