The Relevance of Gender in Philosophy

Prime the Pump.

Bump.

1. I believe the gender of the philosopher is irrelevant.

2. What is relevant is empirical truth, validity of inquiry and soundness of argument.

Why are the origins and progression of philosophical inquiry dominated by one gender? Why does there continue to be a disproportionate representation of male to female philosophers?

Well, I suppose that depends on what sort of philosophy we're talking about.

In the area of epistemology, for instance, gender may make no difference at all. In the area of political philosophy or ethics, however, gender may make a good deal of difference.

Here's a bibliography that might lead you to sources that can help you answer some of your questions. You might also want to check out this entry on "feminist philosophy" in the Stanford online encyclopedia of philosophy.

I think this is an interesting subject- I think gender would have quite a bit of relevance on the study of and conclusions reached in almost any philosophical subset of thought on the nature of reality, as I believe it's true (at least from my experience) that males and females experience the world and reality very differently, and by default gather very different perceptions or ideas about the same phenomena.

In terms of why it has been a male dominated subject - this is just my first thought - and I'm not overly attached to it - but it does make sense to me...women, HISTORICALLY, have had more practical matters to attend to- like taking care of men and children. This use of their time didn't really lend itself to also having the inclination or impetus to study or be overly conerned with the nature of reality, thought, ideas, ethics, etc.

Of course that has changed now....is it still a male dominated study today?
As a university major - do more males than females choose philosophy?

With some help my research has led me to the influential feminist philosophers and their work on the historical canon. When gender bias is removed the canon stands up.

It's difficult to avoid the pitfalls of the whole gender debate when inquiring on this subject.

This blog provides some interesting experience:

http://peasoup.typepad.com/peasoup/2004/07/gender_philosop.html

My experience has led me to muse on angles of psychology and general human behaviour and has raised some questions. Do human beings, particularly male, form elitist subgroups within communities? Or do mildly narcissistic personality disordered males naturally gravitate towards the sphere of philosophy. I hypothesise that individuals who see themselves as part of the elite subgroup have a need to maintain their perceived superiority. This leads them to openly dismiss input from newcomers to their group and use such behavioural wiles as to diminish the experience of the newcomer. Moreover, they may loudly express their disagreement with a female's input whereas the disagreement with a males input may be expressed in much quieter terms. This creates an environment that does not nurture the budding philosopher, and may in fact drive the individual away from the pleasure of philosophical inquiry. [I'm indicating 'Real Life' communities not electronic based communities such as 'forums'.]

If we all lived 1,000 years it might be, but I'm not sure we can see beyond our mortal coils effectively yet. Either way, in any given situation I'd defer to the wisdom of the nearest female, even if she's just there to fill the vending machines - but as for what makes it into the history books? Stones seem to help.

All that says to me is that we're infantile enough that making a big splash, right or wrong, will do some good.