The blog of The Philosophers’ Magazine, Talking Philosophy, currently has two posts up that may be of interest to feminist readers. One is a sensitive and excellent treatment of motherhood, moral luck, and how to do philosophy in the face of tragedy, by Claire Creffield. I really appreciate her care in writing:
At its best, though, philosophy can restrain its tendency to glibness by taking seriously the Socratic point, that wisdom lies in the awareness of how little we know: rather than expertise, philosophers offer tools for the sustained interrogation of their own ignorance and everyone else’s. When philosophy is conceived in this way its reigning sentiments are bewilderment and hesitancy, amounting to a kind of intellectual pessimism, about the possibility of finding the kind of answers that ultimately satisfy. Those sentiments aren’t out of place at the scene of a tragedy, I think.
Her post deserves feminist and philosophical attention. It’s not getting the traffic of the other post up, about which our readers are contacting us in much greater numbers, and which is not sensitive or excellent: Rupert Read’s argument for what he calls “a Feminist case against some of the discourse of the trans lobby.” (Apparently there’s a “the lobby.”) Unfortunately, much as some of us contributors to FP might wish to criticize and host criticism of his post, not one of us is available in the next few days to moderate a comment thread here, and we’re not wild about hosting a blog conversation about another blog anyway. Go there instead, but seriously, you’re missing out if you read Read’s work and not Creffield’s. Her attention to “bewilderment and hesitancy” is exactly what’s called for.