Women in philosophy

[Anonymous No.18252174]

Why are there so few women, historically as well as contemporarily, in philosophy? A quick google search appears to put the blame primarily on discrimination, sexual abuse on women students and philosophers which disincline women to go into philosophy, refusal of men in academia to mentor female students, and so on--systemic discrimination against women, in short. The consensus seems to be that it's because of men that women are under-represented in philosophy; but I'm not so sure people are really honest is their assessment, for saying anything otherwise in the current climate will result in social censure and possible ostracisation. But it can't be as simple as that, can it?
(Disclaimer: I want to make it clear that I don't think equal parity in academia--or in any field, for that matter--is desirable or necessary; and I think there's no reason to nudge women towards philosophy. I'm simply curious.)

[Anonymous No.18252205]

>>18252174
You don't need to be in academy in order to be a philosopher. Plenty of prominent philosophers had no degree in it. Therefore, these are just silly excuses.

[Anonymous No.18252217]

>>18252174
Because women are stupid. That's it. Also there is no any discrimination in academic environment.

[Anonymous No.18252219]

>>18252174
>tldr: women are dumb

Up to the age of 15 years, males and females have approximately the same intelligence, except for a small male advantage on the visualization abilities; however, from the age of 16 years, males begin to show greater intelligence, reaching an advantage of from three to five IQ points in adults. This has been further confirmed by Paul Irwing and Lynn(Irwing& Lynn, 2005; Irwing, 2012), by Victoria Bourne, Helen Fox, Ian Deary, and Lawrence Whaley (2007).

[Anonymous No.18252220]

>>18252174
because the more intellectually demanding the academic field is, the fewer women will be there.

[Anonymous No.18252221]

>>18252174
Women were represented in some Ancient Greek philosophical schools - Pythagoreans and, if you count that, the Dyonisian Mysteries. Then, they were rare in academia until the 20th century because of patriarchy unironically, but also because women in general don't lean towards philosophy that much, let alone the natural sciences and other academic fields.

[Anonymous No.18252223]

>>18252174
Do you really expect this thread to generate good discussion?

[Anonymous No.18252231]

>>18252205
>You don't need to be in academy in order to be a philosopher.
I wholeheartedly agree but that's where samples are gathered. And so I only used that as an example. So, you meant to say there are non-social reasons for the underrepresentation of women in philosophy? Is that a correct inference?

[Anonymous No.18252253]

>>18252219
>IQ

[Anonymous No.18252263]

>>18252219
>IQ

[Anonymous No.18252265]

>>18252253
Type in google "global map of IQ" and pick which countries you want to live in.

[Anonymous No.18252266]

>>18252231
There may or may not be social reasons for it but they aren't chief. Philosophy is a discipline which demands dedication and, what matters most, sacrifice of normal life. Being a philosopher oftens means being alienated and misunderstood. Also, to be a metaphysician (that is, a philosopher proper) requires a capacity for abstract thinking which filters a lot of people.

[Anonymous No.18252270]

>>18252265
I highly doubt some of these scores. There's no way Equatorial Guinea has an avg IQ of 59. The country simply wouldn't be able to sustain itself.

[Anonymous No.18252275]

>>18252253
>>18252263
Yes, IQ. Acquire it.

[Anonymous No.18252277]

>>18252174
>domination
philosophers have never "dominated" anything lmao

[Anonymous No.18252278]

>>18252221
I agree with the fact that patriarchy has some effect in dissuading women in male-dominated field of studies. What I don't agree with is the fact that majority of the blame is put on it.

Do you think pushing women into philosophy to increase their representation will result in philosophy being dumbed down and its quality being degraded? Or will the unintelligent ones be just filtered by the the vast numbers of smarter male and female counterparts?

[Anonymous No.18252281]

>>18252219
And yet, women will consistently assume themselves smarter and more mature than men of the same age...

[Anonymous No.18252288]

>>18252275
>IQ

[Anonymous No.18252292]

Just read that comment, that you know was written by a woman >>18252251
That should answer some questions about women in philosophy.

[Anonymous No.18252300]

>>18252270
You're nitpicking hard. Even if EG has a higher IQ of lets say 5 points, the clear pattern between high living standards, civilizational ability and IQ is clear as concrete.

[Anonymous No.18252307]

>>18252174
not smart enough for it

[Anonymous No.18252312]

>>18252223
Good discussion? Not necessarily. I just want to have discussion on this topic since there seems to be paucity of it, and of the tiny amounts that exist, most seem disingenuous.

[Anonymous No.18252318]

>>18252253
sorry but some people are smarter than others. it's just a basic fact of life

[Anonymous No.18252325]

>>18252318
he means to say that IQ isn't a reliable metric od smartness

[Anonymous No.18252326]

>>18252292
>written by a woman
Thank you anon, it's nice to see some people respect transexual rights. I wish other people on /lit/ would just treat us as people, that is what we are after all!

[Anonymous No.18252337]

>>18252325
yeah well that's a cope. IQ isn't perfect, no psychometric is, but it's pretty solid

[Anonymous No.18252341]

>>18252326
Take your Pimazide, John.

[Anonymous No.18252344]

>>18252219
vaginabros... we got too cocky

[Anonymous No.18252349]

>>18252174
the only discipline in the humanities with more men than women, the only one, and that's the one that need a gender equality

[Anonymous No.18252357]

>>18252265
>Look, people that are uneducated have a low IQ, what a coincidence DESU! It's like you can't prepare a test of IQ beforehand and nobody has ever seen such a test in these countries before taking it!

[Anonymous No.18252361]

>>18252300
But why would you compare IQ in the context of national stability with IQ in the context of women in academia?
Greece has a lower IQ than Japan and Korea, yet Greek philosophers have been much more influential and important than Asian ones (who's ever heard of a single Korean philosopher?), and Greek philosophy arose from drunken Thracians (whom other ancient ethnicities deemed to be uncivilized retards).
So, philosophy probably doesn't arise from raw IQ, there have to be other variables.

[Anonymous No.18252368]

>>18252300
>the clear pattern between high living standards, civilizational ability and IQ is clear as concrete.
no is not, not at all, there's to many variables to do such a raw simplistic link between the two

[Anonymous No.18252369]

>>18252361
...likewise, IQ probably isn't the sole metric for why women aren't more represented in philosophy

[Anonymous No.18252377]

>>18252344

[Anonymous No.18252389]

>>18252278
>Do you think pushing women into philosophy to increase their representation will result in philosophy being dumbed down and its quality being degraded? Or will the unintelligent ones be just filtered by the the vast numbers of smarter male and female counterparts?
One doesn't exclude the other. A lot of the women who are responsible for turning philosophy into a shitshow (Butler for instance) are likely highly intelligent.

[Anonymous No.18252398]

>>18252292
Why do you think women give more emphasis on look, not intelligence, in choosing a sexual partner? Are there any evolutionary advantages? Surely one who is intelligent is more likely to survive, and therefore more suitable as a mate and a father, than one who is merely beautiful.

[Anonymous No.18252402]

>>18252174
>Why are there so few women, historically as well as contemporarily, in philosophy?
I don't care. It's a political topic.

[Anonymous No.18252417]

>>18252402
You should have just ignored it then.

[Anonymous No.18252423]

>>18252398
Since when do men care about intelligence in choosing a mate? Some men, like the Japanese, prefer dumb women, which is why some Japwomen act dumb on purpose.
>Surely one who is intelligent is more likely to survive, and therefore more suitable as a mate and a father, than one who is merely beautiful.
Intelligence is also associated with asocial freaks, autistic savants and timid nerds. They choose handsome males because being handsome is more of an indicator of a possibility of spreading genes than being intelligent. Why? Because other women prefer handsome males. It's a Fisherian feedback loop.

[Anonymous No.18252424]

>>18252417
I don't think you get to decide what I should do.

[Anonymous No.18252443]

>>18252398
>Why do you think women give more emphasis on look, not intelligence, in choosing a sexual partner?
I think that both male's and female's ability to chose the right partner is very weak. At best, we are making guesses that are not as bad as they'd appear to be.

I don't think we chose such and such partners because of evolution. People just make shitty decisions when choosing partner because they don't want to admit to themselves why they are looking for a partner in the first place.

[Anonymous No.18252450]

Lots of women in continental philosophy. Less so in analytic philosophy.

Hmmmm.

[Anonymous No.18252455]

>>18252357
>It's like you can't prepare a test of IQ beforehand and nobody has ever seen such a test in these countries before taking it!
This is a cope. In white/Asian countries kids don't encounter an IQ test ever before taking it, yet their scores are still higher.

[Anonymous No.18252460]

>>18252219
>blocks your path

[Anonymous No.18252471]

Female philosophers are like their comedian counter-parts, they only talk about their vaginas.

[Anonymous No.18252476]

What are some based female philosophers according to /lit/?
>Hypatia
>G. E. M. Anscombe
>...???

[Anonymous No.18252479]

>>18252476
Amie Thomasson. Love her newest book 'Norms and Necessity'

[Anonymous No.18252483]

Every single time women don't have parity with men in some field, they make this same excuse about systemic oppression, even though they're the ones in control of the system. The truth is that Western women, or at least anglo women, just want instant gratification and recognition without having to work for it. They don't care about philosophy or programming or composing itself, they just want to be "successful."

[Anonymous No.18252490]

>>18252398
First you should be more cautious about the all-functionalist evopsych, especially in the field of sexuality. The state of biological organisms is by no means all optimized to any of the stuff you might deem relevant in a static equilibrium.
Our reproductive/attraction instincts are largely retarded. It is misleading to a priori rush towards an explanation of the kind you suggest.
Second, higher cognitive functions were probably irrelevant up to a rather recent date. You could always argue that inborn sexual behavior has evolved slower so we're still stuck with homo erectus sexual preferences. I have no idea whether that's true. I'm merely saying that there are dozens of ways to "explain" away why our main characteristic plays so little role in sexual selection. Even a negative one for women attraction to males, it's been proven women don't like men of too high IQ and men of slightly below average IQ (but not retarded) are the most sexually active.
>inb4 IQ

[Anonymous No.18252495]

>and not a single piece of literature was actively discussed that day

[Anonymous No.18252510]

>>18252495
dude stop being a nerd, the fuck's your problem

[Anonymous No.18252518]

>>18252495
>>18252510
Should have (and could have) started a literature thread himself instead of whining that there isn't a single one.

[Anonymous No.18252541]

>>18252510
>>18252518
The only explanation I have for people like you is that all of this WOW I HATE WOMEN and WOW IQ political garbage must still be new and exciting, rather than just the agglomerate permutations of the exact same points that get endlessly regurgitated all day every day by a self-reinforcing legion of teenagers and 20-something undergrads. None of these threads will ever feature a genuinely original thought on the subject because everyone is too caught up in their self-righteous fervor to be aware of it.

On top of it all, this is the literature board. This thread is not about literature. It's about politics, academia, and philosophy. None of those things are works of literature.

[Anonymous No.18252562]

>>18252541
Dude it's precisely your posts that are the most useless itt. We're dealing with heavy questions here and offering multifaceted explanations to try and solve the women enigma, and you're here sperging like a retard for no reason.
If you want to "discuss" "literature" that much, go forth and post forced memes on the newest CotC or Waldun thread, or alternate between replying "based" or "cringe" whenever someone asks some vapid question like "What do you think of George Orwell?", that seems more up your speed.
This topic transcends mere literature discussion.