Why do all women "philosophers" think the exact same way?

Why do all women "philosophers" think the exact same way?

>Teeheehee, silly little boys with their love of minutiae and macho attitudes destroying the potential for collaboration!

Upvote this post if you hate women.

>implying Simone Weil thinks the same as Ayn Rand

They always see only what is near at hand, cling to the present, take the appearance of a thing for reality, and prefer trifling matters to the most important. It is by virtue of man’s reasoning powers that he does not live in the present only, like the brute, but observes and ponders over the past and future.

I really, really hate women.

This.

Simone Weil, Flannery O'Connor, Edith Stein are all great writers/philosophers on par with any man.

American/ analytic philosophers are all banal liberal shills

Being physically weaker, women are more obliged to cooperate with a group in order to access resources, find safety, etc. This eternal necessity of increased conformity relative to men entails both a higher degree of group-think, as well as an overall higher degree of "average-ness".

In each case, there are more male than female blithering retards, and super-geniuses. In terms of intelligence, for example, women hew more closely to the mean. Of course, there are always outliers, but there are even fewer of them in the case of women.

So if the OP notices an increased degree of conformity in the thought of women, then the above should partially explain why that is.

Congratulations, you've supplied three (3) purportedly exceptional data points.

>Congratulations, you've supplied three (3) purportedly exceptional data points
>Why do all women
>all

Guess the hypothesizer shouldn't have written 'all'.

Theory Falsified

(((Stein))) and (((Weil))) Lol. O'Connor is the based Catholic Waifu of lit.

>generic evolutionary anthropological argument
>generic bell curve iq argument

Why write so much if you're not going to supply anything original?

Anscombe is a better philosopher than you, desu

Autism

Just read some tweets from 20 year old or so female friend. I wouldn't say she dumb, she's studying Medicine and shit, she the type of girl to read and shit, she fell for the feminism meme tho. She tweeted that she was having a real tought and anxious time figuring whether free will exists or not, because she always tries to put on her makeup in a creative way, thinks she does it so her appearance serves to her own delight and solace, etc; but she couldn't help thinking she's doing so just because dominant culture and other's expectations impel her to put on makeup.
I wanted to share this with you.

Let me share that this was a waste of a post

I do not think you know how Veeky Forums works

#NotAllWomenPhilosophers

F

You write like a piece of trash from the ghetto. Leave this board and never return.

The point of argumentation is not to be original. The point is to be right.

+1

tfw to smart to fall for bait XD

They think they're diverse

She sounds very stupid.

>actually somewhat decent and reality based women parody on Veeky Forums
well I never

>being this delusional

Martha Nussbaum looks like a transwoman. And tbqphwyfampai as a transwoman this makes me feel a lot better about myself.

No, user, the point is to have fun.

She puts on make-up to trick Chad into giving her the D.

Haha, dumbass Chad. Tricked again

kek

tfw to smart to be tricked by woman.

fpbp

You haven't even given a relevant argument though, so you aren't "right" either.

An anthropological argument is far too broad and speculative - especially considering your lack of expertise, which can be inferred from how common the information you've provided is.

Nor does it prove that female philosophers think the same way, or why they would.

If you're attributing these incredibly broad genetic arguments as the basis for undiversified thought in feminine philosophy, your argument falls apart on it's own, as the same generalizations could be applied to the masculine domain, and yet, any student of philosophy would see clearly the diversification of thought within the masculine domain - as OP's post implies.

To attempt to wisk all that data away with a simplistic IQ explanation is ludicrous, as many of the women we're discussing likely had IQ's well above the average, and, even if they all shared the exact same iq percentile, the similarity in intellectual capacity would not suffice to explain common ways of viewing the world.

Or do you think IQ is the determining factor in perspective, and not a plethora of societal, genetic, and individual factors which cannot possibly be accounted for by a blanket metric?

You haven't actually given a strong, or relevant argument. I see the connections you attempted to make, but you haven't fleshed out these generic ideas into coherent, relevant rhetoric, and that is my point.

Also, this user , already shut down OP's argument. Likewise, there are plenty of examples, even within Feminist thought, of diversified points of view, let alone in the larger domains.