The Academic Workplace

Dominance discrimination

1. Difference discrimination occurs when workers who are alike in all their qualifications are treated differently because of sex.
2. Dominance discrimination occurs when (1) jobs are designed for men as the default worker, and (2) this results in men actually doing better and dominating
3. Other problems in workplaces: misogyny, sexism, sexual harassment, implicit bias, stereotype threat, etc. (last two on Monday)
4. Christina Hoff Sommers says most disparities are due to (1) choices and (2) differences in interests and talents.

The academic workplace

As you watch the video, consider which of the above explanations is most applicable to specific disparities.

We will watch 5:32-19, 2:21-26, using this worksheet

What would be an effective and just solution to dominance discrimination?

Abolish gender roles.  (Jennifer Saul, Susan Okin--argument based on Rawls)

• Need to do so, to equalize the prospects of academic men (who now often have caregiving wives) and academic women (who are now often primary caregivers)
• What would it take to abolish gender roles? Is it going to happen? Is it desirable?

Redesign the workplace (Saul's suggestions)

• part time work
• part-timers should be able to advance
• free childcare
• shorter workweeks
• no mandatory overtime
• equal parental leave for men and women

• Would this be fair to all stakeholders?
• Is gender neutral parental leave good for women?  This article calls that into question.
• Saul says non-parents should be able to use the same options to pursue their outside interests. Marathon-training leave?  

Extend Title VII to dominance discrimination so employers can be sued if they don't redesign the workplace.

• Saul doesn't discuss this, but is it a good idea? 

Possible debate questions

1. Should Title VII prohibit dominance discrimination?  
• Yes 
• No, that would be unfair because________
2. Can dominance discrimination be ended without abolishing gender roles? 
• Yes, it can be ended by ________
•  No, we must abolish gender roles
3. Are Saul's workplace solutions fair to everyone?
• Yes
• No, they're unfair to ________________

Women in the Workplace

Some Data

The Gender Pay Gap

The Gender Leadership Gap

The Mom/Dad Gap

Question: injustice or choices?

Are these differences due to injustices like sexism, misogyny, harassment, discrimination, and bias, or are they due to differences and choices?

Christina Hoff Sommers--retired philosopher, internet provocateur, has a You Tube series called The Factual Feminist

Jennifer Saul--philosopher, author of Feminism:Issues and Arguments

1. Today--Saul's argument about discrimination
2. Friday--case study -- discrimination against mothers in Academia--is it discrimination?
3. Monday--Saul on implicit bias plus counterarguments

What is discrimination?

1. In the abstract, as a moral matter, a question of justice
2. In a specific country like the US, as defined by Title VII, other laws, precedents, Supreme Court cases, etc. 

• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual because of the individual’s "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"

The difference model of discrimination

• basic idea: like cases should be treated alike
• It's discriminatory when

1. x and y are just alike as far are their credentials go, but
2. x is treated differently than y because of x's sex, and
3. sex is irrelevant to the job (not a "BFOQ")

• Note--it doesn't have to be intentional, conscious, deliberate, or hostile
• Which of these are examples of discrimination under the difference model?

1. Mary and Bob have similar records of achievement at a law firm but Bob is paid more.*
2. Mary is hired as an RA at a women's dorm, not Bob.
3. Women are rarely hired by a police dept because there's a 5'9" height requirement
4. Very few women ever become managers at Walmart because most are primary caregivers and tend to reject overtime and revolving schedules (example of Caroline from The Working Poor, by David Shippler, published in 2005)

• Title VII?

The dominance model of discrimination

• basic idea: it's discriminatory for a workplace to be structured by the assumption that "the standard worker" is a non-primary-caregiver (usually a man ), not a primary caregiver (usually women).
• on this view, Walmart was discriminating against Caroline
• Note--again, it doesn't have to be intentional, conscious, deliberate, or hostile
• read p. 12-13
• what does she say to the idea that people like Caroline are making choices, so there's no injustice? (p. 15)

What should be done?

1. Put an end to gender roles--women not trained to be primary caregivers; men not trained to be providers
2. Redesign the workplace so "the standard worker" is assumed to be a caregiver

In a just society, there will be no gender roles

• Susan Okin, applying Rawls
• We're in the original position, behind the veil of ignorance (we don't know our sex)
• We would know that gender roles are disadvantageous to women
• We would choose a society without gender roles as a matter of justice
• Saul argues that (a) we have't already abolished gender roles, and (b) it's possible to do so, because they are taught, not innate
• Other views: Aristotle, Patricia Churchland on the brain

Redesign the workplace so the "standard worker" is assumed to be a caregiver

Debate 1

Question: Is misogyny pervasive in the US?
Affirmative: yes it is
Negative: no it's not, women are making huge strides

SLIDES

Debating Manne

Beyond the Trump examples in Manne's chapter 

Is this an example of misogyny, as defined by Manne?

This tweet says "yes."

Another Trump incident seen through the lens of Manne's book

Trump's reaction to the female prime minister of Denmark

Manne uses the same concepts to critique Democrats

Manne calling Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden
 a misogynist for the way he treated
Elizabeth Warren in the last Democratic debate.

Watch here

Manne applying "misogyny" to the reaction when
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand demanded
the resignation of Al Franken, a Democratic Senator
accused of sexual harassment (article here)

Manne discussing the Democratic field in 2019 (link)

Objections to Manne's book (LINK)

Three Rules Reminders

1. Please put phones and laptops away at the beginning class (unless you are using a laptop exclusively for class purposes). Excessive use will lower your citizenship grade, as it states on the syllabus.
2. RRs are due at 11:00, not later. 
3. One of the RR rules is that you must supply a page reference after quotes. 

Manne writes, "sexism often works by naturalizing sex differences" (Manne, p. 79).

If the material is at a web page and there are no page numbers then just write the author's name and "web" in parentheses.   

Down Girl, Chapter 3

Debate structure

• Readings for next time: critics of Manne who will give us more ideas for the negative side
• Rebuttal--need to make targeted objections
• Re naive definition: it wouldn't be so difficult to recognize instances of misogyny if we saw it as something in a person's "heart"
• Re disappointed diner: is that really misogyny? What about other cases of reacting to bad service (where server is a man, or person reacting is a woman)?

Misogyny vs. sexism

• Sexism--definition that Cudd and Jones reject (Cudd and Jones, p. 157)
• Sexism--definition that Cudd and Jones accept (Cudd and Jones, p. 158)
• Sexism vs. misogyny--definitions Manne proposes

p. 79

p. 80

• Example of sexism in the news--Ernst and Young training 
• Misogyny--harassing or firing someone who doesn't comply with that ideology (e.g. Ann Hopkins, Price Waterhouse 1989)
• But Manne doesn't discuss discrimination much in this book

CBS news

Trump, Clinton, reproductive rights

• Donald Trump: misogyny, but possibly no sexism
• Hillary Clinton and Julia Gillard: treated as witches and bitches

• denial of reproductive rights as a form of misogyny

p. 99

p. 100

The Ethics of Gender: Contemporary Issues

1. Issues pertaining to women

• Misogyny, sexism
• workplace discrimination

2. Issues pertaining to trans and intersex people

• fairness in sport
• new anti-discrimination laws and policies

3. Issues pertaining to men

• "the second sexism"
• intersectionality

*****

Kate Manne, Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny (2017)

• Cornell philosophy professor, cultural commentator
• book covered extensively in media, e.g. CBS interview below (we will watch next time)

Thesis: misogyny is a common feature of contemporary American life

• how can this be?
• task #1: define term

The naive conception

• misogyny is something people (mostly men) feel (p. 32)
• What's wrong with this definition?
• Leads to denial of obvious cases of misogyny (NYT)
• Elliot Rodger's killing spree called "misogynist" by feminists

• "backlash": it's not really misogyny (p. 39-41)
• what do you think?
• Other problems with naive definition (p. 44-45)
• "makes misogyny very difficult to diagnose, short of being the agent's therapist" (p. 44); this is "silencing" for victims of misogyny (p. 44)
• would make misogyny rare even in a patriarchy like ours 
• Patriarchy: "women are positioned as subordinate in relation to some man or men therein, the latter of whom are thereby by (by the same token) dominant over the former, on the basis of their genders (among other relevant intersection factors). (p. 45)

Manne's proposed definition

p. 33-34

p. 49

p. 50

• misogyny should be understood as something women "face" not as something men "feel"
• a feature of the social environment, not necessarily people's minds
• misogyny= hostile policing of women to maintain male domination and female subordination ("down girl")

Is misogyny (in Manne's sense) really a frequent feature of American life? 

1. Isla Vista killings
2. #YesAllWomen--less serious cases of "male aggression, hostility, and sexual harassment" (p. 36)
3. Lindy West harassed by a man who later apologizes (p. 51-52)
4. Donald Trump (ch. 3)
5. Attacks on a ccess to reproductive health services (ch. 3)

Three Moral Frameworks

We're going to be discussing a variety of practices and policies (related to gender). It will sometimes be useful to put them in a specific ethical framework.

Examples:

1. Should girls have access to education?  
2. Should same sex marriage be legal? 
3. Should there a non-binary option for sex/gender on driver's licenses?

John Rawls

Peter Singer

Martha Nussbaum

The framework doesn't instantly settle the matter--it just establishes the parameters for further debate. It tells us what's relevant and what's not.

*****

I. John Rawls--the veil of ignorance

• thought experiment: imagine founding a society
• in the "original position" we're behind a "veil of ignorance"...
• which means we don't know our own sex/gender, race, religion, talents, etc.
• Rawls says we would adopt these two principles of justice

1. Equal basic rights for all
2. Economic inequality only if it's better for all than equality

• Our policies and practices are just provided that they are consistent with these two principles.

II. Peter Singer--equal consideration of interests, Utilitarianism

• Must consider interests of all those affected by a practice, policy, or action
• "Interests" in the sense of "it's in your interest to stop vaping" not in the sense of "he's interested in history" 
• Must take account how serious the interest is, not who has the interest
• The right choice maximizes total good (i.e. the balance of happiness over misery)

*****

III. Martha Nussbaum--capabilities approach (annotated)

• a just society is one in which all individuals are able to develop all of these capabilities

• "the situation produced when two of them collide is tragic; any course we select involves doing wrong to someone" (p. 37)
• example: poor parents in Kerala, India--school or work?
• tragic choice because both outcomes bad (compare Utilitarianism)
• a just society prevents people from having to make tragic choices
• Kerala: flexible school hours and free school lunch

What is sex discrimination?

Reminder: no class on Friday

Some tools for discussing ethics and gender (this week and next)

Sex discrimination

Sexism

Fairness

Equality

Supreme Court--Oral Arguments on Oct. 8
Does existing federal law prohibiting sex discrimination apply to discrimination against gay and transgender people? Decision to be made in June 2020.

Two of the three cases

Donald Zarda (right)

Aimee Stephens (in wheelchair)

Title VII

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964--prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual because of the individual’s "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin".

1. Applies to businesses with 15 employees or more
2. BFOQ: there can be exceptions when “religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise”

Context

1. Sexual orientation and transgender status could be added explicitly to Title VII, but unlikely to happen
2. About 20 states have anti-discrimination laws that protect gay and transgender people but most don't (Texas doesn't)

Some examples of sex discrimination prohibited under Title VII

1. Woman not hired because she had young children--Phillips v. Martin Marietta (1971)
2. Woman not accepted into a police force because she didn't meet a height requirement--Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977)
3.  Woman not promoted because she didn't fit gender stereotypes--Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins (1989)
4. Men not hired as managers at a beauty products company--Ventura vs. EEOC (2014)

Group Work

1. For Zarda. Explain and support the reasoning that says Zarda's firing was sex discrimination.
2. For Zarda's employer. Explain and support the counterargument.
3. For Stephens. Explain and support the reasoning that says Stephens's firing was sex discrimination.
4. For Stephens's employer. Explain and support the counterargument.

Midterm Review

Use the study guide above and the outline.

Aimee Stephens Supreme Court case

Non-binary gender

Talusan, "This is what gender non-binary people look like"
Weiss, "Nine things people get wrong about being non-binary"
California's 2017 Gender Recognition Act (discussed by Dembroff)