Philosophy may like to portray itself as an open-minded search for the truth but it is an academic bastion of sexism.
That, at least, is the thinking of 60 French female philosophers who have signed an open letter complaining that they are discriminated against by their male counterparts, who are driven by “more than prejudice” and have refined it to “arrogant ignorance”.
Women account for 36 per cent of philosophy lecturers and 23 per cent of philosophy professors in French universities, the signatories say, adding that four of the 51 highest ranked philosophy professors in France are women. [J4MB emphasis: Seems about right, probably a similar proportion for mathematics, physics, engineering… the more demanding disciplines, where performance can be objectively measured.]
The writers say that they face “a glass ceiling, discrimination . . . and too often the invisibility of our research”, as well as “scorn for our contributions” and “even the pure and simple denial of our status as philosophers”.
They say philosophy is shaped by male thought “while all the while insisting that it is neutral” and point out that only a handful of women, such as Simone de Beauvoir, are well known to the public. [J4MB: Few high-ranking philosophers are women. Whining will not alter that fact, any more than the fact that few chess grand masters are women.]
They are calling for a convention to study ways of making the discipline less prejudiced. [J4MB: Hmm, quotas, anyone?]
If everyone who read this gave us just £1.00 – or even better, £1.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
A piece in today’s Times by Andrew Ellson, Consumer Affairs Correspondent, emphases ours:
A chicken caesar ciabatta roll is, by most standards, a fairly inoffensive item. But Waitrose has run into trouble on social media for choosing too literal a description for its £2.85 “Gentleman’s smoked chicken caesar roll”, part of a range designed by Heston Blumenthal, the Michelin-starred chef.
The roll contains Gentleman’s Relish, a highly seasoned anchovy paste. Twitter users, however, were not impressed by this micro aggression against women. Amy Lamé, the mayor of London’s night tsar, posted an image of the product with the message: “I never knew sandwiches were gender specific. I’m female but thankfully Waitrose let me purchase this anyway.”
Ms Lamé tagged the account Everyday Sexism, which documents instances of sexism. Her followers were quick to take offence, describing it as “outrageous” and “ridiculous”.
Waitrose said: “It’s never our intention to cause offence. We’re not dictating who should eat this sandwich. We hope anyone who tries it will love the distinctive flavours. However, we are planning to change the name soon.”
The “gentleman’s roll” is not the first product to fall foul of sexism claims. In 2002 Nestlé started marketing Yorkie bars as “Not for girls”. The slogan was used for ten years before being dropped.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1.00 – or even better, £1.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1.00 – or even better, £1.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
An incredible and touching memoir that raises questions about how we treat convicts after they’ve served their time in The New York Times.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1.00 – or even better, £1.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Our thanks to Steve for this. Utterly pathetic. An extract:
The BBC has approached Kleenex for comment, but the company has yet to respond.
However, in a statement given to the Daily Telegraph, a spokesman for its parent company, Kimberly-Clark, said the firm was registering “a consistent increase of complaints on gender concern”.
He added: “Kimberly-Clark in no way suggests that being both soft and strong is an exclusively masculine trait, nor do we believe that the Mansize branding suggests or endorses gender inequality.
“Nevertheless, as we remain committed to developing the best possible products for our consumers and take any feedback extremely seriously, we decided to renovate our current product and update the product subbrand as Kleenex Extra Large.”
The Advertising Standards Authority – which regulates adverts in the UK – told the BBC it had not received any complaints about the product, but it was carrying out “a significant amount of work around gender stereotypes in ads”.
Plans include setting new standards on adverts that feature stereotypical gender roles or characteristics, and cracking down on those which mock people for not conforming to stereotypes.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1.00 – or even better, £1.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
A criminal who handled stolen cars got his comeuppance after calling the police when his own vehicle was stolen.
Chirag Patel, 39, asked police to investigate when his Porsche was stolen on January 31, 2015.
When officers searched his home in Croydon, south London, they found five stolen cars in his underground garage. There was also a suspicious collection of 26 car keys. Nine of the keys had been stolen from Jaguar Land Rover’s factory in Solihull in the West Midlands.
Patel, who claimed to operate a legitimate car-rental business, was sentenced to eight years in prison after further investigation found a total of 19 stolen cars including a Porsche Cayenne, Range Rovers and Mercedes. The total value was estimated at £728,000.
The Porsche that Patel reported as stolen was bought legitimately.
His collection of cars had all been stolen in “keyless thefts” across London between October 2012 and January 2015, the Metropolitan police said. Officers searched through the accounts of his car rental business and found £440,000 in “unexplained cash deposits”. Police also found a laptop that had been reported stolen from an address in Streatham.
Patel was arrested 20 days after his phone call, on February 19, 2015. He was found guilty of conspiracy to handle stolen goods and possession of criminal property after a five-week trial at Croydon crown court and was jailed for eight years.
Police said that Patel had tried to keep officers away from his home by giving details of his parents’ address. “When he finally gave his own address, officers attended the property as part of their investigation into the stolen car,” the Met said. “Here they discovered a number of high-value vehicles in the basement car park. Officers identified that one of cars had a personalised number plate identical to one seen earlier on a vehicle outside Patel’s parents’ address.
“Further inquiries by officers established that the five vehicles in the car park had false number plates and all were later confirmed to have been stolen.”
Chirag Patel, 39, had tried to keep officers away from his home [SWNS]
The Met said that Patel had been running an “off-the-books” car rental business in which he loaned vehicles to his friends and business contacts.
“The vehicles had been stolen by unknown individuals during burglaries and keyless thefts across London between October 2012 and January 2015 and were stored at or near addresses owned by Patel and his family, or with associates who looked after the vehicles for him or rented them from him. The identities of the cars were concealed using legitimate insurance details of vehicles which had been written off.”
Acting Detective Sergeant Billy Clough said that Patel, who claimed to be a legitimate car rental operator, was motivated by “sheer greed”.
He added: “He even attempted to convince the jury that he was a legitimate businessman who had simply been unlucky in obtaining such a vast quantity of stolen items, but the jury saw through this and convicted him of being the key player in a significant criminal enterprise. I hope that this sentence sends a message that those involved in this type of organised criminality will be pursued robustly.”
Judge Peter Gower told the court that Patel was caught because of the skill of PC Andy Garland, who identified the first stolen car.
“It was his sharp eyes and investigative nose and approach which first spotted a stolen vehicle and set this investigation in motion and he receives my formal commendation,” the judge said.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1.00 – or even better, £1.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Times caption: Simon Price and his wife Alayna were convicted of fraud last year
A piece in today’s Times by Andrew Ellson, Consumer Affairs Correspondent:
Paddy Power Betfair has been fined £1.7 million after it allowed the boss of an animal rescue centre to gamble with money he had stolen from the charity.
The bookmaker was also ordered to return £500,000 to Birmingham Dogs Home after an investigation by the Gambling Commission found that it had failed to check the source of the cash and did not intervene when it was clear that the man and his wife were displaying signs of problem gambling. Bookmakers are required to do both under the terms of their licence.
Simon Price and his wife, Alayna, stole almost £900,000 from the dogs home over four years from 2012. Last November, Price, then 53, who was chief executive of the charity, admitted ten fraud charges and was jailed for five years. His wife, then 39, who was a commercial manager at the rescue centre, admitted five fraud charges but was spared jail because she had a young child and was seven months pregnant at the time of the trial.
The couple moved cash from legacies donated to the charity into their private accounts, which Price used to fund his gambling habit and his wife used to pay off debts and finance their wedding. The pair have since separated. [J4MB: What’s the betting she left him, not vice versa?]
Richard Watson, the executive director of the Gambling Commission, said: “As a result of Paddy Power Betfair’s failings significant amounts of stolen money flowed through their exchange and this is simply not acceptable. Operators have a duty to all of their customers to seek to prevent the proceeds of crime from being used in gambling.
“These failings all stem from one simple principle — operators must know their customer. If they know their customer and ask the right questions then they place themselves in a strong position to meet their anti-money-laundering and social responsibility obligations.”
At the time of the trial, the court was told how the couple tried to cover up their crimes, with Price throwing a hard drive into a field and his wife deleting incriminating financial records from a computer.
Price then fled to Spain, leaving his wife a note that said: “Sorry, I need to go away for a while — I need time to think.” He later returned to hand himself in.
Sentencing Price at Birmingham crown court, Judge Patrick Thomas, QC, said his actions “while in the grip of a gambling addiction” had “weakened public confidence” in the work of the dogs home, damaging its ability to raise the £1.85 million needed each year to keep its doors open.
The £1.7 million fine, which Paddy Power Betfair must pay to the commission to help fund research into responsible gambling, also took account of three other cases in which the bookmaker had failed to stop customers gambling with stolen money. The company was also ordered to pay £50,000 in costs.
Paddy Power Betfair admitted that its social responsibility and anti-money-laundering policies at the time were ineffective. It said it had already “evolved those policies” and that this process was “ongoing”.
So 100% of the punishment for the couple was meted out to the husband. Same old, same old. Men are not only responsible for their actions, they’re responsible for women’s actions too.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1.00 – or even better, £1.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
A piece by David Sanderson, Arts Correspondent, in today’s Times. Some of the judges are admitting the winning book is a bit crap, with readers having to do more work than Anna Burns, the authoress, although it’s her first novel in 11 years. Not exactly a Dickensian or Shakespearean work rate, is it? Dr Catherine Hakim’s work centredness gender gap comes inevitably to mind. Emphases ours:
A “challenging, experimental” novel that might be easier to understand if read aloud has brought Northern Ireland its first success in the Man Booker prize.
Milkman by Anna Burns was the “unanimous” choice of the panel of jurors, whose chairman, Kwame Anthony Appiah, said that it was “enormously rewarding . . . if you persist with it”.
The novel, Burns’s third, is set against the background of the Troubles in the 1970s with a protagonist facing sexual harassment from a man taking advantage of the “divided society”.
“Challenging, yes,” Mr Appiah said last night. “In the way that a walk up Snowdon is challenging but it is definitely worth it because the view is terrific when you get to the top. It is true that because of the flow of the language and the length of sentences and the fact that some of the language is unfamiliar, that it is not a light read. It is intensive. I spend my time reading articles in the Journal of Philosophy so by my standards it is not too hard. I think this is a novel that is enormously rewarding if you persist with it.”
Burns, 56, said that the £50,000 prize would help to clear the debts accumulated during her years as a penniless writer when she would do “house sits” to make ends meets. She said she spent years moving from house to house while waiting for “characters to come to me”.
The victory for Burns, who was born in Belfast and now lives in East Sussex, comes amid concern at the fading “Booker boost” for shortlisted novels. This year the seven titles that were dropped at the longlist stage have significantly outsold the six whittled down for the shortlist. [J4MB: Thus showing the prize to be utterly divorced from appeal to the general reading public, and therefore utterly pointless as a guide to buying and reading.]
Of the finalists Burns has enjoyed the biggest sales increase, although her book is the only one of the six whose paperback has been released. One of them, Robin Robertson’s novel in verse, The Long Take, has yet to appear in the Nielsen charts.
Mr Appiah, whose colleagues on the jury were the crime writer Val McDermid, the critic Leo Robson, the feminist writer Jacqueline Rose and the graphic novelist Leanne Shapton, said that for the third reading of Milkman he spent a “lot of time reading it out loud”.
“I do commend it to people who find it difficult, try and read it aloud,” he said. “It is very close to the natural speech of a particular person. Saying it out loud gives you that extra dimension. Also it slows you down a bit and that is worth it too because this language is really worth savouring.” Mr Appiah said he was looking forward to listening to the audiobook version.
The jury dodged controversy by choosing Milkman above the two American books on the list, by Richard Powers and Rachel Kushner. If either had won it would have made been the third year in a row than an American novelist had secured the prize, which is still dealing with anger from publishers and authors at the change to its criteria.
Previously only writers from Britain, the Commonwealth and Ireland could enter but that was changed in 2014 to include Americans. Mr Appiah said that no jury member had considered the nationality, or gender, of an author when making their decision. [J4MB: Hilarious.]
Usually the online edition of the Times has more content than the printed edition, but not in this case. The printed edition has the following additional material at the end:
He said that he was “resigned” to it being held up as a novel for the #metoo generation, even though it was set in the 1970s.
Burns becomes the first UK winner of the award since Hilary Mantel in 2012 with Bring Up the Bodies.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1.00 – or even better, £1.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Just published (audio, 11:07). Nick Ferrari introduces me at 8:15.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1.00 – or even better, £1.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1.00 – or even better, £1.00 or more, monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Justice for Men & Boys 