How Special is Obama's Nobel Peace Prize?

Barack Obama said today,

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize — men and women who’ve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace. But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women, and all Americans, want to build — a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement; it’s also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes. And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action — a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century.

So just how many men, how many organizations, and how many women are in the company of transformative figures who've been honored?

89 men, 22 organizations, 12 women

And how many men, and how many women, thought more deserving than the actual recipient have been omitted?

9 men: Steve Biko, César Chávez, Abdul Sattar Edhi, Jose Figueres Ferrer, Mahatma Gandhi, Raphael Lemkin, Pope John XXIII, Pope John Paul II, Oscar Romero

3 women: Corazon Aquino, Dorothy Day, Irena Sendler

And how many prize-winning men have been seen as undeserving, and how many prize-winning women?

8 men: Yasser Arafat, Henry Kissinger, Barack Obama, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Theodore Roosevelt, Lê Ðức Thọ, Woodrow Wilson

0 women

How many other prize-winning men can you name from memory? How many women?
----
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Peace_Prize

Kathy Riordan, Open Salon: Obama "Surprised and Deeply Humbled" by Stunning Nobel Prize

Bias Against Your Mom, Your Wife, Your Sisters, Your Daughters, Your Friends, Your Teachers, Your Researchers, Your Professors

My son called me yesterday from college in another state to say he was thinking about going into teaching. His girlfriend an education major made the suggestion to him that he apply his interests and abilities in art to teaching others. My daughters also have, from time to time, expressed an interest in a profession in the classroom and in research. This makes an academic parent like me rather proud to hear.

But if these young people do become teachers, instructors, researchers, or professors, then how well will they be compensated for their very important work? And will my son, because he's male, have an easier time getting work and good pay than his girlfriend will, because she's female? Will the teacher man make more than his teacher sisters, because of the gender gap?

It seems in the Academy, in the U.S. anyway, we still haven't gotten very far. I mean we haven't gotten very far from Aristotle's elitist academy for "pure" humans, who must be males and who have to be males of the right race and class, of course.

There's evidence this morning. Reporter Kate Moser of the Chronicle of Higher Education publishes an article entitled "Rutgers U. Weighs Complaints of Bias Against Women in Political Science." Here's the lead:

Female faculty members and graduate students in Rutgers University's political-science department feel unfairly compensated and shut out of leadership positions by their male counterparts, says an internal university report obtained by The Chronicle. In at least one case, a woman has been afraid to complain about sexual harassment because of worries about retaliation.

Moser reports many of the shocking details in this specific Rutgers case. And she goes on to remind us of the general picture in the U.S.:

Across disciplines, female faculty members continue to lag behind men in pay, particularly at doctoral universities, where their average salaries are 78.1 percent of their male colleagues', according to the most recent study on gender equity in the professoriate, which was conducted in 2006 by the American Association of University Professors (The Chronicle, November 3, 2006).

So, I went back and read that report, from two years ago, and see that then the study determined how back in November 2006 "the overall numbers show[ed] there hasn't been that much progress, even if you look at the last 30 years." The numbers, just in terms of the salary gap then, were as follows:

AMONG FULL-TIME FACULTY MEMBERS, WOMEN'S AVERAGE SALARY AS A PERCENT OF MEN'S, BY RANK AND TYPE OF INSTITUTION All ranks
Doctoral	78.1%
Master's	87.3%
Baccalaureate	89.6%
Associate	95.5%

I think we can see what must change. I just wonder how it will change. It's been 45 years since the U.S. government passed the The Equal Pay Act. That's four and a half decades, nearly half a century, with little enforcement of the law it seems. It's the spirit of the law, too, that's broken, isn't it? To fix something like this requires more than government; it requires some audacious hope and change. So I do like the presidential candidate who has a stake in the issue of equal pay for my daughters and son: the presidential candidate who publicly pledges that he's committed to creating equal opportunities for his daughters. And I think muckraking reports such as Kate Moser's today are important.

What other possibilities do we have for seeing the next generation have more equality than we do?

Unequal Future: Alarms in the Academy (then in your Home)!

What contrasts! Here are two unequal perspectives on women and men in American universities (and on what that may mean to you).

Today, Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. sounds the alarms on his blog:
There's "the emergence of a new American matriarchy"! "Ideological feminism can only applaud this reversal of history. Yet, truth be known, even many social liberals must find the trend worrisome." What now about the "biblical model of marriage and gender relations" and "the rightly ordered family and church"? "What about our own sons? Are they being encouraged toward education and leadership in the home, the church, and the culture? If not, we will surely reap what we sow." And "In reality, most people are likely to experience the intuition that this is not a good development. A look into the future is truly troubling."
"Is Matriarchy the Shape of the Future?"

Today, blogger telbort alerts readers at "Feminist Philosophers":
"We know things were bad for women and minorities in philosophy thirty or more years ago. We also know from Sally Haslanger’s paper that they aren’t all that good now. But reading some of the comments coming from those that aspire to staff philosophy departments for the next thirty years, the future doesn’t look all that rosey either." And still we hear "a lot of white male philosophers . . . complaining that women and minorities who get these jobs are doing so purely by dint of their gender or race and at the expense of their more qualified white male counterparts ('Its reverse discrimination I tell ya'). And the men are still arguing these claims: "girls can’t do metaphysics" and "the real reason women aren’t getting jobs easily and need 'reverse discrimination' to help them out is because hard-core philosophy is abstract, and women prefer things with material results."
"The Future State of Equality in Philosophy"

Whose rhetoric is closer to yours? Whose reality? Whose future? Is there some false binary here, some false binaries? How will the shape of the American university shape where you live?

Aristotle & Baron-Cohen & Summers & Sommers: On Difference

A good friend of mine (an academic, a literary scholar, a rhetorician, not a feminist) wrote me last Friday (to share with me Christina Hoff Sommers’s op-ed piece “Academic Inquisitors”). He said:

I wanted to share with you a very interesting, if divisive and perplexing, article from today's Wall Street Journal. The article makes me wonder, don't feminist scholars want to show that women have a different perspective and epistemology? Or does that thesis depend on whether one finds herself (or himself) in the humanities or in science?

Others of you more qualified than I and more personally vested in the rhetoric here should have good answers to these questions. Please feel free to comment! But because my friend asks me, and because I can’t sit quiet when I think (with the mother of my children) about our first-born (our son) in the academy and our other children (our daughters) not far behind, here’s what I say:

Yes, women and men are different and have valuable differences. You and I are different (whoever we are). Gender makes different; race makes different; class makes different; place makes different; disability makes different.

No, finding myself in the humanities or in science does not erase the difference of one human body from another. Or the difference of one human brain from the next (whether autistic, if that’s the “far end of the male norm -- the ‘extreme male brain,’ all systematizing and no empathizing” or “wired to be . . . better empathizers” if that’s the other extreme in the female norm, as per scientist Simon Baron-Cohen, as per journalist Sommers.)

So, I ask:

Aren’t all men and women created equal (if we are different in body and brain and perspective and epistemology and rhetoric)?

And is Aristotle a humanitarian or a scientist when he declares that

Greeks are different from (and therefore superior to) Barbarians;

natural born masters are different from (and therefore superior to) natural born slaves;

males are different from (and therefore superior to) females, who are merely

males botched in the biology of conception by the mother’s mal-functioning;

and males are different from (and therefore superior to) females, because males have more teeth and males have heads full of sperm and have backbones that de-seminate the powerful fluid from the brain to the testicles, the natural receptacles for in-semination (if the females serving as mothers would just get the procreation process right)?