tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post3478208419617526406..comments2023-06-09T14:31:42.016+01:00Comments on Philosophy Metametablog: June MugsPhilosophy Metametabloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04323470189556733345noreply@blogger.comBlogger255125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-84679259333173937402015-06-28T01:13:04.182+01:002015-06-28T01:13:04.182+01:00Yup, that's about right.Yup, that's about right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-2602318937706113762015-06-27T21:20:47.061+01:002015-06-27T21:20:47.061+01:00Don't forget IMP (immature poop person) and PB...Don't forget IMP (immature poop person) and PBG (Paranoid British Guy).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-34447762314932672452015-06-27T21:11:56.910+01:002015-06-27T21:11:56.910+01:0012:51 OP here again.
I don't think I've ...12:51 OP here again. <br /><br />I don't think I've been ranting (at least not more so than anyone else at any rate). My last post at 9:31 was a direct reply to another poster's line of reasoning.<br /><br />Let me sum that up.<br /><br />They claimed that the explanation of why women are hired despite having fewer publications and other objective accomplishments than their male competitors is that selection committees might be preferring them due to the outstanding letters they're receiving.<br /><br />I explained why, for a variety of reasons, that strikes me as either implausible or dismaying if true. <br /><br />I then simply asked anyone who is interested to answer the question I then posed. <br /><br />I have identified an issue that I take to be important and others have already brought hard data to bear that proves it is indeed a legitimate phenomenon. <br /><br />I was hoping we might talk about it. That's all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-67880955704282384152015-06-27T21:04:28.206+01:002015-06-27T21:04:28.206+01:0012:51 continues to evade the issue in favor of spe...12:51 continues to evade the issue in favor of speculating about her interlocutors. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-41656052091108905362015-06-27T21:03:51.836+01:002015-06-27T21:03:51.836+01:006:07: But we don't find MEN who are being hire...6:07: But we don't find MEN who are being hired despite only being ABD, with no publication records, and so on. My point isn't that there are qualified women who are unemployed too, my point is that it is women who are the ones hired despite being less qualified than their competition. <br /><br />It is perfectly compatible with what I'm saying that there are women who deserve jobs who aren't getting them. My point is that the people who are getting jobs who DON'T deserve them are overwhelmingly women.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-37744461262451307052015-06-27T20:51:22.613+01:002015-06-27T20:51:22.613+01:0010:48 here. I didn't say you didn't have a...10:48 here. I didn't say you didn't have a philosophical mind. I said that your remarks didn't sound philosophical. And I meant to also convey that I would be able to come to a view about the problem you raise if I could relate to you philosophically. I don't mind political or practical discussions at all, but I need to be able to connect to them through some philosophical slant, and I don't see much of that in the discussion so far. I raise this issue because there is the very real concern of this blog being taken over by MRA (or FRA) and others who want to wallow in the Fox news-teaparty etc. shit that has ravaged the U.S. over the past decade or so, where the public discourse is all about dominance and poo flinging (I want to include scataguy/girl in the discussion, you see). "Rebuttal" is not a word I ever remembering hearing from any of my PhD teachers or my undergrad teachers (at top 20 and top 5 Leiterific departments respectively) nor would I ever ever use it with my students. It is a good word to use in the context of debate discourse. But that is not what I take philosophy essentially to be. Now, OP and those responding to OP, how many of you think philosophy is all about winning debates? Let me know, so I can decide whether to continue reading and considering whether there is a cause I should be concerned about and work to support. Or maybe you just want to rant about something without caring whether it is dealt with; idk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-80889451954857958382015-06-27T19:05:44.004+01:002015-06-27T19:05:44.004+01:00This the OP and 9:21 here.
I am not the one who ...This the OP and 9:21 here. <br /><br />I am not the one who used the dirty language in 10:54. I don't want people to ignore what I wrote in 9:31 simply because of the way 10:54 said what he or she said.<br /><br />And 10:56 I wish there was a name for that fallacy too! But in any case, if people think I don't have a "philosophical" mind, then so be it. <br /><br />I invite them to offer us a cogent rebuttal to what I said in 9:31. I think what I said there is straightforwardly damning, but I'd be happen to proven wrong.<br /><br />So I'll ask everyone again: are dozens of female candidates every year getting the jobs they do because of the so-called "Kripke letters"? And if so, is that a good thing?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-49272098440291251042015-06-27T18:56:37.078+01:002015-06-27T18:56:37.078+01:0010:48 is changing the topic from 9:31's analys...10:48 is changing the topic from 9:31's analysis to 9:31's intellect. If only there were a name for that kind of dialectical move...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-75617081953767256372015-06-27T18:54:37.106+01:002015-06-27T18:54:37.106+01:0010:48, what the fuck do you think this blog is for...10:48, what the fuck do you think this blog is for?<br /><br />It's the one and only place we can discuss these things.<br /><br />If you want to discuss some other stuff then go to the hundred other philosophy blogs. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-50856554524900702662015-06-27T18:52:50.180+01:002015-06-27T18:52:50.180+01:00Yeah, but they aren't both a) profiting from s...Yeah, but they aren't both a) profiting from substantial, clear and overt hiring biases on the basis of sex and b) deluded enough assholes to call it justice and rub salt in the wounds of the people who, everyone now recognizes, are being discriminated against on the basis of their sex by sarcastically responding to them when they mention it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-79375853859346887872015-06-27T18:48:10.789+01:002015-06-27T18:48:10.789+01:00Agree with 11:26, 1:00 and 1;34
OP, you don't...Agree with 11:26, 1:00 and 1;34<br /><br />OP, you don't sound very philosophical. Is there a philosophical issue you can raise for us to discuss? If you raise a philosophical issue for us to discuss, then I will reconsider what you say about your situation and gender inequity. If you are in the value theory end of things, perhaps you could just explain why gender equity is philosophically interesting. Or if your area is in metaphysics, perhaps you could describe an issue you find interesting and explain why you find it interesting (no need to describe exact stuff you are working on of course, in order to assure anonymity). Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-6791203520278016462015-06-27T18:27:03.380+01:002015-06-27T18:27:03.380+01:00Stop being silly 10:09. There are lots of women in...Stop being silly 10:09. There are lots of women in the same position as the men you describe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-55060093997253736552015-06-27T18:09:09.916+01:002015-06-27T18:09:09.916+01:00For her next act, 9:29 will go around telling peop...For her next act, 9:29 will go around telling people that *everyone* on the Metablog *does nothing but* talk about how *his own* prospects are poorer due to female privilege in the profession (just as she now assumes from the fact that *one* person made this claim, *once*, that we who discuss things here are *a bunch of angry little white men*).<br /><br />Being a 'feminist philosopher' means you can laugh, with tenure, without ever learning such rudimentary philosophical skills as the difference between existential and universal instantiation. And without caring. And while being a complete asshole about it.<br /><br />Enjoy your privilege, 9:29. You've really earned it by being born with a vagina. And the men who now have to work far harder, and might still never get a TT position despite being more qualified than they had to be to win a plum TT position even ten years ago, deserve what they got. Why, just look at their personal lives. Being men in PhD programs, they were able to get crippling student loans with no questions asked, and to incur staggering debts that they can probably never pay off for the work they'll be given in the profession, no matter what they achieve, while it's 'just' for women to be given wildly disproportionate preference for those same positions with far fewer objective accomplishments. Because vagina.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-34805526190024141352015-06-27T17:31:15.114+01:002015-06-27T17:31:15.114+01:006:23: OP here again.
According to my own self-des...6:23: OP here again.<br /><br />According to my own self-description? I don't recall having said anything about my own sense of my philosophical potential (it would have been in bad taste anyway if I had, no?) . And in any case, it is totally irrelevant whether I think highly or not about my own promise (or indeed even whether that self-appraisal is accurate). <br /><br />Instead, what matters is what my objective record indicates about that promise and also what my letter writes say about it. <br /><br />This leads us back to the key question that I keep raising which everyone seems to prefer to ignore: why should we believe all this talk that female candidates are winning interviews and hires on the basis of their having letters that claim they're this generation's Kripke? I see absolutely no reason to believe this is really the case, and if it is the case, there are plenty of reasons for thinking it is a nefarious practice anyway!<br /><br />There are at least two related reasons that explain why.<br /><br />To begin with, as you yourself say, not everyone is sure to be the next Kripke, so why do DOZENS OF WOMEN GET HIRED EVERY SINGLE YEAR on the supposed basis that they are the next best thing? Surely selection committees should no that this can't be the case. <br /><br />Everyone knows that letters these days are notoriously overinflated in their praise, so why should a letter of recommendation somehow trump the fact that the candidate has essentially nothing objective to prove that they even deserve the high praise? Presumably search committees request that one send in a CV and a publications list because one's ACTUAL accomplishments--rather than speculation about the candidate's "potential"--should carry comparatively heavier weight.<br /><br />So, even if we grant that these sort of letters are not pure fiction but actually exist, and even if we grant that they in turn explain why otherwise seemingly unqualified female candidates land the jobs they do, one has every right to still ask: IS THAT JUSTIFIED? <br /><br />There is a real danger in hiring practices like these. They are essentially no different than the sort of "insider dealing" that went on for decades at prestigious places. I know about that first-hand because I currently study at one of the place that is nearly synonymous with the images that talk of the "old boys" club conjures.<br /><br />If we justifiably decry those days, and I presume that you do, why should we be okay with effectively the same practices today simply because it is now women, rather than men, who benefit? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-35144180764283162732015-06-27T17:29:11.672+01:002015-06-27T17:29:11.672+01:00Wow, what a bunch of angry little white men. You&#...Wow, what a bunch of angry little white men. You're the reason you can't get a job, but keep blaming everyone else. I'm sure it will eventually lead to you obtaining a TT position. -laughing with tenureAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-70543160364388561062015-06-27T14:23:34.848+01:002015-06-27T14:23:34.848+01:00OP wrote: ' often female candidate are beating...OP wrote: ' often female candidate are beating out male applicants who have demonstrably strong records.'<br /><br />Your picture is far too narrow. In such cases, those female candidates are ALSO beating out FEMALE candidates who have "demonstrably strong records". A lot of these searches have 600 applicants - do you really think that the female candidate with no pubs was the *most qualified* (by your standards) female candidate?<br /><br />Some committees decide (consciously or not) to focus on dreamy ABDs who have yet to publish anything but will surely be the next Kripke, their supervisor's letter says it right there. According to your self-description, you are not one of those. So you weren't going to get those jobs, and complaining about the gender of those who do is missing the point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-78005450243092439222015-06-27T14:07:11.652+01:002015-06-27T14:07:11.652+01:00OP wrote: 'I have many friends who have a PhD ...OP wrote: 'I have many friends who have a PhD in hand, who have multiple publications in sometimes very prestigious journals like The Philosophical Review or The Journal of Philosophy, and who have held prestigious post-docs, and still can't land a job.'<br /><br />I know people like this too. Some of them are women. The thing you are complaining about is a thing, but it's not a gendered thing. (If the only people you know who fit this description are men, then this says more about your social circle than about the state of the profession.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-83019775238860039742015-06-27T13:44:18.087+01:002015-06-27T13:44:18.087+01:00what's wrong with stirring up shitwhat's wrong with stirring up shitAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-12212496012801500962015-06-27T13:35:18.327+01:002015-06-27T13:35:18.327+01:00I'm surprised that there's even controvers...I'm surprised that there's even controversy about this. I've been at two departments in a row that have openly ages on a policy of hiring at least one woman for every two new TT hires in order to help diversify the departments. These explicit forms of filtering are actively approved of by administrators and philosophers, just as other interventionist measures like the gendered conference campaign are. Do some people not realize this is happening? It's not as though it's a secret. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-35918214071248592342015-06-27T13:29:03.370+01:002015-06-27T13:29:03.370+01:00Amazing how many people here have missed the fact ...Amazing how many people here have missed the fact that the job market has changed dramatically over the past few years. And by 'few' I mean less than five. I know several great people at top programs who aren't getting interviews. It's not just that there are fewer jobs per applicant, but the fact that many people who couldn't get good TT positions over the past few years are now competing for the entry level positions, and squeezing many of the newer candidates out.<br /><br />Wake up, people. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-68187183433329351422015-06-27T09:34:41.750+01:002015-06-27T09:34:41.750+01:00'Fembot' I think is another sign, I think....'Fembot' I think is another sign, I think. That sounds more typical MRA than typical metablogger. Of course, none of these things are conclusive, but put them all together? Also, there's clueless and there's thinking that the only materials search committees have pre-interview are the CV and tea leaves. That seems suspicious because for most non-academic jobs, it would be true. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-81580037209234689432015-06-27T09:22:57.974+01:002015-06-27T09:22:57.974+01:00If OP just wanted to stir up shit, he probably wou...If OP just wanted to stir up shit, he probably would not have considered the letter explanation, though, right? Any explanation that took away from it being the fault of affirmative action would have been ignored by such a poster. As for the other discrepancies, perhaps he transferred from a less fancy program and did some teaching there? Perhaps the letters from external people do not go through the placement officer, or one or more external writers balked at the idea. I, for one, have *internal* letter writers who refuse to have their letters screened. Haven't you all met some late-stage grad students who are pretty clueless about how the job market works? I certainly have. The guy didn't have much of anything new to say, but he wasn't obviously bullshitting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-65294437763026733232015-06-27T09:00:12.343+01:002015-06-27T09:00:12.343+01:00Exactly, 12:30. I was at a school like that, and t...Exactly, 12:30. I was at a school like that, and the advice was that top pubs were better than none, but none were better than mediocre. Basically, (fairly or not) coming from a school like that people are likely to antecedently have a pretty high opinion of your potential, and you don't want to do anything to disabuse them of that.<br /><br />The other thing that seems odd is the 'extensive teaching experience as a sole instructor' this would be pretty unusual at the top schools. (Though possibly less so at Rutgers?)<br /><br />And to me, something just seemed off about the OP's vocab - he sounded way older than a typical grad student. Jennifer and Stacy? really? Because it's actually 1986 still? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-56032907561871184992015-06-27T08:54:41.971+01:002015-06-27T08:54:41.971+01:00Perhaps Justin Weinberg learned about Millian libe...Perhaps Justin Weinberg learned about Millian liberalism from Anne Jacobson.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-26872183894801012292015-06-27T08:30:32.040+01:002015-06-27T08:30:32.040+01:00All the top three schools have their placement dir...All the top three schools have their placement director vet letters. It sounds like the OP doesn't know this given his response to suggestions that he might have a bad letter? I'm less quick to assume he is not really a grad student in a top three program (as one myself, I can think of some angry people he might be), but I was sort of surprised by this. <br /><br />Also: if you're coming out of a top three program, it's my impression that having multiple peer-reviewed publications can actually hurt you unless (a) they are all extremely good papers and (b) they are in journals at least as good as, e.g., Phil Studies. If your pubs are less good than someone else's "promise" then you're going to get passed over for someone else by schmancy departments, and I'm not sure that's about gender. But smaller/less schmancy/etc. schools might pass over you because either they don't trust your commitment to teaching, or (more likely) they think that you are going to try to leave. I'm not making any comments about whether all this is justified or not, but if your pubs aren't in Phil Review or something, this might be part of what's going on. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com