Odd... they say that where you spend New Year's Eve indicates something about how you'll spend the following year.
A year ago today, Hubby and I were on an airplane.
boy -- did that turn out to be right.
We were taking a couple of good debaters (and neat people..) to a tournament in California. We flew out on New Year's eve and were supposed to be in LA by 10:00 PM their time. Of course, that didn't happen and we technically spent midnight in several time zones as we flew west. We landed in LA about 2 AM, made it to the hotel by 3 AM and collapsed.
We spent New Year's day introducing D1 and D2 to the Pacific Ocean.... which they declared 'salty'.... (with a tone of surprise in their voices). They also decided that palm trees are "creepy" and then that those creepy things didn't exist. The tournament itself was good for them -- they performed well, in spite of record rainfall for LA in January.
Little did I know that in 2006 hubby would be moving to Red State and that I'd be much more familiar with both airplanes and the Corn state than ever before.
Hubby and I are spending New Years Eve 2006 in snowy Red State -- tonight he'll pack and I'll go out for take-out at one of our favorite places. We don't do the 'go out and party on New Years' thing -- we don't find it fun or relaxing and we both tend to hate people and drunk people more than the normal person.... so New Year's Eve is a good time to retreat to our cave, eat some good food and watch a video of 7.
We will spend New Years day traveling to desert state. I doubt thast 2007 will find us in desert state often, but I'm sure that it will find us travelling quite a bit -- as it looks like hubby will probably have a job and house-sitting here next year.
By this time next year, I want to be furiously writing the final chapter of my dissertation so I can hand it all in, in person to my grad school. I would also like to be getting an offer to teach in Red State -- and be looking for a cute little condo we could afford with two professor's salaries, minus student loan debt.
So -- tell me, how are you celebrating (or, how did you celebrate if you are cooler than I am and going out to party..)?
Also -- tell me what you want to have accomplished by this time next year?
Sunday, December 31, 2006
New thoughts on feminist epistemology...
On the drive down to Red State, hubby and I had an interesting discussion -- as usual (we are infamous for arguing about Rawls for the length of Nebraksa... ).
We got on the topic of topics feminists have decided are closed for debate.... among them: The sex/gender distinction, whether or not abortion should be limited, the experience of girls in education, studies like the one Larry Summers proposed and women doing domestic violence to men... It does seem that the feminist position on all of these stems from the distinction between sex and gender.
In essence, these topics are taboo -- i.e. an acceptable opposition to the feminist position is impossible...
Taboos are signaled by the need to qualify and justify the taboo violating statements -- and the reaction of feminists to the statements themselves.
Taboos seem to rest on moral and epistemic claims of truth. The quesiton then is about the justification for the basis of these claims. Do these claims stem from a separate feminist epistemological process? If there is an alternate feminist epistemolgy, is it sufficient to support the claims it seems to be supporting in terms of taboos? How does this epiestemology mesh or conflict with whatever it is different than?
So -- what do you think about the list of taboos??? Too much, am I missing any?
We got on the topic of topics feminists have decided are closed for debate.... among them: The sex/gender distinction, whether or not abortion should be limited, the experience of girls in education, studies like the one Larry Summers proposed and women doing domestic violence to men... It does seem that the feminist position on all of these stems from the distinction between sex and gender.
In essence, these topics are taboo -- i.e. an acceptable opposition to the feminist position is impossible...
Taboos are signaled by the need to qualify and justify the taboo violating statements -- and the reaction of feminists to the statements themselves.
Taboos seem to rest on moral and epistemic claims of truth. The quesiton then is about the justification for the basis of these claims. Do these claims stem from a separate feminist epistemological process? If there is an alternate feminist epistemolgy, is it sufficient to support the claims it seems to be supporting in terms of taboos? How does this epiestemology mesh or conflict with whatever it is different than?
So -- what do you think about the list of taboos??? Too much, am I missing any?
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Back in Red State
Once again, I'm back in the Red State. We'll hang out tomorrow, spend a quiet New Year's Eve and then go to someplace warm for a symposium (his) and study hall (mine).
On the way down, hubby and I discussed a new idea for my feminist epistemology paper...
The core idea is that there seem to be a few subject areas that are 'third rails' or taboos within feminism. Those subject areas have implied knowledge claims... my paper could look at those areas to see what the claims are... or something.
I'm still working on it...
but, now in another state.
ps... I'm officially a packing ninja. I've packed clothes for two weeks and two climates into a 22inch suitcase, without using the explanding zipper. Yea me!
On the way down, hubby and I discussed a new idea for my feminist epistemology paper...
The core idea is that there seem to be a few subject areas that are 'third rails' or taboos within feminism. Those subject areas have implied knowledge claims... my paper could look at those areas to see what the claims are... or something.
I'm still working on it...
but, now in another state.
ps... I'm officially a packing ninja. I've packed clothes for two weeks and two climates into a 22inch suitcase, without using the explanding zipper. Yea me!
Friday, December 29, 2006
More on girls, science and math..
The more I wonder about this, the more interesting it gets...
Recently there was a study (vague, I know -- I'm too lazy to dig it up right now) that showed that girls don't really have stronger language skills and slightly higher IQs, it is just that they develop earlier than boys and thus, when tested, test higher because their developmental age is higher.
Of course, in many ways language skills are equated with emotions and in opposition to reason, so the idea that girls are better at language than boys was allowed to stand until this study.
Now I'm becoming even more convinced that we ought to do scientific work on the differences between male and female brains. Think about the options...
1) They find that boys/men and girls/women process mathematical information in exactly the same way.
2) They find that girls/women are less able to learn mathematical information when it is taught to them in the same way as it is taught to boys/men.
3) They find that girls/women have a higher aptitude, but lower results or at least fewer women choose to enter math and science fields.
The thing is that #2 does not mean that women can't do math and science... it means that we aren't effectively teaching girls the concepts of math and science.... and even with poor teaching a decent number of women have managed to make significant contributions to math and science... in spite of their biology. hmmm....
Of course, some feminists would argue that the underlying assumptions and systems of any kind of test rely on sexist thinking... so, as a result, an accurate test would be impossible.
Recently there was a study (vague, I know -- I'm too lazy to dig it up right now) that showed that girls don't really have stronger language skills and slightly higher IQs, it is just that they develop earlier than boys and thus, when tested, test higher because their developmental age is higher.
Of course, in many ways language skills are equated with emotions and in opposition to reason, so the idea that girls are better at language than boys was allowed to stand until this study.
Now I'm becoming even more convinced that we ought to do scientific work on the differences between male and female brains. Think about the options...
1) They find that boys/men and girls/women process mathematical information in exactly the same way.
2) They find that girls/women are less able to learn mathematical information when it is taught to them in the same way as it is taught to boys/men.
3) They find that girls/women have a higher aptitude, but lower results or at least fewer women choose to enter math and science fields.
The thing is that #2 does not mean that women can't do math and science... it means that we aren't effectively teaching girls the concepts of math and science.... and even with poor teaching a decent number of women have managed to make significant contributions to math and science... in spite of their biology. hmmm....
Of course, some feminists would argue that the underlying assumptions and systems of any kind of test rely on sexist thinking... so, as a result, an accurate test would be impossible.
Nature and Nurture.... girls in science and math
As Addie noted in a long and very welcome comment on my previous post -- there has been much research concerning soclialization and the resulting gender gap in terms of math and science. I have no doubt that this is true -- and that the cannon of epistemology and philosophy of science has a lot to do with this socialization. If women are 'emotional' and men are 'rational' -- and math and science are based on reason -- of course more men will wind up in math and science... duh.
I'm 38, and I recall getting the impression that being good at math and science was 'for boys' and being good at language related subjects was 'for girls'. I also recall the way I was instructed in these subjects (by men --geared towards boys). I really think that the reason I'm in a languageish (yea, I make up words) discipline is simply that I learned to read very early and by 4th grade I was off the K-12 scale in reading comprehension etc... For this reason it is hard to say that where I ended up was all about socilization.
What I'm worried about (FYI 'worried' is a technical term in philosophy denoting the central concern..) is the potential for feminist politics to block scientific research that could give us data about how to more effectively teach girls math and science...
I'm also worried that feminism will send the message that women are not rational -- because that simply isn't true....
I'm 38, and I recall getting the impression that being good at math and science was 'for boys' and being good at language related subjects was 'for girls'. I also recall the way I was instructed in these subjects (by men --geared towards boys). I really think that the reason I'm in a languageish (yea, I make up words) discipline is simply that I learned to read very early and by 4th grade I was off the K-12 scale in reading comprehension etc... For this reason it is hard to say that where I ended up was all about socilization.
What I'm worried about (FYI 'worried' is a technical term in philosophy denoting the central concern..) is the potential for feminist politics to block scientific research that could give us data about how to more effectively teach girls math and science...
I'm also worried that feminism will send the message that women are not rational -- because that simply isn't true....
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Feminist Epistemology... a quandry
A few things seem pretty clear to me at this point in my short study of feminist philosophy... (i.e. they could and probably will change... )
1) Finding any one thing feminist philosophers agree upon is rare. I think they'd all agree that traditional philosophy was done by men and tended to marginalize women in some ways -- beyond that there seems to be no common ground.
2) I think that all well-functioning people do something that is roughly thinking and nearly all of them also reason in some ways. This includes both men and women in about equal proportions.
3) There are a substantial and influential cohort of philosophers who are also feminists that say 'reason' is corrupt because, certainly historically and arguably currently, female points of view are excluded from the class of the reasonable.
4) There are two implications the historical exclusion of feminine perspectives a) views of what is 'reasonable' have been (and are??) used as the basis for oppressive actions, and b) The way in which science is (has been??) done has been harmed.
5) Many influential feminist philosophers conclude that the concept of rationality is so off-kilter that it must be discarded.
Given the above... My quandry....
It may be the case that I have been successuflly brainwashed by the patriarchy -- but it seems as if my thinking process is, essentially, reasoning. According to some versions of feminist epistemology, this makes me male -- or, perhaps tainted by the maleness of my philosophical background -- or, something. I sure feel female -- every day.
What I don't understand, perhaps because I'm a 3rd generation feminist, is how some feminist philosophers can justify elimination of rationality as a basis for knowledge? (It isn' completely clear to me that they do this -- but it does seem as much right now...) They do this in the same basic move as they eliminate the possibility of an objective point of view. While I don't agree with the former move, I do agree with the latter. If the point of feminist thought is to promote a plurality of views, isn't it the case that the view of knowledge based on reason ought to be valued along with kinds of views?
Also -- something I don't understand about sex and gender....
Isn't it the case that, in general, biology provides the foundation for the social constructions of gender?
If this is the case, and if it is the case that there are significantly fewer women in math and science occupations, then shouldn't science seek to understand why? Isn't it possible that, at the points girls and boys learn math and science concepts, their brains are different? If this is the case, and if brain science in education has any validity, then shouldn't boys and girls be taught math and science in different ways -- i.e. in ways that maximize learning in both sexes/genders?
I may be wrong, but isn't this kind of what Larry Summers (former Harvard President) was getting at? Granted, he may have framed the question in a manner unacceptable to most feminists, but would he have had any less of a hassle had his question been properly framed?
I'm still thinking about this -- and would love your thoughts.
1) Finding any one thing feminist philosophers agree upon is rare. I think they'd all agree that traditional philosophy was done by men and tended to marginalize women in some ways -- beyond that there seems to be no common ground.
2) I think that all well-functioning people do something that is roughly thinking and nearly all of them also reason in some ways. This includes both men and women in about equal proportions.
3) There are a substantial and influential cohort of philosophers who are also feminists that say 'reason' is corrupt because, certainly historically and arguably currently, female points of view are excluded from the class of the reasonable.
4) There are two implications the historical exclusion of feminine perspectives a) views of what is 'reasonable' have been (and are??) used as the basis for oppressive actions, and b) The way in which science is (has been??) done has been harmed.
5) Many influential feminist philosophers conclude that the concept of rationality is so off-kilter that it must be discarded.
Given the above... My quandry....
It may be the case that I have been successuflly brainwashed by the patriarchy -- but it seems as if my thinking process is, essentially, reasoning. According to some versions of feminist epistemology, this makes me male -- or, perhaps tainted by the maleness of my philosophical background -- or, something. I sure feel female -- every day.
What I don't understand, perhaps because I'm a 3rd generation feminist, is how some feminist philosophers can justify elimination of rationality as a basis for knowledge? (It isn' completely clear to me that they do this -- but it does seem as much right now...) They do this in the same basic move as they eliminate the possibility of an objective point of view. While I don't agree with the former move, I do agree with the latter. If the point of feminist thought is to promote a plurality of views, isn't it the case that the view of knowledge based on reason ought to be valued along with kinds of views?
Also -- something I don't understand about sex and gender....
Isn't it the case that, in general, biology provides the foundation for the social constructions of gender?
If this is the case, and if it is the case that there are significantly fewer women in math and science occupations, then shouldn't science seek to understand why? Isn't it possible that, at the points girls and boys learn math and science concepts, their brains are different? If this is the case, and if brain science in education has any validity, then shouldn't boys and girls be taught math and science in different ways -- i.e. in ways that maximize learning in both sexes/genders?
I may be wrong, but isn't this kind of what Larry Summers (former Harvard President) was getting at? Granted, he may have framed the question in a manner unacceptable to most feminists, but would he have had any less of a hassle had his question been properly framed?
I'm still thinking about this -- and would love your thoughts.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Winter Break... the aftermath
When I got home from Mom's, I realized my apartment was a mess. The only clean room was the one we rearranged last week, and all the stuff that didn't go back into the DC is still out of place elsewhere..
So, for the next few days I'll be cleaning. We'll leave late this week for Red State and from Red State we'll go to desert state for two weeks - then I go to mountain state for a debate tournament for a few days before coming home.
I get home on MLK day, have one day off before the new semester starts --- and then we leave for a debate tournament in Red State....
SO, literally, if my place is going to be clean between now and the end of January -- it has to be now.
When I get home, the only messes I want to clean up are cat messes....
I also have to pack for this odyssey -- although, the packing part doesn't really start until we leave for desert state, as I have plenty of things at hubby's in Red State so I don't have to get into my suitcase.
I'm also going to cheat and buy a sweatshirt in desert state so I can wear it in mountain state.
as Mom would say -- uffda
So, for the next few days I'll be cleaning. We'll leave late this week for Red State and from Red State we'll go to desert state for two weeks - then I go to mountain state for a debate tournament for a few days before coming home.
I get home on MLK day, have one day off before the new semester starts --- and then we leave for a debate tournament in Red State....
SO, literally, if my place is going to be clean between now and the end of January -- it has to be now.
When I get home, the only messes I want to clean up are cat messes....
I also have to pack for this odyssey -- although, the packing part doesn't really start until we leave for desert state, as I have plenty of things at hubby's in Red State so I don't have to get into my suitcase.
I'm also going to cheat and buy a sweatshirt in desert state so I can wear it in mountain state.
as Mom would say -- uffda
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)