# Gender and knowledge?



## jwright82 (Jul 23, 2010)

Feminists have been contending for decades that ones gender so greatly affects what one counts as knowledge and how knowledge is formed. This viewpoint is highly problematic on many levels. But basically I think they are more refering to worldviews as well as how we aquire knowledge.

But I'm not intersted in that per se, what I am interested in is what my christian brothers and sisters think about this. Your answers can span the gambit of spectrums, for instance it is quite possible for a housewife with little to no philosophical training to have a greater insight into this than the greatest philosophers ever could. So I encourage anyone to answer this is meant to be a light discussion. But if it goes deep into the issues than that is ok too.

So what do ya'll think does gender affect knowledge or how we frame our worldviews? If so in what ways do ya'll think it affects our method of gathering knowledge and the ways we form our respective worldviews.


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 23, 2010)

In creation, God made men and women to be different, and the Bible has given different roles. So I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that we think differently. For the most part, I think women tend to engage in more "group" thinking, guys tend to me more analytical and less concerned about emotions. But that doesn't change that God has made us to be individuals -- I'm much better able to manage processes and things rather than a cooperative group situation. Maybe that's a result of my having been in several male-dominated professions.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 23, 2010)

Vive la difference!


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Jul 23, 2010)

Larger problems and challenges can be solved in a variety of ways. For instance, I solve math problems intuitively and qualitatively (through computer graphing programs and thought experiment) before I delve into the traditional proofs. If knowledge is an object, it can be attained and understood from a multiplicity of perspectives.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 23, 2010)

My sentiments excactly everyone. I am not surprised at all that our good Lord made us different and this compliments eachother enough to make the world go round. Feminists only destroy this complimentatianism, so it seems that only a Biblical worldview can adequitly explain this difference not seculer thought.


----------



## calgal (Jul 23, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> My sentiments excactly everyone. I am not surprised at all that our good Lord made us different and this compliments eachother enough to make the world go round. Feminists only destroy this complimentatianism, so it seems that only a Biblical worldview can adequitly explain this difference not seculer thought.


 
James the feminists are saying the same things you and everyone else said in a little different way. And yes race, gender, upbringing, religion, impact the way we think and how we process information, how we communicate and even how we deal with conflict. Furthermore in a healthy relationship there is a natural ebb and flow where there are decisions the wife makes and/or guides the husband to making a better choice and vice versa. I do not see how feminists destroy complementarianism in the description you are giving. Please explain. Thanks


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 23, 2010)

The odd thing is that the "feminists" tried to blur all differences -- in clothing, demeanor, roles, etc. I.e., the more male characteristics you adopted, the better "feminists" you'd be. I think the current crop of young women have turned that around: hey, we're different, and we'll prove it by being as provocative as possible.


----------



## calgal (Jul 23, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> The odd thing is that the "feminists" tried to blur all differences -- in clothing, demeanor, roles, etc. I.e., the more male characteristics you adopted, the better "feminists" you'd be. I think the current crop of young women have turned that around: hey, we're different, and we'll prove it by being as provocative as possible.


 
Do you mean the lesbians in NOW in the 70's?


----------



## Philip (Jul 23, 2010)

James,

First of all, we do need to recognize the feminist concern: their concern is that the definition of what is and is not "rational" knowledge is overly male. I personally think that there's something to this: in the past hundred years, the paradigm for knowledge has been science. If you can put the belief in a test tube, experiment on it, run it through the skeptical meat grinder of analysis, you can call it knowledge. I happen to think that this approach is inadequate in many areas. We see this particularly played out in the academic world where the humanities are despised in favor of sciences. Practicality is valued above all else.

I also happen to think that there's something to the solution: teaching as the paradigm of knowledge, where coming to know is a nurturing, fruitful, and personal experience. As Christians, we know that there is something to this: since we know that truth is personal and has made Himself known, we understand that coming to know God as truth is an incredibly (dare I say it?) intimate thing. We can't put God in a test tube and run experiments: He's too big.

The downside is that the feminist attempt to correct for the modernist error of scientism ends up overcorrecting because of its blindness to Scripture and sound reason. However, we can't deny that as Christians, we know the Truth both objectively (ie: the facts) and subjectively (in the heart, personally). I think there's something incredibly right about Kierkegaard's assessment that knowledge of the truth is not just acceptance of the facts, but a right relationship to the God who is Truth. 

Anyway, that's my incredibly boiled-down and oversimplified analysis of feminist epistemology (I'll try and dig up some of my notes on feminist epistemology when I have time).


----------



## Montanablue (Jul 24, 2010)

> Feminists have been contending for decades that ones gender so greatly affects what one counts as knowledge and how knowledge is formed.



Could you give an example? I do not believe I've seen many feminists argue this - and I've read a fair number. 

Edit: I think I actually understand what you mean by this now. What you are putting forth as a a broad feminist view is actually, I believe, French feminism, which is not broadly embraced, at least not in American feminist circles. I'm not overly familiar with the French feminists, but this sounds similar to Helene Cixous, who is widely rejected by American feminists - although still used in lit criticism pretty widely.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 24, 2010)

Well first off I made an equiviacal mistake in my post. When I said that Femininsm destroys complementarianism I reverted to defining it in the radical form, so my apologiezes to everyone no offense was intended, not all Femenism is bad they have done some very good things. I will be more careful in the future of defining which group I am refering to. So with that said lets get a little deeper into the subject. I braodly set three different groups, my categories, in the Feminist category: 

1. Average- this would be women and men who feel that the broad message of feminism has something to it. Like why shouldn't women have equal rights in society? They should in my opinion. I found it wrong when I found out that on average women get paid less than a man to do the same job, that is a violation of the Commandment not to steal if you ask me. 

2. Middleground- these are the Femenists who are the most fascinating to me because they have revealed that gender can affect bias as well as providing different perspective on things. This group has done soem very interesting work, several years ago I read a Femenist journal (I can remember the name) while researching for a paper I was going to write on society and the problem of evil. This particuler issue was dedicated to a Femenist view of the subject. It was fascinating to say the least. I like some of the work being done by this group. I learned the truth of what they are saying back when I was married and I was the only male in the house, my exwife and daughter gave me a lesson in the value of difference. 

3. Radical- this is the group that has come up with such endearing and tasteful terms as phallocentrism and patriarchalism. They reject outright any theory or argument by a male simply on the basis of their gender. They see all of history as male dominated, which is a theory that I am not so sure about, I doubt that humans have changed all that much I mean believe it or not love did exist back in these older days as well. They view the various concerns of traditional philosophy as a male attempt to dominate nature just like women. This group may be the minority but they are the most forceful and orgenized group. I used to listen to talk radio and I heard a lot of stories about schools not being allowed to read certian classics because some femenist group, in America, got it thrown on the basis of it being sexist or phallocentric in nature, their opinion. The theoretical basis for this group is the radical epistomological assumptions already mentioned. 

They are the ones who trying to change things and like all good Marcusian new leftists groups they weild power and politics to throw out the opposing groups from the discussion. If you disagree with them that is fine just keep your mouth shut and stay out of the way or you will be sorry. They use and abuse Derriada's work to support their agenda, I don't have time to explain him or his work and how they are using/abusing it. I have to go pick my brother up and I wanted to get this post out there. But they are making the biggest difference worldwide and that is reaching into every facet of human life. Keep in mind that all these groups are hardto pin down exactly because they are not a tightknit group at all but they have general points that we can refer to.


----------



## calgal (Jul 24, 2010)

James:

Now that makes a lot more sense. The radical feminists drove the other two groups right out of the movement (NOW used to be a diverse group of moms and working women and when the radicals came along, they drove out anyone with a modicum of common sense) and polarized society (while changing it for the worse). I love Feminists for Life (one of the few groups I give money to: they are awesome).


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 24, 2010)

calgal said:


> James:
> 
> Now that makes a lot more sense. The radical feminists drove the other two groups right out of the movement (NOW used to be a diverse group of moms and working women and when the radicals came along, they drove out anyone with a modicum of common sense) and polarized society (while changing it for the worse). I love Feminists for Life (one of the few groups I give money to: they are awesome).


 
Yeah, sorry about that. Sometimes my mind gets ahead of me and I don't always think about what I'm saying, writing, I just off on a tangent enjoying my own little world of philosophy and I have unintentionaly offended people by not slowing and being more thoughtful about what I am saying,writing.


----------



## jwithnell (Jul 24, 2010)

Where knowledge is concerned, I think we have to be capable of self-fulfilled expectations. In one office of about 100 employees, I was pretty much the first woman to hold a professional position -- all the rest held clerical, administrative jobs. The women even ate lunch at a separate time. I quickly discovered that the "men's" time in the lunchroom was where anything of importance across disciplines was discussed and started eating at that time. It's easy to see how such a situation degenerates: "Well anytime you talk to Susan, she doesn't seem to get the big picture. Women's minds don't work that way ..." and opportunities for advancement and pay disappeared.


----------



## jwright82 (Jul 24, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> Where knowledge is concerned, I think we have to be capable of self-fulfilled expectations. In one office of about 100 employees, I was pretty much the first woman to hold a professional position -- all the rest held clerical, administrative jobs. The women even ate lunch at a separate time. I quickly discovered that the "men's" time in the lunchroom was where anything of importance across disciplines was discussed and started eating at that time. It's easy to see how such a situation degenerates: "Well anytime you talk to Susan, she doesn't seem to get the big picture. Women's minds don't work that way ..." and opportunities for advancement and pay disappeared.


 
Well I'm sorry to hear to that, like I said if you are going to pay a man to do the same job than you better be willing to pay a women the same rate or that is theft.


----------

