Neven Sesardic on Gender Discrimination in Philosophy

2 posts

Bob Dylan Roof

Neven Sesardic, the Croatian Sensation whose excellent paper on race scandalized race-denying philosophy professors like Phillip Kitcher, has returned with another bombshell for the embarrassing field of academic philosophy:

Women in Philosophy: Problems with the Discrimination Hypothesis

The paper takes aim at the hysterical feminists responsible for the hilarious micro-aggressions-esque Being A Woman in Philosophy . Sesardic maligns the absence of academic integrity among feminist philosophers and seriously discredits the anecdotal and pseudo-empirical "evidence" of bias against women in academic philosophy. He also attacks some of the ethereal forces of evil to which liberals constantly attribute female and minority underachievement, like stereotype threat and implicit bias.

The best part of the paper is Sesardic's treatment of the it's-so-scholarly-it-can-be-cited Standford Encyclopedia of philosophy and other publications that reportedly fail to publish articles on feminism.

For his heroic defense of truth and sober analysis, Sesardic has been rewarded with a prestigious position at the philosophy powerhouse Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, NT, Hong Kong. Meanwhile, feminist philosophers like Martha Nussbaum languish in academic backwaters like the University of Chicago.

Thoughts
Most academic philosophy is drivel, and academic philosophy does not give training for any power of even purely critical thought. When dealing with daily events in the news (e.g., the current situation in E. Europe), most of "philosophers" I have spoken to cannot even conceive of any other positions other than extremes presented in the news. If an issue is nicely identified and outlined in the undergraduate textbooks (e.g., the "mind-body" problem), then students of philosophy can "debate" about it by some revising someone else’s arguments, and yet they lack any ability to even see that any empirical issue accepted as "true" can be controversial. They lack any ability to even identify new issues as potentially controversial, let alone identify "philosophical" issues for themselves.

That applies even to philosophers who made some valid points on specialized subjects, e.g. Michael Dummett and his embarrassing writings on how England has become a "racist country".

For this and many other reasons, academic historians are somewhat more critical thinkers than philosophers.