Women philosophers

SIR – You report (March 15) that Oxford University wants 40 per cent of its philosophy reading list to consist of work by female philosophers.

I see no reason in principle why sexism should not be combated by such a tactic, and it may succeed in what is presumably its main aim of bringing more women to philosophy.

There is, however, an unintended consequence: the reading list will become skewed towards philosophers of the late-20th and 21st centuries. As far as philosophy is concerned, this is a worse bias than sexism: women do not philosophise very differently from men, but recent philosophers do philosophise very differently from former ones, and for the most part (if I may venture a personal opinion) not nearly so effectively. Dr Alex Abercrombie

Fishguard, Pembrokeshire

SIR – I went up to Somerville, Oxford, in the mid-seventies to read philosophy and theology, and became good friends with a daughter of Elizabeth Anscombe (Letters, March 18). It is true that she did not approve of practising homosexuals. She did not approve of sex before marriage, full stop. However, she was completely non-judgmental about platonic love between people of the same sex.

I was one of the relatively few people who were “out” at a time when you more or less expected to face prejudice. She showed no disapproval of me as a person, welcoming me to her Cambridge house with unfailing kindness and affection. She didn’t even demure when I tried to flex my 18-year-old philosophical muscle at her. I think she found it amusing.

As for the philosophy, it is mindbogglingly difficult. I would much rather chance my luck with A Brief History of Time. Anna Fell

Canterbury, Kent