Women debate the absence of women in debate
Rubens’s Four Philosophers. Four out of five philosophers at elite institutions are still male
Most of the comments, however, were about the claim that women are discouraged “by a culture of aggressive argument particular to philosophy” – a discussion that has been going on for years (see Threads, issue 42). “I suppose the first question to ask,” wrote the economist Jeffrey Sachs, “is whether or not we see a similar lack of women in other ‘argumentative’ disciplines and departments (eg. political philosophy/theory, anthropology, literature, sociology, history, etc.) And besides, what academic discipline isn’t argumentative, in so far as its practitioners are institutionally and dispositionally encouraged to criticize and challenge?” He summed up: “And finally, most importantly, most fundamentally: what an obnoxious premise. Women are scared to argue or have their ideas aggressively challenged? Please.”
Peter Gratton of Philosophy in a Time of Error was also irritated. “Helen Beebee, though I’m sure you’re a wonderful director of the BPA, please think of handing over the reins. Unless you were wildly misquoted (again – freelancers of the world unite! – you probably weren’t) you don’t know the first thing about (a) the fallacious use of anecdotal evidence, (b) the problems of shitty causal inferences that (c) reinforce naturalist assumptions dominant in the culture. And (d) please tell me that you don’t think the problem is that women can’t cut it. Because men like getting their work trashed?”
Dwight Furrow at Philosophy on the Mesa was sceptical. “This doesn’t strike me as the right explanation. Philosophers engage in vigorous debate and I have on occasion heard excessively hostile remarks at symposia or in seminar but ‘intellectually beaten to a pulp by the audience’ does not characterise any philosophical discussion that I have witnessed. To suggest that women can’t handle the ordinary give and take of critical discussion is demeaning to women.”
Dana at the group blog The Edge of the American West observed that philosophy’s reputation “as a bit of a boys’ club” is not entirely undeserved. “Mention that philosophy is more like math and physics in terms of gender distribution, and a certain sort of philosopher will puff up with pride, metaphysical thumbs tucked behind metaphorical suspenders. We’re not soft, and womanish, after all, like English or comparative literature. Our discipline is tough, with rigour and verbal sparring. Our aim is to make the speaker cry! It’s no wonder some women can’t hack it; some men can’t either! Perhaps the male brain is just naturally more suited to this tough discipline; women are best off flower-arranging or using their natural female gifts to think about people. Maybe they just don’t like philosophy, because as Adeimantus noted, if you continue with it beyond early adulthood, at worst you end up a crank, and at best you end up useless.”
A pseudonymous commenter (one “Beentheredonethat”) at tpm expressed a touch of impatience. “Off we go on another discussion about whether women are only (cough cough) limited due to biology, or whether perhaps it is culture instead, our search for explanations having abruptly ended after considering only two alternatives: viz., either that there is discrimination or that it is due to some fundamental differences of traits. I wish we could start thinking outside the box. (Whoops, am I allowed to say “outside the box” as a hard core no-nonsense tough-minded analytic philosopher? Ooo yes, I think I can! ‘Cause I’m a chick, too, that’s why.)”
Jean Kazez said in a comment at Feminist Philosophers, “Something I’ve observed is that when you get very, very deep into working on philosophy problems, the sense that things matter starts to fade. Working on problems starts to seem like “just a game”. And I think that’s more true in philosophy than in other fields. From what I can tell (with a limited sample size, of course), men mind that less than women. I’ve heard men say it’s just fine with them to devote their lives to something that’s just a game. My impression is that women often don’t like that quality. They want to feel like they’re doing something that really matters.”
Winthrop “Winnie” Rodgers told the blogger at Playtonic Dialogues about the New York Times post and then commented on the resulting post that “there are benefits to collaboration and to conflict in the creation of music and in the pursuit of philosophical truth. The apparent disproportionate emphasis on aggressive argumentation in the professional philosophical community may intimidate some women, who would otherwise want to pursue a philosophy chair. But there is a bigger issue here, it drives away people whose intellectual skill set is attuned more towards collaboration, regardless of their gender. When presented with colleagues who keep a home-and-away record of who ‘won’ an argument over a seminar paper, any naturally inclined collaborator would shrink from such a challenge, not because they are weak or feminine, but because they have different priorities.”
Ophelia Benson is editor of Butterflies and Wheels
[...] scratch that, I meant all of Western philosophy since the dawn of civilization–is undoubtedly a white dude dominated discipline, but my rigorous study and observation1 suggests a promising shift away from being an all boys [...]
heres a concept….what if the ration of men to women in philosophy departments is utterly irrelevant?
in my experience “women” are no less or more likely to be argumentative sods than “men”, and no more or less likely to be intelligent than “men” either(the reverse is the same, btw).
i think it *might* just be possible to infer that people who possess these argumentative values and the correct education are, by complete accident, and as a result of various social, economic and emotional factors, male as a rule. it doesnt mean nor follow that men are biologically more capable of philosophy at all, nor does it mean women are innately better in other fields.
i would like to propose that maybe, just maybe, certain people are taking two unrelated facts and creating a fanciful and unsupported relation, simply because the two facts exist.
i could, by that argument, say “there are clouds in the sky” and “there is water on at ground level” and infer “oh it must have rained”. just because pieces of information exist does not mean they exist in a necessary relation.
Well it can’t be both “by complete accident, and as a result of various social, economic and emotional factors” - if it’s the one it’s not the other, and vice versa.
At any rate the ratio is considered relevant for the same kind of reason that such ratios are in general considered relevant - which is rooted in the egalitarian notion that people should not be barred from particular kinds of work merely because they are a particular sex, race, caste, etc, and also in the meritocratic notion that careers should be wide open to Talent for the benefit of everyone. This means people think it’s at least worth asking if a particular skewed ratio exists for anti-egalitarian or irrational reasons.
Why are we afraid to say the obvious? Women philosophers are rare because women in general do not find philosophical discussion interesting. The combative nature of that field only aggravates the situation, because women do not want to be seen as “bitches” attacking men. Those who do, are quickly marginalized as lesbo, psycho, pomo feminazis. The only way a woman philosopher can gain a recognition is by immitating a male philosopher, the way Ayn Rand had done.
ophelia; the fact of a philosopher being male or female is whats accidental. by by the socio-economic and emotional background i mean what class-background you are (you dont find many working or benefits class philosophers do you?)
i admit i wasnt entirely clear, for that i apologise.
People in general don’t find philosophical discussion interesting; it’s not actually obvious that women as such are any less interested in philosophical discussion than men are.
Women not wanting to be seen as “bitches” is a whole separate issue - and a large one. It is true that argumentative women often get marginalized and called a lot of harsh names - bitch, feminazi, even bully. Even some men who think they are feminists end up marginalizing argumentative women that way. Sad.
Why fewer female philosophers? Why exactly are we surprised? We have very few famous female composers, painters or orchestral conductors. There has never been a female world chess champion. Contract bridge, played by more women than men, still gender-segregates at its major championships. I’m not aware of female objections to this.
Maybe men just try harder. That’s all they’ve got.
Hm hm hm. I don’t think anyone mentioned being surprised - but surprise isn’t the only reason to attempt to explain something.
Males are, on average, slightly larger. Maybe the Pythons’ “Philosopher’s Song” provides an answer?
Perhaps females aren’t such prancing wankers that they are attracted to such a fruitless pursuit as males are?
All the renowned philosophers were not locked up in libraries.
They spent much time at home as do the normal working class human.
Apparently, they also “thought” during the many hours at home.
Now, I wonder with whom did they trade novel ideas and theories if not the wives and daughters that stayed indoors while the boys were allowed to play the streets.
It is not hard to see that the great ideas of these “great” men were buffered and edited by the women in their lives.
Great Women Philosophers: Try Mrs. Kierkegaard, Mrs. Plato, Mrs. Socrates, Mrs. Aristotle, Mrs. Sartre, etc (assuming these males were inclined to marry women).
All the brilliant “men” that ever lived did not live in a vacuum devoid of women; therefore, all that they created must have been influenced by the women in their lives.
“Daddy Einstein?”
“What is it, my little girl?”
“If you were on the moon, when an Eskimo at the North Pole lit his torch at the same time I lit my torch at the equator, would you see my light bend compared to the Eskimo’s, since the earth is moving 25,000 miles/hour at the equator?”
“Hmmmm, my little girl, that’s such a silly question; go play now….hmmmm….hmmmmm…hmmmm”.
Socrates recognized the superiority of Diotima. Nuff said
To the right honorable Ophelia Benson,
I am a big fan of Mondays now that I receive Butterfliesandwheels. I happened on TPM quite by accident. Although not quite dead yet, I am old and white and male. In spite of those handicaps however, the subject of female philosophers is dear to me for several reasons. My dearest wife Mary(of forty years), my two daughters and three daughters-in-law are an important start. Their diligence in reminding me to “examine life” has made all the difference. The other females whom I have known on paper are a continuing source of inspiration. Susan Haack, Martha Nussbaum and even Erma Bombeck are three that fill my shelves with wonder. The time spent with their ideas has been dear to me. Their style, while not argumentative exemplifies dis-interested inquiry at its finest. This deliberative,democratic dialog I find very conducive to positive insight. The quality and not the quantity of philosophical representation has won my day.
All that said, I sense “the times they are a’changin.” When I was at my all male Catholic college in the late sixties, female students were admitted for the first time during my second year. There were about 600 males and only three females. Reading the other comments before mine, I had thought that is what Andrew was referring to when he mentioned rationing males to females. I am glad you cleared that up. Now however I read recently in the NYTimes that females out number males by a significant percentage. Perhaps males will soon be rationed to females after all. Lastly, is it accurate for a Brit to refer to a female as a ’sod’? What with the sodomite connotation and all.
Thank you again for your help in allowing me the pleasure of wallowing away the hours in your company.
Your humble servant,
Phaedrus
“Plaintively”? Obviously you don’t know me very well.
Clarifying my meaning may have broader public service value, given the forum. When a great many people say ‘I don’t understand why you did X’ they mean “it seems so unfair that you did X”. Philosophy folk by contrast usually mean this more literally: “there may be an explanation for why you did X, but I don’t know what it is”. This can upon occasion implicate “it is very difficult to see what an explanation might be”, which can under extreme circumstances shade into a raised eyebrow, or something even worse.
In the present case, something rather far along this continuum was intended.
Thanks Plato!
I don’t think I’ve read any Bombeck - but do you know the work of Judith Martin? (’Miss Manners’) Great stuff.
Benj Hellie - well ‘plaintively’ was purple for ‘with a raised eyebrow.’ At least that was the idea.
I’m a bit behind the curve here, but for what it’s worth, a word about the comments from the blog of Peter Gratton (a philosopher at the University of San Diego), which Ophelia quotes.
So, I tentatively suggest that the lack of women in philosophy ‘may be at least partly caused by a culture of aggressive argument that is particular to philosophy’. And what do I get in return? A whole heap of insults, that’s what. Apparently, I ‘don’t know the first thing about (a) the fallacious use of anecdotal evidence, (b) the problems of shitty causal inferences that (c) reinforce naturalist assumptions dominant in the culture.’ Am I being over-sensitive, or is that just a teeny bit on the aggressive side?
Good point. I guess I’ve felt really isolated by the philosophical community, even though in my context most of the young up and comers are young women like me. I don’t know if one would want to attribute a gender to the style of individualistic, combative philosophy that gets done though.