Feminist "Philosophy"

[StrawberryJam]

There is Philosophy, which is universal to all who which to embrace it.
There is no preference or limitations given to male or female in Philosophy.

Maybe there is a confusion about Philosophy and Theology.

See above if you are tempted to engage in off topic posts.

 

[John21652]

There is Philosophy, which is universal to all who which to embrace it.
There is no preference or limitations given to male or female in Philosophy.

Maybe there is a confusion about Philosophy and Theology.

See above if you are tempted to engage in off topic posts.

Ok then, if women are equal to men then Philosophy is just philosophy and there can’t be any other form of philosophy. Only philosophy done by women philosophers and philosophy done by female philosophers. Now that is something that has been done down through the ages. However, the OP is concerned about “feminist philosophy”, which must be, by definition, something different to that which is normally and universally done by men and women. Gee, feminist ‘philosophy’ is now so infamous that it even gets a mention on Wikipedia. Feminist ‘philosophy’ looks at philosophy from a gender based perspective and studies the supposed biases against women perpetuated by traditional philosophy. This approach assumes that all those Philosophers from Aristotle onwards were Philosophying in a male way, that gender influenced the philosophical conclusions which mankind has arrived at. In other words, men’s philosophy is different from women’s philosophy. An obvious conclusion is that even logic, as taught in institutions of learning, is a male construct. Therefore, there is men’s logic and there is women’s logic!

If that is the case, then how can men and women be equal?

 

[StrawberryJam]

There is Philosophy, which is universal to all who which to embrace it.
There is no preference or limitations given to male or female in Philosophy.

Maybe there is a confusion about Philosophy and Theology.

Ok then, if women are equal to men then Philosophy is just philosophy and there can’t be any other form of philosophy. Only philosophy done by women philosophers and philosophy done by female philosophers. Now that is something that has been done down through the ages. However, the OP is concerned about “feminist philosophy”, which must be, by definition, something different to that which is normally and universally done by men and women. Gee, feminist ‘philosophy’ is now so infamous that it even gets a mention on Wikipedia. Feminist ‘philosophy’ looks at philosophy from a gender based perspective and studies the supposed biases against women perpetuated by traditional philosophy. This approach assumes that all those Philosophers from Aristotle onwards were Philosophying in a male way, that gender influenced the philosophical conclusions which mankind has arrived at. In other words, men’s philosophy is different from women’s philosophy. An obvious conclusion is that even logic, as taught in institutions of learning, is a male construct. Therefore, there is men’s logic and there is women’s logic!

If that is the case, then how can men and women be equal?

Review your post and revise as needed when you see the errors you made from your first sentence. Let alone the rest which we can deal with at another time that is more convienient to you.

 

[John21652]

Review your post and revise as needed when you see the errors you made from your first sentence. Let alone the rest which we can deal with at another time that is more convienient to you.

Let’s see now, that’s three posts in which you have basically said nothing. Certainly nothing of any substance.

However, I’ll help you out.

You wrote -

There is Philosophy, which is universal to all who which to embrace it.
There is no preference or limitations given to male or female in Philosophy.

Maybe there is a confusion about Philosophy and Theology.

Firstly, I had to translate your first sentence. Then it became obvious that what you are saying is that Philosophy is Philosophy. Correct? Agree with that? You are, furthermore, stating that Philosophy is Philosophy regardless of the gender of the person engaging in the intellectual philosophical exercise. Correct? Are we on the same page still? Well, if we are, then men philosophers and women philosophers are equal. Correct? Must be correct, because you wrote that Philosophy is 'universal" and there are “…no preference or limitations given to male or female in Philosophy.” Correct?

Then it follows that my first sentence, which is *“Ok then, if women are equal to men then Philosophy is just philosophy and there can’t be any other form of philosophy” *must be true. However, you see an error. Let me guess. It must be the bit about the impossibility of there being any other form of philosophy. Correct? Unless monkeys and pigs and cows philosophise, then there is only human philosophy. Human philosophy is done by male and female humans equally, according to your post. So where’s the error?

Oh, I get it. I think…
Feminist ‘philosophy’ is possible?

Niope. Can’t be. It assumes men and woman are different. Can’t have that, for it contradicts your statement that philosophy *"…is universal to all who which to embrace it."

So, come on down off your high horse and write something of substance.At your convenience, of course.
*

 

[StrawberryJam]

Let’s see now, that’s three posts in which you have basically said nothing. Certainly nothing of any substance.

However, I’ll help you out.

You wrote -

Firstly, I had to translate your first sentence. Then it became obvious that what you are saying is that Philosophy is Philosophy. Correct? Agree with that? You are, furthermore, stating that Philosophy is Philosophy regardless of the gender of the person engaging in the intellectual philosophical exercise. Correct? Are we on the same page still? Well, if we are, then men philosophers and women philosophers are equal. Correct? Must be correct, because you wrote that Philosophy is 'universal" and there are “…no preference or limitations given to male or female in Philosophy.” Correct?

Then it follows that my first sentence, which is *“Ok then, if women are equal to men then Philosophy is just philosophy and there can’t be any other form of philosophy” *must be true. However, you see an error. Let me guess. It must be the bit about the impossibility of there being any other form of philosophy. Correct? Unless monkeys and pigs and cows philosophise, then there is only human philosophy. Human philosophy is done by male and female humans equally, according to your post. So where’s the error?

Oh, I get it. I think…
Feminist ‘philosophy’ is possible?

Niope. Can’t be. It assumes men and woman are different. Can’t have that, for it contradicts your statement that philosophy *"…is universal to all who which to embrace it."

So, come on down off your high horse and write something of substance.At your convenience, of course.
*

Define Philosophy and who has access to it. This will reveal enough for now until we get to the rest of it.

 

[John21652]

Define Philosophy and who has access to it. This will reveal enough for now until we get to the rest of it.

No, you define it!

That is, if you think it needs defining!

I would have thought that this thread, being in the philosophy section of CAF, would not require a definition of philosophy.

As for who has access to it, well, you’ve already answered that one.

I stated a case. You replied I was wrong and now you want me to define philosophy.

C’mon, shape up with some substance please. All you are doing is sniping and the argument is not progressing.

 

[hazcompat]

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ZALICEVN.HTM

Alice Von Hildebrand, author of “The Privilege of Being a Woman” (Sapientia)…

Von Hildebrand: The amazing thing is that feminism, instead of making women more profoundly aware of the beauty and dignity of their role as wives as mothers, and of the spiritual power that they can exercise over their husbands, convinced them that they, too, had to adopt a secularist mentality: They, too, should enter the work force; they, too, should prove to themselves that they were someone by getting diplomas, competing with men in the work market, showing that they were their equals and — when given opportunities — could outsmart them.

They let themselves become convinced that femininity meant weakness. They started to look down upon virtues — such as patience, selflessness, self-giving, tenderness — and aimed at becoming like men in all things. Some of them even convinced themselves that they had to use coarse language in order to show the “strong” sex that they were not the fragile, delicate, insignificant dolls that men believed them to be.

The war of the sexes was on. Those who fell into the traps of feminism wanted to become like men in all things and sold their birthright for a mess of pottage. They became blind to the fact that men and women, though equal in ontological dignity, were made different by God’s choice: Male and female he made them. Different and complementary.

peace

 

[StrawberryJam]

No, you define it!

That is, if you think it needs defining!

I would have thought that this thread, being in the philosophy section of CAF, would not require a definition of philosophy.

As for who has access to it, well, you’ve already answered that one.

I stated a case. You replied I was wrong and now you want me to define philosophy.

C’mon, shape up with some substance please. All you are doing is sniping and the argument is not progressing.

I fear that the state of Catholic education/ or catholic belief/ or ignorance about a topic has failed many good people as yourself.

Can you understand that Philosophy is not limited to parameters that Theology is?

Can you ask yourself why that is?

Of course, you can continue to show the world what one catholic has to offer the world in Philosophy simply by continuing to post as you do.

 

[John21652]

I fear that the state of Catholic education/ or catholic belief/ or ignorance about a topic has failed many good people as yourself.

Can you understand that Philosophy is not limited to parameters that Theology is?

Can you ask yourself why that is?

Of course, you can continue to show the world what one catholic has to offer the world in Philosophy simply by continuing to post as you do.

StrawberryJam, you’ve done it again!
You’ve made another post with no substance to it.

So far I’ve managed to glean from you that my post was wrong, that Catholic Education has failed me, that I’m possibly/probably ignorant and I’m guessing that I don’t understand what Philosophy really is. Trouble is, you haven’t shown how any of this is true. You simply make statements and then vanish. Oh, excuse me, there is one exception; you asked a question, it being if I *"…can understand that Philosophy is not limited to parameters that Theology is?" *Notwithstanding the fact that I wasn’t writing about Theology, your question isn’t a clear one, because I’m not sure if you mean limited to the same parameters, or limited to parameters like Theology is (or isn’t?) and rather than guess, I’ll wait with bated breath for you to explain it all.

Take a leaf out of hazcompat’s book. He/she has the intellectual and moral courage to state a position, to put forward their ideas for all to peruse. Like others have done here. C’mon, it’s the way to learn. And educate!

Don’t be shy.

 

[inocente]

The thing is, looking at anything from a different point of view leads to…a different view.

This is interesting, but it is hardly philosophy.

Only people in such a dark age as this could mistake it for that.

Sounds like you’re making the feminist’s point for them though – unless a philosophy precisely agrees with our definition or point of view we either won’t deem it philosophy or will say that feminists are lowering our standards.

 

[Warrenton]

Sounds like you’re making the feminist’s point for them though – unless a philosophy precisely agrees with our definition or point of view we either won’t deem it philosophy or will say that feminists are lowering our standards.

I was only commenting on the tendency in modern thought to elevate the commonplace to ridiculous heights.

Rather like the Nobel committee giving a prize to people doing what most other people do anyway, which is go about their tasks peacefully.

A viewpoint is not the same thing as philosophy, which is what most feminist “philosophy” seems to amount to (I admit that my impression may be the fault of the way feminism is portrayed).

I certainly don’t accuse them of lowering any standards. They were low before the feminists.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Ok, so tell me if I’m way off base here.

I’m a philosophy student and I’m a female. I believe women are equal to men but don’t ascribe to modern feminist hokum. The very fact that feminist “philosophy” exists as a discipline drives me absolutely nuts! To me, it’s almost like saying “Hey, we want to play too but since we can’t actually contribute to metaphysics or ethics or epistemology we want you to make up a type that we can do!” It’s doing the exact opposite of what feminism ought to stand for. The way that we should be making society take us seriously is by actually showing that we are capable of working and thinking on par with a man, not this “philosophical special olympics” BS that we call “feminist philosophy.”

What does feminism have to do with philosophy anyhow? Ok, yes we’re equal to men. That’s really about it. Why do we feel the need to whine and moan until they make something special up for us? If you can’t contribute to real philosophy, go join the womens studies department and leave it up to those of us that wear big girl panties!

I took a class on Feminist literature in college (FYI its very uncomfortable being a guy in a class like that), so I can tell you something about the subject.

The older brand of Feminist philosophy/theology is all about proving that women are equal to men (and not just in some sort of vague ‘equal value in God’s eyes’ way), and therefore deserving of the same protections and rights that men are accorded. This is understandable and even (to an extent) necessary because of all the philosophical/theological texts written throughout the ages about women’s wickedness and general inferiority.

However, there is a more modern version of Feminist philosophy/theology that asserts women’s superiority and male wickedness/inferiority. This viewpoint promotes the idea that things would automatically be much better if only society were matriarchal.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Hi Kaninchen.
I suppose one could reasonably ask: how many adherents of “feminist philosophy” are there in the world?
God Bless,
Colmcille.

There are far more people who follow the Muslim faith than the Jewish one. Moreover that has been the case for a very long time.

Does that make Judaism any less valid than Islam?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

As I said in the above post, women are equal to men. That’s easy to prove philosophically. I can think just as well as a man, thank you very much. The situation you’re describing is a critique of male chauvinism, and a good one. I am not a male chauvinist. I fear you’re missing my point though, my point was to wonder why feminism has a place in PHILOSOPHY, not in the world in general. I find my thoughts to be very in-line with those of the original suffragists. Women are people equal to men, and that is exactly the reason why I think that feminist philosophy (not feminism itself, feminist philosophy as in a section of the philosophy department in your average university) should not exist because it implies that women do not have the ability to contribute to real philosophy (metaphysics etc.) so they need to make up a special category for us so that we can compete with the boys. We can compete with the boys, or at least the ones of us that stop whining and actually do something about it.

Actually in many countries (such as Iran and much of Afghanistan) women cannot compete with the boys, and will be met with violence if they attempt to do so.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Feminist philosophy as it is generally portrayed by the media is the creation of a Marxist style victim class and men are the eternal enemies. And, in some case, women should be men or at least behave like men.

It is a distortion of the true God-given femininity of all women. Go to the web site of the National Organization for Women and see what they stand for. Abortion is a big priority. Betty Friedan, author The Feminine Mystique, called the family: “a comfortable concentration camp.” Gloria Steinem, co-founder of Ms. Magazine (and yes, that’s where that word comes from), said: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

Recently, an article about Detroit businesswomen decried the fact that they hadn’t taken over the male-dominated business world yet. Equality is one thing, taking over another.

“Women’s Studies” is a means to psychologically separate men from women. True feminism would be concerned about solving problems.

Peace,
Ed

I hate to agree with Ed, but he has a point.

From what I have seen, much of modern Feminism (in the West) is based on the belief that men are more violent, crude, selfish, and (perhaps) stupid than women.

Of course this isn’t true of all Feminism, just a type that your likely to encounter in mainstream American academia.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

If you are off base, it is here.

.

Take, for example, Margaret Thatcher. How is a success to have someone who merely continued the beggaring of her country be the PM, just because of her gender? The feminist success is in actuality a failure.

The Feminist success is a failure

How do you define success then?

Whoever accepts oppression and abuse the most quietly and submissively wins:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The thing is, looking at anything from a different point of view leads to…a different view.

This is interesting, but it is hardly philosophy.

Only people in such a dark age as this could mistake it for that.

Oh really?

So I suppose you object to people labeling themselves Catholic philosophers or Humanist philosophers too

 

[AngryAtheist8]

There is Philosophy, which is universal to all who which to embrace it.
There is no preference or limitations given to male or female in Philosophy.

Maybe there is a confusion about Philosophy and Theology.

Ok then, if women are equal to men then Philosophy is just philosophy and there can’t be any other form of philosophy. Only philosophy done by women philosophers and philosophy done by female philosophers. Now that is something that has been done down through the ages. However, the OP is concerned about “feminist philosophy”, which must be, by definition, something different to that which is normally and universally done by men and women. Gee, feminist ‘philosophy’ is now so infamous that it even gets a mention on Wikipedia. Feminist ‘philosophy’ looks at philosophy from a gender based perspective and studies the supposed biases against women perpetuated by traditional philosophy. This approach assumes that all those Philosophers from Aristotle onwards were Philosophying in a male way, that gender influenced the philosophical conclusions which mankind has arrived at. In other words, men’s philosophy is different from women’s philosophy. An obvious conclusion is that even logic, as taught in institutions of learning, is a male construct. Therefore, there is men’s logic and there is women’s logic!

If that is the case, then how can men and women be equal?

First of all, anything can be mentioned in Wikipedia, so using that as any sort of standard is unreasonable.

Secondly, if there can be Muslim philosophers, Humanist philosophers, and Christian philosophers, why can’t there be Feminist philosophers?

Feminism is a set of beliefs/movement, not a race or gender.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No, you define it!

That is, if you think it needs defining!

I would have thought that this thread, being in the philosophy section of CAF, would not require a definition of philosophy.

As for who has access to it, well, you’ve already answered that one.

I stated a case. You replied I was wrong and now you want me to define philosophy.

C’mon, shape up with some substance please. All you are doing is sniping and the argument is not progressing.

Different branches of philosophy are recognized by American and European academia. There is no reason to believe that all philosophy is the same.

Frankly if someone cannot see the difference between something like Catholic philosophy and Marxist philosophy they are either stupid or insane.

 

[John21652]

First of all, anything can be mentioned in Wikipedia, so using that as any sort of standard is unreasonable.

Go read again what I wrote. I was being sarcastic, not using Wikipedia as a ‘standard’.

Secondly, if there can be Muslim philosophers, Humanist philosophers, and Christian philosophers, why can’t there be Feminist philosophers?

There can be! I never said otherwise. My comments flowed on from two things. Firstly, the OP stated that men and women were equal. Secondly, StrawberryJam wrote that philosophy is available to all and no preference is given to either sex. If those comments are true (and I didn’t state I accepted that) then it follows that the philosophy of both men and women must be either equasl, of equal value and logically equivalent. Now of course different philosophies can exist. They do in fact! However, are they equal? Are they equivalent"? Or are they different?

Feminism is a set of beliefs/movement, not a race or gender.

I’ll put it into black and white, in plain English, so there can be no misundrstandings, or misconstructions. Feminism is a purely gender based philosophy. By definition it is gender based. It is also gender biased. Agian by definition. It can never be “equal” to philosophy by men. It is not allowed to be, or otherwise feminist philosophy fails. Therefore, mens and women’s philosophy can never be equal and if that is the case, then men and women can never be equal. Feminism does not allow this “equality” to exist. Feminism is based on the difference between men and women. Ed mentioned it in a post with which you agreed. If you go to this thread, Feminism:what’s wrong with it?, you will see why. Feminist 'philosophy is based on gender bias existing in all things, sociey, politics, literature and even philosophy. Philosophy, according to feminist ‘philosophy’ is a gender construct. The oppression of women is engendered in the entire social construct, the feminists would have us believe. There are two ‘tools’ used by feminism and so called feminist philosophers. One is Marxism and the other is Deconstruction. Both are based on assumptions that are subjective, and both produce outcomes that are not coherent, often illogical, contrary and often contradictory. The social dysfunction caused is damaging and that damage is rather obvious. I contend that feminist ‘philosophy’ should not be called a philosophy.