So, some feminists urge, don't be a sucker. But I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that. Note secondly that appealing to reason is not the same as parroting Eurocentric bias. Science is a good contemporary example. Note that advocating reason does not imply that all rationally-drawn conclusions are true .
Truth is a separate and complex issue.
The point is not which claims are true or false, since we may never know that. Finally, the charge that upper-class males have defined reason itself on their own terms implies that there has been agreement among philosophers about the nature, source, and limits of reason. Philosophers are the very people who have argued that reason is not necessarily the sole method of attaining knowledge, and that we need a broader definition of knowledge. In other words, if white upper-class men have defined what is rational, they have also subjected that definition to the most rigorous criticism. For example, in Western philosophy alone, William James and Nietzsche argued that the passions play a far more important role in knowing than has traditionally been acknowledged by Western epistemology.