Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

tbieter wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:52 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:08 pm The only female 'philosophers' I can think of are Ayn Rand and Simone Weil, and they are both dreadful.
How do you justify calling a particular philosopher "dreadful"? What standard have you used?
I don't have to 'justify' it. It's an internet forum. Others can look them up and judge for themselves. :)
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Science Fan »

By the standard of rational and humane thinking, Rand and Weil are both dreadful, and that's putting it politely.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Nick_A »

Science Fan wrote: Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:01 pm Ok, so I'm trying to clarify your position. When you state that women philosophers should be known more than they are now, on what basis? Is it because they are women? Or is it because they are good philosophers? If it is because they are women, wouldn't that undermine philosophy, because now reason becomes irrelevant to philosophy and instead what is relevant is political correctness regarding gender issues? If, on the other hand, it is because they are good philosophers, then why make any reference to them being women? In such a case, doesn't that undermine their value as thinkers, because they are being promoted for being women, regardless of the quality of their arguments? Either way, I don't see how philosophy is served by such a policy as requiring 40% of the reading material be from women authors.
You are assuming you know what good philosophy is. Can a person even be considered a good philosopher if they do not live their philosophy? Is good philosophy just repeating facts? Oxford is just proving our general philosophical ignorance so is anxious to reduce the concept of philosophy into secular equality
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Immanuel Can »

Science Fan wrote: Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:50 pm Recently, the philosophy department at Oxford University has instructed its professors to make sure that 40% of the authors referenced on any reading list are women. So, regardless of the quality of their work, the idea is to promote ideas based on gender. In philosophy, an argument is supposed to be evaluated based on its own merits, and not on the gender of the person making the argument. This means that Oxford's Philosophy Dept., one of the greatest in the world, has now abandoned one of the major principles of philosophy in order to be PC when it comes to gender.

This certainly goes a long way in undermining the usefulness of philosophy --- after all, if such a prestigious philosophy department rejects reason in favor of PC, thenwhy should we think philosophy will ever support reason over PC?
Maybe. The Jordan Peterson and Lindsay Sheppard controversies in Canada are an indicator that the worm is turning. Political correctness may well have run its course; but it's probably only going to go down whining, and wailing, kicking and screaming. The convulsions will take awhile yet, but the conflict is definitely on.

If you've never seen this (and literally millions of people already have) watch the powers of PC versus calm, philosophical reasoning right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

Too bad for Oxford if it has boarded the PC Titanic.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Nick_A »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:21 pm
tbieter wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:52 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:08 pm The only female 'philosophers' I can think of are Ayn Rand and Simone Weil, and they are both dreadful.
How do you justify calling a particular philosopher "dreadful"? What standard have you used?
I don't have to 'justify' it. It's an internet forum. Others can look them up and judge for themselves. :)
Your trouble vege is that you are not tough enough. That is why you cannot appreciate those like Simone. You fall into a rant at the slightest provocation so are not tough enough to hold an idea. Many women are either to sentimental or hostile to express the quality of impartilaity to profit inwardly from philosophy. But some are and you will never understand them.

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/fac ... gh-enough/#!
Now seems like a particularly important time to be thinking about what it means to be both tough and a woman. Deborah Nelson’s Tough Enough is a useful guide to a particular kind of toughness — toughness not just as a form of resilience, but toughness as a moral, ethical, and aesthetic stance in the face of pain and suffering. Considering the works of an eclectic collection of female subjects who cross disciplinary boundaries — Simone Weil, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, Susan Sontag, Diane Arbus, and Joan Didion — Nelson affirms toughness (which she defines as coldness and lack of emotional expressivity) as more than just an aspect of their public personas. In particular, Nelson explores the ways that each figure conceives of the moral and ethical imperatives of unsentimentality as the only adequate response to the traumas that mark the 20th and 21st centuries.
You will rant rather than think which is the norm for modern feminism in its misguided belief that there is truth in expressions of emotional hostility. I am happy that there are these exceptional women without the need to hide behind emoting and are inwardly tough enough to be capable of adding something meaningful for philosophy.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by uwot »

Walker wrote: Thu Mar 22, 2018 5:24 amThen, ignoring factual content of a topic in favor of voicing personal prejudices about the news outlet that reports the facts of the topic is a curious path for such pristine intellectual integrity.
Easy Tiger, how do you know that Oxford's philosophy department has caved into gender PC? Of the three sources that forum members have identified, the original is apparently the Cherwell piece which fooloso4 found. Cherwell is a student run enterprise which is not above creating elaborate pranks, but that seems unlikely in this case, unless the staff quoted are in on it. What is factual is that the two papers that we know ran with the story demonstrably have readerships on the right-wing fringe of mainstream politics; the sort of people that the editors believed would be exercised enough to find it newsworthy. This, I suspect, is because they will interpret it as Oxford caving in, rather than a harmless effort to raise the profile of women philosophers.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Walker »

Tiger? Uh, Ok.

In that vein, you miss the principle for the particular.

On the larger issue of PC news sources, perhaps you could provide a list of PC acceptable news sources, and a list of PC unacceptable news sources?

I think this is already in the PC works, but a jump on it here might reduce the man flirting, son, 'specially with men.

Quotas, bad idea.

Read up on what happened in the DC schools in recent history, from a PC acceptable source.

They were churning out dummies that looked like superstars on paper.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by uwot »

Walker wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:51 am Tiger? Uh, Ok.

In that vein, you miss the principle for the particular.
The principle is something else. It is the particular under discussion.
Walker wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:51 amOn the larger issue of PC news sources, perhaps you could provide a list of PC acceptable news sources, and a list of PC unacceptable news sources?
Whoa there, fella! Can you explain why you think I could provide such a list?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Walker »

uwot wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 9:56 am
Walker wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:51 am Tiger? Uh, Ok.

In that vein, you miss the principle for the particular.
The principle is something else. It is the particular under discussion.
Walker wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:51 amOn the larger issue of PC news sources, perhaps you could provide a list of PC acceptable news sources, and a list of PC unacceptable news sources?
Whoa there, fella! Can you explain why you think I could provide such a list?
Sho ‘nuff glad to do that, and to mirror your patronizing attitude, easy there, cowboy.

You’ve already begun the list of unapproved PC news sources in this thread.

You’re simply encouraged to continue it, with gusto, to be upfront and not so weak about the intellectual bias.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by uwot »

Walker wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:18 amYou’ve already begun the list of unapproved PC news sources in this thread.
What I did was point out my distrust of two right wing newspapers. Do you deny my right to do so?
Walker wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:18 amYou’re simply encouraged to continue it, with gusto, to be upfront and not so weak about the bias.
I don't actually know what you mean by PC. So far it could simply be 'not right wing'. Do you have anything to add?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Walker »

Are you being deliberately or unconsciously dishonest?

You discourage the news sources, thus, you define PC.

Not me.

Why does this matter?

Because when the unapproved sources get used, the pertinent facts within the news source are ignored.

It's a game the list will end.

Your reluctance to provide the list indicates a preference for the game, rather than philosophy.

Fella.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by uwot »

Walker wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:53 am Are you being deliberately or unconsciously dishonest?

You discourage the news sources, thus, you define PC.
Again: what I did was point out my distrust of two right wing newspapers. Do you deny my right to do so? Personally I think the Mail and Telegraph are perfectly entitled to express right wing views, but in the context of this thread, for instance, I do not believe that Oxford's philosophy department can be accused of caving in to gender PC.
Walker wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:53 amWhy does this matter?

Because when the unapproved sources get used, the pertinent facts within the news source are ignored.
I think you have ignored what I said here:
uwot wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 7:32 amEasy Tiger, how do you know that Oxford's philosophy department has caved into gender PC? Of the three sources that forum members have identified, the original is apparently the Cherwell piece which fooloso4 found. Cherwell is a student run enterprise which is not above creating elaborate pranks, but that seems unlikely in this case, unless the staff quoted are in on it. What is factual is that the two papers that we know ran with the story demonstrably have readerships on the right-wing fringe of mainstream politics; the sort of people that the editors believed would be exercised enough to find it newsworthy. This, I suspect, is because they will interpret it as Oxford caving in, rather than a harmless effort to raise the profile of women philosophers.
Except the 'Easy Tiger' bit.
Walker wrote: Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:53 amIt's a game the list will end.

Your reluctance to provide the list indicates a preference for the game, rather than philosophy.

Fella.
Frankly, I think it helps to be aware of the political bias of any source. As I was saying to Nick_A, facts are meaningless, it is how we are persuaded to respond to them that should be cautioned against. For instance, it seems to me that the term 'PC' is frequently used as a derogatory term that some people on the right apply to any story containing facts they wish to ignore. If that is what you call PC, so be it.
fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by fooloso4 »

uwot:
… how do you know that Oxford's philosophy department has caved into gender PC?
I think that this is a good question that has been buried by yet another rant against PC.

It is quite clear that most people who profess an interest in philosophy, including many who are philosophers by profession, know little or nothing about the work of female philosophers. As I see it, it is not a matter of the inclusion of women philosophers because they are women but because their work remains unknown and may be worthy of being known. To assume that their work remains unknown because if it were of merit it would already be known is self perpetuating ignorance. To assume their work must be without merit because it is the work of women is just plain ignorance. If one of the goals of a philosophical education is to introduce us to works that we are not already familiar with then the introduction of the works of women follows logically from the stated goal.

The backlash against “political correctness” is not a return to reason, but a distraction from it. It is the imposition of a framework through which everything is seen. It makes the same mistakes it imagines it is correcting. Whatever issue is under consideration takes a backseat to the question of whether it is PC. Case in point: the issue of whether the work of women philosophers should be included in the curriculum is shunted in favor of more bickering about political correctness
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Nick_A »

Political correctness is simply the established opinion of a dominant force in society. An American value for example is blind justice. It has been replaced by a series of politically correct values like the establishment of hate crimes. Blind justice refers to equality in front of the law. Hate crimes as an establishment of PC demands inequality under the law. People have chosen inequality and the natural struggle for superiority assuring the gradual destruction of beliefs necessary to sustain freedom.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Oxford's Philosophy Dept. has Caved into Gender PC

Post by Arising_uk »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:08 pm The only female 'philosophers' I can think of are Ayn Rand and Simone Weil, and they are both dreadful.
Elizabeth Anscombe, Mary Warnock, Margret Boden, Mary Wollstonecraft, Susan Haack, Patricia Churchland, Hannah Arendt, Philippa Foot, Julia Kristeva are all pretty interesting.
Post Reply