I wish these sorts of posts connected this with the research that many philosophers, especially women philosophers, have been doing for years and which has recently been given more formal organizational structures and platforms in projects like, project vox, the centre at paderborn university, or the sshrc-funded partnership that is new narratives in the history of philosophy, to name a few (forgive me if I’m forgetting important projects), not too mention the books on this very subject, by and large, by women philosophers. Maybe this is my misinterpretation and over-reading, but I find the implication of this post to be that it is novel to point out the existence of good women philosophers, which clearly it isn’t. Let’s not reinvent the wheel, but recognize and build on the work on women philosophers that has already been done and is ongoing!Report

I just want to second Margaret’s sentiment. There is a real tendency in the discipline to assert novelty as a way of promoting one’s project, and I understand that impulse and even the need for that. But I also think it is important, especially in the case of rehabilitating the work of women philosophers, to acknowledge the work that has been and is being done. It legitimizes the effort and situates in a kind of causal nexus that allows it to gain traction. What is original in this particular effort is to create something accessible to the general public — think readers on the subway/metro/underground or students in HS. It’s a great idea. And for those who are interested in more scholarly articles, let me draw attention to _Women and Liberty 1600-1800_ edited by Jacqui Broad and Karen Detlefsen.Report