| Author(s) | Geoffrey S. Holtzman |
| Journal | Hypatia |
| Abstract | Why has gender equality progressed so much more slowly in philosophy than in other academic disciplines? Here, I address both factual and theoretical matters relating to the causes, effects, and potential redress of the lack of women in philosophy. First, I debunk extant claims that women are more likely than men to disagree with their philosophy professors and male peers; that women are more sensitive to disagreements in the philosophy classroom than men are; and that the gender imbalance in philosophy is no worse than in many cognate disciplines. Second, I discuss ways in which the nature of philosophical inquiry and debate may provide uniquely strong opportunities for person‐perception to hinder progress toward egalitarian treatment of interlocutors. And third, I argue that a diversity of perspectives in philosophy is essential not only for reasons of social justice, but also for philosophical progress. Efforts to improve philosophy should therefore countenance the role of person‐perception in the practice of philosophical debate. For philosophy to become more diverse, the steps the profession takes to achieve that goal will have to go beyond—and not merely match—the steps taken to increase the numbers of women and otherwise underrepresented individuals in other fields. |
| Keywords | Gender disparity; Women philosophers; Philosophical discourse; Gender imbalance; Diversity in philosophy; Social justice; Person-perception This content was generated by artificial intelligence using the text of the original work. |
| Date Published | May 13, 2016 |
| Volume | 31 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 293-312 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12246 |
| URL | https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/hypatia/article/abs/rejecting-beliefs-or-rejecting-believers-on-the-importance-and-exclusion-of-women-in-philosophy/9DD6F643BCCD80F54889757FFEBF0F2E |
| Google Scholar Link | https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cluster=16828491695564103642&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 |
| Open Access? | No |
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.