Women and philosophy .. Can you think?

Perhaps at first glance we think that it is absurd and well-being to ask a question like this today, as we can pretend that the answer to it will be: Yes, of course it can! In a world that advocates freedom of opinion and the right of man to express, the right of women to ask questions, interact with public events, and criticize them does not seem to be a different matter. But if we want to examine the image more closely, in the direction of one of the epistemological fields that are the basis of thought and question, and the stimulus of meditation, that is, the field of philosophy, and the productions of many philosophers about women, we may find a shocking result. From this ground, let us ask the following question: What is the position of women in the realm of thought and philosophy? 

Before answering the question, when a woman decides to enter the world of philosophy, and read her ancient and modern production, from Socrates to this day, and she completely forgets her gender, that is, when she deals with the book of philosophy as if he were addressing her as a human being, as a human only, he thinks about what is himself and the world, and what she calls her From revisiting everything around it, you will be shocked. She reads Rousseau in education, Kant in enlightenment and morals, and Nietzsche in the revolution of body and mind, and she thinks she addresses himself, but the truth will show exactly the opposite! Either at the level of philosophical thought, or professional practice.

A distorted creature

In the Greek era, when you look at the founder of formal logic and political philosopher Aristotle, you may be surprised if you learn that he decides that a woman is only fit for childbearing, and that she cannot exercise moral virtues like man, she is just a distorted creature produced by nature. As for Plato, the author of the book "Al-Jumhuriya", known for his virtuous city, he sees that a woman is inferior to a man in reason and virtue, and he regretted that he was the son of a woman, and his mother scorned her for being a female!

As for their teacher Socrates, a martyr in defense of the principle, as it is depicted, he used to see that a woman is like a poisonous tree whose appearance is beautiful, but birds die when they eat from them (1). The truth is that this "inferior" view of women cannot be separated from the reality of Greece at the time, in which what is newly described as "class" has been institutionalized. As the features of the ideal Greek society were determined by each individual performing the job that is appropriate to his abilities which he was endowed by nature, hence the features of class discrimination started as a basis for the existence of society. A woman is seen as a reproductive tool, and this is her production space. Likewise, what is reflected in what we can call today racist policies towards "slaves". As for political and intellectual practices, Greek men were "citizens" rather than workers who practiced degrading manual labor. 

Enlightenment .. for men only

It did not differ greatly after the Greek era, but the same view continued, with a number of modifications in the writings of a number of philosophers. For example, in talking about the philosophers of lights, Jean-Jacques Rousseau sees, just as Aristotle, that women were not created neither for knowledge nor for wisdom, but rather to satisfy the instincts of men. While Immanuel Kant sees that the mind of a woman does not rise to the mind of a man. As for Nietzsche, the woman is still at best an animal, such as cats, dogs and cows, and conspires with all forms of dissolution against men. As for Schopenhauer, which came later, his philosophy was translated into a life of misery that he lived, he remained hostile to women because of his position on the debauchery of his mother, and he was famous for being the most hated philosophers of women, as he saw it as a defect of societies, and that it had never produced great art or any work Has a value (2).

All these modern philosophers, with their different backgrounds, and the intense discussions that took place around them towards many philosophical issues, agreed on the importance of emancipating the mind and permanent thinking, deviating from delusions, and the ability to liberate from the "authority of theology prevailing in society". At first glance, when you read their libertarian and revolutionary philosophical discourse, the woman will think that they are urging her to take control of her affairs and be free from the historical and social weight that shackles her human value, but when she reads their statements about the woman elsewhere, she will find another matter, and it may be completely contradictory.

When Kant wrote on education about lights, he said: “The attainment of lights is a departure from the shortcomings of which he is responsible, which means his inability to use his mind without the guidance of others. A person himself is responsible for this state of shortcomings when the reason for this is not a deficiency in his mind ... but a lack of firmness and courage to use it without the guidance of others. Dare to know. Be bold to use your mind. That slogan of lights ... Laziness and cowardice are the reasons that a large number of people prefer to stay for their entire life short, after nature freed them long ago. Of any external directive, which are also the reasons why it is so easy for others to stipulate Boa themselves as guardians of them "(3).

This text is for Kant, in which the woman, when reading it, will believe that he is addressing her, touching a sensitive, and perhaps deep part within her, and that if she considers herself covered by whom Kant talks about, that is, that she is a human being who has a mind and can think. Then, you will see in it a revolutionary text calling on it to deviate from the "intellectual guardianship" that it has ruled over the years, and to dare to use its mind, leaving the laziness of confrontation and the courage to reject those who appointed themselves as guardians. However, she - the woman - will discover that Kant did not include her in that speech, but rather addressed the man alone, as he is the only one who has a mind and can think. At this point, Professor Elizabeth Kassab indicated that Kant "was not thinking about women at all, and thus he was not contradicting himself even though the Enlightenment thought sought to transcend the boundaries and barriers of reality" (4). This gaffe may become strange to the reader in Kant's thought, and he who calls for the emancipation of the mind from the authority of the dominant and the societal and theological heritage in assessing matters, so that he himself will fall under this authority, as he has not really been freed from the authority of his time when applying his philosophy regarding women, where he sees That a woman does not have a mind that can basically think. 

As for Nietzsche, the rival of Kant and his counterpart in the world of philosophy, he intersected with him when talking about the woman, with the difference of intensity between them, as he says in his book "This is how Zoroaster spoke": "It is not your fault, but your consent that shouts in the face of heaven" (5) , Which they refer to as a book of society, not of the individual. By reading the book, you can also consider a woman a part of this society, and that this sentence may be a revolutionary discourse on her permanent satisfaction and fear of sin, but Nietzsche sees this satisfaction as the true sin of a man alone without a woman. So distract him from his famous saying about “If you go to women ... do not forget the whip” (6) and he did not leave an opportunity or occasion to insult the woman in it, unless he took advantage of it, even if the main topic was not talking about women, to liken it to everything that is weak, A profession, and vice. 

However, what if we would briefly dig into the history of Nietzsche, to know the cause of this attack, which we can describe as a “fierce” woman. Well, it is known in history that Nietzsche was not successful in his relations with women, especially his experience with the writer "Le Salome", who refused to marry him more than once, and she was in the famous image - which combines her with Nietzsche and Paul Reh while they drag her cart Instead of horses - she is the one who actually holds the whip in her hand. Can we say - far from the author's death theory of Roland Barth that I am not convinced of - that Nietzsche's philosophy of women is a reaction? If we assume this based on what can be deduced from his emotional life, how can we trust a philosophical opinion that is the product of an emotion stemming from a failed personal experience? Perhaps this opens a debate and debate about whether these philosophies, in many of their places, are but emotional emotions towards life experiences that are generalized to become, over time, texts that readers cite without knowing their context, something that can enter us into the question of the science of philosophy again . 

According to the foregoing, it is not possible to consider the perception of women as an individual emotional position, but rather according to what philosophy professor Elizabeth Kassab described in her talk to Meydan as a result of the consolidation of the masculine view that does not see in women an object that can think strictly, and in a discreet method, therefore , It is not always required that the motivation behind the thought be bad and intentional, but it is the son of a prevailing societal thinking that believes that women are not suitable for philosophy.

Ibn Rushd .. A different view

Despite the foregoing, it is inaccurate to generalize the derogatory view of women in the philosophical field, as few exceptions have emerged that exceed the limits of the prevailing view towards broader and more critical horizons. One of these philosophers is Ibn Rushd who lived in the twelfth century, that is, centuries before the rise of the philosophers of lights, and he presented in his time a vision that was not matched except by what is presented today by women's associations that defend women's rights. Whenever the name of Ibn Rushd is mentioned, it is affixed to him that he revived the philosophy, and that he who triumphed to the mind somehow at the expense of transmission (7). The triumph of reason here is not a triumph over Kant's method that excluded women, but rather a triumph of the entire human mind.

One of the eloquent texts that showed Ibn Rushd differed, saying: Women differ from men in degree, not in nature. They are eligible to do all the war, philosophy, and the like, but to a degree without their degree, and they sometimes ruin them, as in music, even though the perfection of this industry is composing from a man and singing from a woman. The example of some African factions shows their extreme readiness for war; it is not forbidden for them to come to power in the republic (he refers to “Plato’s Republic”) (8)

Ibn Rushd, in the previous text, declared that women and men are the same type, and that there is no difference between men and women in the human end. The only difference he sees is the possibility of physical toil and its differences, which a man can do more than a woman, while women are more skilled in other works, such as the art of music. Since there is no difference between women and men in the human nature, it is obligatory for women to obtain the same education that men have and to share with them all other works, even war and the presidency.

The woman .. today

In conjunction with the foregoing in the previous lines, we may think, as we read about these philosophers, that these considerations regarding the right of women are outdated in time in light of the spread of ideas of "women's rights", and so on. However, what about today, and has the perception of women in philosophical discourse changed, and has it actually participated in the field of thought and philosophy at the present time in light of what we see of a feminist presence?

Historically, men dominated the history of philosophy, and to them the most powerful and influential doctrines were attributed to human thought, and despite the existence of philosophies since ancient Greek times (Hipparchia, Espasia, Catherine ...), hegemony was sweeping for men, and to this added, an exclusion that seemed deliberate by Philosophers and historians of women's philosophical activity until the twenty-first century. In 2007, Sally Haslanger published a paper in the magazine "Hebata", explaining the sexual discrimination experienced by women in the United Kingdom in the field of philosophy in particular, based on the numbers of publishing research papers, Or A related academic standing in the field of philosophy specifically. In this context, David Schrader, executive director of the American Philosophical Association, believes that although philosophy is exaggerated and generalized, "Philosophy suffers from a clear gender and chauvinism problem." This is due to an accumulated historical view related to women's inferiority in the world of philosophy, and Hasselanger shares her experience in the study of philosophy. When the only female was in her department during her specialty, she was constantly subjected to a lot of ridicule and sexual prejudice (9).

The matter does not stop at the limits of prejudice. Rather, it extends to verbal and physical sexual harassment, which is the highest among other areas of knowledge, according to the British newspaper The Guardian, which published a report in 2015 explaining that the number of men far exceeds women in this specialization to reach 71% in In the United Kingdom, she attributed one of the reasons for these numbers of women being harassed in this area more than others, which prompted the professor of philosophy at the University of Sheffield, Jennifer Sole, to say, "Women leave philosophy after being harassed or attacked" (10).

A woman must be the master of the situation, and you have the right to refuse and accept what is appropriate for you and to consciously try philosophical texts, not by giving up

communication Web-sites

On the Arab level, Elizabeth Kassab mentioned to Maidan , “The inferior view is still present towards women in the field of philosophy to this day, and it challenges on two levels, in terms of profession and thought. The males do not think that they are only commandments, but they come and fulfill Their imagination is that they are the owners of the profession, and that the woman came to them from outside, that is, from non-philosophical backgrounds, and this facilitates the disregard, arrogance, and intransigence of the situation. The situation was not better with the specialists in philosophy, who faced the problems of verbal and physical insults and general rejection. A lot of the year, when they ask, "What are you wearing? As a result, and for what? ”These are weapons to destroy and strike the other.

Despite the foregoing, according to Kassab’s description, it is imperative for women to continue their struggle and endeavors to prove themselves by providing qualitative knowledge. If she wants to read philosophical texts, she must be aware of the history of philosophy and the biases inherent in it. And as Elizabeth Kassab explained to Meydan , the woman must be the master of the situation, and you have the right to refuse and accept what is appropriate for you and to try the texts consciously, not by surrender and to practice philosophy with the texts. As for proving oneself, the matter is the same in all professions, and if it becomes more severe in philosophy. There is a natural "innocent" disregard for women in all fields. 

The hierarchical question of thinking between East and West

In all of the above, we have asked about the position of women in philosophical thinking, and their ability to enter the world of philosophy without regard for its gender, but the researcher in philosophy, in the East in particular, will find another layer of discrimination that will further exclude her to find herself in the fourth layer, perhaps, from recognition, because The Western thinker did not recognize the ability of Western women to think and philosophy, as he does not recognize the ability of the eastern man to do so. Also, the western woman who occupies a second position in her country, is trying to prove her position through the eastern woman, which was what happened in the orientalistic journeys and writings of Western women about the Eastern women, most of which revolve around proving their superiority over Eastern women on the one hand and proving themselves as a thinker and traveler for the Western man on the other hand. “The Western migrating woman in the east,” Anoussorg says: “She travels in foreign countries to catch the Western man, as she thinks, from the place that hurts the most, that is, to defend her positions effectively within a fictional empire.” [11] However, it was just aiding him in empowering his authority over the other, and in fact it is a second "last" for this white man.

According to all of the foregoing, it must put forth a serious discussion about the values ​​espoused by philosophy as enlightening the mind and liberating man from the limitations of society, which results in the following question: "When will women be given the space in the realm of philosophy?", Without belittling, and dealing with it As a person who is able to think and enter the space of philosophy, the truth is, this question is related to the development of philosophy, in addition to its connection to the ability of women to make a real enlightenment act away from empty slogans or progressive hypocrisy.