tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31003419.post6748206385093286951..comments2023-11-02T07:50:38.614-05:00Comments on Lemmings: Feminist Philosophy at Mainstream JournalsBrit Brogaardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17944929071368873218noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31003419.post-58873115966910613032007-07-16T08:18:00.000-05:002007-07-16T08:18:00.000-05:00Thanks!Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31003419.post-65799155425025800102007-07-16T03:14:00.000-05:002007-07-16T03:14:00.000-05:00You might want to try the Stanford Encyclopedia's ...You might want to try the Stanford Encyclopedia's Feminist Perspectives on the Self article: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-self/.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11276006298031524441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31003419.post-27079666561211509212007-07-15T21:09:00.000-05:002007-07-15T21:09:00.000-05:00Hi ColleenWhen I say "mainstream journals" I am ta...Hi Colleen<BR/>When I say "mainstream journals" I am talking about a rather narrow list of 20 journals or so. Some of them publish only analytic philosophy (e.g. Analysis) but the majority of journals are willing to consider both continental and analytic (e.g. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research).<BR/><BR/>Personally I think feminist philosophy is suitable for all of the mainstream journals. Some probably don’t think it is. But that would be a mistake. Feminist philosophy is philosophy that deals with certain gender issues. And one can deal with such issues in an analytic fashion. Of course, there is a respectable tradition in which one would need to place oneself when writing on these issues. But I don't think that there is any philosophical problem which cannot be dealt with analytically (which is not to say that all problems are best dealt with analytically).<BR/><BR/>Having said that it should be said that some philosophers think the analytic method reflects a way of thinking typically associated with males. Maybe that is right to some extent. But the very claim that analytic philosophy is male-style philosophy is problematic. At some level, saying that analytic philosophy is male-style philosophy is like saying that cars, water-guns, and dinosaurs are boy toys whereas dolls, play-doh and teddy bears are girl toys. Toy labeling perpetuates certain gender schemas which arose at a time when society was preparing boys for the three w's (work, war and wild-life) and girls for the three b’s (breeding, baking and bed-making). Likewise, method labeling perpetuates certain gender schemas which arose at a time when women were not considered thinking creatures.<BR/><BR/>As for literature relating to gender/self, see e.g. Hypatia's special issue on de Beauvior's philosophy, which was edited by my former colleague Peg Simons (volume 14, 1999). As for more analytic literature on the self, you might want to check out some of the online bibliographies, for instance, <A HREF="http://www.philosophy.ucf.edu/self-cons.html" REL="nofollow">this one</A>. However, the list doesn't include much gender-related literature.Brit Brogaardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17944929071368873218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31003419.post-58068149842635494842007-07-15T18:35:00.000-05:002007-07-15T18:35:00.000-05:00Brit,When you say "mainstream journals" are you ta...Brit,<BR/>When you say "mainstream journals" are you talking analytic philosophy, or a wider circle (continental or lit-crit sorts of journals)?<BR/><BR/>I was looking for some work on gender recently and came up pretty short, unless it was through non-analytic journals. Do you think that feminist philosophy is considered to be postmodern, or not suitable for mainstream journals?<BR/><BR/>(Oh, and self-serving question--do you know any analytic philosophers dealing with topics related to gender/self? -- I've been reading Judith Halberstam and Judith Butler and they're, especially Butler, pretty far afield from what I am looking for...)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com