system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
How do philosophers deal with misogynistic remarks in the core texts of some philosophers?

I am interested in this because for the first time in a class on Nietzsche rather than automatically dismiss his misogynistic remarks as being a product of his time (although that was still a possible explanation, maybe even purposefully done by Nietzsche to prove a point about his own inability to escape from his personal biases) we had to ask why he would choose to say these things.

All the other times we stumbled upon an unsavory remark like this with other philosophers it was always treated as a minor aberration from the philosophers work and dismissed. 

I find it hard to accept that in texts that are studied word by word that any philosopher would put something in so lightly, and why something in those texts can be excluded from the writers philosophy.

In a time when misogyny is so obviously unacceptable it seems like it would stick out like a sore thumb and be a possible weak point, previously glossed over, that could be analysed. 

So are there any interesting examples of this being done fruitfully? Or on the other hand are there examples of parts of a philosopher's text being obviously dismissible and not part of their philosophy?
gpt
You might like Jacques Derrida's *Spurs* and Kelly Oliver's *Womanizing Nietzsche.* They deal exactly with the problem of Nietzsche's misogyny from different perspectives. 

The way a lot of Derridean continental philosophy approaches problems such as this is to ask questions like: what role does "woman" play in the edifice of Nietzsche's work? How is one to understand the appeals to gender? What does it mean to call something a "minor aberration" for one who largely rejects such explanations as fearing the truth?