Peg O'Connor teaches philosophy at Gustavus Adolphus College in Minnesota. Her contribution to the New York Times's "Women in Philosophy" series is entitled "The Double Bind." What jumps out at you when you read her column is the overweening sense of self-pity and self-absorption. "My, how difficult it is to be a female philosopher!" She says she's ambivalent about steering her students toward a career in philosophy, but says little about why, other than calling such a career treacherous and lecherous." (Later, she uses the term "male privilege," as though it signifies something other than feminist paranoia.)
A career in philosophy is treacherous for males as well as females, since the supply of jobs is less than the demand. If anything, females have an edge these days, since every department wants to hire women. As for the lecherousness, O'Connor cites no evidence, so it's hard to determine what she's talking about. Do feminists such as O'Connor know that, by warning impressionable young women about the "lecherousness" of men, they poison relationships and thereby make things worse for women? Try to imagine Elizabeth Anscombe worrying herself sick about male advances. She would slap any dolt who put a move on her, letting him know in no uncertain terms that such behavior is unacceptable.
Feminism has made women weak, timid, and fearful, which, ironically, drives women away from philosophy, for philosophy (as a discipline) requires strength, confidence, and no small amount of bravery (to strike out on one's own). Good work, feminism. Could it be that feminists such as O'Connor don't really want more women to enter the ranks? These younger women will compete with them for status, perhaps taking away plum academic appointments.