Female Philosophers

>>8739374
You'll trigger the frogmen

>>8739381
Do you think it's pointless to make this chart if a list of female philosophers already exists on Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_philosophers

I would rather a chart be made of the most important ones so people don't have to shift through shit.

>>8739386
I don't care. I don't look at charts

>>8739388
Look at me as I take the life out of your eyes!

>>8739392
:)

>>8739374
>female philosopher

How did they deal with cognitive dissonance?

>>8739374

Your project at this point is clearly simply to amass a list of female philosophers and thinkers of some consequence. Although /lit/ would often like to skirt the issue altogether, if this is your project at the moment, then there really is no good reason not to include Ayn Rand apart from "ew, I don't like that."

Likewise although you may wish to stick with academic-tier philosophers, I really don't see any real reason not to throw a Betty Friedan into the listing. In the same breath, there's really no reason not to go for broke and let in bridge-troll Andrea Dworkin, who does have genuinely provocative ideas which have had real traction in recent years (all straight sex is rape, I hate men, men are evil etc).

For a much subtler and useful human being, how about Anais Nin?

Swinging back to the other extreme, Ann Coulter was viciously mocked when she as much as correctly predicted the future president (elect) of the United States, and she's written multiple books.

Julia Kristeva is a name in the contemporary left about whom I know very little, but she seems to be in the "academic philosophy" vein that you had orignially wanted to consider, OP, and perhaps you and otehr anons would find her less odious than my bomb-throwing-yet-valid mentions above.

I notice you've included Hypatia, well done. I understand she died in a particularly appalling fashion, at the hands of a mob or somesuch.

>>8739403
Is it worth it if the wikipedia page has them all split up via time period?

Sort of feel like this is a worthless project or perhaps a useful one to deter neckbeards and frogposters.

>>8739374
Sigh... Not a looker among them.

>>8739405

I didn't like how you qualified yourself/kowtowed at the beginning of the thread with a virtue-signalling "oh I'm a dumb man", but I do like the idea of discussing female thinkers in general. And this for the basic reason that there is a value in knowing how the other half thinks. But historically, a lot of it /is/ bound up with what we would now call the identity politics of being a woman, just as black philosophical literature is necessarily obsessed with black identity politics, gay lit with gay identity politics. the leftist trifecta of identity politics. This is not to say that they haven't had historical importances, but simply that they are banal from a contemporary point of view, as even many leftists and non-straight-white-guys have correctly sensed. In other words, people are so self-absorbed in whatever struggle or problem that they have that they often cannot advance into a more genuinely interesting, abstract discussion of whatever kind.

And so, the simple act of collecting works by women is fine, but it's also just a boring identity politics unto itself, as you've probably sensed, but your stated aim is to get the female perspective on things in a general way, which is again a fine thing to be curious about. I vaguely remember a female history professor diverging into a missive about "women's studies" in general, and she described the historical phases of it as being roughly like phases of feminism. The "first" phase in her telling was women simply trying to build up basic data, women-did-this, women-did-that etc, which is exactly what you're doing, and again, that's fine. But as you'd expect, eventually people got bored of that, and so (in her telling) the "second wave" of this women's studies culture moved beyond collecting data into theorizing about/bitching about why things are the way they are, and so on.

A history book I read for another class comes to mind in this regard: The Failed Century of the Child is a very interesting book about social policy around children, by Judith Sealander.

More recently, I read a very lavish presentation of the Irish national treasure the Book of Kells, with text and commentary by Francoise Henry - a big green art book which is still fairly common in the western world, though old. Francoise presents a very scholarly discussion of the text, and is the principal modern voice in this modern re-telling of the old book.

>>8739428
Did you not see Roy? Please.

>>8739434
Don't use the term virtue signalling thanks, sometimes a joke is no more than a joke. 4chan is anonymous, buddy.

>>8739439
This desu

>>8739374
op you gotta read some luxemburg and arendt please do it fer yrself u know

also arendt is always incorrectly labeled a philosopher even though she explicitly said in an interview that women shouldn't undertake philosophy, or something to that effect.

>>8739450
She's still a philosopher, even if she doesn't think so herself.