Female Philosophy?
Posted: 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.
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.