Ray Monk describing Wittgenstein's thoughts on philosophy:
"He said about philosophy that he could only really philosophise with someone with whom he could hold hands...there's a kind of sympathy required so as not to feel that you're constantly being misinterpreted or interpreted uncharitably or whatever it might be, that, you, you feel some kind of sympathy, he even described it one time as a kind of erotic sympathy, you need some kind of empathy, some sort of connexion and its if you publish something, its then very difficult I think, or maybe impossible, to establish that kind of communication that's ideal."
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
"Mansplaining"
I've noticed a rising number of articles gently probing the problems of sexism within the workplace recently, specifically the academic work place. Many articles, whilst well intentioned, I have found have been either to nervous to take the gloves off and dive right into the fray, or too generalised, lacking in a specificity required to really elucidate the problem for people who are not familiar with the experiences the writers are complaining about.
However a couple of points within a couple of articles have stood out:
(1) Whilst I disagree with some of the conclusions drawn...
...and with the labelling -- I do not need to be labelled a feminist to have concerns about the treatment of women in academia, and such labels can be very unhelpful, I'd much rather just be myself, without labels, a woman with a brain...
there is no question that the first half of this article (& points 1 & 4) hit my repeated experience of basically any numerically male heavy discussion in academia perfectly on the head:
However a couple of points within a couple of articles have stood out:
(1) Whilst I disagree with some of the conclusions drawn...
...and with the labelling -- I do not need to be labelled a feminist to have concerns about the treatment of women in academia, and such labels can be very unhelpful, I'd much rather just be myself, without labels, a woman with a brain...
there is no question that the first half of this article (& points 1 & 4) hit my repeated experience of basically any numerically male heavy discussion in academia perfectly on the head:
(and actually, no, its not just in academia... that's just where it bugs me the most)
(2) This:
"Women are more negatively affected than men by the competitiveness in this stage of an academic career and their concerns about competitiveness are fuelled, they say, by a relative lack of self-confidence.
Women more than men see great sacrifice as a prerequisite for success in academia. This comes in part from their perception of women who have succeeded, from the nature of the available role models. Successful female professors are perceived by female PhD candidates as displaying masculine characteristics, such as aggression and competitiveness, and they were often childless."
(2) This:
"Women are more negatively affected than men by the competitiveness in this stage of an academic career and their concerns about competitiveness are fuelled, they say, by a relative lack of self-confidence.
Women more than men see great sacrifice as a prerequisite for success in academia. This comes in part from their perception of women who have succeeded, from the nature of the available role models. Successful female professors are perceived by female PhD candidates as displaying masculine characteristics, such as aggression and competitiveness, and they were often childless."
3 fantastically accurate and oft overlooked points - particularly the last one can be a thorny subject to approach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)