Finish great classic, hungry for another

There's no revision, it's objective truth written there. What exactly is factually wrong? Point it out to me and provide a source.
Go to fucking bed, user. You should be shamed for making such a shit thread about a non-issue.

>swearing so much

It's fucked up that the subheading "role of women" exists.

It's sexist.

Would make much more sense to organize them based on their country/time of origin, or subject (art, mind, whatever), and include the women along with the men in their respective categories.

Having a subheading "Role of Women" is ridiculous and has nothing to do with philosophy.

Gender doesn't matter.

>Having a subheading "Role of Women" is ridiculous and has nothing to do with philosophy.

but critical theory is philosophy

:o)

That would be true if the page in the pic was on Philosophy. It isn't. It's specifically about the Western Canon.

It's a little Saturday morning cartoon with a black person in a wheelchair

substitute "philosophy" for "the western canon" the point stands in spite of my misspeaking

that's not how it works

This. Wikipedia is trash, and articles on anything other than the sciences (and sometimes even the sciences themselves, sadly) are almost always bloated and/or ruined by stupid ideologues with little to no academic background.

Only plebs use the word "woman" as an adjective.

history is witness to always constant ever changing revisions of itself.

wew apartheid

How the fuck do you mention Beauvoir and Arendt but not Heidi? No Nietzsche, no Schopenhauer, and include fucking Leibniz, really? Where's Frege and Witty, and what the fuck happened to Hegel/Fichte?

Zero fucking Ionians too, but at least they included Aristippus' daughter, I guess.

If this is the work of feminists, it's the work of very fucking dumb feminists. If it's the work of someone who hates philosophy, well done.

Yeah, that article needs a rewrite. However, Susanne Langer is a proper representative for women in philosophy.

How high are you
WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?

>Susanne Langer is a proper representative for women in philosophy.
Not within canon, she has too many people to compete with. You're need her to be bigger than Whitehead, or mention Whitehead, whereas Arendt and Beauvoir stand some chance of being recognised outside the discipline and had a profound effect within it compared to her works. I think she's there to prevent American butthurt.

kek

>Susan Price argues that the philosophical "canon remains dominated by white males—the discipline that [ ...] still hews to the myth that genius is tied to gender."
the only reason these egalitarian memers think geniuses can be female is that they've called a fuckton of male mediocrities geniuses

that's fukkin beautiful man

One of the dumbest quotes I've ever seen.

read more yogi berra then

What a stupid post, she's obviously there to alleviate feminist butthurt.

idk contempory virtue ethics is almost entirely women:
-anscombe
-nussbaum
-zagzebski
-brodie
-foot
-hurthouse
ect

but it's American feminist butthurt. Beauvoir would be fine because feminists could pretend they read, understood, and agreed with her, but it's not as easy for them to self insert as a French woman who understands Heidegger.

It's why they chose someone known for not using philosophy terminology also, because they'd like to believe their blog is just as good as understanding Heidegger, when lol, no.

It's not about alleviating any feminist butthurt, it's specific to American butthurt about having to read the history of philosophy before starting spewing their shit.

this is the wrong Susanne Langer