Womyn and Philosophy

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 791
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by -1- » Sat Jan 20, 2018 11:44 pm

Melchior wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:22 am
Bill Wiltrack wrote:.

6.1 a philosophy degree is a primer for a coffee barista in most cases

- Bill Wiltrack


.
'How to live under a bridge' is a typical thesis.
I thought that a more precise case study would be how to live in a barrel.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 791
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by -1- » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:02 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:34 am
(Gary Childless discusses why more male Ph.D.s are in philosophy than women)
So, lady and gentleman philosophers, which do you believe is the case, if any of the above? What are your thoughts on the matter? Please don’t be shy to respond. We are all philosophers here in some sense because we bother to post in a philosophy forum. And as philosophers we are committed to truth, no matter how inconvenient or unappealing truth may be to either ourselves or others around us who are ignorant of it. I would especially love to hear from some of our female philosophers here about your own experiences with philosophy. In your first-hand experience, what would you most likely credit as the reason(s) for the discrepancy cited above? Are there any possibilities I have missed?
Dear Gary, I hope you are still around because I think I have the perfect answer for you.

I'd given a long and hard thought to this. I noticed the mechanical thinking in some early European or Western philosophers work. Hobbes, Marx, Kant, all treated humans as if they had all been of the same ilk.

I also noticed that some prominent philosophers were loners, such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Hume.

Some other philosophers were renegades, who displayed a mild and contrite surface, but inisde themselves they were boiling against the establishment: desCartes, Spinoza, Orgenbund.

So I put a composite picture of these fellers together, and came up with the hypotheses, or unproved or largely unsupported theory, which states that philosophers are very smart people who suffer terribly from Asperger's syndrome, or more modernly, from a high functioning level of autism. Their lack of social skills and ability; their lonerliness; their inward-turning speculative nature (not discussing their ideas, but writing them down); their wanting, their needing to see order and classified truths;' they all point at the fact that famous philosophers in the newer era of European or Western philosophy were all smart cookies who could not get along with people, and therefore depended on their own speculative creativity to create systems and ordered systems that resembled some sort of explanation of reality.

This is still the case. Most philosophy graduates are male, because there are more males suffering from Asperger's (i.e. from autism) than females. Females also tend to be less smart and less stupid; there are much more outstanding geniuses among men and much more down-trodden street bums among men than among women. Some theorists explain it (no study has been made yet, but it may come out any time, that supports this) that intelligence comes inherited mainly in the X chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes, so they equalize each other. The two X chromosomes take their "average", and the women tend therefore to avoid being in the extremes of the bell curve that describes human intelligence. Males, on the other hand, have one X chromosome, so if IQ is inherited on that, then their IQ if high, is not tempered by a lower IQ X, and if their IQ on their lone X chromosome is low, then there is no other that would help bring up the average.

This is NOT to say that there are not female geniuses. It simply states that females are more balanced. The most intelligent person on the planet was for a long time (I don't know who it is now) a woman, by the name of Marilyn vos Savant. (She assumed this last name.) So there, she was lucky enough to get a really high IQ X from her mother, and a really high IQ X from her father.

So the two requirements to be a philosopher are met better by males: males number more to be more introspective, due to their higher propensity to be autistic than females, and males' IQs fall on more extreme locations on the bell curve.

davidm
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by davidm » Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:54 am

-1- wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:02 am
Gary Childress wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:34 am
(Gary Childless discusses why more male Ph.D.s are in philosophy than women)
So, lady and gentleman philosophers, which do you believe is the case, if any of the above? What are your thoughts on the matter? Please don’t be shy to respond. We are all philosophers here in some sense because we bother to post in a philosophy forum. And as philosophers we are committed to truth, no matter how inconvenient or unappealing truth may be to either ourselves or others around us who are ignorant of it. I would especially love to hear from some of our female philosophers here about your own experiences with philosophy. In your first-hand experience, what would you most likely credit as the reason(s) for the discrepancy cited above? Are there any possibilities I have missed?
Dear Gary, I hope you are still around because I think I have the perfect answer for you.

I'd given a long and hard thought to this. I noticed the mechanical thinking in some early European or Western philosophers work. Hobbes, Marx, Kant, all treated humans as if they had all been of the same ilk.

I also noticed that some prominent philosophers were loners, such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Hume.

Some other philosophers were renegades, who displayed a mild and contrite surface, but inisde themselves they were boiling against the establishment: desCartes, Spinoza, Orgenbund.

So I put a composite picture of these fellers together, and came up with the hypotheses, or unproved or largely unsupported theory, which states that philosophers are very smart people who suffer terribly from Asperger's syndrome, or more modernly, from a high functioning level of autism. Their lack of social skills and ability; their lonerliness; their inward-turning speculative nature (not discussing their ideas, but writing them down); their wanting, their needing to see order and classified truths;' they all point at the fact that famous philosophers in the newer era of European or Western philosophy were all smart cookies who could not get along with people, and therefore depended on their own speculative creativity to create systems and ordered systems that resembled some sort of explanation of reality.

This is still the case. Most philosophy graduates are male, because there are more males suffering from Asperger's (i.e. from autism) than females. Females also tend to be less smart and less stupid; there are much more outstanding geniuses among men and much more down-trodden street bums among men than among women. Some theorists explain it (no study has been made yet, but it may come out any time, that supports this) that intelligence comes inherited mainly in the X chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes, so they equalize each other. The two X chromosomes take their "average", and the women tend therefore to avoid being in the extremes of the bell curve that describes human intelligence. Males, on the other hand, have one X chromosome, so if IQ is inherited on that, then their IQ if high, is not tempered by a lower IQ X, and if their IQ on their lone X chromosome is low, then there is no other that would help bring up the average.

This is NOT to say that there are not female geniuses. It simply states that females are more balanced. The most intelligent person on the planet was for a long time (I don't know who it is now) a woman, by the name of Marilyn vos Savant. (She assumed this last name.) So there, she was lucky enough to get a really high IQ X from her mother, and a really high IQ X from her father.

So the two requirements to be a philosopher are met better by males: males number more to be more introspective, due to their higher propensity to be autistic than females, and males' IQs fall on more extreme locations on the bell curve.
What a gigantic boatload of unsubstantiated crap. Just like the rest of this thread, which unfortunately has been exhumed from its merciful slumber. I got nauseous when I began reading the thread and learned -- what a surprise! -- that some jerk, in what I believe was the third or fourth response to the OP, asserted that women were intellectually inferior to men.

What -- there is no puke emoji here?

The only grace note in this nonsense is the post just upthread by Majorem Blues. It's spot on and gets to the very heart of what's wrong here.

If you want to really know why women are underrepresented in academic philosophy (not that there is anything special about academic philosophy as opposed to non-academic philosophy) I could link you to a startling essay by a professor emeritus of philosophy whose daughter is seeking her PhD in philosophy and whose best student, when he was a professor, was a woman who abandoned philosophy.

I could do that, but you know what?

Eff it.

You people don't deserve it.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6264
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:57 am

davidm wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:54 am
-1- wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:02 am
Gary Childress wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:34 am
(Gary Childless discusses why more male Ph.D.s are in philosophy than women)
So, lady and gentleman philosophers, which do you believe is the case, if any of the above? What are your thoughts on the matter? Please don’t be shy to respond. We are all philosophers here in some sense because we bother to post in a philosophy forum. And as philosophers we are committed to truth, no matter how inconvenient or unappealing truth may be to either ourselves or others around us who are ignorant of it. I would especially love to hear from some of our female philosophers here about your own experiences with philosophy. In your first-hand experience, what would you most likely credit as the reason(s) for the discrepancy cited above? Are there any possibilities I have missed?
Dear Gary, I hope you are still around because I think I have the perfect answer for you.

I'd given a long and hard thought to this. I noticed the mechanical thinking in some early European or Western philosophers work. Hobbes, Marx, Kant, all treated humans as if they had all been of the same ilk.

I also noticed that some prominent philosophers were loners, such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Hume.

Some other philosophers were renegades, who displayed a mild and contrite surface, but inisde themselves they were boiling against the establishment: desCartes, Spinoza, Orgenbund.

So I put a composite picture of these fellers together, and came up with the hypotheses, or unproved or largely unsupported theory, which states that philosophers are very smart people who suffer terribly from Asperger's syndrome, or more modernly, from a high functioning level of autism. Their lack of social skills and ability; their lonerliness; their inward-turning speculative nature (not discussing their ideas, but writing them down); their wanting, their needing to see order and classified truths;' they all point at the fact that famous philosophers in the newer era of European or Western philosophy were all smart cookies who could not get along with people, and therefore depended on their own speculative creativity to create systems and ordered systems that resembled some sort of explanation of reality.

This is still the case. Most philosophy graduates are male, because there are more males suffering from Asperger's (i.e. from autism) than females. Females also tend to be less smart and less stupid; there are much more outstanding geniuses among men and much more down-trodden street bums among men than among women. Some theorists explain it (no study has been made yet, but it may come out any time, that supports this) that intelligence comes inherited mainly in the X chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes, so they equalize each other. The two X chromosomes take their "average", and the women tend therefore to avoid being in the extremes of the bell curve that describes human intelligence. Males, on the other hand, have one X chromosome, so if IQ is inherited on that, then their IQ if high, is not tempered by a lower IQ X, and if their IQ on their lone X chromosome is low, then there is no other that would help bring up the average.

This is NOT to say that there are not female geniuses. It simply states that females are more balanced. The most intelligent person on the planet was for a long time (I don't know who it is now) a woman, by the name of Marilyn vos Savant. (She assumed this last name.) So there, she was lucky enough to get a really high IQ X from her mother, and a really high IQ X from her father.

So the two requirements to be a philosopher are met better by males: males number more to be more introspective, due to their higher propensity to be autistic than females, and males' IQs fall on more extreme locations on the bell curve.
What a gigantic boatload of unsubstantiated crap. Just like the rest of this thread, which unfortunately has been exhumed from its merciful slumber. I got nauseous when I began reading the thread and learned -- what a surprise! -- that some jerk, in what I believe was the third or fourth response to the OP, asserted that women were intellectually inferior to men.

What -- there is no puke emoji here?

The only grace note in this nonsense is the post just upthread by Majorem Blues. It's spot on and gets to the very heart of what's wrong here.

If you want to really know why women are underrepresented in academic philosophy (not that there is anything special about academic philosophy as opposed to non-academic philosophy) I could link you to a startling essay by a professor emeritus of philosophy whose daughter is seeking her PhD in philosophy and whose best student, when he was a professor, was a woman who abandoned philosophy.

I could do that, but you know what?

Eff it.

You people don't deserve it.
How do you know they aren't 'intellectually inferior'?

thedoc
Posts: 6336
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by thedoc » Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:21 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 1:57 am
How do you know they aren't 'intellectually inferior'?
Most of them aren't, but we'll make an exception for you.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 791
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by -1- » Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:35 am

davidm wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:54 am
-1- wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:02 am
Gary Childress wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:34 am
(Gary Childless discusses why more male Ph.D.s are in philosophy than women)
So, lady and gentleman philosophers, which do you believe is the case, if any of the above? What are your thoughts on the matter? Please don’t be shy to respond. We are all philosophers here in some sense because we bother to post in a philosophy forum. And as philosophers we are committed to truth, no matter how inconvenient or unappealing truth may be to either ourselves or others around us who are ignorant of it. I would especially love to hear from some of our female philosophers here about your own experiences with philosophy. In your first-hand experience, what would you most likely credit as the reason(s) for the discrepancy cited above? Are there any possibilities I have missed?
Dear Gary, I hope you are still around because I think I have the perfect answer for you.

I'd given a long and hard thought to this. I noticed the mechanical thinking in some early European or Western philosophers work. Hobbes, Marx, Kant, all treated humans as if they had all been of the same ilk.

I also noticed that some prominent philosophers were loners, such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Hume.

Some other philosophers were renegades, who displayed a mild and contrite surface, but inisde themselves they were boiling against the establishment: desCartes, Spinoza, Orgenbund.

So I put a composite picture of these fellers together, and came up with the hypotheses, or unproved or largely unsupported theory, which states that philosophers are very smart people who suffer terribly from Asperger's syndrome, or more modernly, from a high functioning level of autism. Their lack of social skills and ability; their lonerliness; their inward-turning speculative nature (not discussing their ideas, but writing them down); their wanting, their needing to see order and classified truths;' they all point at the fact that famous philosophers in the newer era of European or Western philosophy were all smart cookies who could not get along with people, and therefore depended on their own speculative creativity to create systems and ordered systems that resembled some sort of explanation of reality.

This is still the case. Most philosophy graduates are male, because there are more males suffering from Asperger's (i.e. from autism) than females. Females also tend to be less smart and less stupid; there are much more outstanding geniuses among men and much more down-trodden street bums among men than among women. Some theorists explain it (no study has been made yet, but it may come out any time, that supports this) that intelligence comes inherited mainly in the X chromosome. Females have two X chromosomes, so they equalize each other. The two X chromosomes take their "average", and the women tend therefore to avoid being in the extremes of the bell curve that describes human intelligence. Males, on the other hand, have one X chromosome, so if IQ is inherited on that, then their IQ if high, is not tempered by a lower IQ X, and if their IQ on their lone X chromosome is low, then there is no other that would help bring up the average.

This is NOT to say that there are not female geniuses. It simply states that females are more balanced. The most intelligent person on the planet was for a long time (I don't know who it is now) a woman, by the name of Marilyn vos Savant. (She assumed this last name.) So there, she was lucky enough to get a really high IQ X from her mother, and a really high IQ X from her father.

So the two requirements to be a philosopher are met better by males: males number more to be more introspective, due to their higher propensity to be autistic than females, and males' IQs fall on more extreme locations on the bell curve.
What a gigantic boatload of unsubstantiated crap. Just like the rest of this thread, which unfortunately has been exhumed from its merciful slumber. I got nauseous when I began reading the thread and learned -- what a surprise! -- that some jerk, in what I believe was the third or fourth response to the OP, asserted that women were intellectually inferior to men.

What -- there is no puke emoji here?

The only grace note in this nonsense is the post just upthread by Majorem Blues. It's spot on and gets to the very heart of what's wrong here.

If you want to really know why women are underrepresented in academic philosophy (not that there is anything special about academic philosophy as opposed to non-academic philosophy) I could link you to a startling essay by a professor emeritus of philosophy whose daughter is seeking her PhD in philosophy and whose best student, when he was a professor, was a woman who abandoned philosophy.

I could do that, but you know what?

Eff it.

You people don't deserve it.
DavidM, are YOU saying women are intellectually inferior to men? Because I am NOT saying that. I am merely saying that men tend to be more extreme in the distribution of IQ. The average is the same for both sexes. The shape of the distribution is the same for both sexes. Except that there are more men at both extremes.

If this means to you that I'm saying that women are intellectually inferior, then you are intellectually inferior. Or simply don't know math, or statistics.

You cited one example (1). That is another telltale sign that you have no clue about the power of statistics.

And you did not finish your story. You said that the eminent female student abandoned her studies.

Was it because she was inferior in her intellect? I don't believe that. I'd rather like to think that she lacked in having an INTEREST. You did not say either way.

So wtf was your example showing?

In fact, you displayed an immense lack of knowledge in statistical analysis, you took my words and apparently did not even understood them.

For the record, before you pipe up again, DavidM: I believe, and stats show, that men and women, as a body of many individuals, chosen randomly, are fucking EQUAL intellectually, you blockhead. I am saying, at the same time, that there are more extremes in the male population than in the female population.

If that's too much for you to comprehend, go take a statistics course for crying out loud. And don't accuse me of things I am not guilty of. Your ignorance is not a cause to bury me with sexist charges.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 791
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by -1- » Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:41 am

DavidM, the first person to receive two Nobel Prizes in history of the Prize, was a woman. Are you still saying I consider women intellectually inferior???? WELL, I DON'T. I consider women intellectually the same as men, in the great averages. So stop this nonsense at once. And if you don't understand something, don't make up stories with heavy undertones of your wrong interpretation of statistics.

You make me puke, DavidM. What a rube.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6264
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:53 am

-1- wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:41 am
DavidM, the first person to receive two Nobel Prizes in history of the Prize, was a woman. Are you still saying I consider women intellectually inferior???? WELL, I DON'T. I consider women intellectually the same as men, in the great averages. So stop this nonsense at once. And if you don't understand something, don't make up stories with heavy undertones of your wrong interpretation of statistics.

You make me puke, DavidM. What a rube.
To be fair I don't think he was talking about you.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6264
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:54 am

Melchior wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2015 2:14 am
Gary Childress wrote:By and large philosophy may often seem like a discipline dominated by males. This has historically been the case and according to a study I saw on Ph.Ds awarded to women in the US during the year 2009 only about 30% of Ph.Ds in philosophy were awarded to women. Among the various disciplines featured in the study, this put Philosophy just above disciplines such as Engineering, Computer Science and Physics, which had fewer, in contrast to disciplines such as Psychology and English Literature which topped the scale at about 70%.

http://kieranhealy.or...¬

By contrast, 2009 apparently saw a greater number of Ph.Ds awarded to women overall than men.

http://www.washington...¬

This seems to beg a question of what is it about philosophy that has thus far lead to such skewed results.

Philosophy is often defined as the love of wisdom. Studying philosophy must therefore have something to do with studying wisdom. Wisdom is generally considered to be a trait of great benefit in a human being (surely regardless of gender). If this is the case, then I see at least a few possibilities here.

1. Those who study philosophy do so because they lack the object of their study, namely, those that study philosophy seek wisdom because they do not currently possess it. Perhaps philosophy may then be seen as a stepping stone to other things, and those who study other things already possess wisdom and therefore have no need to study philosophy. Therefore perhaps women are typically wiser than men and therefore have little need to study wisdom, whereas men have more need to study what they lack.
2. Those who study philosophy are more interested in wisdom than those who do not because not everyone values wisdom equally. Therefore women do not value wisdom as highly as men do.
3. Women value wisdom equally (or greater) to men but Philosophy is a discipline that is particularly either more difficult for women than men for whatever reason (including either possible prejudice in the field or else a deficiency in women’s ability to study wisdom) or else less attractive to women for similar reasons.
4. Philosophy as studied in an academic setting is not the study of wisdom and therefore the data tells us nothing about the relative value of wisdom to either males or females.
5. A combination of any or all of the above.
6. Some other option(s) I am missing…

So, lady and gentleman philosophers, which do you believe is the case, if any of the above? What are your thoughts on the matter? Please don’t be shy to respond. We are all philosophers here in some sense because we bother to post in a philosophy forum. And as philosophers we are committed to truth, no matter how inconvenient or unappealing truth may be to either ourselves or others around us who are ignorant of it. I would especially love to hear from some of our female philosophers here about your own experiences with philosophy. In your first-hand experience, what would you most likely credit as the reason(s) for the discrepancy cited above? Are there any possibilities I have missed?
You're asking this with a straight face? :shock:

This isn't particularly difficult:

1) You misspelled 'women'.

2) Philosophy requires intellectual prowess, which men possess to a greater degree than women.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6264
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Jan 21, 2018 5:56 am

-1- wrote:
Sun Jan 21, 2018 2:41 am
DavidM, the first person to receive two Nobel Prizes in history of the Prize, was a woman. Are you still saying I consider women intellectually inferior???? WELL, I DON'T. I consider women intellectually the same as men, in the great averages. So stop this nonsense at once. And if you don't understand something, don't make up stories with heavy undertones of your wrong interpretation of statistics.

You make me puke, DavidM. What a rube.
But you could equally say that most have been won by men. Actually I don't give a flying fart about Nobel prizes anyway. They have only slightly more credibility than 'Oscars'.

Londoner
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Londoner » Sun Jan 21, 2018 11:21 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:34 am
Philosophy is often defined as the love of wisdom. Studying philosophy must therefore have something to do with studying wisdom. Wisdom is generally considered to be a trait of great benefit in a human being (surely regardless of gender). If this is the case, then I see at least a few possibilities here...
But in reality, one does not launch out on a search for wisdom. You read a lot of difficult philosophers and try to make sense them. That why Impenitent was right to say that a career in the law is the sort of thing that might appeal to philosophy students.

I'd also say that philosophy is such a broad topic we cannot lump it together as if it represented just one type of intelligence, so I do not think we can conclude much from PhDs. Again, in reality, these are mostly going to consist of an analysis of existing texts. And an look at some writings of Rousseau and a technical paper on logic have little in common. In fact, because philosophy merges on the edges into other disciplines; science, maths, literature, psychology and so on, people who start in philosophy may find themselves shift into another discipline.

I'd say that those who are capable of really original thinking are very rare, and they also tend to be a bit odd. It may well be that they are more likely to be men than women, but that is not because men in general are cleverer than women in general. I'd guess it is because men are more likely to have the types of psychological problems that mean they will concentrate obsessively on a problem, or see it in an entirely original way.

Of course, usually such problems are usually destructive to the individual; tweak the genius a bit and he can be the smelly individual on the bus, reading comic books and talking to themselves. So if men are going to feel proud that most great philosophers are men, they also have to own that so are most nutters.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest