Sexism in philosophy

It can ubiquitously agreed upon that women have been grossly underrepresented in philosophy as well as the entirety of the academic community. So what came first, the chicken or the egg? Have women been underrepresented because of the misogynistic predispositions of society, or because they are women and can’t think critically?

Most philosopher run off the “If there is someone I can teach I will teach him, If there is a 3 year old who can teach me I will sit at his feet and listen” (not the exact quote but the meaning is the same)

Anyways I personally believe gender is irrelevant as long as I can “sit at the child’s feet and listen” I’m contented. But women are less philosophically inclined for some reason… Male is to Philosophy as Women are to Psychology?

This. Women have no conception of impracticality. It is antithesis to their very nature and existence.

The female exists contingent upon their pragmatism. If you take it away (and become Nihilistic), then they lose their value as women.

Hence, a woman can neither be a Nihilist nor a Philosopher, ever, ever, ever, by definition of the words.

wait, you say they cannot recognize impracticality, yet they are pragmatists?

so they can recognize practicality but not impracticality? that doesn’t add up for some reason.

you contradict yourself.

Hey, you know, if you can’t figure it out, then it’s not my fault.

I believe in large part women are emotionally driven. Therefore, men on the whole feel women will resort to that defense mechanism and think reason will take a back seat. In defense of women, I have seen emotion emit from men wherein they resort to fighting to get a point across. I’m afflicted with that same drawback. The thing men don’t want to recognize is our emotions pour out into violence. Testosterone can be a nasty thing when invocated under anger. Therefore, I have came to the conclusion that “Men are pigs”, in the metaphorical sense. :slight_smile:

There’s this guy making posts on an anti porn video sayin things like

“feminism is a monolith”

He said we should dehumanise “whores” for stealing husbands, as if the whores steal the husbands…

He comes out all righteous, saying he supports a patriarchal society, then claims that whores and porn damage the “cultural moral fabric” of society.

I was on this feminist video on youtube calling the author stupid for setting real feminists back, in that there is nothing wrong with porn

Then this anti feminist anti porn patriarchal dude comes in calling me a whore, a cultural moral fabric damager, and a bunch of other funny things.

The crazy things people will say amazes me… the diversity of belief is great but disturbing.

This is getting old.

My post to the OP, until I read down and saw your post was going to be a watered-down version of almost exactly what you posted. Essentially I was going to site pragmatism and practicality, but not quite to the extreme that you did.

RU, you subscribe to the whole feminization of man bit, so why not masculinization of women, why can a woman not break the constraints of pragmatism and practicality?

Answer: Of course she can.

Obviously, you have some men that are more feminized than others and think in a greatly more feminine way, so why does the same not hold true for the other side?

Answer: It does.

Besides, I am a little jealous of the practicality of women, if nothing else, I would at least get more actual work done if I thought like a woman. Hell, I’d have probably put together some kind of marketing website while I am at work (as opposed to posting on a philosophy forum) and multiplied my income by 1.5 at this point!

Woah there Pav! – I actually-already-argued that point nearly a year ago: here.

If men were practical like women were, then they would be women and not men! :smiley:

That is the divide between men and women: abstraction. Thinking v Feeling. Women cannot do the former by their own physio-mental limitations.

My mistake, I follow the feminization threads almost zero.

I will only disagree by stating that people have different definitions of what makes a man a man and a woman a woman. I prefer the simple method, you either were originally born with a penis or you were not. That being said, if someone wants to alter the physiological implements that make them the gender they are, then that is their choice and I could give a shit either way.

No problemo, I also recalled that thread since many other people around here need to revisit the argument apparently.

This stuff has already been argued; most people just do not care to do the homework themselves.

That is entirely-understandable.

This inspection is just what makes man completely-man, and woman completely-woman.

The reasoning gets complicated to say the least.

I know feminists that argue many trans-gender points very well, which makes your argument too precarious to take.

As have almost all things, RealUnoriginal. However, as you know, we continue to rehash topics previously discussed not only because we may feel we have something to add, but also because we may feel that people from the discussion prior may have something to add. Perhaps the beliefs of the person a year ago have relaxed, hardened or been modified in some other way as to making getting a fresh and updated (if you will) perspective from that person if not absolutely necessary, then at least desirable.

I agree that my argument is very precarious. However, since neither of us are bigoted against those who believe in ways other than our own, I have no problem with taking a precarious argument. In a few cases, I have no problem taking a side that is completely closed-minded provided I respect another individual’s right to believe as they will believe and do as they will do.

Well, when you go with the “man = penis”, and “woman = vagina” argument, then a group of Ingeniums are going to lash out against you like this:

  1. hermaphrodites
  2. chromosome mutations (multigender) - XXX, XXY, XYX, YXX, XYY, YYX, YYY, etc.
  3. sex changes & androgyny syndromes
  4. homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality, etc.

I just cut through all that shit and go straight to the source: linguistic-behavioral differences. I track how people speak & write and it usually tells me their gender dispositions. Language is sexual: null gender neutrality. I suppose most people don’t even notice it, but it is not something you can change anyway. For example, one difference that I have noticed is that ‘females’ never use what I call the “individual-I” symbolism. They use the “collective-we” symbolism. However, my linguistic theories become too complex to address further here. You have to necessarily consider and include extreme-contextualism, which ultimately means that every “I” and “we” is connected to one another, but that is a pain-in-the-ass. Essentially, whenever somebody mentions/speaks/writes “I”, then you have to take it into consideration of all other possible occurrences of the meaning of the word. The same applies to “we”, but the observations I have made is that “we” paradigm-shifts based on society/culture/institution. The “I” does not; it stays constant & consistent, always. And that just baffles me. In fact, it is giving me a headache right now by thinking about it.

You obviously don’t understand men, women, or humanity. You must have a terrible time getting laid, unoriginal.

So what about Simone de Beauvoir? Ayn Rand? Or any of these?

How many philosophers from the last half of the 20th century on do we really discuss on this site at all? Most of the discussions here revolve around philosophers who pre-date women being able to become recognized philosophers. If the system was set-up so that women can’t play, should it come as any surprise to us that very few women were trying to play?

That isn’t going to make the 100M-women’s world class sprinters catch up with the 100M-men’s world class sprinters anytime soon Xunzian…

First of all, that has nothing to do with mental prowess.

Second of all, maybe not any time soonwomenssportsfoundation.org/C … n-Men.aspx

Yes, it does. There is no mind-body divide. Therefore, the analogy is not only fitting, but required.

I already-know. I have taken into account these possibilities.

Regardless, I am still not impressed.

No mind-body divide, huh? Tell me, is Terrell Owens smarter than you? What percentage of the NFL elite is smarter than you? Based on their physique, probably all of them, according to your logic.

Oh you did know that, huh?

It depends on how you define “smarter”.

Yes, actually I did. I am already-well-acquainted with the Feminization of Man Theory.