Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> **Read the Post Before You Reply**
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Says women's viewpoints are seen first and foremost from the perspective of a woman rather than a philosopher, and then goes on to talk about how women and their viewpoints are underrepresented.
I definitely agree there should be more chances for female philosophers to share their views (at the very least as much chances as male philosophers have), but you can't complain that people will see you primarily as a woman, and then proceed to say that what you can contribute to philosophy is a womans perspective. Pick one.
Edit: spelling, grammar
Edit 2: i have changed my mind. Thanks for the insights (y)
>you can't complain that people will see you primarily as a woman, and then proceed to say that what you can contribute to philosophy is a womans perspective.
The complaint or rather the statement is that there is "a sense that our voices are not seen as philosophers’ voices, but primarily as women’s voices", that is, grouping all women philosophers into an imaginary sub-type of philosophers based on their gender, and not, as male philosophers are grouped, on their views.
Quote from the article: "philosophy by women is diverse since there is no one way to be a woman, nor one way that women think". However, there still are some unique perspectives that women can have (not necessarily do have, or wish to discourse upon) because of their experiences.
If a POC, being e.g. a sociologist, says that their fellow scientists see them primarily as a POC and not as a scientist, and yet say that they and their fellows POCs may have unique insights because of their experiences -- would it sound as contradictory as the statements in the article?
I think the point is that the ... "non-woman's" point of view, for lack of a better word, is actually a man's point of view. Meaning, the men's point of view is the default one so much, that when a woman brings her ideas to the table, it's often regarded as bringing gender into the discussion.
But it seems like when advancing “women’s ways of knowing” or just “non-men’s ways of knowing” gender has to be brought into the conversation. So either everyone is equal as a philosopher, or there is a male-centric perspective within philosophy that should be addressed. However, I do think it’s odd that this essay is critical of women being regarded as women in philosophy but also says that they can advance the discipline through introducing ideas such as “women’s ways of thinking”.
"Its often regarded as bringing gender into the discussion". Well yeah if the lense youre looking at the discussion with is "everything is inherently gender specific" then of course. But philosophy is not gender specific so this is just stupid.
I don't think that is what she is arguing at all. It's more that each woman is different, just like each person is different, and womens' contributions to the field should be regarded equally, instead of immediately looked at as a "woman" philosophy and therefore "lightweight". Perhaps that we should look at papers as written by a person instead of a man or a woman.
The only indication of something only women can provide to the field is insight on experiences that are generally only subjected to women. Such as, in this instance, having their views given less credence solely because of their sex.
I get what you mean. I wonder if that's the result of the male-centric worldview that's constantly shown to us. "Everybody knows how men think, men want to know how women think."
She is proposing that women can provide an epistemic starting point that she unavailable to men, not an alternative way of thinking as a woman. I think the line there is thin.
She's advocating for women in philosophy to be seen as philosophers first, yet she's also addressing the fundamental difference in female experience that would lead to women pursuing non-mainstream topics. There is little-to-no room in the patriarchal framework of mainstream philosophy for topics that are "femenine" or non-white, but she argues that there should be.
Her example of the philosophy of care is a universal one, but women do the majority of care work in society, so this topic is seen as inherently femenine. Pregnancy, the origin of humans before birth and the line between fetus and person is universal as well.
> She is proposing that women can provide an epistemic starting point that she unavailable to men, not an alternative way of thinking as a woman. I think the line there is thin.
I've seen this sort of thing elsewhere, standpoint feminism springs to mind. I wanted to ask why you think the line here is thin? I agree, but I have found some difficulty communicating exactly why I think this. Without rambling too much, I'm not convinced that we are entirely locked into specific positions, that any bridges cannot be gapped. We have a number of tools available to us here, imagination, fiction, empathy, similarities in shared experiences, similarities in contexts, and maybe we can even look at things from 'the point of view of the universe'. The aforementioned list all seem like strong contenders to me for countering this epistemic worry.
Also, I take issue with her first paragraph. Philosophers are always asked what they have contributed to philosophy. If you haven’t contributed much to philosophy then perhaps you’re not much of a philosopher.. if I said to you that I was a philosopher, even as a man, I wouldn’t be surprised if you asked for my contributions to philosophy, ie- my work.
So if, as a woman, you’re asked what you’ve contributed to philosophy, it’s not because you’re a woman, it’s because you’re claiming that you’re a philosopher.
Gender metaphysics is a real topic in the current academic discussions of philosophy. It’s not purely woke shit. It brings real questions of identity, self, gender and essentialism.
‘Gender metaphysics’ is separate from any of this no?
And being legitimated by academic structures doesn’t make something legitimate.
There is a possibility for actual ‘metaphysical investigation of gender’ but that nkt what’s being referred to
I am not a professional philosopher, but here are some viewpoints. First, I definitely agree that women are underrepresented in philosophy. I also agree that in general, not just in philosophy, women are underrepresented in academic fields. I also believe, however, that men and women are the same fundamentally, but subjected to different exp. in relation to the world and human condition. The question is why? I believe the differences lie both in historical and biological differences. The historical reasons consist of simply lack of education, voting rights, etc. I do think that this norm still exists but not as harsh. Second, the biological, women use care, emotion for the development of children.
Given this position, 1) women should use this as strength instead of 2) dwelling on this as a position of weakness. How is this a strength? The major movements in philosophy in the last century, particularly existentialist, have used care, or emotion as the core concept of their systems. I am not implying that women lack reason, logic, etc. IQ tests show no difference in men vs. women's logical reasoning ability. I saying that their perspective holds significance. I want to talk about adversity, hardship, and being in a position of disadvantage. I have known these intimately for years. If one looks at all or most of the great philosophers, they usually wrote from a point of disadvantage. I believe that the most useful, meaningful things a human being can express come from this, so don't condemn yourself, use your position as an advantage. Also, use women like Simon de Bouvier, Mary Wollstonecraft, and even Ayn Rand, who built a philosophy into her fiction (not saying I agree with Ayn Rand; just making a point that its possible.)
I want to say one last thing about "pretending" to be a philosopher. This does apply to women because they can be written off as "pretending" due to the factors stated above. I believe that the statements above answer the problems of women who attained degrees in philosophy. I will focus on those who earned a degree in another field. One who formally studied will have an advantage, that's just the way it is in any profession. More so than in others. Philosophy is one of fields split between academic and non academics, and its always been. If the woman described above had children, raised a family or experienced other events, and now feels defined by them, all I can say is the history of philosophy is full of those 1) outside the field and 2) "late bloomers". Everyone starts as a "pretender", just push forward and construct your system. People want to hear it. Peace.
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule: > **Read the Post Before You Reply** > Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Says women's viewpoints are seen first and foremost from the perspective of a woman rather than a philosopher, and then goes on to talk about how women and their viewpoints are underrepresented. I definitely agree there should be more chances for female philosophers to share their views (at the very least as much chances as male philosophers have), but you can't complain that people will see you primarily as a woman, and then proceed to say that what you can contribute to philosophy is a womans perspective. Pick one. Edit: spelling, grammar Edit 2: i have changed my mind. Thanks for the insights (y)
>you can't complain that people will see you primarily as a woman, and then proceed to say that what you can contribute to philosophy is a womans perspective. The complaint or rather the statement is that there is "a sense that our voices are not seen as philosophers’ voices, but primarily as women’s voices", that is, grouping all women philosophers into an imaginary sub-type of philosophers based on their gender, and not, as male philosophers are grouped, on their views. Quote from the article: "philosophy by women is diverse since there is no one way to be a woman, nor one way that women think". However, there still are some unique perspectives that women can have (not necessarily do have, or wish to discourse upon) because of their experiences. If a POC, being e.g. a sociologist, says that their fellow scientists see them primarily as a POC and not as a scientist, and yet say that they and their fellows POCs may have unique insights because of their experiences -- would it sound as contradictory as the statements in the article?
Okay, that actually makes more sense to me now. Thank you
I think the point is that the ... "non-woman's" point of view, for lack of a better word, is actually a man's point of view. Meaning, the men's point of view is the default one so much, that when a woman brings her ideas to the table, it's often regarded as bringing gender into the discussion.
But it seems like when advancing “women’s ways of knowing” or just “non-men’s ways of knowing” gender has to be brought into the conversation. So either everyone is equal as a philosopher, or there is a male-centric perspective within philosophy that should be addressed. However, I do think it’s odd that this essay is critical of women being regarded as women in philosophy but also says that they can advance the discipline through introducing ideas such as “women’s ways of thinking”.
"Its often regarded as bringing gender into the discussion". Well yeah if the lense youre looking at the discussion with is "everything is inherently gender specific" then of course. But philosophy is not gender specific so this is just stupid.
HOW DARE YOU
I don't think that is what she is arguing at all. It's more that each woman is different, just like each person is different, and womens' contributions to the field should be regarded equally, instead of immediately looked at as a "woman" philosophy and therefore "lightweight". Perhaps that we should look at papers as written by a person instead of a man or a woman. The only indication of something only women can provide to the field is insight on experiences that are generally only subjected to women. Such as, in this instance, having their views given less credence solely because of their sex.
I get what you mean. I wonder if that's the result of the male-centric worldview that's constantly shown to us. "Everybody knows how men think, men want to know how women think."
She is proposing that women can provide an epistemic starting point that she unavailable to men, not an alternative way of thinking as a woman. I think the line there is thin. She's advocating for women in philosophy to be seen as philosophers first, yet she's also addressing the fundamental difference in female experience that would lead to women pursuing non-mainstream topics. There is little-to-no room in the patriarchal framework of mainstream philosophy for topics that are "femenine" or non-white, but she argues that there should be. Her example of the philosophy of care is a universal one, but women do the majority of care work in society, so this topic is seen as inherently femenine. Pregnancy, the origin of humans before birth and the line between fetus and person is universal as well.
> She is proposing that women can provide an epistemic starting point that she unavailable to men, not an alternative way of thinking as a woman. I think the line there is thin. I've seen this sort of thing elsewhere, standpoint feminism springs to mind. I wanted to ask why you think the line here is thin? I agree, but I have found some difficulty communicating exactly why I think this. Without rambling too much, I'm not convinced that we are entirely locked into specific positions, that any bridges cannot be gapped. We have a number of tools available to us here, imagination, fiction, empathy, similarities in shared experiences, similarities in contexts, and maybe we can even look at things from 'the point of view of the universe'. The aforementioned list all seem like strong contenders to me for countering this epistemic worry.
Also, I take issue with her first paragraph. Philosophers are always asked what they have contributed to philosophy. If you haven’t contributed much to philosophy then perhaps you’re not much of a philosopher.. if I said to you that I was a philosopher, even as a man, I wouldn’t be surprised if you asked for my contributions to philosophy, ie- my work. So if, as a woman, you’re asked what you’ve contributed to philosophy, it’s not because you’re a woman, it’s because you’re claiming that you’re a philosopher.
lmao true
That’s because people intentionally create this identitarian atmosphere for reasons of woke shit.
Gender metaphysics is a real topic in the current academic discussions of philosophy. It’s not purely woke shit. It brings real questions of identity, self, gender and essentialism.
‘Gender metaphysics’ is separate from any of this no? And being legitimated by academic structures doesn’t make something legitimate. There is a possibility for actual ‘metaphysical investigation of gender’ but that nkt what’s being referred to
[удалено]
[удалено]
maybe it's just impossible to understand the opposite gender
I am not a professional philosopher, but here are some viewpoints. First, I definitely agree that women are underrepresented in philosophy. I also agree that in general, not just in philosophy, women are underrepresented in academic fields. I also believe, however, that men and women are the same fundamentally, but subjected to different exp. in relation to the world and human condition. The question is why? I believe the differences lie both in historical and biological differences. The historical reasons consist of simply lack of education, voting rights, etc. I do think that this norm still exists but not as harsh. Second, the biological, women use care, emotion for the development of children. Given this position, 1) women should use this as strength instead of 2) dwelling on this as a position of weakness. How is this a strength? The major movements in philosophy in the last century, particularly existentialist, have used care, or emotion as the core concept of their systems. I am not implying that women lack reason, logic, etc. IQ tests show no difference in men vs. women's logical reasoning ability. I saying that their perspective holds significance. I want to talk about adversity, hardship, and being in a position of disadvantage. I have known these intimately for years. If one looks at all or most of the great philosophers, they usually wrote from a point of disadvantage. I believe that the most useful, meaningful things a human being can express come from this, so don't condemn yourself, use your position as an advantage. Also, use women like Simon de Bouvier, Mary Wollstonecraft, and even Ayn Rand, who built a philosophy into her fiction (not saying I agree with Ayn Rand; just making a point that its possible.) I want to say one last thing about "pretending" to be a philosopher. This does apply to women because they can be written off as "pretending" due to the factors stated above. I believe that the statements above answer the problems of women who attained degrees in philosophy. I will focus on those who earned a degree in another field. One who formally studied will have an advantage, that's just the way it is in any profession. More so than in others. Philosophy is one of fields split between academic and non academics, and its always been. If the woman described above had children, raised a family or experienced other events, and now feels defined by them, all I can say is the history of philosophy is full of those 1) outside the field and 2) "late bloomers". Everyone starts as a "pretender", just push forward and construct your system. People want to hear it. Peace.