In case those readers trained in analytic philosophy managed to miss it, this comment at A Philosophy Job Market Blog gave me the giggles while striking me as an entirely appropriate response (given the audience) to a lazy reliance on speculative evolutionary psychology to justify the status quo (in this case, the lopsided gender split of folks pursuing philosophy in their studies and as a career). The italicized portion is quoted from the earlier (ev-psych-loving) commenter:
Maybe, just maybe, philosophy is something "inherently more valuable" to men qua huntersBecause chasing down those non-existent unicorns painted to look like zebras in fake barn country required the ability to discern whether one was a brain in the vat before throwing a spear?
Anonymous commenter, I think I love you.

Janet D. Stemwedel (whose nom de blog is Dr. Free-Ride) is an associate professor of philosophy at San Jose State University. Before becoming a philosopher, she earned a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. Email her at dr.freeride@gmail.com.





Comments
Amusing, but the comment it was in response to was also an anonymous commentator...
Posted by: Joshua Zelinsky | April 8, 2008 11:47 PM
My default assumption is that when some highly underdetermined speculative analysis just happens to indicate that the status quo of gender or race privilege is, like, totally a consequence of, like, biology and stuff, it ain't likely to be a coincidence.
Posted by: PhysioProf | April 9, 2008 12:11 AM
This made me laugh so loud it scared the cats. Thanks, I needed that!
Posted by: a little night musing | April 12, 2008 10:38 PM