Commentary : Columns : Little bitter
The patriarchy of philosophy
Women in philosophy departments find themselves pushed to the margins
They say that before becoming a columnist, you must first prove yourself to be an exceedingly arrogant and self-righteous tool. My particular brand of pretention and general disdain for others can be partly attributed to my major: when I graduate in the spring, my transcript will read “Bachelor of Arts: Philosophy.”
Philosophy is one of those rare majors that, when declared, simultaneously elicits looks of reverence and contempt from others. Philosophy majors are often seen as meek hipster wannabes who emit foul odours and begin every sentence with “it is the case that.” And with good reason. Moreover, it is the case that anyone who tells you they really “get” Wittgenstein’s arguments is either lying to you or ready to write their own column.
But something far more troubling than Converse shoes is plaguing one of world’s oldest disciplines. Philosophy boasts one of the absolute lowest ratios of women to men in academic circles today, closely rivalling mathematics and engineering in a race to the bottom.
Though a lack of data makes it hard to find precise figures, the latest studies indicate that women make up anywhere between 17-30 per cent of academically employed philosophers. In 2007, only 27 per cent of those who received doctorates in philosophy were women (according to the National Center for Education Statistics).
I find this data shocking. If there’s any overt sexism in McGill’s philosophy department, which is chaired by a woman, I haven’t experienced it. Philosophy majors would never sing a sexist song about a factory in Chicago – we’re far too pretentious and sober for that. I’ve had the privilege of studying under five exceptional and revered female philosophy professors, and have seen three female presidents of the Philosophy Students’ Association.
The main problem here is the silence concerning the number of women in the field outside of McGill, where things look a lot less promising. In the top 54 American philosophy departments, less than 19 per cent of the faculty are women. Why did it take me almost four years in the program to hear about this gross injustice?
A grad student suggested to me that the exclusion of women might be a product of a more general shift toward an analytic rather than continental style of philosophy. While the analytic tradition is often associated with formal logic and a respect for the natural sciences, the continental style’s emphasis on the human subject may have historically proven more inclusive to female scholars.
Personally, I don’t think the solution to the tradition’s misogyny lies in attempting to popularize the continental tradition in North America. Of course, this is almost entirely a result of my own personal contempt for continental philosophy. As a Jew of Eastern European descent, there’s a voice inside of me (probably my mother’s) that doesn’t particularly enjoy glorifying the works of Martin Heidegger, Nazi-bastard. Mostly, though, I really just don’t understand the readings. It took me nearly three months to learn what Hegel meant by “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” and I assure you, it was not fascinating.
But back to the more general problem. I think a lot of the time the question of women in philosophy is overlooked as a result of the widespread belief that the entire enterprise of philosophy has no real world import. Ambrose Bierce astutely defined philosophy as “a route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing,” a definition which seems to have caught on.
Granted, there’s very little money to be earned in philosophy, and it certainly won’t win you friends. But even contemporary philosophy matters. Philosophical discourse shapes and challenges the entire realm of thoughts and ideas. It addresses some of the most fundamental questions of meaning, existence, and the limits of human knowledge.
When women are left out of philosophy, they’re left out of a discourse and enterprise whose effects spill over into every academic field. Innovations in philosophy gradually seep into public consciousness, and that consciousness ought to include the voice of women. If a women falls out of philosophy, and there is no one there to read about it, does she make a sound?
Riva’s taking a break until January. Say shalom until next time: littlebitter@mcgilldaily.com.
Tags: This article has no tags
Guru Hoodoo wrote:
The under-representation of women in a given academic field is not necessarily symptomatic of a "gross injustice" as it may be a demonstration of the "competitive advantage" principle at work. As you yourself say, the field has not been, in your experience, innately hostile to women: so maybe women are staying out because for most, it is more rewarding to go into other fields.
Some recent studies have showed, for instance, that women are not worse or better than men at math. But they are better than men in languages. So why go into a field where they don't have an advantage over half their potential competitors when they have the option of a field where they have a natural edge?
Nov 23, 2009 at 01:30 PM
Riva wrote:
Because in asking that question, you're conceding that women "naturally" have an inclination towards certain fields. To suggest that women have a "natural advantage" at other things suggests that their exclusion from philosophy is a result of some biologically predetermined reality. This is a serious impediment to any meaningful conception of gender equality. I suggest you read anything written after the 1960s and you'll see the social construction arguments to which I allude.
Nov 23, 2009 at 06:37 PM
Riva wrote:
Also to clarify, while I don't think McGill's philosophy department is innately hostile to women, the traditional field of philosophy has been hostile to women.
Nov 23, 2009 at 06:38 PM
guru Hoodoo wrote:
To use "natural" was sloppy of me (though not, I believe, cause for you to be so antagonistic) - the study I was referring to did not investigate causes to the phenomena they observed. I did not imply that women are not in philosophy because their inclinations preclude their success - quite the opposite, if anything. I meant to say that perhaps women tend to stay out of philosophy (and maths, etc) because other fields are even more rewarding.
To clarify, here's a quote from the New York Times article published on April 29, 2009 referring to the study I was thinking of: (you might notice, 2009 is substantially after the 1960s)
"People are increasingly aware of the importance of cultural conditioning, including gender conditioning, said Luigi Guiso, professor of economics at the institute. Intrigued by the high number of men at top scientific schools in the United States, Mr. Guiso recently completed a study on the relationship among the environment, gender and math...
Mr. Guiso compared math and literacy performance with a gender gap index developed by the World Economic Forum in Geneva. The index keeps track of economic, political, education and health information in relation to gender inequality in more than 100 countries.
The research showed a clear correlation between the degree of emancipation of women and their high school math performances. In countries with high gender equality, like Scandinavia, the gender gap in math tends to disappear, Mr Guiso said, but the reading gap remains and even increases.
“Is there a genetic component?” he said. “I have no idea. But what is certain is that the role of culture is much more important.”
So, whether the advantage in certain subjects is genetic or cultural is unimportant: it would appear that women have an advantage in subjects related to reading, and thus may be more inclined to pursue those subjects than those in maths where they can compete, but their advantage might not be as great. It's a possibility that paints women as making decisions based on enlightened self-interest and thus being masters of their own destiny.
It doesn't preclude sexism being a factor, so you needn't re-examine your assumptions on that score if you don't want to. I certainly do not know that this or related phenomena might be at work in the case in philosophy, but it's an element worth considering, and I offer it only as a penny for your thoughts.
Nov 23, 2009 at 07:27 PM
guru Hoodoo wrote:
That bolding in there was accidental - presumably an artifact of my cut-and-paste.
Nov 23, 2009 at 07:28 PM
David Cox wrote:
Can you use 90% fewer words to say what you'd like me to do, please?
Nov 23, 2009 at 08:16 PM
Charles wrote:
A few comments to the author.
As far as i can tell you haven't done anything but whine that the philosophy department is under populated by women. Blindly throwing down statistics that tell us that only 27% of philosophy phd's tells us nothing about why this is the case. This article reeks of affirmative action. This university i believe is about 60% women. I believe that women are allowed to choose whatever program they like. I understand that not that many women are in philosophy. But there are no causal links between points two and three. There isn't some kind of invisible ceiling disallowing women from joining the ranks of philosophy. There is no reason, as far as i can tell, given in this article that suggests why the numbers are as they are. How is there some injustice, when students are allowed to choose their own program? Your argument doesn't seem to add up. Indeed, if you feel so strongly about this, why don't you have a table near one of those huge leacock auditoriums plying first year girls to join the philosophy department at McGill.
Nov 23, 2009 at 08:53 PM
Riva wrote:
"Guru Hoodoo," thanks for clarifying that. I apologize for my antagonistic reaction, I inferred a very different argument from the term "natural." The point you brought up is definitely worth thinking about. At the same time, I wonder if it isn't still problematic that their self-interest directs them away from a very important and influential discipline. It seems like that choice to enter other fields, rational and self-interested as it may be, is still a coercive one if it is closely tied to gender. When an entire group chooses not to do something because it's not comparatively their greatest skill, it's a problem. ...On a side note, it's also strange that in this study, women come out far ahead in reading- one of the most important skills needed in philosophy.
David and Charles: my intention in this limited space was to draw attention to a perplexing and often ignored problem. As far as solutions, I'm not an expert in the field and am not certain as to the optimal strategy. Off the top of my head, further statistical analysis of the subject by those with math skills might help, as well as the incorporation of readings by female authors into more classes. If you have constructive suggestions, I'd welcome your input. (Otherwise, were I less polite, I might accuse you of just "whining" about the article and not fixing it.)
The causal link between the statistics I cited and injustice is that when great disparity exists for an entire gender, it is unlikely that each individual woman just happened to "freely choose" not to go into philosophy without any existing social or institutional barriers.
"This article reeks of affirmative action." -That's one potential solution, thanks.
Nov 23, 2009 at 11:15 PM
guru Hoodoo wrote:
Thanks for the reply and the apology. I fully agree - and should have said - that it serves no one to have such a gender disparity in any discipline, and the why's bear examination. Reading and language skills are obviously key for philosophy, so that particular study actually serves to make your statistics more alarming. However, there may be some similar underlying cause leading women away from philosophy, as opposed to being pushed (again, not to deny the possibility of pushing).
A theory - and I've absolutely no basis for believing this - is that the development of Women's Studies programmes (which, as I understand it, exercises many of the same intellectual muscles as in philosophy) and other more theoretical approaches to humanities disciplines at the same time that female enrollment started to skyrocket drew many female students away from "pure" philosophy into parallel disciplines.
I'd also be interested in looking at other countries - I know philosophy is a bizarrely popular programme in France. I don't know the gender breakdowns, but I suspect it's far better than the numbers you cite. What are they doing right?
While Charles tone is unhelpful, he makes an excellent point in that any solution has to start with outreach - finding out why women aren't signing up. That, of course, requires that the departments first recognize the disparity as a problem, and there will be the real test as to their attitudes on the question.
Nov 23, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Ram wrote:
For those of you who are having difficulty ingesting or believing any of the points explicated in this article, I refer you to an article written by Sally Haslanger from the department at MIT.
http://www.mit.edu/~shaslang/papers/HaslangerCICP.pdf
Haslanger has proven to be one of the most formidable female academic philosophers following the analytic tradition, and this article, I hope, will be both fruitful in clarifying certain feminist 'complaints' within the discipline and conducive to furthering discussion of finding a means to make philosophic discussion much more inclusive.
While I'm still unclear as to where exactly you see the problem Riva, I am sympathetic towards your claim concerning the status of women in philosophy. However, as a South asian "queer" (and i use that term loosely) male in the department, I'm also very aware of some of the blatant streaks of conservatism that characterize much philosophic discussion, and which have shut both women and minorities from full participation in philosophy. This is not to say that philosophy is constitutively a discipline that functions exclusively, but rather, that the discipline is constituted by persons who are anything but free from prejudice.
I commend you and am appreciative of your efforts to open up such a discussion on a public forum.
Nov 24, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Riva wrote:
Thanks Ram, that's very interesting and pertinent.
Your post also brought up a very important point- that we should also looks at other minorities shut out of philosophy, and see if there are any underlying systematic causes within the field at the root.
Nov 24, 2009 at 06:07 PM
cynico wrote:
"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" isn't Hegel, it's Ernst Haeckel (who said it after Hegel was dead).
Nov 25, 2009 at 08:42 AM
Barbi wrote:
Philosophy is hard. Tee-hee.
Nov 29, 2009 at 01:59 PM
Logical Phallusies wrote:
I would think as a philosophy graduate, you would know not to commit an affirming the consequent fallacy.
Nov 29, 2009 at 03:58 PM
Brett wrote:
This is certainly not my experience as a recent Philosophy grad of York. The head of our department was a woman who specialized in Symbolic Logic. In fact more than half my Philosophy professors were women who mostly had an interest or specialty in both analytic and continental philosophy. Which speaks nothing to the women's studies department that also included numerous academics that taught or at least dabbled in philosophy.Much to my own enjoyment the student body also possessed a near 2 to 1 female to male ratio within our department.
Guru and Ram both make good points about the bifurcation of women into a separate discipline and the innate conservatism present within what's left of the philosophy department. I'd be curious to see what the numbers are for women in the traditionally male dominated area of political science are in comparison. State theory and political philosophy seem overburdened with male psychological concepts of strength and power. Perhaps those figures in the state reflect this emphasis on political/legal philosophy more than any inherent bias in the faculty.
Nov 29, 2009 at 05:02 PM
Brett wrote:
This is certainly not my experience as a recent Philosophy grad of York. The head of our department was a woman who specialized in Symbolic Logic. In fact more than half my Philosophy professors were women who mostly had an interest or specialty in both analytic and continental philosophy. Which speaks nothing to the women's studies department that also included numerous academics that taught or at least dabbled in philosophy.Much to my own enjoyment the student body also possessed a near 2 to 1 female to male ratio within our department.
Guru and Ram both make good points about the bifurcation of women into a separate discipline and the innate conservatism present within what's left of the philosophy department. I'd be curious to see what the numbers are for women in the traditionally male dominated area of political science are in comparison. State theory and political philosophy seem overburdened with male psychological concepts of strength and power. Perhaps those figures in the state reflect this emphasis on political/legal philosophy more than any inherent bias in the faculty.
Nov 29, 2009 at 05:02 PM
Spam Robot wrote:
Why do you think that women who do not agree with you on the importance of the field of philosophy in their lives must have some societal, cultural, institutional etc. barriers?
Moreover, is it wrong if women think differently from men ?
I am assuming that the statistics you cited for McGill point towards a general North American trend.
I feel you make a substantial argument on the disparity of the numbers but don't give much space to WHY does it matter.
Dec 2, 2009 at 09:35 PM
Miles R. wrote:
Riva Gold writes: "In the top 54 American philosophy departments, less than 19 per cent of the faculty are women. Why did it take me almost four years in the program to hear about this gross injustice?" (Emphasis added.)
That women are not represented in philosophy departments in anything close to their proportion in the general population is indisputable. But that underrepresentation is at most evidence of injustice. To make a case that it is due to injustice, you need to furnish some supporting facts; you cannot simply presume it a priori. To identify the underrepresentation itself as an injustice is not even a logically intelligible predication.
Here are some facts to consider before you go presuming that the underrepresentation of women in philosophy is due to injustice: In 1995, the APA gathered statistics on the hiring process in philosophy and published them in its Proceedings. According to those figures, the ratio of job offers to job candidates among women was 2.5 times what the ratio was among men. Yes, that's right: in 1995, a female job candidate in philosophy had on average 2.5 times the chance of getting hired that a male candidate had.
Dec 17, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Miles R. wrote:
Hmm. I put some HTML code for italics in there, but they did not show up in the post.
Dec 17, 2009 at 12:53 PM
Kaitlin wrote:
I sure hope it's "2.5 times" for my sake. My options are either philosophy or healh care law. I myself am considering whether or not to pursue my Phd after I finish my MA. I love being a philosopher but have deeply pragmatic concerns that are likely to draw me away--yes, these are largely financial considerations.
Feb 2, 2010 at 06:07 PM
We've switched commenting systems. Please scroll to the bottom of the article, where you can now log in and respond to this story.