Another Failed Attempt by Feminist Propagandists in Philosophy

Philosophical Studies published this specimen on the rate of women publishing in philosophy journals. Of particular note is not why in the hell Phil Studies published some half-baked social science paper, but that women were slightly overrepresented in journals that had non-anonymous reviews but underrepresented in those which had anonymous reviews. For analysis and to see how the authors spun the data (which no doubt will gain some traction) see this helpful commentary.

Here is a taste from the original paper:

“This result is surprising because it seems inconsistent with some literature on anonymous review (Budden et al. 2008). There are several possible reasons why women do worse in journals that review anonymously. First, the majority of the reviewers at these journals are probably men (Hassoun and Conklin 2015). It is possible that men and women have different opinions on what does and does not constitute important or interesting philosophy (Dotson 2012). Second, biases against women may be affecting the process of anonymous review, despite the intentions of all involved (Lee and Schunn 2010; De Cruz 2014a).”

AR-15

A former police officer, AR-15 (or “AR”) knows the difference between an assault rifle and home defense rifle. AR now fights with other weapons and demolishes arguments. He agrees that the pen is mightier than the sword, but he isn’t so stupid to bring a pen to a gunfight.

View All Posts

3 Comments

  1. Could you imagine the outcry if the data had shown the opposite? Why, we’d never hear the end of it! There would be emergency session committee meetings, and action plans, and e-mail campaigns, and conferences, and APA press releases, and so and and so forth and blah blah blah.

    So, I guess what I’m saying is that this is just additional confirmation that the world is indeed a lie.

  2. “This result is surprising because it seems inconsistent with some literature on anonymous review (Budden et al. 2008)”. It’s not surprising if one has read the reactions to Budden et al. 2008, which have have already been reported by philosophers.

  3. I’m royally ticked that a formerly reputable philosophy journal–not saying it’s Hypatia or anything–would turn to publishing psuedo-science.

    Arguably, somebody got screwed over by the inclusion of this. Somebody’s article, likely from a junior faculty member or a graduate student, didn’t get published because this took up Phil Studies’ limited space. Some deserving person’s case for tenure, or CV for the job market, may very well be weaker thanks to Phil Studies. Great job, you political hacks!

    Then there is this gem from the article: “Interestingly, journals which do not practice anonymous review seem to have a higher percentage of women authors than journals which practice double anonymous or triple anonymous review.”

    Yeah, that is pretty interesting! So, when people *know* whether the author is a male or female, the female’s chances of getting accepted go up. Hmm. Here is a hypothesis that they can’t consider because they are in the grips of a “Philosophy has a pervasive, *serious* women problem” paradigm: Their *implicit bias* (actually, it’s openly explicit) in favor of women leads to a situation where journals that do not practice anonymous review accept a higher percentage of papers by women authors.

Leave a Reply (Be sure to read our comment disclaimer)