Once that's settled, is philosophy sexy? :smile:

I don't get the impression that reason has a gender.

On a serious not, though, it is true that even today (not even mentioning the Western tradition), women tend not to be too interested in these kinds of subjects. Not that most men are either, but proportionally it's still very skewed to males.

It's maybe not unlike the phenomena that women like to do work with children on a higher proportion that men.

Again - generalities - but, curious. I wish more women did like philosophy, not limited to ethics.

Hum, one thing I find about sex - the more I reflect on it the more I want to get rid of it. It's like some otherly pleasure imposed upon me through my body structure. Wouldn't sound like a bad idea if I had more control of it with future technology, like, I can remove my sack and plug it back in whenever I want.

Once that's settled, is philosophy sexy? — jgill

Extremely

I don't get the impression that reason has a gender. — Manuel

I had to read that twice to get what you're saying, and I still want to reflect it back to you. You are saying that you don't surmise that "reason has a gender" is that correct?

I do find signs from feminism and women's engagement in politics, etc. that women start to rethink the rules and values that are mostly men-framed and want to play a role in reframing them. While most reframing still has to do with biological or economical powers (I'm assuming that's what you mean by ethics), it would be interesting to speculate when it extends to other areas.

You are saying that you don't surmise that "reason has a gender" is that correct? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yes, the faculty of reason is not related to gender.

Sure, the issues addressed by different groups of people will vary and having a different perspective will make you have a different way of viewing things, but I don't think this applies to reason proper, which includes judgement, inferences, deduction, etc.

Values are different. But it's an interesting topic.

On a serious not, though, it is true that even today (not even mentioning the Western tradition), women tend not to be too interested in these kinds of subjects. Not that most men are either, but proportionally it's still very skewed to males. — Manuel

I do not think women are uninterested in philosophy. When I studied philosophy the balance was more or less 50/50. I taught philosophy courses at some private institution and the balance was 50/50 as well. When I look at the balance of the Philosophy and Law Group I am in at my faculty it has slightly more men than women, but it is nothing like I think the gender balance that is found here on this forum. I think rather that women are more focused. If they do philosophy they will do so at a career level or they take a course instead of the jousting that goes on here. Contrary to say fiction writing, this forum is quite competitive, women might not find that sort of environment worth their while. The pressure on women to spend their free time caring for children or do house work is also (unfairly) higher on women still. So in other words, women just have better things to do.

Sure. And it's also the case that housework and caring for children is still very uneven.

Though if you look at professional philosophers today, there are more men writing than women. It might be related to the constant arguing and competition, as you point out.

Though if you look at professional philosophers today, there are more men writing than women. It might be related to the constant arguing and competition, as you point out. — Manuel

Well, and to the uneven division in the higher ranks of academia. Even though women generally perform better, in the Netherlands at least, the majority of profs is male. The work of full profs is most often published and cited, so you will notice more males noted as philosophers than females. It might change though. For instance there are more female judges now in the Netherlands than there are males.

Well, the Netherlands is, all in all, pretty advanced in terms of human rights, more so than most other developed countries, which does not mean there isn't still much to do everywhere.

There is still much to do everywhere. The Netherlands is quite conservative when it comes to the participation of women. Probably there are no mono-causal explanations. Institutions and cultural values are skewed against the participation of women. Maybe there are also biological differences I do not know. However you see more and more traditionally male professions being entered into by women, like the judiciary. Therefore I think it has much to do with culture expectations and institutional set up.

There’s absolutely no doubt that this is a man-centric forum. Women are welcome, of course, but just like in every other patriarchal culture strong women (think TimeLine) are not welcome.

There’s absolutely no doubt that this is a man-centric forum. Women are welcome, of course, but just like in every other patriarchal culture strong women (think TimeLine) are not welcome. — praxis

I am not sure you have met the other women of the forum, besides myself. But I think it fair to say that there are other "strong women" in addition to TimeLine that absolutely feel as welcome as any man might.
Why such broad strokes?

(B)ut I don't think this applies to reason proper, which includes judgement, inferences, deduction, etc

While I agree that most differences in viewpoints, statements, and beliefs have nothing to do with reason itself and I myself hate "debates" whatsoever in my high school classes in which speech precedes reflection, I do think that in the patriarchic society in which backgrounds and perspectives are instilled to women by men, to recognize the necessity for some new kind of value, as long as this "newness" does not originate merely from the biological difference between men and women, requires a certain extent of inference and judgment - if that's how you define reason proper - upon women themselves.

I don't deny that thinking - whatever it is - can be different for different people - including women and I also recognize that much of what we value or view as correct now, is influenced by patriarchic institutions, I don't think enters touches reason itself.

So yes, sociological factors enter into what society we have, I do think that our reasoning faculties are essentially the same - of course, you'll have some people with insight and the like, but that can pop up in any person.

I am not sure you have met the other women of the forum, besides myself. But I think it fair to say that there are other "strong women" in addition to TimeLine that absolutely feel as welcome as any man might. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Your assumption about who I've met on the forum is curious, but putting that aside, I'm not sure you know what I mean by strong. People can be strong in various ways.

If a man and a woman were in a fight and the woman was kicking ass, well, in this man's world that would just not be okay. Sure we can all cheer to the call for women's empowerment, but when you get your ass handed to you by a woman, that's too much. Equal perhaps, but not more powerful.

If a man and a woman were in a fight and the woman was kicking ass, well, in this man's world that would just not be okay. Sure we can all cheer to the call for women's empowerment, but when you get your ass handed to you by a woman, that's too much. Equal perhaps, but not more powerful. — praxis

In my line of work you will not get very far if you do not accept that there are women having more success and wielding much more power than you do yourself ...

I work in a creative field and because of the nature of that field machoism or whatever is even less of an issue, I imagine.

There are various spheres of social life and some of them are less structured than others. Some of them are also more physical and dominated by men. The sport that I regularly engage is very physical, entirely unregulated, and dominated by men. To get out positioned by a woman in this activity has an extra sting to it, if I may speak frankly. That’s just what I’ve personally experienced, and it’s because of my social conditioning. I know it’s wrong, and I wish it weren’t the case, but there it is.

I imagine the same sort of thing is experienced in other aggressively competitive activities.

The sport that I regularly engage is very physical, entirely unregulated, and dominated by men. — praxis

I am curious as to what sport you regularly engage in...

I am curious as to what sport you regularly engage in... — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That's beside the point. The point is that in any aggressively competitive game predominated by men, losing to a woman may have an extra bite to it, and if that's the case, an implicit bias could exist against women in these games. To be clear, I don't support such a bias, I'm just pointing out its existence.

This forum takes on a kind of gladiatorial arena atmosphere from time to time, you must admit.

I don't think we are on the same topic here. Let's clarify our discrepancy in beliefs - I was trying to say that to be able to think differently from the conventional modes shaped by our patriarchic society, the reasoning faculty is definitely involved no matter the extent, but your point was that there's some threshold to reasoning and the thinking process below which reason is not triggered. Is that correct?

No no no, sorry for my lack of clarity. I agree that our attitudes and beliefs are shaped by our patriarchic society, no doubt.

What I'm saying is the ability to use reason and discriminate between good reasons and bad reasons does not depend on gender. This doesn't mean that the thinking involved isn't shaped by society, it is.

The problem here would be how to set apart the faculty of reason from thinking. That's devilishly difficult. If I call the police because someone stole something, most people will say, I had good reasons for doing so, that's independent of gender.

If you use force and prevent a kid from crossing a highway, that would be good reason too.

If someone says that women should not get a job because women's place in society must be to be a housewife, that's not a good reason.

There are places today were such arguments are still made, particularly by more sexist societies, but what I'm wagering is that, if you get a random kid on the street and explain the issue, most of the time, they would be able to tell the difference between good and bad reasons.

But the thoughts that are used by reason, can be lousy and unfounded.

That's roughly the gist of it.

Ok, I see where you are leading at. The thing is, in many examples you raised the proper values or at least reactions in accordance to the values can be directly taught without undertaking the due process of reasoning. What if the question is more complex, e.g., is it necessary and respectful to history to intentionally choose a non-white casting for the founders of the US in the musical Alexander Hamilton? I believe that under such circumstances, 8 out of 10 "random kids on the street" would divert the topic into mere racism and give a pc answer because that's the only way they've been instructed to reason, which is now doubtfully reason anymore.
To me, reason essentially requires some "breaking the frame" mental process, like, when we say, let's not assume such and such to be correct - what if I don't call the police even when I'm stolen something? Whether we return to the original conclusion that we'd better call the police doesn't matter - it is our ability to recognize and approach the limit of rules and symbols which particularly in modern times have developed to appear so comprehensive and self-explanatory, that really distinguishes fundamental reasoning and the rest.

The thing is, in many examples you raised the proper values or at least reactions in accordance to the values can be directly taught without undertaking the due process of reasoning. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

Ok. We are on the same page, yes "due process of reasoning", I agree. In the sense, reason is something to be refined and grown even more by experience and growing our moral spheres ever wider. How far we can continue doing this, in principle, is hard to say.

I believe that under such circumstance, the "random kids on the street" would divert the topic into mere racism and give a pc answer because that's the only way they've been instructed to reason, which is now doubtfully reason any more. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

That could be the case in many instances. We are thrown into a culture we don't choose and always pick up stuff from this culture that is likely mistaken or at least misleading.

What should be done, a bit like Socrates in the Meno with the slave, is to show how these reasons are bad or if not that, then faulty. Of course, Socrates was trying to show the boy that he had knowledge of geometry without being aware of it. But this applies to ethics too, I think.

So here, the way to proceed would be something like asking "Do you think it is important to get our historical facts right?" Depending on the answer, we can reply many ways. The end line of such an argument would be to establish that not portraying Hamilton properly is bad and these are the reasons why: inaccurate history, false perception of ourselves, lying, etc. Of course, ideally we would like people to make the connections as we speak to them, instead of forcing a conclusion.

Whether we return to the original conclusion that we'd better call the police doesn't matter - it is our ability to recognize and approach the limit of rules and symbols which in modern times have developed to appear so comprehensive that really distinguishes fundemental reasoning and the rest. — D2OTSSUMMERBUG

I don't understand what you mean after you say "police doesn't matter -...". Sure, if we don't want to force our conclusions on people, we may wish to make them reason for themselves. They may conclude it's better not to call the police after all.

But if you could rephrase that last sentence, I might be able to reply.

Sorry, I tend to unintentionally write long sentences. I meant that given how developed the modern morality system (of course I'm referring to the slightly liberal side) is, it is even easier than ever for people to assume certain things to be correct or not with circular reasoning embedded in the system. To this end, they are not actually applying reason - but simply following different degrees of rules. That's why I said if we want to engage our real reasoning faculty now, we need to approach the limits where this system of rules is no longer able to give a simple yes or no answer.

Ah. Sure. Assuming - and this we have to always keep in mind - that we are correct with our reasons, what you suggest would be the right way to approach the topic.

The idea in any system which imposes an ideology, is to show these things for what they are, social constructions made, in large part but not entirely, by people in power, usually wanting things to stay as they are.

So we should try and show why such imposed systems are faulty, and this is an area for which reason, under right guidance and evidence, can help us clear up confusions and wrong thinking.

Yes, and thanks for pointing out that we are assuming our reasons to be proper.

I don't get the impression that reason has a gender. — Manuel

Instrumental rationality (i.e. algorithmic, means-to-ends optimization) is definitely alpha hetero-male. :strong: :eyes: