Being a Woman* in Philosophy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

I laughed at the first post on the site, so I decided to share:

[quote]The most depressing thing about being a woman in philosophy is hearing blatantly sexist remarks from some of my graduate student colleagues who defend these claims with what pretty much amounts to crack-pot style â??scientificâ?? reasoning. I have no idea why, for a select few, itâ??s such a critical thinking blind-spot: â??Evolution selected women to be meek so that they will seem more attractive to men in power. Thatâ??s why you donâ??t find women in philosophy or governmentâ??; â??Women canâ??t really understand philosophy because most of philosophy is written by men. Women only understand philosophy written by women. Men canâ??t. Itâ??s not sexists because it works in both directions.

Different hormones mean that you reason in different ways and you canâ??t change that. Thatâ??s why women have their own conferences.â??; â??There arenâ??t any women logicians. Yes, most people canâ??t do that kind of stuff but you only find men at the top of that bell curve. Itâ??s a scientific fact and it has been verified but feminists make it impossible for the research to be widely accepted.â??; â??Women just arenâ??t intelligent enough to be interesting. I donâ??t know if it is nature or nurture but I simply havenâ??t met any really intelligent women. Itâ??s probably nature because there are a few exceptions.â??[/quote]

  • I am sure it goes without saying that I am not a woman, but just to make it clear: I have the twig and berries.
2

What can you possibly be doing to find stuff like this?

3

Philosophy class, one of the younger girls in the class posted the link in a discussion about gender morals.

4

You need this book Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics which this page is only the TOC of. [quote]The subject of a Christian View of Life must be studied historically and systematically in order to understand it comprehensively. If we study it thus we find that we face an ultimate choice between Christian and non-Christian epistemology. Especially because of the modern emphasis on the Immanence of God, it is necessary to become clearly aware of the deep antithesis between the two main types of epistemology. [/quote]
This is what I’ve been sayin since day one around here. A world view, a paradigm of reality, stands or falls as a system, the individualized components of which immediately point to the rest of the whole for their validity. Right now Cortes is asking me some good tough questions in the other thread that I DO have answers for, but those answers reside in the system. It is not possible for a truly Christian world view to be philosophically defended in an effective way on a point by point basis.

The points are kinda like fish. They swim in an intellectual ecosystem on which they depend for life. On the other hand the system, the whole, is contemporaneously apprehended by faith AS the entire sum of the points rightly divided within the system itself. Circular? You betcha.

5

Sorry Chris, but can’t resist asking what you think about women being disallowed by Catholics from serving in the priesthood? It’s wrong to marginalize women in philosophy, but ok to marginalize them in religion?

I know your answer already, that god has different roles for men and women…but in the end, it’s really no different than the post you found appalling :wink:

6

Here Chris, for your own ever broadening horizons http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA012.htm You may actually enjoy this even while you disagree. Like I do Aquinas.

7

Chris is a smart guy, but tends to be a bit reactionary.

8

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sorry Chris, but can’t resist asking what you think about women being disallowed by Catholics from serving in the priesthood? It’s wrong to marginalize women in philosophy, but ok to marginalize them in religion?

I know your answer already, that god has different roles for men and women…but in the end, it’s really no different than the post you found appalling ;)[/quote]

They are not disallowed by Catholics. It is not a matter of “won’t,” it is a matter of “can’t.” It is the same as getting mad at the Catholic Church for not letting fathers get pregnant. If you have grievances about the issue, you’re going to have to go up much higher on the command chain than the Pope to get someone that has the authority to address the issue. Hierarchy, such a pain! Such a wretched problem when you can’t change truth on a whim. :slight_smile:

And, I never said I found the post appalling, I found it humorous. What I found appalling is the high likelihood that these women don’t know how to make a proper sandwich. :wink:

9

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You need this book Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics which this page is only the TOC of. [quote]The subject of a Christian View of Life must be studied historically and systematically in order to understand it comprehensively. If we study it thus we find that we face an ultimate choice between Christian and non-Christian epistemology. Especially because of the modern emphasis on the Immanence of God, it is necessary to become clearly aware of the deep antithesis between the two main types of epistemology. [/quote]
This is what I’ve been sayin since day one around here. A world view, a paradigm of reality, stands or falls as a system, the individualized components of which immediately point to the rest of the whole for their validity. Right now Cortes is asking me some good tough questions in the other thread that I DO have answers for, but those answers reside in the system. It is not possible for a truly Christian world view to be philosophically defended in an effective way on a point by point basis.

The points are kinda like fish. They swim in an intellectual ecosystem on which they depend for life. On the other hand the system, the whole, is contemporaneously apprehended by faith AS the entire sum of the points rightly divided within the system itself. Circular? You betcha.[/quote]

You lost me after TOC. All I know is that I believe the Catholic Church…and then I go forth to understand. Wait, that sounds a lot like a certain Bishop that I have read…I think he was a Bishop of Hippo, a Catholic Bishop…oh yeah a one and upstanding St. Augustine, that’s his name.

I will historically and systematically study the Early Church Father’s, they have only let me down once…when I tried to prove Calvinism with their writings. No worries though, I am sure that all this Catholic stuff they are writing about they really meant to say Calvinism. I will eventually find somewhere, someplace that someone of the ECF’s mentions Calvinism.

10

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here Chris, for your own ever broadening horizons http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/PA012.htm You may actually enjoy this even while you disagree. Like I do Aquinas.[/quote]

I don’t particularly care to read evolution/creation literature especially from non-Catholics as there are things that they either don’t put in the way or put in the way that don’t make sense to me. It’s a non-starter really. Mostly because I get lost after a few big words. It’s like no one writes things for people to actually understand, what am I Shakespeare? All I see is copy and pasting of distinctive phrases to argue if God could have done something without putting his Hands behind every effect or not. I don’t know.

This is what I know:

  1. God created the universe.
  2. God supernaturally infused soul to matter in humans.

That is all I really know, and that is all I really care to know at this point in time. I spend enough energy figuring on how to get food into poor people’s mouths without having to fuss over how things went down.

If God created the universe by letting the nine choirs of Angels sing it into existence or smashed membranes together, or painted it, or whatever. Doesn’t affect that Jesus died for me and he told me to be baptized and repent and to go with Him. So, I am already baptized, now I repent and go be with Him.

If it makes you happy, I can take Augustine’s beliefs (even if he held them briefly or only in degree) that of a 1) flat earth, 2) no antipodes, and 3) young earth creation (possibly the world was created all at once).

So, beat that mister-I-follow-Augustine.

NB: You know how people read self-help books before bed, my self-help books are:

Confessions
City of God
On the Profit of Believing
On Patience
On the Morals of the Catholic Church
Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manichaeans
On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness
On Marriage and Concupiscence
On Grace and Free Will
On Rebuke and Grace
The Predestination of the Saints/Gift of Perseverance

Right now I am re-re-reading Confessions. Should be an interesting (who am I kidding, it is one of my favorites! I make sure it is always in briefcase.), the other ones are most certainly appealing for before bed self-help books.

I do recommend them.

11

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sorry Chris, but can’t resist asking what you think about women being disallowed by Catholics from serving in the priesthood? It’s wrong to marginalize women in philosophy, but ok to marginalize them in religion?

I know your answer already, that god has different roles for men and women…but in the end, it’s really no different than the post you found appalling ;)[/quote]

They are not disallowed by Catholics. It is not a matter of “won’t,” it is a matter of “can’t.” It is the same as getting mad at the Catholic Church for not letting fathers get pregnant. If you have grievances about the issue, you’re going to have to go up much higher on the command chain than the Pope to get someone that has the authority to address the issue. Hierarchy, such a pain! Such a wretched problem when you can’t change truth on a whim. :slight_smile:

And, I never said I found the post appalling, I found it humorous. What I found appalling is the high likelihood that these women don’t know how to make a proper sandwich. ;)[/quote]

You say can’t, Episcopalians (who allow women priests) say won’t.

Neither of you can prove the truth of your claims, but Episcopalians get a brownie point for treating women as equals.

12

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sorry Chris, but can’t resist asking what you think about women being disallowed by Catholics from serving in the priesthood? It’s wrong to marginalize women in philosophy, but ok to marginalize them in religion?

I know your answer already, that god has different roles for men and women…but in the end, it’s really no different than the post you found appalling ;)[/quote]

They are not disallowed by Catholics. It is not a matter of “won’t,” it is a matter of “can’t.” It is the same as getting mad at the Catholic Church for not letting fathers get pregnant. If you have grievances about the issue, you’re going to have to go up much higher on the command chain than the Pope to get someone that has the authority to address the issue. Hierarchy, such a pain! Such a wretched problem when you can’t change truth on a whim. :slight_smile:

And, I never said I found the post appalling, I found it humorous. What I found appalling is the high likelihood that these women don’t know how to make a proper sandwich. ;)[/quote]

There’s even more to it than that. The church, would not stand and could not have stood with out the religious orders assigned to women. The are the hands of the church. They are the work, they bring Christ to the least of the people over men. That role, is at least as important if not more so than that of the male clergy.
Besides, you had world and religious leaders, including the Pope bending down to arguably the greatest saint to ever live, Mother Teresa, who was a woman.
In the church women and men have different roles, but one is not more important than the other. I’d like to see a man try to live as a Sister of Mercy…

It is not unrecognized that even in the scriptures it was the women who were brave, they did not abandon Christ when all but one if his male apostles did. They were not afraid to approach him during cavalry as the men did. They were the ones who were fearless in the face of both the Romans and the Pharisees. Bottom line, in the RCC, we dig chicks.

13

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I laughed at the first post on the site, so I decided to share:

[quote]The most depressing thing about being a woman in philosophy is hearing blatantly sexist remarks from some of my graduate student colleagues who defend these claims with what pretty much amounts to crack-pot style â??scientificâ?? reasoning. I have no idea why, for a select few, itâ??s such a critical thinking blind-spot: â??Evolution selected women to be meek so that they will seem more attractive to men in power. Thatâ??s why you donâ??t find women in philosophy or governmentâ??; â??Women canâ??t really understand philosophy because most of philosophy is written by men. Women only understand philosophy written by women. Men canâ??t. Itâ??s not sexists because it works in both directions.

Different hormones mean that you reason in different ways and you canâ??t change that. Thatâ??s why women have their own conferences.â??; â??There arenâ??t any women logicians. Yes, most people canâ??t do that kind of stuff but you only find men at the top of that bell curve. Itâ??s a scientific fact and it has been verified but feminists make it impossible for the research to be widely accepted.â??; â??Women just arenâ??t intelligent enough to be interesting. I donâ??t know if it is nature or nurture but I simply havenâ??t met any really intelligent women. Itâ??s probably nature because there are a few exceptions.â??[/quote]

  • I am sure it goes without saying that I am not a woman, but just to make it clear: I have the twig and berries. [/quote]

The extraordinarily stupid thing about these woman who are whining is that philosophy is perhaps the most asexual form of study there is. If sexual biases of any kind are coloring arguments then massive fallacies are being committed which invalidate the argument.

This person failed to provide an example of said problem. I suppose we are supposed to take her word for it? I have never seen this occurring in my studies. A good argument is a good argumnet and a bad argument is a bad argument. Sex is a non-issue, unless of course sex is the topic being discussed.

14

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sorry Chris, but can’t resist asking what you think about women being disallowed by Catholics from serving in the priesthood? It’s wrong to marginalize women in philosophy, but ok to marginalize them in religion?

I know your answer already, that god has different roles for men and women…but in the end, it’s really no different than the post you found appalling ;)[/quote]

They are not disallowed by Catholics. It is not a matter of “won’t,” it is a matter of “can’t.” It is the same as getting mad at the Catholic Church for not letting fathers get pregnant. If you have grievances about the issue, you’re going to have to go up much higher on the command chain than the Pope to get someone that has the authority to address the issue. Hierarchy, such a pain! Such a wretched problem when you can’t change truth on a whim. :slight_smile:

And, I never said I found the post appalling, I found it humorous. What I found appalling is the high likelihood that these women don’t know how to make a proper sandwich. ;)[/quote]

You say can’t, Episcopalians (who allow women priests) say won’t.

Neither of you can prove the truth of your claims, but Episcopalians get a brownie point for treating women as equals.
[/quote]

Which Episcopalians?

15

You are gittin better all the time Chris. Assuming all this recent discourse is yours, (and I’m not accusing that it’s not), you are consistently growing into a more formidable adversary. I’ve been reading along here recently, eyebrows raised, nodding and smiling. Great to see. You really should read Van Til’s Survey of Christian Epistemology" though. Even if you skip Bahnsen, who you really misunderstood right off the bat btw. Then again you misunderstand me constantly and Bahnsen and I are homies. (well, were. He’s dead).

16

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sorry Chris, but can’t resist asking what you think about women being disallowed by Catholics from serving in the priesthood? It’s wrong to marginalize women in philosophy, but ok to marginalize them in religion?

I know your answer already, that god has different roles for men and women…but in the end, it’s really no different than the post you found appalling ;)[/quote]

They are not disallowed by Catholics. It is not a matter of “won’t,” it is a matter of “can’t.” It is the same as getting mad at the Catholic Church for not letting fathers get pregnant. If you have grievances about the issue, you’re going to have to go up much higher on the command chain than the Pope to get someone that has the authority to address the issue. Hierarchy, such a pain! Such a wretched problem when you can’t change truth on a whim. :slight_smile:

And, I never said I found the post appalling, I found it humorous. What I found appalling is the high likelihood that these women don’t know how to make a proper sandwich. ;)[/quote]

You say can’t, Episcopalians (who allow women priests) say won’t.

Neither of you can prove the truth of your claims, but Episcopalians get a brownie point for treating women as equals.
[/quote]

Which Episcopalians?[/quote]

Does it matter?

17

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Which Episcopalians?[/quote]

Does it matter?[/quote]

Yes, yes it does. If I am supposed to follow Episcopalians I have to know which ones I should follow. One set of Episcopalians doesn’t hold to women’s ordination, neither for priests are bishops. Another set of Episcopalians believes that women can be ordained and has ordained them all the way up to Bishops.

Another entire set of Episcopalians sees that their church is backsliding so they are joining the Catholic Church. We even have a special rite for Anglican/Episcopalian clergy to come into the Catholic Church as Catholic Clergy, sometimes even taking whole parishes (building and people). They can do this while holding most of their English liturgical traditions.

So, yes it is important as the Episcopalian Church’s actions are split. Some ordain, some do not (but stay), and some do not (and leave).

18

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You are gittin better all the time Chris. Assuming all this recent discourse is yours, (and I’m not accusing that it’s not), you are consistently growing into a more formidable adversary. I’ve been reading along here recently, eyebrows raised, nodding and smiling. Great to see. You really should read Van Til’s Survey of Christian Epistemology" though. Even if you skip Bahnsen, who you really misunderstood right off the bat btw. Then again you misunderstand me constantly and Bahnsen and I are homies. (well, were. He’s dead).[/quote]

I’ll try and read it again, but I am not sure what you are referring to in your first comment.

19

are they really women in philosophy?

it is stuff like that that gives women in philosophy a bad name…

philosophy is predominantly a male field. like mathematics and physics. other fields of study have a higher percentage of female graduate students and professors (e.g., english literature, biology). when i started out… i was the only female graduate student in a program that was otherwise full with male graduate students and professors. my undergraduate department was fairly distinctive in being split about 50/50 between male and female professors but it was definitely an anomaly. as an undergrad i didn’t think of philosophy as being male dominated. as a graduate student (and also traveling around to other departments and more regularly attending workshops / conferences) it is hard to deny that philosophy is largely male dominated (with the exception of applied ethics).

i think that there are issues that arise from the subject being predominantly dominated by males. one such issue is whether the aim of question time in seminars is to critique / undermine the speaker vs collaborate / assist the speaker. i think that is an interesting issue. i don’t think it is one that is best cast as male vs female styles of philosophy, however, and this tends to be the way the debate is set up.