2015.05.24

w a l k    w h e r e      y o u      m i g h t    e x p e c t
m e   t o     a n d     i       h a l f           e x p e c t  
y o u      t o o     h o p e l e s s         i        h a v e 
y e t    t o      a c c e p t        i t        t h r o u g h

2015.05.22

i     l o a t h e     t o     s e e     w h a t     w i l l     h a p p e n 

t o     m e     

                   i n     s t a g e s      o f    m e t a   a n a l y s i s


t h r o u g h    g l a z e d    o v e r     e y e s     



                                                          n o t     m i n e

2015.05.20

i n  c a s e   y o u  c h a n c e             a  v i s i t    t o   t h i s  p l a c e
t h i s     s p a c e                              i s   s a f e   t o   e x p r e s s  

f e e l i n g                                                                f r a i l   

f o r  i  h a d  n o t  t h e          d a y  o r  h o u r              t o  t r a i n
i n  t h e  a r t  o f  p o e t r y     i n  t h e  a r t  o f   l o s i n g   y  o  u

Feminist Philosophers

Kate Manne has agreed to let me share a post from FB about her experience with a rejection of a feminist philosophy paper.

I received a rejection notice from a journal yesterday. This is a pretty routine occurrence in this game, admittedly. Acceptance rates are notoriously low in philosophy; well under five per cent in the top journals. So you have to learn to accept the rejections themselves gracefully. And much as you slightly dread reading the reports, they can be valuable, even invaluable, in making the paper better. They can help to expose unclarities in your claims, gaps in your argument, etc. But sometimes, they simply confirm that you are fighting a losing battle.

This referee report was one such. The reviewer complained about my use of feminist terms and concepts throughout the paper – e.g., “hegemonic dominance”, “messages that are not only false but oppressive,” and “hermeneutical injustice,”…

View original post 323 more words

2015.05.15

IMG_0911 (2)