Women are interested in a lot of things

Two caveats.
First of all, I’d like to say that I love the Daily Nous, and I’m really grateful for it.

Secondly, I’d like to say that the point of this post isn’t to beat up on Justin for posting something I disagree with.

Rather, it’s to try to explain why I – and I expect many others – found a particular post problematic.


In this post, Justin asks for recommendations of ‘philosophical topics of interest to women’.

The intention behind this request is, as far as I understand it, a really good one – it’s one way of trying to grapple with the underrepresentation of the women in philosophy.


And yet. And yet I find posts – and conversations – like this frustrating. Let me explain.1.

Requests that ask us to think about ‘what women like’, ‘what women want’, ‘what women are interested in’, etc.


encourage the unhelpful but common assumption that women are some sort of bizarre hive mind (and perhaps unconsciously rely on/promote gender essentialist ways of thinking).

Different women are very different. Different women are interested in very different things.

A white working class lesbian woman will probably have different interests from a straight upper class Asian woman.

That’s how that goes.


2. Women are often socialized – and pressured – to express interest in certain kinds of things. Uncritical discussion of ‘what women like’ or ‘what women are interested in’ can often gloss over the important social factors that shape both the interests of women and the ways in which they express those interests.

It also glosses over – and perhaps contributes to – the effect of things like stereotype threat and implicit bias for women’s interest in traditionally ‘male’ areas


.3. If you say something like, e,g., ‘women like ethics, but they don’t like philosophy of language’, that doesn’t send a very nice message to the actual women who are actually doing great work on philosophy of language. Those women already have enough genders based nonsense to deal with. They don’t need to read on the internet about how they’re working on a dudes subject.


4. It’s a common misconception of those of us who think feminist philosophy deserves a more central place in the philosophical cannon that we think feminist philosophy is really important because it (unlike, e.g., metaphysics and philosophy of language) is something women care about/are interested in.


I only speak for myself here, but that’s certainly not how I see it. The importance of feminist philosophy isn’t that it’s ‘something women like’.


Rather, the importance of feminist philosophy is that it emphasizes the philosophical importance of gender, and highlights how so many areas of philosophy –including things like metaphysics and philosophy of language– can be affected by considerations of gender.


Again, I say all of this in the spirit of constructive criticism, and with deeply felt gratitude for all of Justin’s hard work.




Update: Hilde Lindeman says the following in the Daily Nous comment thread:The question [‘what philosophical topics are of interest to women?’] is a good one, and does NOT necessarily essentialize women. The fact remains that women and other marginalized social groups are woefully underrepresented in philosophy, and course content in introductory and other undergraduate courses can be part of the problem. What I think would really help is if philosophers stopped boundary a beating, and respected the work of people who are doing philosophy on topics that haven’t gotten much attention in mainstream philosophy. A lot of that work is practical: think of the departments, for instance, where bioethics gets dismissed as “not real philosophy Philosophy of race, feminist philosophy, philosophy of disability also easily spring to mind. If undergraduates were exposed to some of this stuff in their undergraduate courses, more of them would perhaps find something in philosophy that really speaks to them, whoever they are.I agree with pretty much everything she says (including that the question doesn’tnecessarilyessentialize women),exceptthe part where she says that the question is a good one. I think the issue of whether the question is a good one and the issue of diversity and boundary policing within philosophical topics are issues that can and shouldbe kept apart. Philosophy has been primarily white, male, straight, able-bodied, middle-class, etc for a really longtime. As a result, philosophy can really show its collective bias and groupthink.


It’s perhaps easier to think that gender isn’t a philosophically central topic or that we can ask The Big Questions without considering gender when you’ve benefitted from male privilege your wholelife



. It’s perhaps easier to think that race isn’t a philosophically central topic or that we can ask The Big Questions without considering race when you’ve benefitted from white privilege your wholelife.

And so on. People who don’t share that same privilege may disagree – and may feel alienated as a result.


But it’s a far cry from those concerns – concerns which collectively might push us to expand what we count as ‘real’ or ‘core’philosophy and encourage us to examine philosophy’s collective biases – to thinking it’s a good idea to ask ‘what kind of philosophy do women like?’