Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feminist philosophers Mary Wollstonecraft and Simone de Beauvoir, although separated by centuries and their respective approaches of political liberalism and existentialism, converge to a remarkable degree in their descriptions of women’s situation under oppression and, in particular, in their analysis of the role gendered virtue plays in that oppression. In this paper I identify their common project of “degendering” the virtues as a crucial part of the broader project of theorizing women’s equal humanity. I extrapolate from Wollstonecraft and Beauvoir’s critique to clarify the ways patriarchy sets up gendered virtue as a moral trap for women, one in which “feminine” virtues are virtues for which women are both praised and condemned, affirming their feminine value while denying them the value of a full and equal humanity. I argue that a program of “degendering” the virtues, as embarked upon by Wollstonecraft and Beauvoir, is necessary to the feminist program of gender justice, both to the negative program of rejecting an inherently unfair patriarchal morality and to the positive program of envisioning what women could be once freed from patriarchal influence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".