Why do so many women hate philosophy...

Dumbest post I've read on here in a while.

Nietzsche destroyed all metaphysics over 100 years ago. Back in your box.

There are no facts, nigga.

in my experience: I haven't really noticed that. maybe just that women tend to be more interested in the kind of ethics/social philosophy that deals with class, gender, etc, rather than more abstract ontology etc

that said, half the philosophy students I know are women. one of them is sort of, well, I'm pretty sure she actually wanted women's studies but just ended up in philosophy instead - she sort of seems to hate reading anyone not from the 1950s-> or so.

heck, even my mother studied theoretical philosophy before becoming a special education teacher, and even when she became a teacher, she read and tried to implement theories or ideas by people like Paulo Freire (closely tied to marxist class analysis)

Cool, I'm relieved by the possibility that my personal experience recently has been some weird anomaly.

I had a female teacher in college that finished her degree in philosphy with 19 out of 20.

>Butler
Any recommended reading order on her actually? My (previously) sister is nonconforming or whatever is the right word and I thought it couldn't hurt to look into a sophisticated side of it than what the internet presents.

if you can actually be bothered then 'gender trouble' is the main one

otherwise see if theres a shortish collection of essays

her style can be horrible and needlessly obfuscatory as a warning

OP, I've only read Gender Trouble (it was great). I'd recommend preparing a bit for Butler because she assumes quite a bit of prior knowledge. The Second Sex by Beauvoir isn't a bad starting point for feminist theory (although it's very long). The History of Sexuality by Foucault is awesome and short, and Butler was influenced quite a bit by him, so maybe at least read that first?

Good luck! And have fun. I started reading feminist/queer theory very recently just because I felt like I should educate myself a bit on the topic. I didn't expect to enjoy it as much as I do, since I'm a cis straight male or whatever (such signifiers seem devoid of meaning after reading Butler, lol).

yeah you should read some foucault before her if you havent, she loves to namedrop him or discuss an idea as foucauldian

t. this guy

Women are stupid.

Thanks anons, will give The History of Sexuality a go at least, 800 pages on Beauvoir is a bit intimidating. Plus it may be a way to get not!her into non-fiction and philosophy.

bump

>women are quite pragmatic

>I had a female teacher in college that finished her degree in philosphy with 19 out of 20.
what does this even mean

I'll just leave this here

>aren't real
becuz i sed so

>Nietzsche destroyed metaphysics

His actual philosophical system is shit, just a bunch of unsupported edgy claims. Hume did all the heavy legwork to destroy metaphysics way before Nietzsche.

>Nietzsche
>destroying anything

Get off this board you ignorant nig

>just a bunch of unsupported edgy claims
>implying you need to prove things to make them worthwhile

>Nietzsche destroyed all metaphysics over 100 years ago.
Nietzsche was super metaphysical. Read Heidegger.

"Every philosopher..." and "Every woman..." propositions are all factually wrong, amigo. That being said, these are both true and strong trends; women having been conditioned in such a way that they expect to be spoonfed as well as self-proclaimed (because I disagree) philosophers being conditioned to take seriously a whole lot of nonsense (not all of it of course).
Let's not forget by the way that an empiricist is a strain of philosopher as well. Only prior to inference are you capable of abandoning philosophy completely. The only conceivable alternative is to take inherited concepts for granted without questioning them, which at least makes you an unconscious adherent to some philosophy, such as would be the case when a self-proclaimed empiricist rejects philosophy, or a scientist. This is dogmatic, prompts me to tip my fedora, and kind of makes you a retard.

TO be an empiricist means that you do not cling to your speculations, no matter their degree of formalization, and you cling even less to your fantasy of reality and explaining reality and communicating your explanations. You do not even cling to your sensations, because those changes constantly against your will. sensations changes, just like your thoughts and tastes change. it is all rubbish.

what you call empiricism is empiricism done by rationalists, aka people who love to speculate, know more or less that their speculations are sterile, are always disappointing, more so once they compare them to their fantasy of the ''empirical world'' through their other fantasy of ''empirical proof'' and ''thought experiment'', but still choose to cling to their speculations in claiming that they are not able to stop speculating, therefore that ''not speculating is impossible, it is mandatory to speculate'' (plus we are paid for this now) so let's continue.
What they say is that their rationalism remains bounded by their hedonism, even though they love to claim otherwise, and yet always fail to justify that their speculation goes beyond hedonism...

You kind of do on metaphysical questions, even if that proof is of extreme skepticism. Nietzsche was no revolutionary philosophically, Hume and Schopenhauer said almost everything he wanted to better than he did.

I don't know, maybe they benefit from people not knowing that they are really just manipulative whores.

fine, but that doesn't mean his "actual philosophical system is shit"

maybe it's shit as a system of philosophy, but i doubt that's what you meant since you called it "edgy"

But his philosophy system is shit regardless.

it's interesting

/people/ don't like philosophy. everyone will have some bullshit justification for that. it will always be bullshit because a good one would be philosophy and self-defeating.

Women are nothing like men, not even in the slightes. We have an entire different chromosome

>The more likely disciplines to build something or create stability and coherence in life are the least populated by women

Oh wow, I'm sooooo surprised

>Women are quite pragmatic

Nope, women are just vapid and amoral

Rationalists postulate the possibility of creating conceptions which corresponds equally to reality. Out of that grows the imagined possibility to arrive at novel and true conclusions. All ravens are black etc.
Empiricists, though, are not innocent in that regard, the difference is they won't accept unfalsifiable claims such as that of rationalists. Any postulated existence must be " verifiable". They are still required to infer from sense-data, though: "that is a castle" for instance. The problem is, the gestalt of the castle is an inference and it could essentialy be sand, so in a sense they would infer incorrectly. I hope you can understand the example. In this way every perceived gestalt becomes conventional. It depends heavily on time and so is transient. This applies so broadly that the quest of enduring knowledge becomes finished. It's the end of all dogma.

SLAVOJ ZIZEK.

Because more women are normies on average and normies do not care for it

I dig this.

I can't say that it isn't, but taking him as a paragon of anti metaphysics or a coherent philosophy for that matter is pretty silly.

>implying chromosomes have anything to do with gender
check your privilege cis scum

it's the patriarchy's fault for not teaching girls and women to be interested in STEM at a younger age

:^)

well, the argument goes that it was patriarchal expectations and social pressures keeping women out and men in those professions and disciplines, but who knows.

Vaguely conspiratorial and dubious, yet it resonates with certain feminist-y types.

probably because pseud undergrads keep trying to talk to them about it

Women are uncultured fuckholes. More news at 11

It amazes me that there are still people on here who have fallen for the Zhizhek meme

>tfw gf's read husserl
>tfw sometimes have to get her to explain terminology to me
the shame is okay because i'm going to marry her and it can be our secret.

It's true. Read Nietzsche's insights into the female mind. People think he's just being a /pol9k/ retard when he's talking about women but you have to realize that he usually insults those closest to him most vigorously, and says as much.

He calls women cows, Englishmen, vapid, shallow, sentimental, obsessed with adornment, obsessed with children, ect. But when you boil these down he is basically saying that women are obsessed with life, rumination and aesthetic which is fundamentally what Nietzsche values as well. He called himself the first philosopher of the feminine for a reason. He sees women as having a fundamentally more 'realistic' (rather than truthful) worldview than men and that because of this the higher type of woman, though rarer, is a higher type of being than the higher man. He, like many resentful men before him, identifies woman as the more Machiavellian gender. But we often forget that Nietzsche was not only on the same page as Machiavelli, but even exceeded him in some ways. Machiavelli says that sometimes we must get our hands dirty and do evil for the greater good but should avoid it or only do it sparingly, Nietzsche says fuck avoiding it, delve deeply into the font of evil as the greatest evils are needed to accomplish greatest goods.

He is stridently opposed to feminism because he identifies it as the masculinization of women. Feminism in his time, and arguably still in our time is in some ways follows the mentality of a cargo cult. If women dress like men, act like men and work like men, they shall become equal to men.

Of course he has his tumbles with women as well, he hates the aspects of femininity that society has made into womanhood, and those which were made out of womanhood. He supported a feminine that was more sexual and less pitiful (in fact what most offended him was how his mother and sister nurtured him, he claimed that these two women were the only things that made him hesitate to embrace the eternal recurrence. It was their nurturing which kept him alive for a mad, torturous decade rather than allowing him a quicker death). Most of his polemic attacks against the feminine are veiled attacks against masculinity, much as his polemics against Jewish morality are meant to strike at Christian morality.

>Nietzsche calls you a cow after his favourite happy animal
>feminists get upset he's calling them fat
to be fair to his mom and sister, it's hard not to want to cuddle him. but yeah, they were doing it for the wrong reasons.

>pragmatic
I hope you're being sarcastic.

Some are cultured, but they're still ignorant, by the literal definition.

Nietzsche is opposed to Schopenhauer on almost every point after he escapes his youth including Schopenhauer's hatred of the feminine. He maintains a healthy respect towards his impromptu teacher in most areas excepting his polemics against women and Hegel.

Schopenhauer doesn't hate the feminine, he just thinks that men are vain about their intellectual achievements. He's got the same problem with feminism that Nietzsche has: it's destroying women and we kind of need them.

I agree with this post and everyone who thinks he's wrong fell for a bunch of 19th century memes about strong practical men

the truth is that men are excessively sentimental and romantic, whereas women are often straightforwardly practical

That's interesting because even in Western Europe and North America the majority of political, business, and military leaders are men. Sentimentality doesn't seem to be holding them back too much. Women aren't even as wealthy on average because they choose low paying careers more often.

>Most popular books for women:

Eat Pray Love
Fifty Shades of Gray, or why you should only settle for a billionaire who's still in his 20s
The Secret
The Alchemist
Live Love Laugh

>Most popular books for men:

How to get laid - a manual
How to fix your Datsun
How to make money
The Art of War
Biographies of rich and famous men to emulate presumably
A fantasy novel about rapists

It makes me wonder at times. In our university, nearly all other humanities subjects have a majority of female students - except for theoretical philosophy. History was another subject, the rest had a female majority I think. And in philosophy it was like 14 men for 1 woman, in history it was a smaller difference.

Maybe the kind of women who MIGHT be good at philosophy pick womens studies or something instead? Maybe it really feels better to them, compared to studying white and dead men.

Philosophy is an intellectually demanding discipline. It's not a conspiracy there are fewer women in philosophy, it's just biology.

>m'biofacts

All these butt mad replies.

>actually one of the best post in the thread
>supported even if not quoted by modern feminist philosophers
>only answer is saying that is a dumb post

This place is doomed, but at least some people know a shit. Thanks user for your post.

Mate, stop and think at what are typically "women's roles" and picture yourself building shit without them.

My father in law is one of the most educated guys I know, and since he retired he spends his day figuring out new hobbies and shit, and yet the man can't fry an egg.

>IQ
>biology
What did he mean by this?

why would sentimentality hold men back? I think it's one of the best things about them. It especially spurs men on to do valiant things in combat. But we should admit that it's more present in men than in women.

Picture for yourself a scene: two partners, I won't say the gender. The first partner has been given the opportunity of getting some money, but feels that it would be an indignity (whether it would be accepting charity, doing something unscrupulous, etc). The second partner urges the first to be practical and take it/seize it/etc.

Which is usually the man, and which the woman?

because he doesn´t have to
or do you really think he´d starve if noone were to make his eggs for him?

I think this is true. For better and worse, women can be ruthlessly pragmatic and calculating.

Then why are women more likely to believe in horoscopes and religion
Why do women chase after that one perfect guy, ignoring passable mates and providers until it's too late?
Why are men so good at murdering things, yet women panic when they see a spider?
Why did my ex get mad at me in real life when I raped her in a dream?

Seriously, girls aren't logical at all. My ex wanted help choosing nail polish colors and she laid out four or five different choices. I looked them over and quickly said "Purple!" She frowned and took the bottle away. "You can't choose purple," she said. Well why did you lay it out with the rest if it wasn't an option you silly girl?

Yeah, I know men have their own equally retarded traits, but when it comes to basic stuff like digging ditches or massacring enemy tribes, we're more pragmatic.

>muh identity politics

>>>/tumblr/

>Seriously, girls aren't logical at all. My ex wanted help choosing nail polish colors and she laid out four or five different choices. I looked them over and quickly said "Purple!" She frowned and took the bottle away. "You can't choose purple," she said.

There's nothing illogical about that.

>he doesn't think girls' games and tests follow a very rigorous logic

if the justification is correct the self-defeat would be a victory nonetheless

depression is the leading cause of inabillity world wide

it is natural for men like you to crave the validation of their existence and get depressed if they fail to feel relevant, responsible.
The best way for a man to cater his need for approval is to serve some woman (and some of her children) through emotional&financial support.
Men are pleased to contribute to someone else life, to support their family.

Why women are a good way to feel relevant? Because women love to be provided for and each woman will always find a man ready to please her.
[for most men, the best feeling of feeling real is when the girl moans from your cock in her pussy, or for the most impotent, their tongue in the pussy]

THe problem for men is that they are disposable in the eyes of each woman, since all men wish to serve the few women who talk to them.
Men must thus invent several ways to please women, invention and creativity which strengthen their feeling of being worthy, relevant, in touch with reality.
Men are too impotent to find other way to feel real.
Once that the a woman replaces a man by another provider, the man gets very upset and depressed.
THis leads men to think that they are better than women, stronger, smarter and that they must built a life outside women. Some men manage to indeed built an empire, but they will always loose it for some women.
Women give meaning to men and betas, no matter how successful outside women, will always give up everything for some relationship with some woman who claim to fancy them.

Hume didn't even understand any of the ideas he "destroyed," and you understand even less than he.

Men are better than women, and that's final.

/thread

>being a feminist AND an analytic

being logical and being pragmatic are not the same thing. socially it often makes no sense whatsoever to insist on being logical

also, women tend to see men's insistence on 'logic' for what it partly is: a move by the man to seize some intellectual authority in the relationship. it is absolutely not practical to let someone win an argument just because you don't know how to refute him

I hate how all the posts on here, even the ones that bring up ponderable points, are always troll posts, and seek only to derail the discussion into an argument founded on pedantry.

I see what you did there. Quite pragmatic

im dead

You want to actually try to defend that opinion?

that's not me mate

But do you
I mean
Don't throw rocks if you're in a glass house, etc.

well I'm not "seeking" to derail the discussion, I'm just responding to other people who posted

The post before that....

When analyzing why fewer women than men reach highest echelons of scientific achievement, or really any kind of achievement whatsoever (mathematics, engineering, philosophy, cooking), their one and only hypothesis is sexism. Women are being held back for no reason related to their own merit, but only because we live in a patriarchal power structure.

In considering this disparity of achievement, an alternative hypothesis offers itself up: men and women have differing distributions of IQ/skill/merit (which are all highly correlated to each other).

Now, allow us to consider what would be, under the feminist hypothesis, an entirely unrelated phenomenon: there are far more men at the bottom of society (in prison, homeless, etc). How does the feminist hypothesis explain this? It doesn't. The latter hypothesis, that men and women have differing distributions of IQ/skill/merit, explains this phenomenon.

In other words, those holding to a feminist, non-biological explanation, would be forced to multiply hypotheses. The biological explanation, which maintains the flatter distribution for men, explains all these phenomena, without multiplying hypotheses.

since there are more women now in these fields i guess their iq is just increasing for some reason. that's good news!

But if she didn't want me to choose purple why did she put it with the other choices? Why didn't she replace it with cyan or shell pink or whatever? She did the same thing with clothes.

I remember once we'd been arguing and she gave me the cold shoulder for a week and kept talking to this other guy, and I came over and made a scene in public and then we started having sex again. "Wow user, you were so mad, everyone could tell." It's weird that when I had a temper tantrum things worked out better. I guess that was one of those tests?

>Once that the a woman replaces a man by another provider, the man gets very upset and depressed.

I know that feel.

Every girl I've had sex with has been smarter than me. A lot smarter. I only have an IQ of 100. Which is why it's so puzzling when they abandon logic and reason so easily. It's not just me either, I see other couples doing the same thing, or my own parents even.

>Why do women chase after that one perfect guy, ignoring passable mates and providers until it's too late?
Because they thought they could do better. Practical people are sometimes mistaken. That said, this isn't always true.

>Why are men so good at murdering things, yet women panic when they see a spider?
I'm not sure whether this is actually true—about bugs, I mean. but if you can't see why it's pragmatic for women to be unfit for soldiering in general, and to have men do it for them, then you're not very bright. men are expendable and women are not; I'm proud of that, but that's my sentimentalism and certainly not my pragmatism

>Why did my ex get mad at me in real life when I raped her in a dream?
because her dream made her realize she had a deep and unconscious fear of you, which is definitely your fault for being in some way cold and brutish in her waking life

is that a fact?

>But if she didn't want me to choose purple why did she put it with the other choices? Why didn't she replace it with cyan or shell pink or whatever? She did the same thing with clothes.

It's a social thing. They're trying to seem more amicable by providing more choices. Sort of like how you try to get out of doing things with your family by saying, "Gee, I wish I could, I'm just sooo busy doing homework" or "I already made plans! Sorry!" instead of just saying, "No that doesn't sound fun at all" or "No thanks I'd rather stare at my computer screen"

>I remember once we'd been arguing and she gave me the cold shoulder for a week and kept talking to this other guy
That's pretty bitchy of her. But she wanted to see if you still cared about her. It's a mating display thing. You should put your foot down on that shit though.

>Every girl I've had sex with has been smarter than me. A lot smarter. I only have an IQ of 100. Which is why it's so puzzling when they abandon logic and reason so easily. It's not just me either, I see other couples doing the same thing, or my own parents even.
IQ means very little in the real world. In some ways, people may exercise a certain apparent laxness of "logical thought" to get what they want. In these cases they are still acting logically, just not straightforwardly logically.

>Women are quite pragmatic

Y'know, maybe I've been on the internet too long.

I can't tell trolling from stupid anymore. If there even is a difference.

Is it just me, or does Veeky Forums get really stupid on the weekends?

Men are better at abstract thinking. Women are more concerned with the tangible.

The exception is in theology, where women on average seem to be more devout. Even so it's the men who explore religious philosophy far more than women because women are only concerned with religion so far as they are concerned with getting to go to heaven.