An Ambivalent Ally: On Philosophical Argumentation and Diversity

Periodical TitleAPA Newsletter on Feminism and Philosophy
Author(s)Phyllis Rooney
Editor(s)Margaret A. Crouch
AbstractThis article examines concerns about combative argumentation (CA) in philosophy as a gender equity issue. The author analyzes a valid argument suggesting that if CA is a gender concern, women are not tough enough for philosophical debate—a conclusion many find troubling. Rooney challenges the premises underlying this argument, particularly problematic assumptions about gender difference rooted in philosophy’s historical construction of women as inherently deficient. Drawing on feminist research in psychology and social psychology, she proposes reframing gender as situational rather than as stable individual traits. This shift redirects attention to how philosophical practices, institutional norms, and discourse situations may reinforce gender expectations and masculine norms that disadvantage both women and men epistemically. The author argues that examining CA’s connections to historically masculinized practices is essential not only for diversity but for philosophy’s commitment to productive argumentation. She concludes by suggesting practical classroom strategies to counter gender dynamics that discourage inclusive philosophical engagement.
This content was generated by artificial intelligence using the text of the original work.
Pages36-42
Volume13
Issue2
Published Keywordscombative argumentation, gender equity, philosophy, feminist epistemology, gender as situational, philosophical discourse, diversity in philosophy, masculinity norms, academic culture, inclusive pedagogy
This content was generated by artificial intelligence using the text of the original work.
Date PublishedSpring 2014
ISBN/ISSN2155-9708
URLhttps://cdn.ymaws.com/www.apaonline.org/resource/collection/D03EBDAB-82D7-4B28-B897-C050FDC1ACB4/FeminismV13n2.pdf
Open Access?yes

Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.