Excuse me?
They deserve more recognition, do they? Ok here’s step one: don’t call them not-men, as if they were a weird mutant failure.
Updating to add:
Not a very philosophical response.
Excuse me?
They deserve more recognition, do they? Ok here’s step one: don’t call them not-men, as if they were a weird mutant failure.
Updating to add:
Not a very philosophical response.
Comments
12 responses to “Ontology for beginners”
Well they want all their nonbinaries and whatnot.
Why would “non-male” cover them though?
I would have leant toward a charitable interpretation of ‘non-male’ as an attempt at subtle, self-deprecating humour in a ‘despite what appears to be the case, not all philosophers are men, so let’s celebrate some of those for a change’ kind of way. However, neither philosophy nor religion are known for subtlety, self-deprecation, or humour. Instead, the wording as it stands is clearly an invite for nominations for men who say they’re women.
How many fake names will a certain R. Mckinnon / V. Ivy be frantically inventing to put forward many nominations for R. McKinnon?
Well that’s interesting–tweet deleted with a notpology within minutes, and a lot of very irate males and nonmales in the apology tweet. Which, IIRC, is a very different response from when the Greens used similar language some time ago.
Uncanny Ex-Men?
God damn, I’ve read some excellent philosophy written by women. Some by women who wouldn’t even consider themselves philosophers. Shouldn’t have to look too far. I haven’t read anything compelling by men who say they are women yet, but fingers crossed…
Dan T, I presume you are a non-Australian.
Uncanny X-Men
/threadjack
“Uncanny X-Men” is also the name of a long-running comic book series (since 1963). That’s what I assume Dan was alluding to.
I know it’s blowing my own trumpet; but I said ages ago that “notmen” would be the coming thing. (Notice they’ve cleverly used male here to avoid any possibility of having to pay royalties).
It’s honest and less unwieldy than the disparate groups that have been mashed together in the name of diversity and trying not to upset anybody. Who knows it might even become one of those terms that is disrespectful and dismissive when used about you but empowering when used by you.
Things are simpler at a stroke – you can’t be non-binary in a true binary system – although I am worried that there will be such disagreement about what exactly defines “man” that we’ll end up being divided into “notmen” and “non-notmen”.
I identify as non-bimodal.
James Howde, that is actually still a binary. Men vs. notmen is binary. And it comes down to this: People and everyone else. People and those who deviate from being people. Us and them.
The only women philosophers I know of are the ones who already are recognized already. I would like to learn more.