are you a feminist?
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
This occurred to me afterwards. I could answer you that philosophy departments tend to be overwhelmingly masculine, and that the history of philosophy is littered with male philosophers, and not so much with female authors (I don't think I have any female philosophers on my bookshelves...only here and there in the secondary literature).
On the other hand, I can't disregard Plato's (Republic) assertion that women are not intrinsically less capable of being philosophers by their nature (the reason for this is that both males and females participate in common in humanity, and so too in reason). Nor can I disregard the examples of the Blessed Mother (Luke 2:19) and Mary (Luke 10:42).
Granted that true philosophers are unlikely to come into being in a democratic society, they are, I suppose, no less likely to be females than males.
On the other hand, I also can't disregard the fact that, granted that the vast majority of people are stupid, unqualified, and extremely bad, it just seems wrong to let even more of them have a say in politics (rather than less).
I also can't disregard the fact that, in concreto, the female population actually constitutes a special interest group, at least some of these interests being contrary to the common good.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I'm inclined to say no. 1. I'm not old enough, 2. not virtuous enough and 3. not educated enough. Ask me again in 30 years? Maybe.
Intelligence as a natural capacity? That would be obviously false (though not nonsense; it makes sense, just a sense which is false). As a cultivated habit? It may not be. There may be more educated men than women (that's a contingent social fact).
1. Good or bad driving cannot be reduced to the number of accidents. There's more too it than that.
2. Why is it that whenever I am annoyed with someone who is driving 5-10 miles under the speedlimit and pass that person, it tends to be:
1. A woman on a cellphone
2. An old person
3. A middle aged woman of any race
or
4. A young black male?
I want you to consider two facts, and what they might imply taken together.
1. Men are more likely to dismiss or ignore the contributions of women.
2. Philosophy departments tend to be overwhelmingly male-dominated.
The same can be said of men, and I don't see you rushing to disenfranchise them as a demographic.
I disagree with this. What special interests do men collectively have?
I'll answer this, but first I want you to answer the first half of my latest.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
It is a contingent social fact that stems from a prejudice against women. As far as I know, that is a bias that is evening out.
What makes you think that your anecdotal evidence means anything? You are a philosopher and you think this is a good argument?
I find it difficult to take seriously. Plato himself didn't undervalue the input of women (my evidence for this is the Symposium; he puts the best speech in the mouth of a woman priestess), and there have been some woman who have philosophized (to some extent or other, of greater or less quality), with whom we are familiar. I have in mind Edith Stein, Simone de Beauvoir, Ayn Rand (though, I don't really consider either of the last two serious philosophers), etc.
And it's not as though there's some kind of institutional hindrance on female philosophers nowadays. There are a few female graduate students in my department, and there often are female chairs of philosophy departments.
I'm inclined to think, at least nowadays, that philosophy departments are male-dominated because of a prevailing lack of female interest.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Feminist!
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Does anyone else have a similar reaction when Trad starts blabbering on?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
That was a very long time ago, and there's been a pretty large body of philosophy since then that doesn't seem to include a lot of women. And it's still a male writing, even if he gives a female form to the speaker.
Institutional biases don't vanish overnight. It's true that current universities don't exclude women, typically. However, when all of their source material is from a time when women were excluded, it leads to a pretty significant residual bias, that doesn't disappear (for all practical purposes) ever.
What percentage of the philosophers that you respect would you say worked their careers in a time when female participation in higher education was roughly equal to that of men?
Perhaps because they don't have a lot of interest in a discipline which has shown little interest in them? How much time have you spent in women's studies courses? Shall we use that as a basis for judging your fitness to participate in political life?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I could name a few things that men tend to want, such as their own political and personal empowerment, easy access to sex, someone to raise their children while they're out killing things. But the more comprehensive answer is this:
Anything that you could name as a special interest for women, you could name the antithesis as a special interest for men.
What you are exhibiting is the assumption that male is the default, and that non-male is some kind of special case. There are more women than men, so you could argue that what women want is more generally default and what men want is a special case.
Does anyone else have a similar reaction when Trad starts blabbering on?
I tend to worry ... about those walking by him. With the way his head keeps growing and all ...
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
It is in the U.S. There are now more women than men earning both bachelor's and graduate degrees.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
That is pretty much true here as well, at least it is equal. I wasn't sure about the US, so I chose not to say it.
