From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Yoder's idea of feminist philosophy (was Re: Plato's Views on Women)
Keywords: Plato, politics, women, feminism
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 10:59:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.100739.6828@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au> pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Ms D Alexander) writes:
>In article <BxE6rn.IHx@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

>>>Brian, you haven't done the reading.  I suggest -- in the case
>>>of feminism -- you peruse some of the philosophical works 
>>>periodically listed in the soc.feminism newsgroup.  

>>I have read plenty of that nonsense, and I still don't consider it a valid
>>field of study.  The alt.astrology FAQ probably lists a lot of suggested books
>>too, but I don't consider that to be a valid area of study either.

>I think you're fibbing Mr Yoder, I don't think you have done the reading.
>Your next paragraph is a dead giveaway.

It's no such thing.  Don't tell me what I have and have not read.

>>No.  I think that those who advocated such views were wrong.  Perhaps you 
>>would like to continue to apply that reasoning and advocate "slave philosophy"
>>and "serf philosophy".  What kinds of deep philosophical insights do you
>>think one acquires by being a woman, a slave, or a serf?  

>Feminist philosophy is not philosophy by women.  There have certainly been
>plenty of female philosophers who were not feminists, and plenty of men who
>were.  

I am fully aware of that fact.

>Before any of us bother with this discussion further, perhaps its time
>you told us just what you think feminist philosophy is.

Well, as I said before, I don't think that feminist philosophy is a valid
field of study, so I think I will have a hard time explaining just what
it ought to refer to.  Essentially though, it is a set of ideas relating 
to the oppression of women, and the differences between men and women in
various areas of thought.  

>Furthermore, points of view expressed by various marginalised groups are just
>as valid as those of mainstream philosophy.  

No they are not!  Such beliefs have to stand or fall on their own merits.
What group "sponsors" a set of ideas is irrelevant to whether it is true
or not.  Would you say that the ideas of neo-nazis are just as valid as
yours?

Now, someone who is female or black or male or oriental CAN arrive at 
true or false conclusions, but racce and sex have zero to do with whether
their ideas are right or not.  Truth is objective.

>Serf/slave philosophy is a nonsense you prattle off as a way of making claims 
>that women have a valid and alternative viewpoint seem stupid.  

But that was my whole point.  It IS stupid to think that one's race or sex
either creates a subjective reality or allows one to see "higher truths" of
some kind.  Women certainly have every bit as much capacity to think and 
arrive at valid conclusions.  In fact, my favority philosopher happens to 
have been a woman, but I think that has as much to do with the validity of
her ideas as her hair style.

>Thankfully,
>too many people now are have woken up to
>those kinds of tactics.

And what kind of "tactics" might that be?  I'm just saying that one's ideas
are not determined or limited by one's sex or race.  Do you think that makes
me some kind of sexist or something?  Incredible.

--Brian

Xref: sparky soc.women:18950 alt.abortion.inequity:4892 talk.abortion:46890 alt.feminism:3830 soc.men:18761