Why are there so few women in philosophy?
Three important themes or issues:
1. Stereotype threat
2. Implicit bias
3. Micro-messages
I will say something brief about how to understand these phenomena, how they may explain
why women leave philosophy and something about how to work against these effects.
Although main focus will be on gender and philosophy, the issues are interesting also more
generally (race, social class etc - other subjects and outside the academic world).
Stereotype threat
Stereotype threat occurs when individuals are stereotyped as poor performers in a domain and
their performance may seem to confirm the negative stereotype (introduced by Steele and
Aronson 1995).
Some examples: white men can’t jump, women are emotional/partial, men are
rational/objective (the latter characteristics are stereotypical traits associated with
philosophy - raw brilliance -> genius -> stereotypical male figure in philosophy).
Everyone is likely to belong to a group that is characterized by some sort of stereotype (what is
the stereotype for academics?). However, membership in a minority or low-status group is
something that is likely to make one risk being exposed to stereotype threat more frequently.
Solo status: Solo status occurs when one is the only member of a stereotyped group in a setting
<- something that increases the risk.
What triggers stereotype threat/in what situations does it occur/who is vulnerable:
1. Vulnerability
A. Group identification: individuals whose identities (e.g., feeling deeply attached to
ones gender group) are tied to negative stereotypes are more vulnerable to
stereotype threat.
2. Situational factors
B. When one’s stereotyped group status is made relevant or conspicuous by
situational features (asking about race/gender).
C. When one’s identity is threatened because stereotypes are invoked (either
explicitly or more implicitly) in the performance environment (when suggesting
that task performance relied on natural sports ability (invoking the stereotypical
superiority of Blacks), Whites performed significantly worse than Blacks on the
task. When describing the task as reflecting athletic intelligence (invoking the
stereotypical superiority of Whites), Whites performed better than Blacks).
1
Note: It is also important to emphasize that awareness or some conscious reasoning is not
required to trigger the treat.
Many different examples of experimental studies [stereotype threat based on gender difference
in math (women aren’t expected to be good at maths) didn’t emerge in a study conducted in
Sweden].
What are the consequences of stereotype threat?
1. Decreased performance/underachieving on academic tasks
Faced with a certain task: I belong to this or that group, members of this group aren’t
expected to be good at this task. Performance can be undermined because of concerns
about possibly confirming the negative stereotype.
a. Mechanisms
i. Affecting working memory
ii. Anxiety
iii. etc
2. Disengagement and disidentification
For example, in response to regular stereotype threat, a philosophy student may cease to
think of herself or himself as a “philosophy person” and therefore disengage her or his
identity from philosophy.
3. Altered professional identities and aspirations
For example, in response to regular stereotype threat, a philosophy student may alter the
stereotyped student’s identity by redirecting the aspirations and career paths.
What to do?
1. Reframe the task:
When tests were supposedly diagnostic of intelligence, White students outscored Black
students. When the test was described as diagnostic of problem solving (for which there
exists little or no racial stereotype), the racial gap in performance was eliminated.
2. Deemphasize threatened social identities
Move demographic questions, encourage individuals to think of themselves in ways that
reduce the salience of threatened identity (philosophy student rather than female
philosophy student?),
Aim to reduce the salience of a threatened identity and embrace identities that aren’t
stereotyped (e.g., by finding a characteristic that is shared across ingroup/outgroup).
3. Providing role models
xxxx
2
4. Critical mass <- more women in philosophy.
Implicit bias
Even if we believe that outright/intentional discrimination based on, e.g., gender or race, is a
thing of the past, there may be reason to believe that the bias simply have gone underground.
Although it is no longer visible in daily conversation it remains prevalent -> it has become
implicit.
Implicit bias thus refers to attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, action and
decisions in an unconscious manner (activated without an individuals awareness or intentional
control)
Many believe that they think of men and women simply as humans and that we don’t
discriminate because of gender. However, our actions and attitudes testify against this.
Three examples:
1. Applications for a job, same CVs, but different names - received very different
evaluations, were offered different salaries, etc.
2. A man who dominates a conversation is assertive, articulate or a leader. A woman
who acts in the same way is a bitch, chatty or a nag.
3. Implicit association tests: confirms that our thinking is controlled by various
stereotypes or schemas.
Consequences
1. Sexism
2. Harder for women to get a job (much more is required).
3. etc
What to do?
1. Challenge the myth of non-bias
2. Try to become aware of your own biases.
Micro-messages
We communicate more than words. We also convey attitude in different ways (even if those
attitudes aren’t always conscious). Some examples:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Body language (eye contact etc)
Expression of interest (checking emails etc during a face-to-face conversation)
Allocation of space (taking more questions from men than women)
Topics of conversation (appearance, family situation or the like in a context where this
is not really relevant)
5. Turn taking in conversation (or rather lack of -> interrupting)
What is it like to be a woman in philosophy: some examples
3
“My partner (male) and I (female) are both Masters students in Philosophy … [philosophers
usually] ask both of us about our research interests, but they almost always ask my partner
“first.”.”
“I [a female philosopher] noticed that the chair [of the talk] allowed each and every person who
spoke to engage in dialogue with the speaker. But when I spoke … the chair … cut me off - I
alone of all questioners was not allowed to explain my point further or engage in dialogue with
the speaker.”
“At one of the first seminars I went to, I was the only girl. I raise an objection … my point is
completely ignored. Two minutes later, a male makes exactly the same point. The objection in
his mouth is hailed as decisive.”
Consequences:
Accumulation of negative micro-messages may cause increasing dissatisfaction with work/study
environment over time (it has cumulative effects). This may lead to one leaving the work/study.
What to do?
1. Learn to recognize micro-aggressions
2. Develop active bystander skills
Aim of presentation: Briefly explain three different phenomena – phenomena that probably
overlap and reinforce one another in different ways.
General recommendations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Challenge the myth of non-bias and try to become aware of our own biases
Be attentive to climate
Reduce threat conditions that trigger stereotype threat
Challenge the myth of non-bias and try to come aware of your own biases.
Be reflective about potential micro-inequalities
Develop active bystander skills
4