Is it a point that men and women are equal naturally, in all aspects of life?
Two men cannot be 'equal' naturally in all aspects of life.
It's an interesting picture that you've posted above. Are you perhaps agreeing with the age old protest that women's 'femininity' is not suitable for Philosophy and because of their femininity, they are naturally not programmed to seek greater depth of wisdom, knowledge and logic?
Secondly, if gender neutrality becomes the face of modern day parenting (i.e no 'you are a girl therefore you must wear pink and play with dolls' type thinking), females are raised in a gender neutral environment, how would you still explain the lack of female participation in critical Philosophical debates?
^Haven't you noticed the same on GS? There are certain forums where Guppans rarely participate and if so, the posts are based more on emotions than objectivity and being backed by facts/evidence as opposed to anecdotes. So, difference in debating style of genders?
Ironically, I don't follow many female posters here, but the ones I appreciate and do look forward to reading their posts (The Kaur, for example) talk facts and evidence and maintain healthy level of objectivity in their comments. However, I still remember when I started regularly posting in Politics forum, I was confronted with hostile sexist opposition, and it's still there in some form. I'm sure some of the so called men there are perhaps still shocked, digusted and in utter state of disbelief and confusion to see a woman talking politics in depth and debating just as belligerently as her male counterparts.
Two men cannot be 'equal' naturally in all aspects of life.
It's an interesting picture that you've posted above. Are you perhaps agreeing with the age old protest that women's 'femininity' is not suitable for Philosophy and because of their femininity, they are naturally not programmed to seek greater depth of wisdom, knowledge and logic?
My point is women are capable of philosophical reasoning but, they do not choose to argue deeply, in general. They usually spare those things that men dont.
[QUOTE]
Secondly, if gender neutrality becomes the face of modern day parenting (i.e no 'you are a girl therefore you must wear pink and play with dolls' type thinking), females are raised in a gender neutral environment, how would you still explain the lack of female participation in critical Philosophical debates?
[/QUOTE]
This part is somehow influenced by theory of evolution that women are apparently different just because of evolution as how our parents/ancestors evolved us. I believe, nature chooses different things for men and women physically as well as inwardly.
My point is women are capable of philosophical reasoning but, they do not choose to argue deeply, in general. They usually spare those things that men dont.
what are you talking about? Yes they do! maybe not so much on this forum, but it's not true everywhere.
[quote]
This part is somehow influenced by** theory of evolution that women are apparently different just because of evolution as how our parents/ancestors evolved us. **I believe, nature chooses different things for men and women physically as well as inwardly.
[/quote]
the above bold part makes no sense. theory of evolution has nothing to do with this.
yes biologically men and women are different. women give birth, men dont. but what does that have to do with philosophy or 'deep' thinking?
My point is women are capable of philosophical reasoning but, they do not choose to argue deeply, in general. They usually spare those things that men dont.
what did you mean by 'they choose not to argue deeply'? Sorry if i misunderstood you. so please explain what you meant here.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with ajazali here. It's not that women don't think deeply about philosophical topics. They just don't seem to care much about making their opinions known. That's where the difference is. It's not that women are not interested in philosophy at all. I have always been very philosophical so have my sisters. I've always wondered why there had never been a female prophet, lol. Somehow that has upset me.
I hate ajazali for making it seem like women don't contribute to science or technology but even in my experience that has been true. The percentage of women in engineering remains well under 10%. In all of my engineering classes, I have been the only girl. Even at work, there has never been more than two females in my team. Now I see more women involved in technology which is great!
I usually skip all the posts before commenting. That way there is a chance that I bring in a new perspective, or at least put the thread back on the main path (or totally derail it, as in this case :D)
My point is women are capable of philosophical reasoning but, they do not choose to argue deeply, in general. They usually spare those things that men dont.
This part is somehow influenced by theory of evolution that women are apparently different just because of evolution as how our parents/ancestors evolved us. I believe, nature chooses different things for men and women physically as well as inwardly.
I'm afraid I'm still not convinced by this argument, and this not necessarily a personal criticism for you. I'm pretty certain there is a theory that explains men and women are programmed for different style of debating. However such theories should not be used to discriminate against women. Even if you don't believe men and women are equal, you must agree to men and women having the equal opportunities. The whole idea of women are not programmed to not think deeply or argue properly etc is one the main reasons why female Philosophy students face an unwelcoming, patronising and often hostile environment in the academic world. I believe it's unfair. Female approach in Philosophy must be considered and respected, even if it's something 'different'.
^absolutely. Women have been discouraged or have been silenced as if their opinions don't matter or are not worth entertaining. This repeated behavior has proven to be very damaging. We still haven't recovered. As you can see, people would go as far as claiming this is evolution at play. Ridiculous.
I remember reading an article about a study (granted, just one study) which found that even among twins, raised in a similar environment, men tended to dominate **both **extremes of intelligence. Women, on average, were found to be more intelligent. It might help to explain the disparity in a field like philosophy. Of course, I'm not talking historically because obviously women didn't have a voice in the past, I mean more recently. And I assume that's what OP meant, that even today, men outnumber women in philosophy.
^absolutely. Women have been discouraged or have been silenced as if their opinions don't matter or are not worth entertaining. This repeated behavior has proven to be very damaging. We still haven't recovered. As you can see, people would go as far as claiming this is evolution at play. Ridiculous.
What? When a BS statistic like women only earning 70 cents to a dollar can dominate elections, it's kind of funny to say that women don't have a voice. Businesses are increasingly catering to women. Many debate societies have even had "The End of Men" as a topic. Let's stop this "women don't have a voice" nonsense. It no longer applies (in the West at least).
Developing countries are another matter, and that's where progress is sorely needed.
The more I look the more I see that disparity between sexes is a faux phenomenon. There are differences - yes - but there are no imbalances in general - neither in the East nor the West and at no time was this the case ...
Women have got their way just as men have had their way ... It's how power shifts between overt force vs subversive influence ... just the forms have changed and its all abut how we re-tell these forms that counts - we like to say that we have improved and hence paint our modern ways to be the good and the old ways to be bad and inspect reasons in for them to be so ... the biggest error of modernity is its attempt to monoculturalise and hemaphrodise society and its people. Let people find their balance and let not any one trend dictate that this is a woman thing or a man thing or black thing or a white thing or West thing and a East thing.
The more I look the more I see that disparity between sexes is a faux phenomenon. There are differences - yes - but there are no imbalances in general - neither in the East nor the West and at no time was this the case ...
Women have got their way just as men have had their way ... It's how power shifts between overt force vs subversive influence ... just the forms have changed and its all abut how we re-tell these forms that counts - we like to say that we have improved and hence paint our modernity to be the good and the old ways to be bad and inspect reasons in for them to be so ... the biggest error of modernity is its attempt to monoculturalise and hemaphrodise society and its people. Let people find their balance and let not any one trend dictate that this is a woman thing or a man thing or black thing or a white thing or West thing and a East thing.
There are no imbalances and disparity between sexes in subcontinent?
There are no imbalances and disparity between sexes in subcontinent?
There are specific imbalances all over the place ... when studying the gender axis - I see most relationships in balance - people who are dominant are with people who are submissive and vice versa - and since they both like that arrangement - I see that as justice ... not injustice ... sometimes men are submissive and women are not sometimes vice versa ... it is only when two dominating characters interact or when two submissive characters interact are problems seen.
Effectively I see it wrong for us to impose an expectation for women and men or to equate the two - we should let them impose and embody their own expectations for themselves ...
I think if a man dominates a family and does so with his wife happy then that is balance ... If a woman does the same while her husband is happy - cool again.
Looking even more deeper - the relationships are even more of a spectrum ... that it is not often the case that women or men are either happy or sad with their counterparts - but rather express a range of expectations ... it is not necessary for either to conform exactly as per expectations - but for each expectation not met the relationship edges further apart and for each expectation others will take priority higher or lower over another expectation ... Then they have standards and codes and safety concerns for themselves ... and it is when self-concern becomes self-importance is when relationships breakdown or when self-preservation becomes an active need ... Men ought to see the importance in women and vice-versa. This will help build bridges and not create isolated islands.
By seeking out why women are few in philosophy and programming - are we postulating that it is wrong that women are few in philosophy and programming and we ought to change that? Or should we not just accept it as a form of social justice that has been borne from the norms of society?
Once could then argue that are we accepting the norms of society as the epitome of justice - to which I can answer - no - but one can say for sure that the norms of society cannot be the epitome of injustice either.
