Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Plato's Views on Women
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 8 Nov 92 20:48:38 EDT
 <BxE64p.ID5@quake.sylmar.ca.us> <1992Nov8.174054.9777@netcom.com> <1992Nov8.224552.13699@psych.toronto.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20In-Reply-To: christo@psych.toronto.edu's message of Sun, 8 Nov 1992 22:45:52 GMTLines: 54

Well, I don't know if you all know it, but you're all rehashing the argument
(no, I won't dignify it by calling it an argument; the spat) that went on
starting in THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, later carried through ATLANTIC
MONTHLY, THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, THE PROCEEDINGS AND ADDRESSES OF THE
APA, back to THE CHRONICLE and back again to THE PROCEEDINGS.  This was all
begun (if I remember correctly) by Christina Hoff Sommers (con) and was taken
up by Alison Jaggar, Sandra Bartky, Sandra Harding (pro), and finally David
Hoekema (executive dir of the American Philosophical Association) wrote a
letter explaining that the APA recognizes feminist philosophy as a valuable
area of philosophical study.  Then David Hoekema was taken to task by the
executive board of the APA for making an official stmt apparently of APA policy
w/out consulting the exec board.  Etc.,etc.,etc. (this began in 1989, &
continues through the present)

I teach and do research in feminist philosophy, & I certainly hope it is not an
"invalid" endeavour.  In my own experience, there are very few (or maybe no)
critics of feminist philosophy as-a-whole who have read enough feminist
philosophy to be able to state intelligently & clearly what, exactly, they
disagree with.  *MOST* critics of feminist philosophy (that I've come across)
have some straw or cartoon-like idiotic view of "feminist philosophy" -- which
I couldn't imagine ANYONE defending -- but HAVEN'T ACTUALLY READ THE
LITERATURE (or maybe have read only one book, & take themselves to Know it All
for having done so).

Now, as a professional philosopher whose specialty is feminist philosophy, let
me give the following advice:  To those who *think* they disagree with feminist
philosophy a priori:  why don't you follow your own philosophical method and
actually let us know what particular argument(s) you disagree with, and on what
basis (invalid inferences? false premises?).  BTW, it is only fair that you
take on arguments which actually have been put forth -- no straw or imaginary
arguments, please.  I *THINK* this means that you might actually have to read
some of the literature;  come back & we'll talk after you have...
To those who find themselves interested or intrigued by feminist philosophy &
want to learn more, by all means do so, & don't waste your time arguing about
the merits of doing so with folks who haven't done so themselves.  And to those
who think they can dismiss all "feminist philosophy" in one swoop, let me just
say that you display your ignorance of the literature in making such
statements.  Feminist philosophy is so diverse, encompases so many different
approaches, ideas, arguments, stances, phenomenologies, ontologies,
epistemologies (etc) that you can't really find a single proposition to which
all feminist philosophers would agree.  So by saying you disagree with *all*
feminist philosophy, or with the very notion of feminist philosophy in the
first place, you are making yourself not be taken very seriously by folks who
actually have studied it.

The original question was (I thought) a very intelligent question, WELL within
"mainstream" anglo-american philosophy (what similarities and/or differences
between Plato's views re. women in the Laws & the Republic?).  The folks who
felt it necessary to criticize the very asking of such a question are the ones
who are out of step with current philosophical inquiry.

------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA