Womyn and Philosophy

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Gary Childress » Tue May 05, 2015 8:53 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:What an odd question.
In what way "wrong". A physical and natural reaction can't be wrong. It's what you do next that would put it in the moral realm.
That's a good point. Suppose I asked her to have lunch with me and she refuses. I next tell her I really like her and she says she doesn't feel the same way about me. So then I feel sad and decide I would rather not be around her because it's frustrating for me. Would it be right or wrong for me to stop associating with her because of the frustration I might feel? I guess I'm just trying to figure out what you meant when you made the comment: "Men treat them as potential mates on sight." Is that in itself wrong?
If she is a student you already crossed the line asking her for lunch.
If she was a colleague, you ought to know enough about here to have figured out whether or not she likes you before the lunch date.
Take not: SHE is not frustrating YOU. And no, as a colleague you need to keep the association professional.
Your attitude seems to confirm to what I meant about "potential mates".
In a civilised world we have to put aside our base feelings and behave in a civilised way.
You might assess every woman you meet that way - perfectly natural. But acting like a p**** is one way that has marginalised women and kept them as sex objects.
I see. I certainly apologize for being a p**** (whatever letters correspond to the asterisks.) I hope women professionals achieve all the important things they are trying to achieve. Whatever it is. Maybe they are simply trying to scale the "glass mountain" referred to in Barthelme's story cited above. In any case, good luck "up there".

duszek
Posts: 2183
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by duszek » Wed May 06, 2015 2:17 pm

After a detour we can resume the topic.

Perhaps someone who has read all posts so far (I grow weary when someone is foaming at the mouth and have to skip) can put in a nutshell what substantial points we have discovered so far or what he remembers.

You look like an analytic man, Gary, it should be easy for you.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Gary Childress » Sun May 10, 2015 11:16 pm

duszek wrote:After a detour we can resume the topic.

Perhaps someone who has read all posts so far (I grow weary when someone is foaming at the mouth and have to skip) can put in a nutshell what substantial points we have discovered so far or what he remembers.

You look like an analytic man, Gary, it should be easy for you.
Well, to summarize, the topic is "womyn and philosophy" (or "women and philosophy", whichever you wish). The question raised is why there are apparently so few women in philosophy when apparently compared to other academic disciplines. There have been a few possible reasons forwarded so far. Most seem to favor the position that it has mainly to do with or bears relation to some form of injustice against women or other. At least one has ventured the position that women are just not as philosophically inclined as men (perhaps by their "nature", I don't know).

Based upon your own experience, what would be your best estimation of why there are relatively so few women in philosophy (as opposed to various other academic disciplines where women seem to be far more prevalent)?

duszek
Posts: 2183
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:27 pm
Location: Thin Air

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by duszek » Mon May 11, 2015 12:36 pm

Because women who indulge in cold logic and who fight with arguments against opponents are ... unattractive to the opposite sex ? :D

A general assumption seems to be:
Women philosophers are not flirtatious. They have no fun and they provide no fun.

Simone de Beauvoir dared to be dry as dust and to the point no matter what and who did she end up with ? Sartre. Who was not faithful anyway, although not very handsome.

A jazz singer sings: it´s nice to have a man around the house ...

Melchior
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Melchior » Mon May 11, 2015 3:23 pm

Gary Childress wrote:
duszek wrote:After a detour we can resume the topic.

Perhaps someone who has read all posts so far (I grow weary when someone is foaming at the mouth and have to skip) can put in a nutshell what substantial points we have discovered so far or what he remembers.

You look like an analytic man, Gary, it should be easy for you.
Well, to summarize, the topic is "womyn and philosophy" (or "women and philosophy", whichever you wish). The question raised is why there are apparently so few women in philosophy when apparently compared to other academic disciplines. There have been a few possible reasons forwarded so far. Most seem to favor the position that it has mainly to do with or bears relation to some form of injustice against women or other. At least one has ventured the position that women are just not as philosophically inclined as men (perhaps by their "nature", I don't know).

Based upon your own experience, what would be your best estimation of why there are relatively so few women in philosophy (as opposed to various other academic disciplines where women seem to be far more prevalent)?
You find a lot of women in language departments. Philosophy is tougher.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Gary Childress » Tue May 12, 2015 2:41 am

Melchior wrote:
Gary Childress wrote:
duszek wrote:After a detour we can resume the topic.

Perhaps someone who has read all posts so far (I grow weary when someone is foaming at the mouth and have to skip) can put in a nutshell what substantial points we have discovered so far or what he remembers.

You look like an analytic man, Gary, it should be easy for you.
Well, to summarize, the topic is "womyn and philosophy" (or "women and philosophy", whichever you wish). The question raised is why there are apparently so few women in philosophy when apparently compared to other academic disciplines. There have been a few possible reasons forwarded so far. Most seem to favor the position that it has mainly to do with or bears relation to some form of injustice against women or other. At least one has ventured the position that women are just not as philosophically inclined as men (perhaps by their "nature", I don't know).

Based upon your own experience, what would be your best estimation of why there are relatively so few women in philosophy (as opposed to various other academic disciplines where women seem to be far more prevalent)?
You find a lot of women in language departments. Philosophy is tougher.
Hmm. Is it possible that it could depend upon the level of interest a person has in a given subject? I always did well in my philosophy classes because I was passionately interested in most of them but not very well in various other classes like "communications" (for example). I generally got A's and B's in philosophy classes but C's or D's in classes I had little to no interest in.

Is it perhaps possible that most women on average simply don't find philosophy as interesting as other disciplines and that philosophy is not necessarily "objectively" more difficult than other classes? Or was I some kind of genius because I just picked up on philosophy particularly well? I doubt I was any kind of genius and I'm sure many on this forum would happily agree with that assessment...

Melchior
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Melchior » Tue May 12, 2015 3:07 am

Gary Childress wrote:
Hmm. Is it possible that it could depend upon the level of interest a person has in a given subject? I always did well in my philosophy classes because I was passionately interested in most of them but not very well in various other classes like "communications" (for example). I generally got A's and B's in philosophy classes but C's or D's in classes I had little to no interest in.

Is it perhaps possible that most women on average simply don't find philosophy as interesting as other disciplines and that philosophy is not necessarily "objectively" more difficult than other classes? Or was I some kind of genius because I just picked up on philosophy particularly well? I doubt I was any kind of genius and I'm sure many on this forum would happily agree with that assessment...
Language-teaching is something that comes naturally to women (mothers teach their babies to talk), but philosophy does not. Asked and answered.

mickthinks
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 am
Location: Augsburg

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by mickthinks » Thu May 14, 2015 11:13 am

I think you'll be interested in reading this article, Melchior, which seems to answer most of your objections.

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/ar ... on/393110/

From the article ...
In the case of [Émilie] Du Châtelet, Janiak says the philosopher’s reputation shifted over the years from that of a writer to that of a translator, an activity that was deemed more socially appropriate for an intellectual woman. Even Voltaire, with whom she’d had a very public and long-lasting relationship, played a role in minimizing her legacy. He’d praised her intelligence and ideas in some works, but after she died at age 43, Voltaire also referred to her as translator and framed her thoughts as derivative, according to Janiak. “She had understood science in a way he didn’t,” Janiak said. “I think he was jealous.”

Melchior
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Melchior » Thu May 14, 2015 3:11 pm

Gary Childress wrote:
Melchior wrote: Hmm. Is it possible that it could depend upon the level of interest a person has in a given subject? I always did well in my philosophy classes because I was passionately interested in most of them but not very well in various other classes like "communications" (for example). I generally got A's and B's in philosophy classes but C's or D's in classes I had little to no interest in.

Is it perhaps possible that most women on average simply don't find philosophy as interesting as other disciplines and that philosophy is not necessarily "objectively" more difficult than other classes? Or was I some kind of genius because I just picked up on philosophy particularly well? I doubt I was any kind of genius and I'm sure many on this forum would happily agree with that assessment...
I think certain biological/sexual traits are in play here. Both men and women tend to be better at certain different things. This is not absolute, but there is a sexual correlation. I cannot imagine the Critique of Pure Reason being written by a woman.

User avatar
Kayla
Posts: 1151
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:31 am

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Kayla » Fri Jun 19, 2015 9:17 pm

Melchior wrote: I cannot imagine the Critique of Pure Reason being written by a woman.
nor can i

this seems like a reason for more women in philosophy

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6938
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sat Jun 20, 2015 12:31 am

Gary Childress wrote: Hmm. Is it possible that it could depend upon the level of interest a person has in a given subject? I always did well in my philosophy classes because I was passionately interested in most of them but not very well in various other classes like "communications" (for example). I generally got A's and B's in philosophy classes but C's or D's in classes I had little to no interest in.

Is it perhaps possible that most women on average simply don't find philosophy as interesting as other disciplines and that philosophy is not necessarily "objectively" more difficult than other classes? Or was I some kind of genius because I just picked up on philosophy particularly well? I doubt I was any kind of genius and I'm sure many on this forum would happily agree with that assessment...
Could it be that men are deeper, cleverer, and think about things more? Oh no, I'll have the PC thought police on me for that.

Melchior
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Melchior » Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:00 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Gary Childress wrote: Hmm. Is it possible that it could depend upon the level of interest a person has in a given subject? I always did well in my philosophy classes because I was passionately interested in most of them but not very well in various other classes like "communications" (for example). I generally got A's and B's in philosophy classes but C's or D's in classes I had little to no interest in.

Is it perhaps possible that most women on average simply don't find philosophy as interesting as other disciplines and that philosophy is not necessarily "objectively" more difficult than other classes? Or was I some kind of genius because I just picked up on philosophy particularly well? I doubt I was any kind of genius and I'm sure many on this forum would happily agree with that assessment...
Could it be that men are deeper, cleverer, and think about things more? Oh no, I'll have the PC thought police on me for that.
Yes, and yes.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 6938
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:58 am

Melchior wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Gary Childress wrote: Hmm. Is it possible that it could depend upon the level of interest a person has in a given subject? I always did well in my philosophy classes because I was passionately interested in most of them but not very well in various other classes like "communications" (for example). I generally got A's and B's in philosophy classes but C's or D's in classes I had little to no interest in.

Is it perhaps possible that most women on average simply don't find philosophy as interesting as other disciplines and that philosophy is not necessarily "objectively" more difficult than other classes? Or was I some kind of genius because I just picked up on philosophy particularly well? I doubt I was any kind of genius and I'm sure many on this forum would happily agree with that assessment...
Could it be that men are deeper, cleverer, and think about things more? Oh no, I'll have the PC thought police on me for that.
Yes, and yes.
I mean relatively speaking of course. Most PEOPLE can barely think at all.

Melchior
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2014 3:20 pm

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Melchior » Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:03 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I mean relatively speaking of course. Most PEOPLE can barely think at all.
I find most people beneath contempt, right next to the brake rotors.

User avatar
Gary Childress
Posts: 966
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: USA of the UN

Re: Womyn and Philosophy

Post by Gary Childress » Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:53 pm

Melchior wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I mean relatively speaking of course. Most PEOPLE can barely think at all.
I find most people beneath contempt, right next to the brake rotors.
:lol: You two would make a cute couple.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests