Female Philosophy?

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Mortalsfool
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 10:34 pm

Female Philosophy?

Post by Mortalsfool » Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:37 am

It is my nature to quest into other peoples' minds to see if there is something that I can learn from them, so I have done it quite a bit! While at first this may seem to be a somewhat presumptuous act, it is non-the-less what I consider to be the best repository of semi-empirical information. Since the information that I find this way is second hand views, I categorize it under ‘valued opinions’ to be used for later reference.

I first present a disclaimer, because sometimes the results of research based on experience can lead to conclusions that are not always politically correct. I will not acquiesce to such conclusions being called ‘incorrect’ strictly because someone is not willing to agree because of their politics or oversensitive reaction; I can not agree that facing reality, should be subverted in the name of some Politically Correct phrase designed solely to salve the pussys in our society too sensitive to accept what is true.

Having considered the differences I see in most women’s philosophies, I conclude that most women can't include science in their language, while many men do. Men include science to describe their philosophies, creating a language with which most women lack fluency. This inclusion of things like ‘dimensions’, ‘time’, and science in general, results in manner of speaking that can include a blending of 'science' and 'religion; as in Eternity can be likened to a Mobius strip, and Afterlife to alternate Dimensions.

I do not mean to imply modern women have not developed scientific minds in their careers or schooling equal to or above mans, certainly above mine, nor am I ignorant of the existence of great female philosophers. My point has to do only with discussions concerning philosophy or religion with the common people. Most women have a hard time expressing spiritual concepts outside of parameters set by their church congregation.

Women’s philosophical views are in a sense more simple in their constructs. Their philosophy is generally expressed in the terms of the religious view that they hold, their belief system. Hence they are somewhat limited in their expression and must use the language that is religious in its nature. Perhaps, not meaning to demean them, ‘old fashioned’ is a term that best describes the use of their pre-scientific, or non-scientific expressions. Should a women attempt to gain some insight above that which is taught in church, there is usually very little search that includes science in their beliefs.

While almost any women would argue against my conclusions, most could not argue equality considering their lack of subject material [scientific], that the language of plain religion is incapable of expressing.

Before a women can demand equality based only on the demand itself, I say this; while I see limits in the female ability to philosophize and may at first affront women, it might be best to see if maybe there are very sound reasons for this ‘difference’.

I reasoned, that if there is in fact a difference, it could it be the result of the lag and timely evolution of women’s progress. After all, it was only a few years ago that women were expected to mind the home and the appliances, not fix, nor understand them! For example, in the 1940s and 50s, how many women subscribed to science magazines? Not many! That was a very short time ago! The 'differences' I speak of are due to this delay in scientific awareness, and 'housewives' have not yet had time enough to equalize. In these more modern times the interest in science is certainly higher, but it is certainly not equal. Quantum Physics for example, are two meaningless words to more women than men; and a man is more likely to say he’s going to some other realm or dimension when he dies, while women are more likely to say, “They are going to Heaven’.

Can you agree? in sum: Women are more comfortable using religious terminology when talking about alternative existences; like Heaven, than are men.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 2692
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Greta » Sun Jul 03, 2016 1:46 pm

You are referring to a broad tendency with a huge number of exceptions. I have known plenty of men who know nothing of science, math and physics. Almost every theist I've met online has been a man. I've also known plenty of women who are passionate about science and nature, and plenty who are atheists.

Only the other day I had to put some bloke online right about the difference between stellar and supermassive black holes. He thought all black holes were monsters without considering that a new stellar black hole will have considerably less mass and gravity than the supernova that formed it.

Stars, like women, tend to be underestimated while the opposite seems more likely to occur with black holes and men.

Skip
Posts: 2224
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Skip » Sun Jul 03, 2016 3:51 pm

Can you agree? in sum: Women are more comfortable using religious terminology when talking about alternative existences; like Heaven, than are men.
Hmmm.
Walker, Nick-A, Immanuel Can.....
Greta, Lacewing, artisticsolution....

No.

Not to mention, the whole opening post is both creepy and offensive.

I like this:
Stars, like women, tend to be underestimated while the opposite seems more likely to occur with black holes and men.
a lot.

uwot
Posts: 3178
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by uwot » Sun Jul 03, 2016 4:31 pm

Skip wrote:Hmmm.
Walker, Nick-A, Immanuel Can.....
Greta, Lacewing, artisticsolution....
I was trying to write something that makes the same point as elegently as this, but I really couldn't put it better.

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by marjoram_blues » Sun Jul 03, 2016 4:44 pm

Mortalsfool wrote:It is my nature to quest into other peoples' minds to see if there is something that I can learn from them, so I have done it quite a bit! While at first this may seem to be a somewhat presumptuous act, it is non-the-less what I consider to be the best repository of semi-empirical information. Since the information that I find this way is second hand views, I categorize it under ‘valued opinions’ to be used for later reference.

I first present a disclaimer, because sometimes the results of research based on experience can lead to conclusions that are not always politically correct. I will not acquiesce to such conclusions being called ‘incorrect’ strictly because someone is not willing to agree because of their politics or oversensitive reaction; I can not agree that facing reality, should be subverted in the name of some Politically Correct phrase designed solely to salve the pussys in our society too sensitive to accept what is true.

Having considered the differences I see in most women’s philosopabove I conclude that most women can't include science in their language, while many men do. Men include science to describe their philosophies, creating a language with which most women lack fluency. This inclusion of things like ‘dimensions’, ‘time’, and science in general, results in manner of speaking that can include a blending of 'science' and 'religion; as in Eternity can be likened to a Mobius strip, and Afterlife to alternate Dimensions.

I do not mean to imply modern women have not developed scientific minds in their careers or schooling equal to or above mans, certainly above mine, nor am I ignorant of the existence of great female philosophers. My point has to do only with discussions concerning philosophy or religion with the common people. Most women have a hard time expressing spiritual concepts outside of parameters set by their church congregation.

Women’s philosophical views are in a sense more simple in their constructs. Their philosophy is generally expressed in the terms of the religious view that they hold, their belief system. Hence they are somewhat limited in their expression and must use the language that is religious in its nature. Perhaps, not meaning to demean them, ‘old fashioned’ is a term that best describes the use of their pre-scientific, or non-scientific expressions. Should a women attempt to gain some insight above that which is taught in church, there is usually very little search that includes science in their beliefs.

While almost any women would argue against my conclusions, most could not argue equality considering their lack of subject material [scientific], that the language of plain religion is incapable of expressing.

Before a women can demand equality based only on the demand itself, I say this; while I see limits in the female ability to philosophize and may at first affront women, it might be best to see if maybe there are very sound reasons for this ‘difference’.

I reasoned, that if there is in fact a difference, it could it be the result of the lag and timely evolution of women’s progress. After all, it was only a few years ago that women were expected to mind the home and the appliances, not fix, nor understand them! For example, in the 1940s and 50s, how many women subscribed to science magazines? Not many! That was a very short time ago! The 'differences' I speak of are due to this delay in scientific awareness, and 'housewives' have not yet had time enough to equalize. In these more modern times the interest in science is certainly higher, but it is certainly not equal. Quantum Physics for example, are two meaningless words to more women than men; and a man is more likely to say he’s going to some other realm or dimension when he dies, while women are more likely to say, “They are going to Heaven’.

Can you agree? in sum: Women are more comfortable using religious terminology when talking about alternative existences; like Heaven, than are men.
Is the above text an example of 'Male Philosophy'?

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by marjoram_blues » Sun Jul 03, 2016 4:46 pm

uwot wrote:
Skip wrote:Hmmm.
Walker, Nick-A, Immanuel Can.....
Greta, Lacewing, artisticsolution....
I was trying to write something that makes the same point as elegently as this, but I really couldn't put it better.
You underestimate yourself. How very disappointing.

uwot
Posts: 3178
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by uwot » Sun Jul 03, 2016 5:32 pm

marjoram_blues wrote:
uwot wrote:
Skip wrote:Hmmm.
Walker, Nick-A, Immanuel Can.....
Greta, Lacewing, artisticsolution....
I was trying to write something that makes the same point as elegently as this, but I really couldn't put it better.
You underestimate yourself. How very disappointing.
Well, I was considering adding you to the list, counterbalanced by yiostheoy, but other that, I really couldn't improve it. I was going to make a point about the proportionate numbers of male and female clerics, and the disclaimer being 'I'm not sexist, but...' but it just seemed cumbersome by comparison.

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by marjoram_blues » Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:00 pm

:) I would fall down on my knees and give thanks for that deep consideration. But you know it is meaningless. This is yet another dodgy dossier...

uwot
Posts: 3178
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by uwot » Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:08 pm

marjoram_blues wrote::) I would fall down on my knees and give thanks for that deep consideration. But you know it is meaningless. This is yet another dodgy dossier...
Well look, I don't want this to turn into a you and I mutual appreciation thread, but there many members for whom I have the utmost respect. Among them, you.

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by marjoram_blues » Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:53 pm

uwot wrote:
marjoram_blues wrote::) I would fall down on my knees and give thanks for that deep consideration. But you know it is meaningless. This is yet another dodgy dossier...
Well look, I don't want this to turn into a you and I mutual appreciation thread, but there many members for whom I have the utmost respect. Among them, you.
Well look, ( isn't that how politicians start?)....
Mutual respect is always welcome. And is certainly not meaningless.
The 1:1 list is a simplification and says nothing in itself. Way too easy and...well, lazy.

Skip
Posts: 2224
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Skip » Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:54 pm

Aw, go on! The world can always use a little mutual appreciation.

May I add? We can't make an exhaustive statistical comparison on this board, since we don't know everyone's genetic, assigned or chosen gender, but I'd like to point out the vast chasm of intellectual inequality between the male and female posters heretofore mentioned.

(PS I never claimed to be industrious!)

uwot
Posts: 3178
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by uwot » Sun Jul 03, 2016 8:06 pm

marjoram_blues wrote:Well look, ( isn't that how politicians start?)....
Oh fuck. Well look, I won't do that again.

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by marjoram_blues » Sun Jul 03, 2016 8:13 pm

uwot wrote:
marjoram_blues wrote:Well look, ( isn't that how politicians start?)....
Oh fuck. Well look, I won't do that again.
:lol:

User avatar
Bill Wiltrack
Posts: 5295
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:52 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by Bill Wiltrack » Sun Jul 03, 2016 8:22 pm

.



I have a little trick that has helped me immensely upon this and other forums; If you have the balls to use your legal, god-given name upon a forum you deserve the distinction of male.


If, on the other hand, you are female, you should NOT use a legal name for safety purposes.


I see myself as a dominating male, along with a few others here who use their legal name - ALL the rest as female. Either as a true gender or as an intellectual eunuch who has forever lost, for whatever reason, the confidence in himself and his/her opinion.


I respect the females here
at The Forum and in my daily life and their opinion. I, in no way disrespect the eunuchs here and I realize that they are doing the best that they can. I feel compassion for them & absolutely NO animosity.


This trick has worked well for me and actually explains a lot to me so that I better understand my fellow respected members here.


Thank you
.






.

uwot
Posts: 3178
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Female Philosophy?

Post by uwot » Sun Jul 03, 2016 8:32 pm

Bill Wiltrack wrote: I have a little trick that has helped me immensely upon this and other forums; If you have the balls to use your legal, god-given name upon a forum you deserve the distinction of male.

This trick has worked well for me and actually explains a lot to me so that I better understand my fellow respected members here.



The fact that you are Bill Wiltrack explains a lot to us too.
Bill Wiltrack wrote:Thank you.
You're welcome.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests