Love Philosophy, but Where's my Feminism?

So, a feminist philosophy professor came in to teach my Ancient/Medieval class about female philosophers and why they weren't included in the list of canonical philosophers. She didn't want to argue whether or not these women were in fact philosophers, but wanted to create a dialogue between the "legitimate" philosophers and the "illegitimate" philosophers in order to expand our notion of WHO and HOW a philospher comes to be a philosopher.

I thought it was a great idea and have often wondered, as a philosophy major, where all the women are! I figured that the lack of opportunities (given that women were generally restricted to domestic spaces) was to blames. However, that shouldn't have stopped them from writing letters. In fact, many philosophers either wrote nothing (Socrates) or had their philosophy "formalized" from letters to books (Sartre).

Overall, the discussion was fruitful and I was happy to learn of philosophers like Periktone and Theano. However, I couldn't help leaving feeling angry at some of the ideas/propositions expressed. For example, the philosopher asserted that one of these female philosophers had the same ideas earlier about the tripartite soul and that Plato plaigirized this philosopher. She mentioned that there is distinct evidence proving that Plato did in fact read the earlier female philospher's treatise, but I find this hard to believe and would like to see the evidence in order to decide for myself. Overall, I felt like the talk was a little destructive about the study of philosophy. She mentioned that other disciplines included notable works by people of color and women and that philosophy was lagging far behind. I felt like the underlying message was philosophy should change NOW to include female philosophers or we shouldn't keep studying it. However, I firmly believe that whether ideas are articulated by a man or woman makes no difference to the validity of an argument. In other words, we should read and consider these women not BECAUSE they are women, but instead BECAUSE they offer a unique take or argument on certain issues. I also feel like she demanded change to happen too fast. A discipline does NOT change overnight or from the publication of one book. It takes a group of dedicated academics publisihing MULTIPLE arguments and convincing MULTITUDES of other professors to include these female philosophers in their curriculum.

Outrage over India Vogue

So, I typed in India Vogue and found a most offensive article featuring Indians, who were clearly destitute, modeling exorbitantly priced bags, umbrellas and bibs. The New York Times article first gave quotes of someone denouncing the ad, then a rebuttal from the Vogue India editor and then it went on to give information about the rising middle and upper class in India. The last portion took up most of the article. Instead of exploring the deeper issue of class inequality, the New York Times focused on the capitalistic endeavors of these high fashion companies. Well, the article IS in the business section, so I guess it should explore these capitalistic endeavors. What I would have liked to see is this article somewhere else with a deeper analysis of not only the pictures, but the cover of the magazine in which these pictures were included. Why is the cover in ENGLISH if it is VOGUE INDIA? Who is this magazine really targeting? Why is a white woman scrunched between two Indians? What does that say about the position of "whiteness" in India? Why are these women almost being used as "background images?"

Jezebell, a feminist site, answered my questions in their two seperate analysises on both the magazine cover and the pictures (http://jezebel.com/5044233/vogue-india-puts-fendi-bib-on-impoverished-child-critics-freak & http://jezebel.com/gossip/emerging-markets/vogue-india-debuts-with-australian-blonde-on-front-bleeding-heart-inside-313729.php). Why are Fendi bags being put on destitute people? Because fashion is about exclusivity. There needs to be a "lower" in order for one to be "better." Why is the white person in the middle? Because whiteness = priveledge. Why is the magazine in English? Because English = priviledge.