Male Domination of Philosphy

[Jolie]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

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.

I'm surprised how many posters have actually failed to see the word discrimination mentioned in subsequent posts and offer any acknowledgement, condemnation or solution for it. Discrimination of any kind must not be the norm, let alone becoming a form of social justice. The point of this thread is not advocate commercialisation of Philosophy or wish to see females have the numerical superiority in the field , it is to discuss why women who have every interest and ability to study Philosophy face discrimination, favoritism and hostility in male dominated Philosophical world.

Why shouldn't we encourage women to become part of philosophical and programming field? Just over hundred years ago, it was also considered a norm and social justice for women not to have access to University education, have employment opportunities, property rights and right to cast the vote.

[Theorist]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

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.

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.

you are arguing a different point altogether. I never said women don't have a voice. I was also speaking historically. this repeated behavior has done a lot of damage. I simply said their opinion in certain matters have not been taken seriously or is dismissed as being childish. Men and women both are to blame for this damage. Women discouraged other women from pursuing philosophy or other disciplines because it didn't suit them.

Of course, developing countries are another story but doesn't mean they don't count.

[Ghost14]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

you are arguing a different point altogether. I never said women don't have a voice. I was also speaking historically. this repeated behavior has done a lot of damage. I simply said their opinion in certain matters have not been taken seriously or is dismissed as being childish. Men and women both are to blame for this damage. Women discouraged other women from pursuing philosophy or other disciplines because it didn't suit them.

Of course, developing countries are another story but doesn't mean they don't count.

No, I was disagreeing with your assertion that women's opinions are still considered childish or irrelevant by the vast majority of people, thereby disagreeing that this is a significant factor as to why more women aren't visible in Philosophy. Historically, yes, this was true, although, again, I disagree with you on whether this is the case today. Nevertheless, this is an interesting question.

[Theorist]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

No, I was disagreeing with your assertion that women's opinions are still considered childish or irrelevant by the vast majority of people, thereby disagreeing that this is a significant factor as to why more women aren't visible in Philosophy. Historically, yes, this was true, although, again, I disagree with you on whether this is the case today. Nevertheless, this is an interesting question.

Yes, but the damage has been done. We still have billions of people believing that anything a woman has to say must be childish. Heck, I have experienced this at work! When i was assisting field technicians over the phone, many technicians would not talk to me because I was a woman and apparently did not know what I was doing. They would flat out tell me in the first 10 seconds of the call that they wanted to speak to a man. I have been discriminated against many times because I am a woman. My previous fiber construction manager who I was NOT working under directly even said to my manager (director of Network Ops) that I got the job because I was a young pretty face. Yeah, it still happens!

Again, I count the entire world not just the West.

[Ghost14]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

Sorry to hear that, but that's only anecdotal evidence. I'm guessing you work in a very male dominated field, and even so, perhaps a particularly sexist one, because I work in a manufacturing plant in operations (i.e. day to day with technicians), and I have never heard anyone suggest that a woman's opinion is childish. Even coming up in engineering, where the male to female ratio is depressingly skewed, I've never seen discrimination based on gender.

Furthermore, most people who are likely to go into a PhD in Philosophy are hardly your average blue collar technicians. I seriously doubt they'd be the type to tell you that your opinion is worthless since you're a woman. I haven't seen it in engineering or any STEM majors, and I doubt this is the case in philosophy. If women choose not to pursue it there must be other factors. I personally think it's a combination of the argumentative nature of philosophy mixed with the relative lack of career paths. Going into philosophy is like swinging for the fences for your career, and women tend to be risk averse. You don't see many of them starting their own companies either. Men tend to be the ones to swing and miss big.

[Theorist]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

Sorry to hear that, but that's only anecdotal evidence. I'm guessing you work in a very male dominated field, and even so, perhaps a particularly sexist one, because I work in a manufacturing plant in operations (i.e. day to day with technicians), and I have never heard anyone suggest that a woman's opinion is childish. Even coming up in engineering, where the male to female ratio is depressingly skewed, I've never seen discrimination based on gender.

yes, I am in engineering, more of mid-senior role so I don't hear BS anymore. My opinion is certainly respected where I am now.

O and I am not the only one this has happened to. I know other girls who have taken up the same position after I left and they tell me how field techs are rude to them. It is the same story. This was years ago! Maybe you don't pay attention to it because it doesn't affect you.

[QUOTE]
Furthermore, most people who are likely to go into a PhD in Philosophy are hardly your average blue collar technicians. I seriously doubt they'd be the type to tell you that your opinion is worthless since you're a woman. I haven't seen it in engineering or any STEM majors, and I doubt this is the case in philosophy. If **women choose not to pursue it there must be other factors. I personally think it's a combination of the argumentative nature of philosophy mixed with the relative lack of career paths. Going into philosophy is like swinging for the fences for your career, and women tend to be risk averse. You don't see many of them starting their own companies either. **Men tend to be the ones to swing and miss big.
[/QUOTE]

That is a good point!

and of course, respect comes as you climb the ladder but women do face sexism/discrimination in any male dominated field that men may not notice because it doesn't affect them.

[psyah]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

I'm surprised how many posters have actually failed to see the word discrimination mentioned in subsequent posts and offer any acknowledgement, condemnation or solution for it. Discrimination of any kind must not be the norm, let alone becoming a form of social justice. The point of this thread is not advocate commercialisation of Philosophy or wish to see females have the numerical superiority in the field , it is to discuss why women who have every interest and ability to study Philosophy face discrimination, favoritism and hostility in male dominated Philosophical world.

Why shouldn't we encourage women to become part of philosophical and programming field? Just over hundred years ago, it was also considered a norm and social justice for women not to have access to University education, have employment opportunities, property rights and right to cast the vote.

You misunderstand me ... and I misunderstood the purpose of this thread topic ...

I guess what I am saying is ... Is it male "domination" of philosophy or just male "majority" - are women side lined in philosophy or are women choosing to do other things? By encouraging women to become as populous as men in philosophy and programming are we trying to suggest that there is an innate universal sense of balance in equal numbers? Then the question could be asked back ... why are we encouraging women to do anything at all ... why can't we just let them be?

100 years ago is no different to now ... we are still trying to influence each other ... before those influences were towards another norm - now another ... what makes any norm better or worse? Is voting and employment and desire to study philosophy all linked to the same phenomenon or all equally attached to our rights as humans? If so how so?

If a person chooses to do something that others see as oppression is that person who chose to do it - oppressed or were they free to choose? Furthermore, by giving our own idea of right more importance and imposing that on others so that we "encourage" them to fit our idea of fairness - how is that any more free than one who chooses to be subdued?

Let people choose - but don't require it from them ... if we encourage anything - we must be sure that what we are encouraging them to is better from their point of view not ours ...

I agree discrimination is wrong ... but we can't look at numbers of gender representation alone and conclude discrimination is afoot.

[Jolie]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

You misunderstand me ... and I misunderstood the purpose of this thread topic ...

I guess what I am saying is ... Is it male "domination" of philosophy or just male "majority" - are women side lined in philosophy or are women choosing to do other things? By encouraging women to become as populous as men in philosophy and programming are we trying to suggest that there is an innate universal sense of balance in equal numbers? .

If the notion that majority rules and numbers equal strength, then perhaps we are talking about domination. To expand this point further, it is indeed domination when women are habitually discouraged, dismissed and intimidated in the field of Philosophy by their male counterparts simply on the basis of their gender and all misconceived, negative stereotypical traits associated with it. That's objectable.

[QUOTE]
Then the question could be asked back ... why are we encouraging women to do anything at all ... why can't we just let them be?
[/QUOTE]

Before asking this question, you first need to determine whether women are being 'forced' to join Philosophy or Programming. I don't think I am discussing this nor I wish to have the discussion flow that way.

[QUOTE]
100 years ago is no different to now ... we are still trying to influence each other ... before those influences were towards another norm - now another ... what makes any norm better or worse? Is voting and employment and desire to study philosophy all linked to the same phenomenon or all equally attached to our rights as humans? If so how so?
[/QUOTE]

I'm baffled by this point of yours and I'm trying quite hard not to feel insulted, draw any unfavourble conclusion about your knowledge and wisdom. Are you really under the impression that situation today is no different from 100 years ago? I'm not certain if stating historical facts is a very philosophy friendly thing to do, but I can allude to hundred different laws to suggest how situation is inordinately different for not just women but working class in people general. You must come come out any illusion that perhaps there's some kind of militant anti male campaigning is going on to push women into male dominated fields (or at least in philosophy) or they are being systematically brainwashed to go out and do something for sake of scoring a point against the opposite gender. The simple question that dominates most gender debates is to seek an explanation as to why despite having equal opportunities in theory, women in practice have failed to achieve equal footing in certain fields, and when this question gets analysed in detail, one of the most reoccurring explanation is the issue of institutionalised sexism and discrimination women face. Something that most people still don't convinced by, as evident from this thread. :)

Besides, do you believe that Right to Vote, Equal Employment and access to Higher Education count as Human Rights?

[QUOTE]
If a person chooses to do something that others see as oppression is that person who chose to do it - oppressed or were they free to choose?
[/QUOTE]

To me the whole idea of oppression is subjective. One person's definition of oppression is other person's choice or simple lack of interest. However, it is oppression when it is forced upon despite individual's protest. Other than that, I'd like to focus on no nonsense issue of abuse than indulging in ideological, personalised and almost paranoid debates about what should or should not be classified as oppression by categorising people, customs and cultures.

[QUOTE]
Furthermore, by giving our own idea of right more importance and imposing that on others so that we "encourage" them to fit our idea of fairness - how is that any more free than one who chooses to be subdued?
[/QUOTE]

I for one is not talking about imposing any idea here, so the point is totally irrelevant to me. I'm not sure exactly sure what are you trying to convey by putting inverted commas on the word encourage, it certainly doesn't require isolated emphasis. Encouragement means encouragement at the end of the day, I hope you are not confusing the word with force. When it comes to deciding the final outcome, the freedom to have a choice and the freedom to make the decision rests with individual. I was encouraged to take Philosophy in my A - Levels by my teachers, but I declined the offer and chose Psychology instead. I liked being encouraged, but I was glad that I had a choice.

[QUOTE]
Let people choose - but don't require it from them ... if we encourage anything - we must be sure that what we are encouraging them to is better from their point of view not ours ...
[/QUOTE]

Indeed. Just like not any lad can make a great critical thinker or student of Philosophy, not every or any women can have what it takes to becomes an illustrious Philosopher. The thread is discussing those women who have every ability and interest to join Philosophy but unfortunately get turned down because of their gender.

[QUOTE]
I agree discrimination is wrong ... but we can't look at numbers of gender representation alone and conclude discrimination is afoot
[/QUOTE]

Finally! That's very kind of you. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your generosity and you know what, you just pulled an Imran Khan there. ;)

[Ghost14]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

yes, I am in engineering, more of mid-senior role so I don't hear BS anymore. My opinion is certainly respected where I am now.

O and I am not the only one this has happened to. I know other girls who have taken up the same position after I left and they tell me how field techs are rude to them. It is the same story. This was years ago! Maybe you don't pay attention to it because it doesn't affect you.

That is a good point!

and of course, respect comes as you climb the ladder but women do face sexism/discrimination in any male dominated field that men may not notice because it doesn't affect them.

So you work in a blatantly sexist work place, in which no female employee has complained to HR? Because where I work, this would never happen. Technicians are pretty blunt, and many of them think that women get preferential treatment, but none of them think that their opinions are dismissible.

And yes, maybe I don't notice it but many of the women I know at work, and from school, are not the types to take this stuff quietly and would certainly have spoken up had their been the kind of discrimination that you described. I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist, I'm saying that *in general, *I don't think it's systematic.

By your logic, men also face discrimination in fields dominated by women, like nursing for example.

[psyah]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

If the notion that majority rules and numbers equal strength, then perhaps we are talking about domination. To expand this point further, it is indeed domination when women are habitually discouraged, dismissed and intimidated in the field of Philosophy by their male counterparts simply on the basis of their gender and all misconceived, negative stereotypical traits associated with it. That's objectable.

Before asking this question, you first need to determine whether women are being 'forced' to join Philosophy or Programming. I don't think I am discussing this nor I wish to have the discussion flow that way.

I'm baffled by this point of yours and I'm trying quite hard not to feel insulted, draw any unfavourble conclusion about your knowledge and wisdom. Are you really under the impression that situation today is no different from 100 years ago? I'm not certain if stating historical facts is a very philosophy friendly thing to do, but I can allude to hundred different laws to suggest how situation is inordinately different for not just women but working class in people general. You must come come out any illusion that perhaps there's some kind of militant anti male campaigning is going on to push women into male dominated fields (or at least in philosophy) or they are being systematically brainwashed to go out and do something for sake of scoring a point against the opposite gender. The simple question that dominates most gender debates is to seek an explanation as to why despite having equal opportunities in theory, women in practice have failed to achieve equal footing in certain fields, and when this question gets analysed in detail, one of the most reoccurring explanation is the issue of institutionalised sexism and discrimination women face. Something that most people still don't convinced by, as evident from this thread. :)

Besides, do you believe that Right to Vote, Equal Employment and access to Higher Education count as Human Rights?

To me the whole idea of oppression is subjective. One person's definition of oppression is other person's choice or simple lack of interest. However, it is oppression when it is forced upon despite individual's protest. Other than that, I'd like to focus on no nonsense issue of abuse than indulging in ideological, personalised and almost paranoid debates about what should or should not be classified as oppression by categorising people, customs and cultures.

I for one is not talking about imposing any idea here, so the point is totally irrelevant to me. I'm not sure exactly sure what are you trying to convey by putting inverted commas on the word encourage, it certainly doesn't require isolated emphasis. Encouragement means encouragement at the end of the day, I hope you are not confusing the word with force. When it comes to deciding the final outcome, the freedom to have a choice and the freedom to make the decision rests with individual. I was encouraged to take Philosophy in my A - Levels by my teachers, but I declined the offer and chose Psychology instead. I liked being encouraged, but I was glad that I had a choice.

Indeed. Just like not any lad can make a great critical thinker or student of Philosophy, not every or any women can have what it takes to becomes an illustrious Philosopher. The thread is discussing those women who have every ability and interest to join Philosophy but unfortunately get turned down because of their gender.

Finally! That's very kind of you. Thank you very much. I really appreciate your generosity and you know what, you just pulled an Imran Khan there. ;)

Peace Jolie

This is not a debate ... This is philosophy ... the statement "majority rules" does not mean "the majority - rules" - it means that modern democracies assert rule through majority vote ... it has nothing to do with the phenomenon of gender representation in philosophy studies. Numbers equal strength - but this a philosophy class or department is not a war zone ... so please place your phrases correctly.

Coming back to philosophy - veering away from debate ...

If women are habitually discouraged from studying philosophy by males then you have your case ... the fact is what have you done to eliminate other factors? And no ... philosophically, why is gender imbalance even a question that must have its answer rooted in prejudice? It could just be a natural thing with nothing to do with men.

Jolie - you are coming on too strong and not listening to me ... philosophy tries to ask difficult questions ... so let's do that ... that is what I am doing ... I'm not just accepting things - I need to find answers ... You have seen that I am indeed comparing influencing through encouragement as a type of "telling people what to do" rather than ordering people it is done in other ways ... What I meant by it being the same 100 years ago needs to be looked at in the way I meant it not the way you are taking it ...

It still has not been adequately argued from a philosophical POV that gender representation equalisation is a necessary morally right thing to be doing. Yes, everyone should be given a vote, but if the vote unanimously lands in one direction - we don't do the vote again because we don't like the imbalance - we merely accept it.

You asked me if I believe in the right to vote ... I believe that modern democracies are built on the universal right to vote principle - but I don't think it is necessarily a great idea to have everyone vote - from a philosophical point of view that is ... and one reason for that is opinions of masses can be influenced through media.

You asked if I believe in equal employment - if that means making gender, race and religion and sexual orientation equal the numbers of their opposites for some strange adherence to a criteria - I think it wrong. What I do think however is that all people should know who to go to for anything they need.

Access to higher education - I believe that should be in place

But do I believe in human rights? (As perceived by the UN) Why should I? I think there are universal laws that people want to adopt - I don't think however that they are entirely universal either ...

Unless you know something that I do not ... Are women really being turned down for studying philosophy, purely because they are female?

[Theorist]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

S*o you work in a blatantly sexist work place, in which no female employee has complained to HR? B*ecause where I work, this would never happen. Technicians are pretty blunt, and many of them think that women get preferential treatment, but none of them think that their opinions are dismissible.

And yes, maybe I don't notice it but many of the women I know at work, and from school, are not the types to take this stuff quietly and would certainly have spoken up had their been the kind of discrimination that you described. I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist, I'm saying that *in general, *I don't think it's systematic.

By your logic, men also face discrimination in fields dominated by women, like nursing for example.

I used to. How did you think I found out what the construction manager said about me? My own manager and HR told me that! They too found it very demeaning. Besides, I never told you the full story so why are you assuming?

I don't think it is systematic either. And yes, men absolutely do face discrimination in female dominated fields. Ghost, you should know by now that I am not a man hating feminist.

[psyah]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

Here is an idea ... I think both men and women wield a lot of power to influence others around them to get what they want. The amount of power they use depends on their ability and position. Somewhere eventually people gripe and groan but they eventually settle and accept the position they are in ... that for me is balance. We all have struggles it does not mean necessarily way should be made ... so long as we are following a rule that exercises equality. But if we are exercising grace, chivalry and kindness to women as they did in the past - then women would find themselves not in the position of competing with men, but being taken care of by men. The fact that the modern woman sees it horrid to be "taken care of by anyone other than themselves" and yet at the same time "want their treatment in the workplace to be changed" - there is root conflict right here, in the mindset of the modern feminist.

Do men make way for the women in the workplace? Or should women compete like every other man for position? Is equality too large of a pill to swallow for both men and women? Why are we not asking the real question?

Is equality the way we see it today - fair?
You see all of this power and influencing and this whole debate of equality is founded on selfishness ... The higher morality is to be charitable to others.

Should we not concentrate on how men and women, blacks and whites, old and young, etc ... can please and favour each other instead?

[Jolie]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

Peace Jolie

This is not a debate ... This is philosophy ... the statement "majority rules" does not mean "the majority - rules" - it means that modern democracies assert rule through majority vote ... it has nothing to do with the phenomenon of gender representation in philosophy studies. Numbers equal strength - but this a philosophy class or department is not a war zone ... so please place your phrases correctly.

Coming back to philosophy - veering away from debate ...

This is not a Philosophal discussion, this is a debate on the field of Philosophy. Philosophy the academic discipline and the issue of sexism within the institution, not the studies.

[QUOTE]

[QUOTE]
If women are habitually discouraged from studying philosophy by males then you have your case ... the fact is what have you done to eliminate other factors? And no ... philosophically, why is gender imbalance even a question that must have its answer rooted in prejudice? It could just be a natural thing with nothing to do with men.
[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]

We are, or at least I am, not talking about any 'gender imbalance' in Philosophy or Literature. My issue is with systematic intimidation, patronization and hostility female students and academics face in Philosophy just like male students often receive the same treatment in a Literature class dominated female students. You repeatedly say discrimination is wrong and I 'have a case' yet your post talks about everything but the case I have and the discrimination you think is wrong.

[QUOTE]
Jolie - you are coming on too strong and not listening to me ... philosophy tries to ask difficult questions ... so let's do that ... that is what I am doing ... I'm not just accepting things - I need to find answers ... You have seen that I am indeed comparing influencing through encouragement as a type of "telling people what to do" rather than ordering people it is done in other ways ... What I meant by it being the same 100 years ago needs to be looked at in the way I meant it not the way you are taking it ...
[/QUOTE]

Again, you have severely misunderstood me if you think my intention was to indulge in any fancy Philosophical debate. I rarely provide the self satisfying answers people look for. I would appreciate if you could kindly focus on offering some words to highlight the practical implication, the cause and the solution to deal with sexism and discrimination in Philosophy the academic discipline. Encouragement is indeed telling what they can *and perhaps should *do, encouragement does not mean people are not told about other ways and options. In free societies, encouragement may or may not work as decisive influence but it is still much better option that 'ordering' people what can or cannot be done in other ways.

[QUOTE]
It still has not been adequately argued from a philosophical POV that gender representation equalisation is a necessary morally right thing to be doing. Yes, everyone should be given a vote, but if the vote unanimously lands in one direction - we don't do the vote again because we don't like the imbalance - we merely accept it.
[/QUOTE]

We would not accept the imbalance if the voters were intimidated, threatened and forced to vote for a certain group. Similarly, unequal gender representation must not be accepted on face value as something completely natural if discrimination and patriarchal intimidation is one of the the leading causes behind.

[QUOTE]
You asked me if I believe in the right to vote ... I believe that modern democracies are built on the universal right to vote principle - but I don't think it is necessarily a great idea to have everyone vote - from a philosophical point of view that is ... and one reason for that is opinions of masses can be influenced through media.
[/QUOTE]

There'd always been many different sources of influences effecting human views and decisions.

[QUOTE]
You asked if I believe in equal employment - if that means making gender, race and religion and sexual orientation equal the numbers of their opposites for some strange adherence to a criteria - I think it wrong. What I do think however is that all people should know who to go to for anything they need.
[/QUOTE]

I agree. Positive discrimination is also dangerous and should be avoided.

[QUOTE]
But do I believe in human rights? (As perceived by the UN) Why should I? I think there are universal laws that people want to adopt - I don't think however that they are entirely universal either ...
[/QUOTE]

That's an interesting view but a totally different topic, perhaps for another day.

[QUOTE]
Unless you know something that I do not ... Are women really being turned down for studying philosophy, purely because they are female?
[/QUOTE]

Thanks to all the much needed laws that have been passed in last 100 years to challenge and to ultimately overthrow the evil patriarchal norms, expectations and attitude, such things are not so easy to do. If they do still take place in some form, people have every right and responsibility and ways to raise a voice against such injustice. The more equal, fair and humane the societies aim to become, the more sophisticated discrimination gets.

[psyah]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

This is not a Philosophal discussion, this is a debate on the field of Philosophy. Philosophy the academic discipline and the issue of sexism within the institution, not the studies.

Oh ... Well I don't know enough about the politics behind philosophy studies ... I do know however women in the past were deemed to be intellectually inferior ... And either that deeming had prevented the women from surfacing as big names in the discipline or there is some truth in what they used to say about women or a set of others reasons may show why this is the case.

It would be good to test any theory ... As far as I am concerned people may do what they like regarding holding the baton of authority ... That neither makes non-affiliates any worse as philosophers nor does it mean the ones who are affiliated any better.

[psyah]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

Thanks to all the much needed laws that have been passed in last 100 years to challenge and to ultimately overthrow the evil patriarchal norms, expectations and attitude, such things are not so easy to do. If they do still take place in some form, people have every right and responsibility and ways to raise a voice against such injustice. The more equal, fair and humane the societies aim to become, the more sophisticated discrimination gets.

Peace Jolie

Why are patriarchal norms evil? Or are you only saying that of the patriarchal norms the evil ones are the ones that have been thrown out?

Do you know of any good patriarchal principles that have been abused to have become evil? Or perhaps any good patriarchal norms altogether?

[Jolie]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

Here is an idea ... I think both men and women wield a lot of power to influence others around them to get what they want. The amount of power they use depends on their ability and position. Somewhere eventually people gripe and groan but they eventually settle and accept the position they are in ... that for me is balance. We all have struggles it does not mean necessarily way should be made ... so long as we are following a rule that exercises equality. But if we are exercising grace, chivalry and kindness to women as they did in the past - then women would find themselves not in the position of competing with men, but being taken care of by men. T*he fact that the modern woman sees it horrid to be "taken care of by anyone other than themselves" and yet at the same time "want their treatment in the workplace to be changed" - there is root conflict right here, in the mindset of the modern feminist.*

Do men make way for the women in the workplace? Or should women compete like every other man for position? Is equality too large of a pill to swallow for both men and women? Why are we not asking the real question?

Is equality the way we see it today - fair? You see all of this power and influencing and this whole debate of equality is founded on selfishness ... The higher morality is to be charitable to others.

Should we not concentrate on how men and women, blacks and whites, old and young, etc ... can please and favour each other instead?

I don't know what to make of that sentence. I'm bitterly disappointed to read that, so disappointed that I didn't even feel like replying to it.

Psyah, women do not want workplace treatment to be changed, women want workplace sexism to stop! There is a huge huge difference and I find the wording of your sentence incredibly surprising and extremely distasteful. Discrimination of any kind is a terrible terrible thing, sexism is just one those terrible things, it impacts both men and women. I don't understand why we cannot just talk about the real issue in hand? What is the difficulty.

You are free to foster high levels of disdain and contempt for modern day feminism, it wouldn't surprise me, but for your own sake, do not pass such ill thought and ill researched remarks - it makes the reader feel a little sick.

No disrespect intended to you but I had to express my disgust over that post.

[Krypton]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

ditto.

[Jolie]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

Peace Jolie

Why are patriarchal norms evil? Or are you only saying that of the patriarchal norms the evil ones are the ones that have been thrown out?

Do you know of any good patriarchal principles that have been abused to have become evil? Or perhaps any good patriarchal norms altogether?

For starters, I would say the issue of female inheritance is grossly abused in Pakistan. The violent abuse of the idea of protecting the female honour is almost beyond repair in tribal areas of Balochistan and Pakhtoonkha/FATA.

Explicitly telling females they cannot study certain subjects or take certain professions simply because they are women would also count as one.

[psyah]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

@Jolie

For starters, I would say the issue of female inheritance is grossly abused in Pakistan. The violent abuse of the idea of protecting the female honour is almost beyond repair in tribal areas of Balochistan and Pakhtoonkha/FATA.

Explicitly telling females they cannot study certain subjects or take certain professions simply because they are women would also count as one.

So why are men being blamed for those evils? I don't get it. For the men that do not practice those evil things - are they praised for having good patriarchal norms? Or are they considered to be men who are not patriarchal?

[psyah]

Re: Male Domination of Philosphy

I don't know what to make of that sentence. I'm bitterly disappointed to read that, so disappointed that I didn't even feel like replying to it.

Psyah, women do not want workplace treatment to be changed, women want workplace sexism to stop! There is a huge huge difference and I find the wording of your sentence incredibly surprising and extremely distasteful. Discrimination of any kind is a terrible terrible thing, sexism is just one those terrible things, it impacts both men and women. I don't understand why we cannot just talk about the real issue in hand? What is the difficulty.

You are free to foster high levels of disdain and contempt for modern day feminism, it wouldn't surprise me, but for your own sake, do not pass such ill thought and ill researched remarks - it makes the reader feel a little sick.

No disrespect intended to you but I had to express my disgust over that post.

From what I have seen - women do not want to compete with men. They want a completely different parallel life alongside men ... Now am I being sexist by making an observation? Sexism does exist - don't get me wrong ... the victims are often not the feminists ... feminists are scary to most men especially the type of men who take advantage of women. Feminists convert emotion in to a weapon and utilise "equality" unequally in their own favour.

I don't actually have disdain or contempt for anyone ... but if my words offend people - like your good self then I feel I must have been misunderstood.

I personally think your disgust is misplaced ... rather than express such strong feelings it is better to find out what I mean and what values I hold and how I personally treat women to get a better - more philosophical opinion about my words.