The future of philosophy is… Dudes! White ones!

I am known around these parts to snark about the culture and climate in the world of academic philosophy, but I try to keep it in check, generally.

But recently, I saw something on the Feminist Philosophers blog that made me roll my eyes so hard that I can’t help but snark out loud today. November 17th was World Philosophy Day (woot!). To celebrate, The Philosopher’s Eye, the blog of the online philosophy journal The Philosopher’s Compass, decided to take the opportunity to ask about the future of the discipline:

Today is World Philosophy Day, people. This is the day when we come together all over the globe (possibly) to honour our august and noble discipline, and are encouraged to entertain new and unfamiliar ideas.

To celebrate, the Philosopher’s Eye is pleased to announce that we will be bringing you five cutting-edge opinion pieces written by highly distinguished philosophers.  Each short piece will explore the theme:  ‘The Future of Philosophy, and will be posted as follows:

This was followed by articles from five guys. In the comments (and as a direct result from the post on Feminist Philosophers) is a discussion wherein the managing editor of the blog justifies his approach. He writes, ” I’d like to assure all of our readers that it is in no sense the position of The Editor’s Cut event (or Wiley Blackwell, or The Philosopher’s Eye) that the future of philosophy is somehow an all-male affair… several female philosophers were invited to participate, but none accepted.”

He goes on to graciously deal with the criticism from the feminist philosophers and ask for helpful resources to help prevent such incidents in the future (which the feminists provide, as we are wont to do).

Now, here’s where I get fundamentally annoyed. I would think that people who make a life out of thinking hard about difficult things could wrap their big brains around one fairly simple idea: it might be a function of un-interrogated privilege that allows you to say, in your defense, that women were asked to participate, but alas, did not. It might also be a function of said privilege that allows you to then wash your hands of something that you didn’t really think was a priority to begin with. It might be a function of the same privilege that lets you carry on as though all is really just fine, without even noting that you think it unfortunate that there aren’t any women on your list (and one person of color, as best as I can tell).

This is symptomatic and commonplace, unfortunately. So, I thought I’d do a little feminist philosophy crowd-sourcing here. Who do YOU think represent the future of philosophy? Here are my thoughts, share yours in the comments.

1. UNESCO’s Third Assembly of the International Network of Women Philosophers. Check out the current issue here. This year (on World Philosophy Day, no less) they hosted an incredible session called, “Arab Spring, Sustainable Spring” in which women philosophers from the Arab world and those from other parts of the world discussed the emergent trends in the Middle East. You can find the agenda here.

2. Toward a Political Philosophy of Race by Falguni Sheth. Seriously, I can’t tell you how much I wish I had this when I was in grad school.

3. Visible Identities: Race, Gender, and the Self by Linda Martin-Alcoff. Changed the way I think about identity politics.

Ok, I’ll stop! Your turn, y’all.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

28 Comments

  1. Posted November 23, 2011 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    I’ve noticed that as a man, far too often, women alone appreciate when I make specific note of women’s contributions. This is true regardless of the field of study, though it is more pronounced in some more than others. Men either make no note of it, failing to see how it is relevant to them, or temporarily make an attempt to be inclusive. Reinforcing this idea is the most challenging part. It isn’t always the case, but it has happened regularly.

    But I don’t want to seem like a huge nag or a scold, either. The most difficult aspect of all is, as I stated above, making a lasting impression on other men. I would like to believe that my deliberate focus on notable women and their works stretches beyond one gender’s notice. Men often don’t understand and the ones who do are still relatively rare.

    The response I get from women, however, is most often very positive. Some aren’t quite sure how to take it, others are struck by the novelty, and some view me as the ally I strive to be. But almost all are appreciative.

  2. Posted November 23, 2011 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    Is it absolutely mandatory now, that there can never be a group of people that is entirely one race or gender? It’s like people are wanting a quota system — every major club, group, activity, etc. must have at least N people of a non-majority race/gender/what have you, just so people can’t whine that the group was excluding people, even if they weren’t. They said they asked women to attend. What are they going to do, kidnap them away and haul them in if they say they don’t want to attend? You even said they dealt well with criticism and tried to work out how to attract women to the event in the future. If I were in this situation, I’d wash my hands of it, because you can’t do much of anything if your invitees say they don’t want to come. They tried. They failed. It takes two to tango, and one partner didn’t want to dance today.

    • J
      Posted November 25, 2011 at 3:21 am | Permalink

      The “quota” argument is a straw man, one that’s often employed by conservatives to decry programs like Affirmative Action. If we were living in a post-patriarchy, you’d have a point. The trouble is, we’re not. We live in a culture in which many forms of prejudice have been institutionalized, to the point where many people don’t even notice the discrimination.

      For instance, I wonder whether, before you reached the above conclusions, you asked yourself how many women were invited to participate in the project in relation to the number of men. A token few? Then maybe you’d like to argue that there are fewer women than men in the field of philosophy, in which case a thoughtful person might ask why that is. Could it be that women’s voices have been silenced and ignored for thousands of years in this traditionally male-dominated field? Certainly it’s not because women as a group are less intelligent or less interested in questioning important things like meaning and ethics. I’d be willing to bet that there are many women and/or feminist philosophers who’d have been happy to “tango,” had they been sought out and asked.

      It’s not about fulfilling some kind of quota; it’s about making room for voices which have been traditionally left out of the narrative, in the interest of a more just and equal world. And being that we are living in a context of thousands of years of oppression, to do so requires more effort than simply inviting the token few you may have come across on your own.

  3. Posted November 23, 2011 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

    I read work by some feminist philosophers and found approaches that are drastically different from the trend of logical positivism. One of my favorites made a case for narrative as a philosophical method. Narrative obviously wouldn’t be the only method, but is essential for philosophy of ethics and also for making philosophy accessible and relevant. Feminist philosophy is very relevant in addressing power relations.

  4. Posted November 23, 2011 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    I love Evelyn Fox Keller’s “Reflections on gender and science.” It is a cohhesive collection of essays. Way rad.

  5. Posted November 23, 2011 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    my favorite young women philosophers:
    Sarah Paul! https://sites.google.com/site/sarahkpaul/home/cv
    Jen Morton! http://www.jennifermmorton.com/

  6. Posted November 23, 2011 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    “Now, here’s where I get fundamentally annoyed. I would think that people who make a life out of thinking hard about difficult things could wrap their big brains around one fairly simple idea: it might be a function of un-interrogated privilege that allows you to say, in your defense, that women were asked to participate, but alas, did not. It might also be a function of said privilege that allows you to then wash your hands of something that you didn’t really think was a priority to begin with. It might be a function of the same privilege that lets you carry on as though all is really just fine, without even noting that you think it unfortunate that there aren’t any women on your list (and one person of color, as best as I can tell).”

    The guy asked for contributions, and female writers declined. What exactly is he supposed to do, force them to write for him? On a more fundamental level, surely a philosophical work should be judged on the quality of the arguments it puts forward, the quality of the writing and not the person writing it. Lets pretend that all the writers selected were women, because the pieces they put forward were judged to be the best. Then imagine that the editor had turned two of them down, included two inferior pieces from male writers, to keep the gender balance. Would you have no complaint about that?

    As for privilege, well I dislike this simplistic identity politics idea. In Europe we have a much stronger social democratic tradition than in America. Politics based on class, not identity. For example, a working class man is generally less privilege than a middle class women. The trouble with this blogs discussion of privileged, is it doesn’t take into account of such nuance. Besides, gender is either a social construct, in which case it really doesn’t matter what the gender of the writer is, or it isn’t. In which case you can’t really complain that the two sexes are treated differently in different areas.

    Ironically, considering this is a blog piece about philosophy, I suspect my post will censored for not towing the party line. Maybe you should spend less time censoring your blog and more time reading John Stuart Mill On Liberty.

    • J
      Posted November 25, 2011 at 3:46 am | Permalink

      There are many forms of privilege. It’s only a simplistic idea if you reduce it to one, as you have in this comment. A working class man may indeed be less economically privileged than a middle class woman, but he is still more privileged in terms of gender, and possibly also in terms of race, religion, sexual identity, and so on. It seems that it’s you who fails to take into account such nuance.

      If we lived in a post-patriarchy, where absolute freedom and equality had long since been achieved for all, and we began each day on a fresh slate in terms of power, then I would absolutely object to a lack of male representation in such a project. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the post had included essays only from women of color. Would this be unfair? Well, no, not really, because you have to take into account the historical and ongoing treatment of women of color in white male-dominated culture. Would it, in fact, even make much of a dent in the white male-dominated narrative? Not by itself, which is why social justice activists argue in favor of raising the voices of oppressed of marginalized members of the population and actively seeking and promoting their inclusion.

      We do not live in a vacuum, nor do we judge what is “inferior” in a vacuum. Do you think that so few women have been historically present in philosophical discourse because their ideas were inferior? Or could it be that our misogynistic culture has promoted the voices and ideas of men at the expense of those of women?

      I’m confused by your statement that if gender is social construct, the gender of the writer doesn’t matter. We live in the society that created and perpetuates the construct in that case, do we not?

      • Posted November 25, 2011 at 10:05 am | Permalink

        “I’m confused by your statement that if gender is social construct, the gender of the writer doesn’t matter. We live in the society that created and perpetuates the construct in that case, do we not?”

        The difficulty is feminists make distinctions about gender when it suits them and deny they exist, when it doesn’t. An example is quotas for boards of companies in the City (Wall Street in American). One of the arguments put forward was that women would be less reckless than men. i.e they would be fundamentally better at the job, just because they are female. Yet when the argument is put forward that there are more male mathematicians, because more men are better at high level maths. It is seen as sexists, to state there is any difference between the genders, by the same feminists.

        “There are many forms of privilege. It’s only a simplistic idea if you reduce it to one, as you have in this comment. A working class man may indeed be less economically privileged than a middle class woman, but he is still more privileged in terms of gender, and possibly also in terms of race, religion, sexual identity, and so on. It seems that it’s you who fails to take into account such nuance.”

        In Britain, left wing politics has basically died, and one of the things that has killed it is identity politics. Take Nu Labour, a supposed Left wing party. Instead of attacking privilege in the City, in Private schools, genuine privilege. The government was spineless when it came to confronting power. They still claimed not to have sold out, because they embraced identity politics. All women short lists, equality bills demanding pay audits, and discussion of quotas for City boards. Take the later, if they implemented this, it would make no difference. Half of the top 1% would be women, who cares, the rest of us are still poor. It also makes what I consider to be a false assumption, that more women at the top would improve the lives of ordinary women. Why should a super wealthy women in the City care about the poor working conditions of the women cleaning her office? I think that class is a much more important concept when it comes to determining our status, and our sympathises

        “We do not live in a vacuum, nor do we judge what is “inferior” in a vacuum. Do you think that so few women have been historically present in philosophical discourse because their ideas were inferior? Or could it be that our misogynistic culture has promoted the voices and ideas of men at the expense of those of women?”

        Fine argument if we still lived in the 18th century, but we don’t. There is an easy way around this, do what we do in science. Take the names off the submissions, so the person making the judgement doesn’t know the sex or race of the author. I want the best writer, the person with the best ideas, and if they all happen to be men, then so be it.

        “If we lived in a post-patriarchy, where absolute freedom and equality had long since been achieved for all, and we began each day on a fresh slate in terms of power, then I would absolutely object to a lack of male representation in such a project. But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the post had included essays only from women of colour. Would this be unfair? Well, no, not really, because you have to take into account the historical and ongoing treatment of women of color in white male-dominated culture. Would it, in fact, even make much of a dent in the white male-dominated narrative? Not by itself, which is why social justice activists argue in favour of raising the voices of oppressed of marginalized members of the population and actively seeking and promoting their inclusion.”

        Oh post modernism, something I’m a bit suspicious of. Sometimes an idea can exist apart from the identity of the author. They tried for example to create a feminist science movement. Now maybe that has something to say about gender balance in testing medicines, or even biology, but they attempted to apply it to Physics. Now frankly the laws of nature don’t care about the gender of the person investigation them, they don’t change to take into account your identity.

        It is also dangerous to say that just because a person is black, male, white, that they have to think in a certain way. It is dangerously close to racism. Just because you are black doesn’t mean you have to like rap music, for example. All black women don’t have the same Philosophical views, so surely it better to judge a person on the quality of their ideas, rather than their identity?

        • Posted November 27, 2011 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

          lolz, you’re right! Black women’s views on philosophy aren’t all the same! Not that we’d know, since there were no women, let alone people of color, at this philosophy shindig. Hm. Guess we’d better encourage young, black, female scholars to pursue philosophy, then invite a lot of black women to the next conference so that a few will accept so that we know what some of their myriad and diverse views are!

        • J
          Posted November 30, 2011 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

          “The difficulty is feminists make distinctions about gender when it suits them and deny they exist, when it doesn’t. An example is quotas for boards of companies in the City (Wall Street in American). One of the arguments put forward was that women would be less reckless than men. i.e they would be fundamentally better at the job, just because they are female. Yet when the argument is put forward that there are more male mathematicians, because more men are better at high level maths. It is seen as sexists, to state there is any difference between the genders, by the same feminists.”

          Wrong. That’s gender essentialism, not feminism. Suggesting that women would be somehow inherently less reckless than men is based on sexist priniciples (i.e., women are less aggressive, etc.), and I don’t know a genuine feminist anywhere that would support such an idea.

          “Half of the top 1% would be women, who cares, the rest of us are still poor. It also makes what I consider to be a false assumption, that more women at the top would improve the lives of ordinary women. Why should a super wealthy women in the City care about the poor working conditions of the women cleaning her office? I think that class is a much more important concept when it comes to determining our status, and our sympathises”

          If women were to become half of the top 1% (!), I imagine it would have a cultural impact on the way we view women and their potential, but I don’t adhere to the trickle-down theory of wealth distribution any more than you do. I honestly don’t know enough about British politics to say much more than that here.

          “Fine argument if we still lived in the 18th century, but we don’t. There is an easy way around this, do what we do in science. Take the names off the submissions, so the person making the judgement doesn’t know the sex or race of the author. I want the best writer, the person with the best ideas, and if they all happen to be men, then so be it.”

          In theory, sure, this is a great idea. But privilege and sexism run deeper than simply judging the sex of author. The subject matter, style, etc. are also subject to these prejudices. And no, this isn’t the 18th century; I suppose you’re suggesting that everything is equal now, so these issues are no longer relevant? I suggest you examine your privilege, sir.

          “Oh post modernism, something I’m a bit suspicious of. Sometimes an idea can exist apart from the identity of the author. They tried for example to create a feminist science movement. Now maybe that has something to say about gender balance in testing medicines, or even biology, but they attempted to apply it to Physics. Now frankly the laws of nature don’t care about the gender of the person investigation them, they don’t change to take into account your identity.”

          Huh? Did I suddenly fall into an Italo Calvino novel? Post-patriarchy, my friend. Not post-modernism.

          “It is also dangerous to say that just because a person is black, male, white, that they have to think in a certain way. It is dangerously close to racism. Just because you are black doesn’t mean you have to like rap music, for example. All black women don’t have the same Philosophical views, so surely it better to judge a person on the quality of their ideas, rather than their identity?”

          Who said all members of oppressed groups think the same? The point was that, as a group, their voices (plural!) have been silenced, and that needs to change.

  7. Posted November 23, 2011 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

    1. What’s wrong with a gender-blind approach? If they invited “X” number of people to write articles and, say, 5 accepted, why should it matter if none are women? (especially if some of the ones they invited WERE women?)

    2. Also, if all 5 were women, would you be lauding The Philosopher’s Eye for this? Or would you instead lament that there were no men? I suspect you would merely laud them for featuring all women. Point being, it should cut both ways. As a male who enjoys reading Feministing often, at least perusing its headlines every day, I can’t help but wonder sometimes if the writers making certain critiques would stand up for men if they were similarly marginalized. For example, if women went from making 80 cents for every $1 a man does doing the same work, to making $1.25 for every $1 a man does doing the same work, would the same feminists be cheering this? Or would they suddenly be concerned with how males can prosper more? Sometimes I get the impression these same people would only congratulate the superior success–in which case this can be a turn off to men like myself who genuinely want a fair roll of the dice for everyone. Here, it seems as though “women and men” did get a fair roll of the dice, the dice merely came up “male.” What’s there to criticize?

    • J
      Posted November 25, 2011 at 3:48 am | Permalink

      Show me a world in which everyone gets a fair roll of the dice, and I’ll show you a world in which there’d be a reason to worry about men making less money than women or facing exclusion from intellectual discourse.

      • Posted November 28, 2011 at 5:18 am | Permalink

        J, I really struggle with a lot of your arguments in all these comments, but also want to be convinced be a few of them as well. Females were invited, but they declined. Is that the Philosopher’s Eye’s fault? Why should they search ad nauseam for females to contribute?

        Your most compelling rebuttal was where you mention the institutional history and the patriarchal society that’s entrenched as the norm. I say this because I would make the same argument to anyone who doesn’t understand why minorities have drastically lower wealth and chances for success due to many reasons–lower quality schools being the most obvious. It’s why I’m so tempted to extend this to women’s voices on issues, but you just don’t provide me the bridge! Why? How is the patriarchal society still present? And, since I’m probably willing to admit it is, a little bit, how does that actually translate to women’s voices still being marginalized in the 21st century?

        An obvious answer would be that since an historical entrenchment allowed for more men in various field (let’s say philosophy), that men’s voices have just been heard, at least by numerical chance, more often. But aren’t women free to study anything they want now? And haven’t they been free to choose philosophy as a major for decades? Even now, colleges have more women than men, so just by chance you’d think the male bottleneck was over, or will be, right? So if they’re not marginalized by numbers, how are they marginalized? Do people read something and think, “well, a woman wrote it, so it’s less academic”? Because I don’t think that occurs. A lot of people might not pay attention to the author of something, or may not even care who it is. So why are women’s voices still marginalized in, say, academia? I honestly can’t think of anything else(!).

        You know, it’s funny, these discussion posts are really where hearts and minds are won. I’ve really wanted to embrace much of the feminist movement the past several years but the comments in this thread alone strike this desire to the core. Especially the questions on merit and uniqueness.

        On merit: it was suggested that Philosopher’s Eye find MORE women to write a post, either before the first rejected the offer or after. But who is to say there were any more whose ideas were worth sharing? (Obviously there would be, but in a generic hypothetical, it’s an interesting question.) If the world has 100 philosophers and 20 are women, and we’re looking for 5 to feature, there’s a chance none of the women would be “featurable.” What then? Why would we have to seek out unqualified candidates?

        And this brings up the uniqueness: someone might respond to that by saying the inclusion of a female opinion adds to the diversity of a discussion. But does it, necessarily? Perhaps not. We automatically assume they have something different/something from a female experience to add (which could be true–and is often a valid argument for more racial diversity in schools), but not always. And we should be careful not to assume this, else it would be as intelligent as wanting opinions from brown-eyed people and blue-eyed people because they see the world through different eyes (literally).

        • J
          Posted November 30, 2011 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

          You have a lot of the same questions I had when I first began to explore feminism in earnest. May I highly recommend the “Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog”? The FAQ addresses many of your questions directly in an easy-to-understand format with plenty of examples. You might also look for the women’s studies or gender studies section in your favorite local bookstore and start leafing through things to see if anything catches your interest. And of course, keep reading feminist blogs!

          I’d love to dive deeper into your questions and my thoughts, but I couldn’t do them justice in this limited space. Wish I could invite you over for coffee and we could chat about it!

  8. Posted November 23, 2011 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

    I fear I have no suggestions to contribute (but I’m excited to read what everyone has shared!). I wanted to say that I’m dating a philosophy grad student so I haven’t read a whole lot of philosophy but here a lot about it and interact with a number of philosophers regularly. It’s kind of frustrating how incredibly bad a rap feminist philosophers get most of the time. They’ll mention a few admittedly really terrible papers out there and be all like, “those crazy feminists, they don’t know what they’re talking about” >_< So, thank you for posting this, because I can't really address this very well as an outsider even though I see it happening.

  9. Posted November 23, 2011 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    So who is to blame that none of the feminist philosophers produced anything good enough to edge out any of the four “white dudes”?

    • J
      Posted November 25, 2011 at 3:51 am | Permalink

      I guess that sexism is just a silly idea we cooked up with our little ladybrains. Just think, all this time we thought there were systems of oppression at work, when really, it’s just that we’re actually inferior!

      • Posted November 25, 2011 at 10:02 am | Permalink

        What exactly gives you the idea none of the 4 philosphers are black because of racism, or female, because of sexism? Its a situation where my guess its just as good as your guess.

        • J
          Posted November 30, 2011 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

          Just like it’s a total coincidence that so very few of the world’s political leaders are women! Who knows? It must just be that women suck at politics, amirite?

  10. Posted November 24, 2011 at 8:07 am | Permalink

    Wow. Just… wow.

    Here are some ways the Philosopher’s Eye bloggers could have done more:

    1. Inform the invitees that they would also be publishing a list of who was invited to participate. It makes a difference whether by “several” they mean “three” or “fifteen,” particularly if invitations were extended to, say, fifty people.

    2. Ask for permission to share a link (provided by the invitee). This way, even those who cannot or do not wish to participate in this particular project will still be seen as participating members of the community as a whole.

    3. Encourage those who turn down the invitation to give their reasons for doing so. While being turned down by all members of a certain group may not be discriminatory, it darn well ought to pique the curiosity of any intelligent, creative person.

    None of these is challenging in the least. If in the past, the blog has typically had more balanced groups contributing, I can see how the lack of parity in this instance might have caught them off guard. However, if such is not the case, it seems rather ignorant of them not to have seen this coming.

    • Posted November 24, 2011 at 9:25 am | Permalink

      Oo, and #4 – They could have listed a few of their OWN ideas for preventing such incidents from happening, and asked for feedback as well as further ideas, which would show that they’d already been thinking about it on their own!

      • J
        Posted November 25, 2011 at 3:52 am | Permalink

        These are all great ideas.

  11. Posted November 25, 2011 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    John Stuart Mill? I don’t think the future of philosphy can be found in the Morality of a 19th Century scholar.

    • Posted November 25, 2011 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

      Maybe not, but we might be better off if it could be – John Stuart and Harriet Taylor Mill wrote in The Subjection of Women, in 1869, on how gender was socially constructed, agitated in favor of perfect legal equality between men and women, and of an egalitarian instead of patriarchal conception of marriage.

      At the time, the essay was considered extremely radical; I think it has a place among the first pro-feminist books.

      It’s also worth noting that John Stuart Mill said that his wife, Harriet Taylor Mill, should be considered a co-author of his works, saying “when two persons have their thoughts and speculations completely in common it is of little consequence in respect of the question of originality, which of them holds the pen.”

  12. Posted November 25, 2011 at 5:37 am | Permalink

    I am coming at this from a “innocent before guilty “or “not jumping to conclusions” point of view…

    We can agree that there is an institutional bias at play, mainly that there are more Ph.ds granted in philosophy to males than females. The editor(s) at Philosophy Eve cannot control that. But they did ask several (exact number unknown) female philosophers to contribute. And as several commentators pointed out, there is only so much the editors of Philosophy Eve can do.

    I also noted that several Feministing commentators effortlessly substituted “female” philosophers with “feminist” philosophers, when we know that is not necessarily the case.

    Another thing I noted is a lack of criticism for the subject matter of the male philosophers. It is just sexistly attacking them for being male. They were not judged on the content of their character or the rigor of there logic, but simply dismissed for being male.

    While the Feministing commentator are creating four step action plans to increase female involvement in the relm of philosphy they could also think of action plans to encourage the women who were invited but declined to step up.

    • J
      Posted November 30, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Permalink

      It is not, by definition, possible to “sexistly attack” someone “for being male.”

      Sexism = prejudice + power

      There is no such thing as “reverse sexism,” because there is no institutionalized power which would make that possible. A person could be *prejudiced* against males, which brings us to my second point here: nobody’s doing that. Nobody said anything about the men, or their work, one way or the other. The argument has nothing to do with them, nor does it attack them.

      This is a basic fallacy of the MRA-types: If women are in any way elevated from their oppression, that equals victimization for men. Not true, unless you hold the entitled belief that men are inherently better than women and deserve a superior status in society.

      • Posted December 6, 2011 at 2:02 am | Permalink

        Your definition of sexism is not readily accepted by a large non-feminst audience (like the other info at , for several reasons.

        First, it is more limited that actual definitions of sexism you would find in a dictionary, such as Merriam Webster or Oxfords.

        Second it re-enforced the notion that women are completely powerless in male-female relationships. Namely no female is able to obtain emotional, financial, or hierarchical (etc) power over a male.

        It even denies that a female could obtain physical power over a male, regardless of any age difference, which is patently false.

        But I do agree that there is no such thing as reverse sexism because sexism does not require institutional power, only prejudiced.

        I really do not understand why many women/feminist would cop to being prejudiced against men, but start spicing hairs when it comes to admitting they are sexist.

        The attacks of the OP of ‘privilege’ are so tied up with her target being male that her attacking “privilege” is just a thin veil of seximsm. The OP sexist lens enables to her dismiss or pervert the editors efforts to involve women.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

222 queries. 0.444 seconds