The majority of men are better than most women

[Rebel]

I'm up in Vancouver, B.C. so it's not as far away as it could be. And I might be traveling around the US at the end of the year.

And that's 2 times I've treadjacked. Woot!

[Hobbs]

Amelia Earhart went against popular opinion on the ability of female pilots and was able to become the first female pilot to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean.

Cleopatra was the first woman Pharaoh to rule Egypt by herself. Despite the expectation of her to take a husband to rule by her, she did not follow it. She did however align with 2 famous Greek men, but she was always in power.

They resisted authority and control through their actions and their decision not to let it dictate how they ran their lives.

In Cleopatra's (also Elizabeth I) they did not resist control and authority because they were the authority. Despite that was 'tradition' the rule of the matter is that they had legal authority and exercised it, as any leader would.

[KnitShoni]

Because I can't. That's exactly what I mean. The majority of women cannot do what men do. Hence why they are generally better.

Why not? Is it because men are really better, or because you're holding yourself back by choosing to believe so?

[GINSENG]

Ginseng, I'm not entirely sure what a list of male inventors proves except that men have invented more things. That doesn't prove your point. An inventor is not the be-all end-all of human existence. I'm not sure where you got this idea that only inventors are doing worthwhile things in life. Where did that come from? What proof do you have that someone's societal worth should be measured by created things?

...Inventors invent new objects that help society. A lot of the people who have invented the things we use today are long dead, yet they are still helping people every day.

That's a hell of a lot more useful than putting things in bags or sitting in an office chair.

Philosophers are men as well. Damn. Philosophers are as intelligent as they can come.

How is a man any better or worse than me? How can you say I will not achieve the things I want because I am female?

I'm not saying anything like that. Obviously if you do those things, you are better than some man working at Mcdonald's when he's 30. But out of the billions of other women, you are still in the minority. That's my point.

[Nyoibo]

Philosophers are men as well. Damn. Philosophers are as intelligent as they can come.

Bull, philosophers are just a bunch of pompous windbags with nothing better to do.

[the_std]

...Inventors invent new objects that help society. A lot of the people who have invented the things we use today are long dead, yet they are still helping people every day. [snip] Philosophers are men as well. Damn. Philosophers are as intelligent as they can come.

You're missing a few points in all of this.

1) Not everyone can be inventors. If that were the case, society would collapse. We cannot function without garbage collectors, without service people, without the little people doing what you call "unworthy" jobs. And if we cannot exist without them, how does that make them any less special than these inventors you're lauding?

2) You have still not proven that inventors (and now philosophers, evidently) are at the top of the chain of societal worth. You saying that they're smart and that they do good things does not prove that they are, again, the be-all end-all and that, if women have invented less things, it must obviously prove that they are worth less than men. You have failed to prove anything. You have no evidence, no statistics, no facts. Your arguments are worthless without these things. You don't seem to understand how debates work. And no, saying that more men have been inventors and philosophers than women is not proof. That just means that there are more men who have been inventors and philosophers than women. You have not provided any proof that they are better because of that.

[lupo pazzesco]

Ahem.

Philosophers are men as well?

BUZZ!! WRONG!!!

A list of female philosophers ordered alphabetically by surname:

* Marilyn McCord Adams (born 1943)O
* Linda Martin Alcoff
* Alice Ambrose (1906–2001)
* Julia Annas
* Marilena Chauí
* G. E. M. Anscombe (1918–2001)C O R W
* Hannah Arendt (1906–1975)C O R W
* Arete of Cyrene (4th century B.C.)
* Aristoclea (6th century B.C)
* Aspasia of Miletus (5th century B.C.)
* Mary Astell (1666–1731)A B C D1 D2 R
* Babette Babich (1956–)
* Annette Baier (born 1929)O
* Ban Zhao (c. 35–100)D2
* Antoinette Brown (1825–1921)D2
* Judith Butler (born 1956)
* Mary Whiton Calkins (1863–1930)W
* Nancy Cartwright (born 1943)O
* Margaret Cavendish (1623–1673)A B C R
* Christine de Pizan (c. 1365–c. 1430)G R
* Andrea Christofidou
* Patricia Churchland (born 1943)C
* Hélène Cixous (born 1937)R
* Catherine Trotter Cockburn (1679–1749)A B C R W
* Lady Anne Finch Conway (1631–1679)A B C D1 O R W
* Simone de Beauvoir (1908–1986)D1 O R W
* Émilie du Châtelet (1706–1749)R
* Raya Dunayevskaya (1910–1987)
* Dorothy Edgington
* George Eliot (1819–1880)G R
* Elisabeth of Bohemia (1618–1680)A B C R
* Philippa Foot (born 1920)C O W
* Margaret Gilbert
* Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860–1935)
* Emma Goldman (1869–1940)
* Marie de Gournay (1565–1645)D2
* Celia Green (born 1935)
* Marjorie Grene (born 1910)
* Susan Haack (born 1945)W
* Ágnes Heller (born 1929)
* Heloise (1101–1162)D2
* Mary Hesse (born 1924)
* Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179)D1 R
* Hipparchia of Maroneia (4th century BC)
* Jennifer Hornsby (born 1951)O
* Rosalind Hursthouse
* Hypatia of Alexandria (370–415)C R
* Luce Irigaray (born 1930)C O R
* Martha Klein
* Christine Korsgaard
* Julia Kristeva (born 1941)C O R
* Susanne Langer (1895–1985)O R W
* Michèle Le Dœuff (born 1948)O R
* Leontion (4th century BC)
* Rosa Luxemburg (1871–1919)R
* Catherine Macaulay (1731–1791)G
* Penelope Maddy
* Ruth Barcan Marcus (born 1921)C O
* Harriet Martineau (1802–1876)R W
* Damaris Cudworth Masham (1659–1708)A B C R
* Mechthild of Magdeburg (1210–1285)G
* Mary Midgley (born 1919)W
* Ruth Millikan (born 1933)O
* Iris Murdoch (1919–1999)O W
* Ioanna Kucuradi (born 1936)
* Nancey Murphy (born 1951)
* Judith Sargent Murray (1751–1820)D2
* Martha Nussbaum (born 1947)C O
* Onora O'Neill (born 1941)O W
* Janet Radcliffe Richards (born 1944)O
* Ayn Rand (1905–1982)R
* Rosemary Radford Ruether (born 1936)
* Anna Maria van Schurman (1607–1678)D2 R
* Lady Mary Shepherd (1777–1847)A C
* Sor Juana (1648–1695)D2
* Anne Louise Germaine de Staël (1766–1817)R
* L. Susan Stebbing (1885–1943)W
* Edith Stein (1891–1942)D1
* Gabrielle Suchon (1631–1703)R
* Harriet Taylor Mill (1807–1858)C D1 R
* Teresa of Avila (1515–1582)C
* Judith Jarvis Thomson (born 1929)C O W
* Baroness Mary Warnock (born 1924)O
* Simone Weil (1909–1943)C D1 O R
* Victoria Lady Welby (1837–1912)W
* Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797)C D1 G O R W
* Frances Wright (1795–1852)D2
* Dorothy Maud Wrinch (1894–1976)

Oh, and just in case you want to quibble about oh, I don't know, the fact there are STILL more men than women philosophers so "nanny nanny boo boo, men are still awesomer!!!11!!!"

Although women have engaged in philosophy throughout the field's history, philosophy as a profession was long closed to women by law and custom. Even today, philosophy departments are disproportionately male. U.S. Department of Education reports indicate that philosophy is one of the least proportionate, and possibly the least proportionate, fields in the humanities with respect to gender.

Oh darn, I used Wikipedia...guess I'm wrong, despite the links to various reputable references included in the article and citations. Ho hum.

So, next argument about way men rule and women don't...?

Oh, and regarding the equal pay bit...ever hear of the wage GAP. Women, on average earn 77 cents to every dollar men earn in ANY given profession. Yep, there's equality for ya, right there...

[AdminAssistant]

The situation is pretty bad in the arts world as well: http://www.tcg.org/publications/at/nov09/women.cfm

An article from a reputable trade publication by one of the top female playwrights in America, just in case you were wondering. I at least praise our department for trying to even out play selection a little more. Our summer season consists of two plays by women, with all female characters, and directed by two female professors. It's a relief, since these girls all have to scramble for the small handful of good female parts in any given show. (Don't worry about the guys, we're doing both Midsummer's Night's Dream and The Beaux' Strategem next year. They'll have plenty of spots.)

LOL, lupo, that list contains some of my favorites. Hildegard von Bingen was badass (if you can say that about a nun), as was Sor Juana.

Oh, and who reintroduced theatre into the Western world after over 500 years of banishment? Hrosvita von Gandersheim. A woman.

OH, and PS, most of your great male philosophers were drug addicts and/or psychologically unstable.

[protege]

Oh, and just in case you want to quibble about oh, I don't know, the fact there are STILL more men than women philosophers so "nanny nanny boo boo, men are still awesomer!!!11!!!"

Of course it could then be argued that the reason those women became philosophers...was because they enjoyed boring men to tears. Sorry Lupo, I just had to go *there*

[GINSENG]

philosophers are just a bunch of pompous windbags with nothing better to do.

Oh no, you did not just say that.

1) Not everyone can be inventors. If that were the case, society would collapse. We cannot function without garbage collectors, without service people, without the little people doing what you call "unworthy" jobs. And if we cannot exist without them, how does that make them any less special than these inventors you're lauding?

Because ANYONE can do those things. Anyone can put things in bags, collect the garbage, and such. That doesn't mean everyone deserves to be thought of as amazing people who have accomplished something. Why would I respect someone who hasn't done anything worth respecting?

2) You have still not proven that inventors (and now philosophers, evidently) are at the top of the chain of societal worth. You saying that they're smart and that they do good things does not prove that they are, again, the be-all end-all and that, if women have invented less things, it must obviously prove that they are worth less than men.

What exactly do you think makes someone a great person?

In my opinion, someone who invents something or comes up with an idea that no one else thought of and is kind enough to let everyone else use it is a great person.

Quite frankly, I would never have been able to come up with the idea for any kind of computer, car, or video game system. The men who have invented those are damn great people. They've helped millions of people and for that, they deserve respect.

If it weren't for Charles Darwin, I would still be wondering why the hell I'm here.

Being nice or smart doesn't mean anything unless you DO something with it, people.

And no, saying that more men have been inventors and philosophers than women is not proof. That just means that there are more men who have been inventors and philosophers than women. You have no provided any proof that they are better because of that.

I'm starting to get tired of this. I'm saying the majority of men are better because they DO more things to help EVERYONE else around them when they don't have to. The ones who DO things are better. The ones who don't do anything are not. The women who do things are great people. The ones who don't are not. I'm not saying all men are better or that no women do anything. But because more men DO things, there are more important men than women.

The proof is all around you. In history, science, everyday life. Scientists don't need to do a study to see whether men do more important things that women. It should be obvious.

Sure, you seem intelligent. But there are plenty of men out there right NOW who are intelligent AND inventing things rather than sitting on their butt.

And Lupo, holy moly. I don't have enough time to look up ALL those to see what they believed. But from some I have found,

Ban Zhao = Believed women should be submissive. How is that philosophy?

Judith Butler and Mary Astell = All I could find was feminist crap. How is that philosophy?

[Hobbs]

[McDreidel09]

Oh no, you did not just say that.
[Snip]



The proof is all around you. In history, science, everyday life. Scientists don't need to do a study to see whether men do more important things that women. It should be obvious.

[snip]

Ban Zhao = Believed women should be submissive. How is that philosophy?

Judith Butler and Mary Astell = All I could find was feminist crap. How is that philosophy?

1) Oh yes he did just say that. Why? Because they are.

2) Just saying it's in history, science, and everyday life is not providing information. Also, may I repeat that the reason you don't see women in history as much is because they weren't allowed to do stuff. Or did you forget that? Whenever women would do great things, they were thrown in prison, burnt at the stake, stoned to death, etc.

3) What makes the work of John Locke, Sextus Empiricus, or Berkley more like philosophy than Zhao, Butler, and Astell? Is it because the last three are women and women can't have thoughts?

I have yet to see any facts come from you. Can you actually provide real facts?

[Lace Neil Singer]

Although, to be honest, "Rebel" usually doesn't denote a lady.

I beg to differ.

http://www.gladiatorszone.co.uk/glad.../female/rebel/

This is pertinent to the thread, in a way; check out Gladiators the show to see what I mean. Both male and female Gladiators top of their game, and certainly not the men being automatically "better".

[Hobbs]

I meant rebels in a historical tense, or did you just ignore my previous posts?

[Lace Neil Singer]

You never said "In a historical sense", did you? If we have to pick historical female rebels, what about Boudicca, who led a rebellion against Rome and destroyed three Roman cities? Or how about Rosa Parks, who rebelled against the social nicieties of the time by refusing to give up her seat?