A. C. Grayling: The Good Book

I find your comment equally egregious - what about the contributions of blacks/gays/hispanics/the disabled/mentally deficient/ the persecuted/hermaphrodites/etc?

That's a very bad start, "I'm better than you, just look how smart I am", especially when it's followed by rambling rants, which include hypocrisy and clear bias. Why is 'sensitivity' in quotes given nobody mentioned the word?

Reporting an historical fact is not sexist, even if the fact itself demonstrates sexism in the past. It would be more offensive to omit the topic or terms which you object to as it would be sweeping the issue under the carpet rather than confronting it. He clearly explains the lack of female representation is due to society and the lack of opportunity, it says nothing as to superiority of mind or morals of either gender. You choosing to take it as such in the face of a clear and valid explanation to the contrary, demonstrates nothing more than your inability to comprehend the material you have been presented.

He mentioned other situations of imposing ones will on others. With your selective quoting, you are committing the same error you are accusing him of making. Pot, meet kettle.

It appears you would like to remove any language from the dictionary that either describes a specific gender, or encompasses both genders. Those exclusions would eliminate all pronouns for a start, and if you want to be pedantic enough to include origins of words we would regress to the vocab of a caveman or have to invent an entirely new language from scratch with no references to past dialects, neither of which would be viable or beneficial options.

Should anecdotes be altered so as not to offend overly sensitive people with nothing better to do than read into something that which is not there? Why aren't you complaining about the points were men were equally stereotyped? Equality is a two way street.

Calling an overweight person fat is an observation of fact, it may be insensitive, but it has nothing to do with gender. You are clearly reaching to come up with objections, and broadening your scope is simply a red herring.

Having a point rise or fall on it's merits is the exact opposite of religion, as holy scripture claims to be the infallible word of god. Truth is not determined by association. The words of an unknown philosopher should carry the same weight as those from a household name, male or female. Providing footnotes would only give one with your mindset more invalid reasons to complain.

Your approach is similar to creationists that see each missing link found as two more missing links that disprove evolution. As with the first point, if someone states facts you complain. But now, if someone omits facts you still complain.

A little consistency would give your views a lot more credibility, of course if they were consistent you would have to concede your objections are the result of your own bias, and not the content itself.

Look, I know you don't believe a word I say - you have been trained to hear and object to the discrimination of women, whether or not it is actually present. I'm just saying.

My 'sensitivity', most likely arises from many years of expensive, higher education, and a highly technical scientific career. Whenever anyone, particularly a tenured professor, stands up to present the 'better way', it is advisable to approach with skepticism - finding the weakness and strength of the arguments and evaluating the credibility of the presenter. You have to carefully deconstruct the message to evaluate its validity -- a point he makes, by the way.

1. In this presentation, humans are men, thinkers are men, humanists, sources and all basis for his text is from the perspective of male, property owning, masters of their societies -- their experience is 'universal'. "Diversity" and "plurality" are given mention, but there is no diversity or plurality in the source material - Socrates, Geo. Bernard Shaw, John Stuart Mill, Monty fucking Python, Emerson, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Cicero, Hume, Spinoza (noted sexist this one!). You don't have to be Stanley Fish to find this problematic from its inception.
2. Very first mention of a woman @ 23 min -- Mrs Mary Whitehouse -- the example of intolerance, moralist, puritan, imposing her tastes -- Men have never imposed their tastes, values and opinions on women? To this point, all positive human qualities have been ascribed to the 'Universal' Male. When he gets an opportunity to discuss negative human traits -- he chooses an obscure woman? What? So Hitler or pedophile priests didn't impose their will?
3. Min 28.3 "what does a philosopher do when HE gets up in the morning?" -- note again all 'active' thinkers are men -- the language is not neutral, it is exclusive.
4. 28:25 Second specific mention of women -- Ladies on the Glasgow bus - a lovely joke about women being empty headed - "memorable".
5. Min. 32:40 Courtesans give so much pleasure? Who got joy from this system? Courtesans, usually women, who often HAD TO exchange sex for money and status - or even survival. Power and consent issues here -- but he un-hesitatingly supports this is a "source of joy"? This is not sex-positive, folks. Ewww.
6. Min. 42 - mocking his own fans by calling them 'fat' - ugly.
5."Anything true belongs to everybody" -- so he defines what is true, giving no evidence or attribution (footnotes) other than his assertion of power. So, we can't go back and check his account? How is this different from Religion?
6. Bad reviewers are "hysterical" -- meaning arising from the 'disturbance of the uterus'. Gross.
7. Min 49 -- Philosophy was written for Aristotle's "educated fellows in society" -- belongs to "everybody", but was 'everybody' literate or allowed access -- let's review - not the slaves, not the women, not the farmers. Greek society was as stratified and unequal as you could imagine.
8. Last question - he actually concedes the point that his source material is biased in the extreme.

Look guys, I know you don't believe a word I say - you have been trained not to hear or acknowledge the humanity of women and underclasses by assholes like this guy. I'm just saying.

I don't see it. I read your comment just as it began and found there were few mentions of women in general and in the one negative mention he did make it had everything to do with the woman's negative actions and nothing whatsoever to do with her gender. You seem to be projecting.

As for the talk itself I found it was interesting but a little lacking in substance.

I read your comment before I watched the talk and so with my consciousness already raised to the issue I proceeded. I have to say I have no idea what you are talking about. One of the main themes was to absorb the content, actually consider it, and take from it what is of value to you. If you see negativity, perhaps that is a reflection on yourself rather than the speaker.

Every mention of women in this talk is extremely negative - pejorative -- does not reflect well on humanism.

The last questioner subtlety points this out - and the author is complete unaware of his complicity in the marginalization of all things female. Repulsive.