PHL206 - Chapter 12: Different Gender, Different Ethics?

What are the two separate but related questions feminist ethics asks? Give an account of how each question is answered

1.) Is there a morally correct way for society to approach the issue of gender equality? 2.) Is ethics gender-specific meaning, is there an approach to ethics that is typical for women, and another for men?

What qualifies someone as a feminist according to the classical feminist?

“If you ask a woman in the Western world today whether she is a feminist, chances are she will say no; if you ask her whether she believes that women and men should have equal opportunities, that women should be discriminated against based on their gender, and that women and men should get equal pay for equal work, chances are she will say yes, and so will most men.”

What has the label “feminism” caused some people to assume? Regardless of this misconception, what beliefs does the text point out make one a feminist “regardless of your gender according to many contemporary feminists?”

It has caused people to assume that all feminists somehow want to rule the world. You are a feminist if you believe that we should end sex discrimination and help create a friendly, cooperative working environment as well as private partnership for men and women based on equality.

With what was feminism originally associated? To what would the “male-dominated world” point regarding women’s sensibilities and with what was this coupled?

Feminism was originally associated with acquiring political and social rights for women: the right to work, to own property, to vote, to get a divorce, and other rights. The “male-dominated world” would often point to women’s sensibilities as those of a higher moral view, but because that was usually coupled with an assumption that women were unfit for life in the rough and heartless real world of men, early feminists usually placed little emphasis on that notion.

The text suggests that “women and men tend to view the entire field of ethics from different viewpoints.” In what way does the text suggest women and men view ethics? In what terms do women think that has been advanced by Carol Gilligan?

The text suggests that men tend to operate with what's called the ethics of justice. And for women, they view ethics of care or virtue of caring. Furthermore, men tend to think of morality in terms of rules of conduct,  justice, and fairness, says the theory, women tend to think of morality in terms of relationships, of staying friends, and of caring for those who are close to you or for whom you have accepted responsibility. There are different emphasis on what women/men care about and what they prioritize.

According to the “Gender and Language” section, what has been customary since the Enlightenment period? What does this section say is surprising for many of us to learn regarding the word “man?”

Since the Enlightenment period, it has been customary to use words of the masculine gender to refer to both males and females. The section regards that we cannot always use “man” to cover all groups of people and it can be seen as discriminatory. We are trying, as a majority of society, to move more towards a gender-neutral language.

Why and in what ways does the text denote that “we are now moving away from what is known as ‘gender specific’ language toward ‘gender neutral’ language?” Give specific examples.

Rather than saying policeman, we are saying police officer. Rather than saying fireman, we are saying firefighter.

According to the text, what is the “real reason for being sensitive about gender and language?” What does the text say is “enough reason to makes some changes in the way we phrase things?”

The real reason for being sensitive about gender and language is, of course, to achieve gender equality. The change shouldn’t be bothersome to anyone unless that someone is afraid of change in the first place. The change occurred in the first place because it made some women feel excluded.

According to Box 12.2, what are the “two things at stake” regarding language and what are the “four major courses of action” we can take?

The two things at stake regarding language: the challenge of inclusivity of more than half of the English-speaking population and the comfort of those used to an established language. The four major courses of action: (1) forcibly change language to some degree; (2) wait until a new gender-neutral terminology evolves by itself, in response to the changing times. That is what has been happening due to vocabulary changes in academic environments. (3) make a distinction between sexist and nonsexist terms and change only the blatantly sexist ones (4) Insist of keeping the traditional terms.

What are the two questions being asked “when we ask whether sexual equality exists?” What is the difference between these two questions? What is the difference between a descriptive and normative approach? What does sexual dimorphism have to do with this?

(1) Does cultural and social equality exist? or (2) Does biological equality exist? The first question has to do with certain times in certain places. For example, did cultural/sexual equality exist in Hong Kong 1840? Or did cultural/sexual equality exist in 1920? Does it exist in the US today? Those are a descriptive approach because they are describing what is the case. A normative approach tells you what should be the case. It is a value judgment. The question regarding whether biological equality exists is complicated. Suffice it to say we don't know what that exactly would look like. Even identical twins aren’t really biologically equal because it is difficult to tell. Obviously between men and women, we are different  and that is sexual dimorphism. Sexual dimorphism means that the two sexes of a species look very different, with one sex usually being much bigger than the other. The descriptive fact, in animals, the male tends to be larger than the female. Men and women are built differently. For instance, with red cardinals the male is a bright red and the female is tannish. The males also attract predators. If a predator, a hawk, comes overhead, they will more likely see the red cardinal. 

What do “recent studies of the human brain” reveal regarding men and women?

Recent studies revealed that most men and women actually tend to use their brains differently when dealing with the same math problems but that they generally reach the same results in the same amount of time.

What problem does the text say could occur if we base gender equality on biology?

Biology, like all science, is continuing to get closer to what we consider reality. In other words, the information changes as new information comes in. What we believe changes as the information comes in. What we used to think was true, was discovered was not false, but incomplete. The problem is we may discover something later that changes our belief. So the equality or inequality on which we base the genders is likely to change. If that changes, then our basis for the inequality is now undermined. The text refers to the naturalistic fallacy. We need to base the argument on a normative approach.

What are the arguments in favor of allowing women in combat? What are the arguments against allowing women in combat?

The arguments in favor of allowing women in combat: (1) it is a natural progression toward complete gender equality in a modern society (2) qualified and well-trained women can be as effective, and as brave, as their male counterparts (3) many women want to serve their country in combat; and if they qualify, it would be unfair to exclude them (4) since combat experience is necessary for officers; advancement within the military, it is discriminatory to exclude women officers–it maintains a glass ceiling(outdated argument since combat experience is apparently no longer a requirement for males to advance either). The arguments against allowing women in combat: (1) women simply aren’t “qualified,” except for perhaps a very few. The training criteria for a combat soldier include carrying a heavy backpack plus weapon during a forced march, and the vast majority of even very motivated women just can't do that. And if standards are lowered so more women qualify, the effectiveness of the forces will be diminished, and soldiers put in unnecessarily dangerous situations. (2) It is dangerous for the male soldiers to have female comrades-in-arms: Because of a natural chivalry and an instinct to protect, the male soldiers will be more focused on protecting their female colleagues and may become distracted from their battle training. (3) Women POWs are in great danger of being raped than male POWs, and threats or violence against the female POWs could become an element in the enemy’s interrogation techniques, wearing down in resistance of the male POWs. (4) It is simply uncivilized to have women in combat.

The text points out that “it was common practice in Western culture to assume that male and female natures were essentially different.” What was this assumption? “What was this assumption based on?”

The assumption was that male and female natures were essentially different in their functions, aspirations, and potential, and that male nature was somehow more normal than female nature. The assumption was mainly said to be prejudice but that when you looked at the history of things, you didn't see women doing a lot of things like being scientists, politicians, or artists. So the assumption was based on the way they observed things, not on their desire to keep women down or make up some story against women (not prejudiced).

What is the difference between the private and public spheres? What has this to do with feminism? That is, what was the role of the woman historically regarding these spheres? What are the two reasons the text indicates is the reason in early times women remained outside the public sphere?

The public sphere is in which business is conducted. The private sphere is the home. Women historically were relegated to the private sphere. For example, Odysseus went to war and Penelope stayed at home. In the early times, women remained outside the public sphere because (1) for women’s protection because men are incapable of controlling themselves around women. (2) they were considered property. In the private sphere, women’s role regarded managing the bookkeeping and purchases, planned and prepared meals for the household, educated the children, and kept things running on the farm.

What does the section entitled “The Goddess Theory: Women Before Patriarchy,” say that “we know as a historical fact going back at least three thousand years?”

We know that patriarchy may have not been necessarily the order of things. Prior to 3000 years ago, it is quite possible or there is evidence that shows men and women were considered to be more or less equal i.e. male gods and female goddesses of approximately total equal powers.

In what way does Rosenstand suggest women were perceived some 10,000 years ago? Why does the text say Plato may have been the first feminist? How long ago did this view change and why did it change?

Rosenstand suggests that women and men were perceived more or less equally some 10,000 years ago. Male and female gods of more or less equal power. The text says Plato may have been the first feminist because he wrote a book called The Republic. In that, he argued that women had the right/potential to be rulers provided they had the qualifications. The view changed around 3500 years ago because that's when patriarchy set in.

What does Native American historian Paula Gunn Allen tell us regarding the reporting of the chiefs of Eastern tribes and what history books have done?

Paula Gunn Allen reports that many women chiefs were not reported as such. They would be reported to the Easterners and Westerners as males or not chiefs at all. They were not seen as leaders at all.

What reasons are provided that Plato was a feminist? What reasons are provided that Plato was not a feminist?

Plato was seen as a feminist because in the book he wrote, The Republic, he said that women had the/potential to be rulers provided they had the qualifications. Feminists, like Lynda Lange, disagreed because he flat out says that female philosophers will be wives in common for the male philosophers-but the males are not to be husbands in common for their wives. In other words, female philosophers are to be considered a kind of property shared by men.

Who was Hypatia? What did she teach? What happened to her, who did it, and why did it happen? What happened in the Roman Empire after this occurred?

Hypatia was essentially a bright woman who taught philosophy among other things. She was murdered because she was thought to be pagan. A sect of Christians ripped her flesh off with clamshells. They did it frankly because they didn't like women teaching or paganism. After this occurred, she was kind of forgotten for a while., and women’s freedom was waned at that time due to that act of terrorism.

Who is Hildegard of Bingen? Elaborate on who she was.

Hildgard of Bingen was a German abbess. She was given to the church at age 8, which happened quite a lot. She would have visions and she wrote a number of books on God’s plan for humanity, two about her visions, and another two on science and nature, and she wrote liturgical songs. One morality play including,  Ordo Virtuem which is basically the battle between good and evil, like Spiderman vs Doc Oc.

To what does the first wave of feminism generally refer? When did women obtain general suffrage in the U.S.? What is suffrage?

The first wave of feminism generally refers to the feminist movement in the West from its early beginnings in the seventh century to the accomplishment of its most urgent goal, the right to vote or suffrage. Women obtained general suffrage in the U.S in 1920. A lot of women advocated for suffrage as well because when a woman became a widow and had kids, an uncle could come and take the kids.

What did Poulain de la Barre argue? What was Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s and Talleyrand’s view of women? Who was Mary Wollstonecraft and what did she argue? Provide a detailed account of each.

Poulain de la Barre argued that women should have access to all occupations in society, even generals and leaders of parliament. Jean-Jacques and Talleyrand view women as made good pets or they should basically be living at home as subordinates to the man, but still be smart in poetry, etc. to entertain the man. Mary Wollstonecraft argues that it's not fair to the man to have a woman who's uneducated like that because she's going to be weak and timid. She argued if women were intelligent like men were, they could be beneficial to the man. She is tricking the opponent into buying into her argument. She wanted women to have the same opportunities as men.

Phintys of Sparta (e. 420 B.C.E.)

Held that it was not unfitting for women to philosophize and that courage, justice, and wisdom were common to women as well as men in the tradition of Greek moral thinking, she recommends moderation in all things as a virtue for women.

Makrina of Neocaesarea (e. 300 C.E.)

So impressed her brother, the bishop of Nyssa, that he cited her moral philosophy in his own writings. Makrina was familiar with Plato’s philosophy and taught that women were created in God’s image and has rational souls; with a rational soul, one is capable of becoming morally virtuous and this eligible for entry into heaven after death, she believed.

Murasaki Shikibu (978-c. 1031)

Was a Japanese courtier who, in her novel Genji Monogatari (The Tale of Genji), which is considered the first real novel, led her main character, the woman Ukifune, to a realization of freedom and moral responsibility in the face of existential dread. Today this story is seens as an early exploration of the key themes of existentialism as they were later defined in the Western world of the twentieth century.

Christine de Pizan (1365-1431)

Wrote a book, Cité des Dames (The City of Women), in which she envisioned women living in a community to protect themselves from physical and moral harm. She argued that oppression of women was counterproductive to the improvement of society and that women should strive to avoid activities that dull their intellect, since they were limited by certain social roles.

Marie le Jars de Gournay (1565-1645)

Was the editor of Montaigne’s Essay’s and wrote in a work of her own, Egalité des Hommes et des Femmes (Equality Between Men and Women), that women are equal to men in their capacity for moral reasoning and action. She believed that sexual differences related exclusively to reproduction and have otherwise no bearing on male or female nature.

Mary Astell (1666-1731)

Worked on a synthesis of the traditions of Locke and Descartes and believed that reason ought to govern our passions. The only way to accomplice that, she said, was to have universal education for women as well as for men.

Antoinette Brown Blackwell (1825-1921)

Was the first ordained American woman. She was a prolific writer of philosophy and theology and maintained that women and men make moral judgments differently; in a forerunner of Gilligan’s argument about an ethic of justice and an ethic of care. Blackwell claimed that women bring compassion to justice and caring to the concept of rights.

Emma Goldman (1869-1940)

Was born into an Orthodox Jewish family in Lithuania and immigrated to the Unites States in 1885. She lived a dramatic life, making speeches all over the country in support of anarchism, and being imprisoned numerous times for her support of birth control, women’s rights, antimilitary stance, and “inciting to riots.” During one of her prison sentences she studied medicine, and became a certified midwife after her release. She was the founder of the anarchist magazine Mother Earth (1906-17) and the author of several books, including Anarchism and Other Essays, My Disillusionment in Russia, and the autobiography Living My Life. She lived for a while in England, France, and Canada, and traveled to Spain during the Spanish Civil War in support of their anarchist revolution. Philosophically, she was inspired by Mary Wollstonecraft and Friedrich Nietzsche among others. Her dedication to anarchism is today seen as being less of a strict political ideal-which was popular among political radicals in the early twentieth century- and more of a rejection of sexual conventions and rigid social norms. During her lifetime she was labeled as “the most dangerous woman in America.”

Provide “a brief overview” of the three waves of feminism

First wave of feminism had its official starting point in 1848 with the Women’s Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, led by Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and culminating with the 19th amendment in 1920. The first wave of feminism had goals of getting rights for women to self-determination; rights to inherit and own property, even in marriage (as opposed to the ownership of one’s inherited or earned property passing to one’s husband); rights to raise one’s children; and above all, suffrage. The second wave was ushered in with the publication of Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine Mystique in 1963. For most feminists of the second wave, the primary goal was the creation of an equal-opportunity society without discrimination because of ones sex-a society in which women, as well as men, would be able to freely choose their way of life and occupations; a common focus was on the upbringing of bots and girls, attempting to change the stereotypical gender roles to a more egalitarian pattern. Another common goal for all feminists in the second wave was a complete and discrimination-free access for women to any education or profession they might be interested in and qualified for. The beginning of the third wave is sometimes identified with the publication of Carol Gilligan’s In a Different Voice, and sometimes with the publication of Susan Faludi’s Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (1991). The philosophy of the third wave is less clearly defined than those of the first two waves; Radical feminism focuses on identifying and eliminating the roots of still-existing discrimination; other third-wave feminists focus on specific issues, such as feminist environmentalism, easier access to child care for working women, and combating racial and economic discrimination.

What is the difference (in other words define) between classical feminism, difference feminism, radical feminism (what does radical mean here), and equity feminism? Be detailed in your account.

Classical feminism, sometimes referred as liberal feminism, which calls for men and women to be considered as persons first and gendered beings second. Especially true prior to the 20th century because men and women were raised differently hence why they were different. Difference feminism which holds that women and men possess fundamentally different qualities and that both genders should learn from each other. The main point of radical feminism is not to mount the barricades but to seek out and expose the root of the problem of gender discrimination. In this context, radical comes from the Latin word radix, meaning root. Equity feminism holds that the battle for equality has been won, that we should not think of women as victims of patriarchy any longer, and that we can now adopt any kind of gender roles we like because gender discrimination is by and large a thing of the past.

How does the classical feminist account for gender differences? What does Simone de Beauvoir argue in her work The Second Sex? What does the title suggest? What is bad faith? What has bad faith to do with gender roles? What does Beauvoir say about why women are weak? How does she describe women and why does she say that “women are all these things?”

 Classical feminism accounts for gender differences through culture like women and men are treated differently. Simone de Beauvoir argues a lot in her work The Second Sex with like men are typical and women are atypical. Female is often considered emotional because of her body, and the body accounts for her behavior. For men, its an outside circumstance like hes crying oh what happened? The title suggests are women are atypical or the second/other sex. It goes back to the men are normal idea. Bad faith has nothing to do with religion. Bad faith is this idea that we blame what it is we do on some disposition that we have that is beyond our control. Existentialism posits that there is no human nature; any attempt at claiming we have to do or be something is nothing but a poor excuse for not wanting to make a choice: bad faith. If we carry this over onto Beauvoir’s theory of feminism, we understand what she means when she says that a woman must shed her culturally given role as the second sex: there is no female human nature any more than there is any human nature in genera;’ we must fight the cultural traps of gender roles and their assumption that this is how we have to be, because that is nothing but a poor excuse for not making our choices. Beauvoir describes women as, “they may be lazy, sensual, servile, frivolous, utilitarian, materialistic, and hysterical. She says “women are all these things” because they have no power except by subterfuge. They have no education, so they have never been taught about the cause and effect of history and the relative powers of authority. They are caught up in a never-ending stream of housework, which causes them to be practically oriented. They nag because they realize they have no power to change their situation. They are sensual because they are bored.

What does the text say about whether one can “choose our gender at all?” Why does the text tell us that Gender identity can be explored without any physical alterations? What did psychologists of the 1960s and 1970s say regarding choosing gender? What is psychosexual neutrality and what does it have to do with these psychologists? What is the story of David Reimer and what does this say about choosing gender?

Gender is a social construction with respect to how men and women are expected to behave. Sex has to do with biology and chromosomes. Gender has to do with masculine and feminine traits. The book is telling us that psychologists or behaviorists, like B.F. Skinner, in the 60s and 70s said they believed you could condition someone to be what you wanted them to be. For instance, B.F. Skinner was known for saying give me a baby and I will make them whatever you want… nuclear physicist or mathematician. With that being said, then someone who is gay or straight because of the way they’re raised… if you’re straight, you’re conditioned to be straight; if you’re gay, you’re conditioned to be gay. However what occurs is that this guy David Reimer had a disturbing story where his was born as a male but lost his penis due to a botched circumcision as an infant. His parents thought it would be easier to raise him as a girl, Brenda. Brenda was raised and treated as a young lady but never felt quite right as a girl. Finds out what happened and goes back to being a boy, David, but it didn’t quite work out. The point of this is if the psychologists were correct then Brenda should’ve been completely happy as being a female. It is simply not a matter of upbringing. You cannot make someone be straight or gay. The attraction may be influenced by things in our past but they don’t condition it. That is psychosexual neutrality which is brought up by the behaviorists. You cannot choose who you like or whom you’re attracted to.

What is difference feminism? According to this theory, how do women survive in a male-dominated public sphere? How do Aristotle, Kant, Rousseau, and Nietzsche see men as different from women? What did John Stuart Mill say about gender equality and how has that influenced feminism? What does Difference feminism want to do regarding the image of the genders? What values does the difference feminist say we typically celebrate and what do they think should be done about this? What are typical male/female virtues?

Difference feminism is the idea that men and women are fundamentally different, but should be viewed equally. Men dominated the public sphere for a long time. If both things are true, difference feminism and male-dominated public spheres, the public sphere will have male characteristics. And for a woman to survive in a male dominated public sphere, she basically has to give up being a woman and adopt male characteristics. It leads to not a lot of good things happening because it is unhealthy for her and the people she lives with because she is not being herself. Aristotle believed women were deformed men. Kant, who found it thoroughly improper for a woman to display any interest in intellectual or technological pursuits, even if she might be good at them. Rousseau, who saw a woman as a man’s helpmate and little else; and Nietzsche, who admired women for being more “natural” than men, but vilified them for being inconsistent. John Stuart Mill was the first influential philosopher to suggest that although men and women have different capacities, they should nevertheless be given equal opportunities and equal respect for their abilities. Difference feminism did not want to bring down males when regarding the image of genders, and it is not to offer up a set of neutral values. Its to keep the male values in place and bring the female values up to be equal to them. Different feminists say we typically celebrate males. That we like competition. They are wanting to keep the male value in place again and bring the female values equal to them. Female virtues are generosity, caring,  harmony, reconciliation, maintenance of close relationships. Male virtues are justice, rights, fairness, competition, independence, and adherence to the rules. Different feminists are NOT trying to knock down or change male values!

What does psychologist Carol Gilligan do and conclude in her work, “In a Different Voice?” What is the Heinz dilemma? Explain the dilemma and the results; what was the question and what were the responses? Be detailed in your answer. What was Kohlberg’s interpretation of the results? How did Carol Gilligan interpret the results? Your answer should be detailed. What is the ethics of care/ the ethics of justice? How do the ethics of care and justice relate to the 2006 study regarding women and men seeing people getting shocked? What is the point of Gilligan’s book, In a Different Voice?

In a Different Voice, Gilligan analyzes reactions of boys and girls, men and women, and concludes that there is a basic difference in the moral attitudes of males and females. The Heinz dilemma was an experiment conducted by psychologist, Lawrence Kohlberg. An interviewer using Kohlberg’s method asked two 11 year old children, Jake and Amy, to evaluate the following situation: Heinz’s wife is desperately ill, and Heinz cant afford medication for her. Should Heinz steal the medication? Jake has no doubts; he says yes, Heinz should steal the medication, because his wife’s life is more important than the rule of not stealing. Amy, though, is not so sure. She says no, he shouldn’t steal the medication, because what if he got caught? Then he would have to go to jail, and who would look after his sick wife? Perhaps he could ask the pharmacist to let him have the medication and pay later. Since the interviewer didn’t get the expected response, Amy changed her answer. The interviewer concluded that Jake had a clear understanding of the situation: It would be just that the wife should receive the medication, because her rights would override the the law of not stealing. The interviewer thought that Amy’s comprehensions of the situation was fuzzy at best. Jake understood what it was all about: rights and justice. Gilligan rereads Amy’s answer and comes up with another conclusion entirely; Although Jake answered the question Should Heinz steal the drug or not? (in other words, a classical dilemma requiring a choice between two answers), Amy heard it differently; Should Heinz steal the drugs, or should he do something else? In effect, the children were answering different questions, and Amy’s response makes as much sense as Jake’s. But Amy is not concerned with the issues of rights and justice as much as she is with what will happen to Heinz and his wife; she even takes the humaneness of the pharmacist into consideration. In other words, she thinks in terms of caring. She acknowledges that there are laws, but she also believes people can be reasoned with. The interviewer, Gilligan says, didn’t hear that there are laws, but she also believes people can be reasoned with. A group of men and a group of women are observing a video of someone who is doing something wrong, and then they get shot for doing that wrong. The pleasure center of the men is activated for this and the women the pain center. Men interpret this that there is a wrongdoing and punishment is justice. Women interpret that there is someone who did something wrong and the person got hurt. The wrongdoing was never addressed. The point of Gilligan’s book is for men to better understand women and women better be able to understand men. Basically how to act with the other sex.

 What are the risks of Gilligan’s theory and what are the criticisms?

Some think we may end up elevating female values far above male values. A more pressing problem is the following: If we say it is in a woman’s nature to be understanding and caring, we may be forcing her right back into the private sphere from which she just emerged. Critics have claimed that what Gilligan is doing is throwing a monkey wrench into the philosophy of gender equality, and her “ethic of care” theory may result in statements such as this: “We need a new executive with a good head for legal rules- but we cant hire a woman, of course, even though she seems otherwise qualified, because science says that women have a lousy sense of justice.”

How does the text propose that we “take” (understand) the term “radical?” From what/where does the term originate? What are the radical feminist asking?

Radical or Latin word, radix, is trying to get to the root (of the problem). The tern originated in the second wave of feminism. Radical feminists are asking for an equal society.