Sex ratio on this site?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Community / Off Topic » Sex ratio on this site? » Sex ratio on this site?

Sex ratio on this site?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Last

Sex ratio on this site?

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1903

Posted 11/07/09 - 07:18 AM:	#31
Arkady wrote: I can't think of a single significant female philosopher I can't think of a single significant female. ... I jest! baden511 wrote: Darn, that's a bit boring. In what way? This is an online forum to discuss philosophy. Unless you think female philosophers have more interesting things to say, then I can't see how less female members would make the site any more boring. Unless you intend to engage in flirtatious banter, in which case I totally agree with you.
I am awesome.

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 436

1 of 6 people found this post helpful Posted 11/07/09 - 07:25 AM:	#32
I should point out a few things: 1) My venom for post-mod, post-structuralist nonsense is in no way restricted to females. I heap plenty of derision on Foulcault, Derrida, Lacan, et al. 2) The lack of significant female philosophers throughout history may well be completely a result of social factors (including discrimination), rather than innate cognitive disparities between the genders. 3) My criticism of feminist theory as an academic discipline is not meant to cast aspersions on feminism as the political and moral movement which fought for women's suffrage, equal pay for equal work, etc.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

baden511
McHamlet

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 13, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 172

Posted 11/07/09 - 07:48 AM:	#33
Yahadreas wrote: In what way? This is an online forum to discuss philosophy. Unless you think female philosophers have more interesting things to say, then I can't see how less female members would make the site any more boring. Unless you intend to engage in flirtatious banter, in which case I totally agree with you. Flirtatious banter? What's that? By the way ladies, just PM me your phone numbers. I'll take care of the rest
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Moses (Numbers 31:17-18) "Do not harm little children" - Satanic Bible. Rule no.9 "Send me a cool rut-time, Jove, or who can blame me to piss my tallow?" - Falstaff

sheps
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 15, 2008
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 422

Posted 11/07/09 - 08:06 AM:	#34
Arkady wrote: The number of female philosophers throughout history has been extremely small. This site is probably no more skewed with regard to sex ratio than the field of philosophy itself. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single significant female philosopher. Rosa Luxemburg. The list of female philosophers is tiny, I agree. That'll change in the next 200 years or so, I imagine.
The Midnight Sun Never Sets.

Fenchurch
Shieldmaiden

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 14, 2006
Location: Rickmansworth

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 242

5 of 6 people found this post helpful Posted 11/07/09 - 08:19 AM:	#35
Arkady wrote: There are some solid picks on that list; others are fairly mediocre. Judith Butler? Ehhhh, post-mod feminist loons don't exactly rate as philosophical giants in my book! Susan Sontag falls into that category, as well, as do a number of others (Catherine MacKinnon, for instance). Julia Kristeva is another nut job (and I seem to remember Alan Sokal dismantling her arguments extremely thoroughly at the height of the "Science Wars"). Lit crit, feminist theory, and the like are simply not real philosophy (or, at best, represent the dregs of the field). Ayn Rand is more of a cult leader than a philosopher. Mary Midgley may have made decent contributions in her field (Ethics?) but her sparring with Richard Dawkins (mostly over her review of 'The Selfish Gene') pointed her out as being ludicrously ill-informed in many respects. You asked for significant female philosophers, not giants. The "anyone who knows what they're doing in the field of philosophy will know this name" test is a damn good heuristic for gauging that. I myself think half the people on my list are full of it, but I think the same thing (to varying degrees) about the writings of Plato, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein. And let's not forget that many of their arguments have been shown to be problematic. I don't suppose that means none of those men were significant, does it? I'd also like to take this opportunity to deride your pathetic lack of knowledge regarding the women you dismissed above. We'll start with Mary Midgley. First, she has made many contributions outside of ethics, including the history of philosophy and the philosophy of science. And when it comes to The Selfish Gene, the only thing anyone (other than yourself, apparently) has accused her of being misinformed about is Dawkins' intentions. Leaving aside the reductionism debate (which Midgley's side is winning these days), those who took Dawkins' side in the Selfish Gene debate typically praised her grasp of the science, but argued she had misinterpreted what Dawkins was trying to say. But of course, this is a ubiquitous problem for Dawkins -- who I like, by the way -- and something he admits quite candidly. It's his primary defense, after all, to say he has been misinterpreted. And almost all changes between the original and revised version of The Selfish Gene can be traced to Midgley's criticisms. So Dawkins must admit (though he doesn't do it in so many words) that his writings are simply unclear (at least the original version of The Selfish Gene). And speaking of a lack of clarity, that's the primary objection Sokal raises against Kristeva. But Sokal is an amazing hypocrite when it comes to his attack on postmodernism. For one thing, he conflates postmodernism at large -- which is a large field that cannot be said to have any single definitive essence other than, perhaps, questioning the conventions of modernism -- with its part and precursor, poststructuralism. He also ignores the difference between an academic tradition that has a long and complicated history, complete with a specialized technical vocabulary that one is assumed to know before going into certain papers, with being sloppy about words. Kristeva uses the terminology she does because she is an expert on Lacan (one of the only experts on Lacan in the world, by the way) and she can't help but use Lacan's terminology when talking about Lacan and Lacanianism. Or do you propose that we all start writing books about Greek ethics without mentioning eudaimonia, dikaiosune), or doxa (all of which are complicated words)? Or perhaps we should teach Sartre without using the words "bad faith" and Heidegger without the word "dasein?" The objection here might be, "we have to define these words." But all of the words used by Kristeva are defined in her work -- just not in the parts Sokal cites. He also fails to take note of the explicit declarations in both Lacan and Kristeva's work where it is said that various concepts, including every single one that Sokal picks out as being used incorrectly, are being used metaphorically. The metaphors are also explained. In short, his critique exposes him as a fraud, not her. It's just hard to see because Sokal appeals to our prejudices -- a technique that has clearly worked on you. And of course, this anti-postmodern bias is what's behind your blanket dismissal of the feminists and literary critics on my list. We can disagree over whether or not literary criticism is philosophy. But it's worth mentioning that even Searle, our recent visitor, has recently declared his major vision for the future to be doing exactly what continental philosophers and literary critics have been doing for the past century -- namely, investigating language as a natural phenomenon. The parallel is almost certainly unwitting, and I doubt he'll see the connection. Yet it has already started getting him into some of the same issues. So yeah, even analytic philosophy has come round to the postmodernists' side (though the postmodernists have had to come around to the analytics' side, too; the collapse of the analytic/continental dichotomy in contemporary philosophy has led to a nice big academic orgy). The last woman I'd like to specifically defend is Catharine MacKinnon. Now there are a lot of things that she and I disagree on. Those disputes can be summed up as "I'm a sex-positive feminist, while she is a sex-negative feminist." But those issues, important as they are, constitute only one part of her work. One of her most abiding contributions comes from her work on equality, specifically her attack on the Aristotelian notion thereof that permeates so much of the modern legal and social structure. Her argument concerns the extent to which Aristotelian "equality" generates a self-perpetuating cycle of inequality, where environmental differences are treated like natural differences and opportunities to demonstrate otherwise are suppressed. Oddly enough, this is a critique that can be found in the writings of the American Founders, as well, but has largely gone to the wayside since the early days of the US. So tell me, was Thomas Jefferson also a "post-mod feminist loon?"
...and she, laughing softly, "Why should I lift a shield in contest? If I conquer when naked, how will it be when I take arms?" "Cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standards never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences." -Susan B. Anthony

ModBot
Eliza clone

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 16, 2005
Location: Dual xeon processors

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 537

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/07/09 - 08:19 AM:	#36
I've always liked Wittgenstein for insightful comments like "The existence and non-existence of states of affairs is reality." That really tells us a lot, doesn't it? I mean, I used to think that reality was reality but now I know that it's all a matter of states of affairs existing and failing to exist.

Fenchurch
Shieldmaiden

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 14, 2006
Location: Rickmansworth

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 242

4 of 5 people found this post helpful Posted 11/07/09 - 08:34 AM:	#37
Arkady wrote: I should point out a few things: 1) My venom for post-mod, post-structuralist nonsense is in no way restricted to females. I heap plenty of derision on Foulcault, Derrida, Lacan, et al. Oh goodie. That makes things so much better. Arkady wrote: 2) The lack of significant female philosophers throughout history may well be completely a result of social factors (including discrimination), rather than innate cognitive disparities between the genders. "May well be?" Arkady wrote: 3) My criticism of feminist theory as an academic discipline is not meant to cast aspersions on feminism as the political and moral movement which fought for women's suffrage, equal pay for equal work, etc. Bullshit. You can critique individual feminist philosophers without casting aspersions on the movement, but you can't dismiss the academic movement as a whole and hold on to the political movement as a whole. They're connected.
...and she, laughing softly, "Why should I lift a shield in contest? If I conquer when naked, how will it be when I take arms?" "Cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standards never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences." -Susan B. Anthony

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 436

1 of 6 people found this post helpful Posted 11/07/09 - 08:54 AM:	#38
Fenchurch wrote: You asked for significant female philosophers, not giants. I myself think half the people on my list are full of it, but I think the same thing (to varying degrees) about the writings of Plato, Aquinas, Descartes, Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein. And let's not forget that many of their arguments have been shown to be problematic. I don't suppose that means none of those men were significant, does it? Then we differ on our definitions of "significant." Why would you offer up names of people you believe are "full of it?" If they are "full of it", in what sense is their thinking significant? And though the thinkers you mentioned have indeed offered up "problematic" arguments (what philosopher hasn't at one point or another?), that does not mean that their entire body of work is bunk. If you are equating anyone on your list to Descartes or Wittgenstein, you'd better have some pretty powerful arguments to back this up, which you have heretofore failed to provide. Fenchurch wrote: I'd also like to take this opportunity to deride your pathetic lack of knowledge regarding the women you dismissed above. We'll start with Mary Midgley. First, she has made many contributions outside of ethics, including the history of philosophy and the philosophy of science. Such as? Fenchurch wrote: And when it comes to The Selfish Gene, the only thing anyone (other than yourself, apparently) has accused her of being misinformed about is Dawkins' intentions. No, she was drastically misinformed with regard to the science. She showed not the barest understanding of kin selection or related concepts. To give just one example, Midgley argued against the notion that "altruism" is done for ultimately (genetically) selfish reasons because the most conspicuous and common form of altruism in the animal kingdom is parents caring for their offspring, an act which is almost never reciprocated. If you cannot see the genetic selective advantage of parents caring for offspring, you simply have not the barest understanding of kin selection. Dawkins "intentions" (?) aside, Midgley had zero grasp of the ideas she was critiquing. Fenchurch wrote: Leaving aside the reductionism debate (which Midgley's side is winning these days)... What evidence do you have for this assertion? If you are asserting that "holistic" thinking has replaced reductionism, that will certainly be news to the legions of scientists who utilize reductionism every day. Fenchurch wrote: ...those who took Dawkins' side in the Selfish Gene debate typically praised her grasp of the science, but argued she had misinterpreted what Dawkins was trying to say. But of course, this is a ubiquitous problem for Dawkins -- who I like, by the way -- and something he admits quite candidly. It's his primary defense, after all, to say he has been misinterpreted. And almost all changes between the original and revised version of The Selfish Gene can be traced to Midgley's criticisms. So Dawkins must admit (though he doesn't do it in so many words) that his writings are simply unclear (at least the original version of The Selfish Gene). Midgley did not have a grasp of the science. Who are these people you're referring to who praised Midgley's grasp of the science? As far as Midgley misinterpreting Dawkins, it is not his fault if she is incapable of distinguishing between "selfishness" used metaphorically, and "selfishness" used in the literal psychological sense. If she wants to take credit for revisions Dawkins made to later editions of 'The Selfish Gene', she can do so. Fenchurch wrote: And speaking of a lack of clarity, that's the primary objection Sokal raises against Kristeva. Lack of clarity is the least of it. Kant was less-than-clear in his writings. Clarity is a stylistic issue, and while lack of clarity is a venial sin, it's not usually a mortal one. The problem with Kristeva and other post-mods is that their lack of clarity is a guise to obscure the absolute vacuousness and banality of their thoughts. They make the point that, for instance, "sexism is bad," but believe they need 4,000 words of blather to do it. Fenchurch wrote: But Sokal is an amazing hypocrite when it comes to his attack on postmodernism. For one thing, he conflates postmodernism at large -- which is a large field that cannot be said to have any single definitive essence other than, perhaps, questioning the conventions of modernism -- with its part and precursor, poststructuralism. He also ignores the difference between an academic tradition that has a long and complicated history, complete with a specialized technical vocabulary that one is assumed to know before going into certain papers, with being sloppy about words. No. You are confused of the difference between profundity and obscurantism. Physics has a "specialized technical vocabulary." Post-modernism has obscurantist buzzwords and nonsense piled on top of nonsense in its prose. Whether or not post-modernism has a "long and complicated" history, nonsense is nonsense. Theology has a "long and complicated" history: so what? Fenchurch wrote: Kristeva uses the terminology she does because she is an expert on Lacan (one of the only experts on Lacan in the world, by the way) and she can't help but use Lacan's terminology when talking about Lacan and Lacanianism. Am I supposed to be impressed that she is an "expert" on Lacan? The fact that she does employ his terminology is exhibit A of what is wrong with her. She's as much a blowhard as he is. Fenchurch wrote: Or do you propose that we all start writing books about Greek ethics without mentioning eudaimonia, dikaiosune), or doxa (all of which are complicated words)? No. Where did I make such a foolish point? Fenchurch wrote: Or perhaps we should teach Sartre without using the words "bad faith" and Heidegger without the word "dasein?" The objection here might be, "we have to define these words." But all of the words used by Kristeva are defined in her work -- just not in the parts Sokal cites. He also fails to take note of the explicit declarations in both Lacan and Kristeva's work where it is said that various concepts, including every single one that Sokal picks out as being used incorrectly, are being used metaphorically. The metaphors are also explained. In short, his critique exposes him as a fraud, not her. It's just hard to see because Sokal appeals to our prejudices -- a technique that has clearly worked on you. I'm not "prejudiced". I haven't "pre-judged" anything (nor has Sokal). Sokal has read and analyzed their work, and found it wanting. A refutation of bad arguments does not constitute "prejudice." And, might I add, Dawkins was infinitely more clear in his use of metaphors in 'The Selfish Gene' than Kristeva is in her work. The problem is, when post-mods are caught badly misusing concepts they in no way understand (e.g. topology), they retreat behind the veil of "metaphor." This is fairly dubious. Fenchurch wrote: And of course, this anti-postmodern bias is what's behind your blanket dismissal of the feminists and literary critics on my list. We can disagree over whether or not literary criticism is philosophy. I'm not "biased." I give post-mod writings a fair shake. If I call it nonsense, it's because it is nonsense. Fenchurch wrote: But it's worth mentioning that even Searle, our recent visitor, has recently declared his major vision for the future to be doing exactly what continental philosophers and literary critics have been doing for the past century -- namely, investigating language as a natural phenomenon. Language as a natural phenomenon is an eminently worthy field of study, with many great contributors (e.g. Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker). Post-mods have contributed exactly zero work of substance to this effort. Fenchurch wrote: The parallel is almost certainly unwitting, and I doubt he'll see the connection. Yet it has already started getting him into some of the same issues. So yeah, even analytic philosophy has come round to the postmodernists' side (though the postmodernists have had to come around to the analytics' side, too; the collapse of the analytic/continental dichotomy in contemporary philosophy has led to a nice big academic orgy). If you believe analytic philosophy has "come around" to anything in post-mod theory, you are truly living in a dream world.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Arkady
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2009

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 436

0 of 5 people found this post helpful Posted 11/07/09 - 08:58 AM:	#39
Fenchurch wrote: "May well be?" Yes, may be. What is wrong with that statement? Or do you feel it's self-evident that social factors are solely responsible? What do you have to back up that assertion? Fenchurch wrote: Bullshit. You can critique individual feminist philosophers without casting aspersions on the movement, but you can't dismiss the academic movement as a whole and hold on to the political movement as a whole. They're connected. I can and do critique post-modern conceptions of feminist theory, which most definitely is separate from the political movement. The political movement is (for the most part) well-reasoned. Academic feminist theory is (for the most part) nonsense. If you see no distinction, that is merely your opinion, one I'm not inclined to share.
"Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion. Follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing." -T.H. Huxley

Fenchurch
Shieldmaiden

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 14, 2006
Location: Rickmansworth

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 242

4 of 6 people found this post helpful Posted 11/07/09 - 09:03 AM:	#40
I'm sorry, I accidentally mistook you for someone who was willing to have a serious discussion. My mistake; I promise not to repeat it.
...and she, laughing softly, "Why should I lift a shield in contest? If I conquer when naked, how will it be when I take arms?" "Cautious, careful people always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standards never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences." -Susan B. Anthony

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.