♀️ Females in philosophy

[simplicity]

Maybe the reason women are not interested in philosophy is that they find meaning in life. Men, on the other hand, could be hard-wired to search for the meaning of life.

Philosophy started with asking questions about life; what it was, what it all meant. With the advent of science, the what it was part was taken over and the what it meant was all that was left. Rationalism and humanism, which morphed into secular humanism, took center stage and the implications of that was being alone in the cosmos.

Women are wired for relationship. Maybe philosophy is too unmoored. Even if women took an interest in ethics, with scientific discoveries raising questions on that topic, if all we have is what we rationalize, without a template to serve as a point of reference it is not an easy task to take on.

What is the meaning of life?

Doing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The participation by females in philosophy may change/increase but that will perhaps take many generations and only if there are initiatives to get more females to get into philosophy.

"Initiatives?"

I don't see that. If the only reason women aren't going into philosophy is "lack of initiatives," then maybe. But that seems implausible: women are more encouraged to do more things these days than at any time in previous history. And universities are bastitions of privileged females these days, with male enrolment overall dropping precipitously, and female enrolment far higher than male, overall. If women are ever going to have "initiatives" to get into a subject, it's never likely going to be better than now.

But if, as we were discussing, there's any possibiliy that women are merely electing, of their own free will, to pursue something else, what would "initiatives" entail but trying to convince women against their own choice? And why shouldn't they choose what they want, if it turns out that they prefer other things?

Would we think we need to coerce a 50-50 distribution of women in bricklaying, too? Or lumberjacking? What's magical about a 50-50 distribution? Is it automatically guaranteed to serve the best interests of women, or even of the profession in question?

It's not an unreasonable thought to doubt that "initiatives" are called for: certainly there have been many recent "initiatives" to get women into the military, traditionally a male occupation. Even the idea of pregnant women piloting in combat has been floated. So there are people who think "initiatives" are what we need; but I think leaving it to women's free choices is a better strategy, don't you?

As I had mentioned the present biological and psychological state of the normal females do not drive them to be naturally more active in philosophy. So leaving women a free choice will not increase their participation in philosophy-proper.

The sort of changes in trends at present will provide initiatives for more women in philosophy. For example, most universities has a permanent faculty of philosophy, if there are less men, then women will naturally be driven to fill empty posts and similarly elsewhere.

What is popular at present is the trend to push 'feminism' in every aspect of philosophy which I find it very pseudo.

Re heavy work I noted in lots of YT videos of women getting into bricklaying, wall plastering and other menial & manual work normally done by males due to the competition for work as a result of rising unemployment.

[RCSaunders]

As it appears, women have been structurally excluded from philosophy, both from within and from the outside (history).

The real reason there are no women in philosophy is because women are not as gullible as men and have never fallen for the nonsense that is put over as, "philosophy."

Since Mrs. Plato discovered her husband was demented and believed in some mystical existence that no one can see or perceive that is more real than the house she was keeping for him, and the meals she was getting for him and the bed they slept in, she, and all other normal women, dismissed the folly of their "sophisticated," husbands for what it was.

When Mrs. aristotle discovered her idiot husband thought she had fewer teeth than he had because he was too dense to simply ask her to open her mouth so he could count her teeth, she learned to ignore all his philosophical nonsense, with a few chuckles behind his back. So long as he provided for her and didn't complain too much, she could put up with his nonsense.

So it has always been. Only ignorant men are worried that women aren't interested in their absurd philosophical nonsense.

[owl of Minerva]

Maybe the reason more women are not attracted to philosophy has less to do with them than it has to do with philosophy itself; where it is today. Women joining to concentrate on feminist issues is not enough. Does Western philosophy have a relationship to time; to the environment in which it operates, or is it overly or totally human centric?

We can see that a relationship to time and context is important from what time-keeping reveals. From The Tower of Winds in Athens, 140 B.C.; symbolic of world order, to Heinrich Suso’s Clock of Wisdom c. 1450, time-keeping devices or representations came with a background of astronomy. In The Middle Ages Lady Temperance also played a role, whether the time-keeper was an hourglass or mechanistic.

The plutonium timekeeper buried at Osaka, 1970 and The Doomsday Clock of 2020 are detached from background/foreground context and maybe humanism is as well. In addition to that the patriarchal world has had a 5,000 year tenure and may have reached a point where balance needs to be restored.

[Immanuel Can]

As I had mentioned the present biological and psychological state of the normal females do not drive them to be naturally more active in philosophy.

Is it "biological"? I don't think we know that much. But for some reason, they are opting not to get involved in it as much as men are...in spite of everything we can think of being in favour of them doing so already. So that's a surprise, and it starts to look like maybe, for some reason, many women don't want to.

So leaving women a free choice will not increase their participation in philosophy-proper.

But why would we "increase their participation" against their "free choice"? That would merely be autocratic, would it not? We'd be telling women that their "free choice" is not okay.

...most universities has a permanent faculty of philosophy, if there are less men, then women will naturally be driven to fill empty posts and similarly elsewhere.

I don't think we have any reason to believe that's true...not unless we want to fill jobs with people who actually don't want to be there, but are just kind of accepting it as the only way of getting an income. And is that the kind of professor we want?

What you are saying really argues for a) shrinking philosophy departments by firing males, and b) inflating the departments that women DO want to go into, whether they be other humanities departments, or whatever. But I don't think that shrinking our philosophy departments is a good thing, do you?

...lots of YT videos of women getting into bricklaying, wall plastering and other menial & manual work normally done by males due to the competition for work as a result of rising unemployment.

There are a few. But statistically, the numbers are still not very high. Bricklaying, for example, is still about 98% male, in spite of some recent exceptions, as you mention.

So should we "incentivize" female bricklaying until we arrive at 50-50? That hardly seems right. What if women just don't want to lay bricks, because of, say, their much lower upper body strength, or just because maybe they're more interested in human relational pursuits, like teaching or nursing, than in laying bricks?

Why should we "incentivize" them to do things they don't like?

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had mentioned the present biological and psychological state of the normal females do not drive them to be naturally more active in philosophy.

Is it "biological"? I don't think we know that much. But for some reason, they are opting not to get involved in it as much as men are...in spite of everything we can think of being in favour of them doing so already. So that's a surprise, and it starts to look like maybe, for some reason, many women don't want to.

From the evolutionary biological perspective, it is biological i.e. related the "algorithm" that is programmed in the DNA for women in contrast to man.
Since the emergence of homo-sapiens, the females are programmed for nuturing of the offsprings, preparation of food and other female duties then while the human males has to hunt for food thus adaptive exploratory drives that facilitate philosophizing and reflection.

This why the majority of women do not have a natural high proclivities for philosophy.

Point is those are primal drives which are deeply embedded in the very earlier part of the brain. Changes are possible, but evolutionary wise, such changes take time, that is why the trend of women taking up philosophy is so slow since the past to the present.

So leaving women a free choice will not increase their participation in philosophy-proper.

But why would we "increase their participation" against their "free choice"? That would merely be autocratic, would it not? We'd be telling women that their "free choice" is not okay.

You missed my point.
Evolutionary wise, women do not have the natural proclivity for philosophy.
Thus giving them a free choice will not motivate them toward philosophy naturally.

...most universities has a permanent faculty of philosophy, if there are less men, then women will naturally be driven to fill empty posts and similarly elsewhere.

I don't think we have any reason to believe that's true...not unless we want to fill jobs with people who actually don't want to be there, but are just kind of accepting it as the only way of getting an income. And is that the kind of professor we want?

What you are saying really argues for a) shrinking philosophy departments by firing males, and b) inflating the departments that women DO want to go into, whether they be other humanities departments, or whatever. But I don't think that shrinking our philosophy departments is a good thing, do you?

What I stated is evident and a fact. How it happened is beside the point.
It there are less men in universities while there are more females, then it is logically, the necessary philosophy department vacancies will be filled by women.

...lots of YT videos of women getting into bricklaying, wall plastering and other menial & manual work normally done by males due to the competition for work as a result of rising unemployment.

There are a few. But statistically, the numbers are still not very high. Bricklaying, for example, is still about 98% male, in spite of some recent exceptions, as you mention.

So should we "incentivize" female bricklaying until we arrive at 50-50? That hardly seems right. What if women just don't want to lay bricks, because of, say, their much lower upper body strength, or just because maybe they're more interested in human relational pursuits, like teaching or nursing, than in laying bricks?

Why should we "incentivize" them to do things they don't like?

I am not going in the direction of 50-50.

Point is houses with brick walls need to be built [& there are other necessities], if there are less men interested and more women available, it is natural, women will fill the vacancies.
It is the same other way round, since there are more women going to work at present, naturally the trend now [contrast to the older days] is there are more men doing housework and taking care of babies. There is no coercion involved rather it is voluntarily and on the basis of co-operation.

[Immanuel Can]

So leaving women a free choice will not increase their participation in philosophy-proper.

But why would we "increase their participation" against their "free choice"? That would merely be autocratic, would it not? We'd be telling women that their "free choice" is not okay.

You missed my point.
Evolutionary wise, women do not have the natural proclivity for philosophy.
Thus giving them a free choice will not motivate them toward philosophy naturally.

No, I got the point. I just don't think it's quite the right point.

Why do we want to "motivate women toward" something, if they are not "naturally" motivated toward it? That doesn't even make sense -- we're not doing them any favours by making them do a thing they don't want to do...so whose interests are we trying to serve? Who told us we need to force a bunch of possibly reluctant women to become philosophers?

Where does that guy live?

...most universities has a permanent faculty of philosophy, if there are less men, then women will naturally be driven to fill empty posts and similarly elsewhere.

I don't think we have any reason to believe that's true...not unless we want to fill jobs with people who actually don't want to be there, but are just kind of accepting it as the only way of getting an income. And is that the kind of professor we want?

What you are saying really argues for a) shrinking philosophy departments by firing males, and b) inflating the departments that women DO want to go into, whether they be other humanities departments, or whatever. But I don't think that shrinking our philosophy departments is a good thing, do you?

What I stated is evident and a fact. How it happened is beside the point.

Not at all. It's actually very relevant.

If it happened because we are denying eager women a chance to be philosophers, then that argues for "interventions."

But if, as you suggest, it happened because many women freely don't WANT to be philosophers, then "interventions" are just "interference" with their freedom.

Why should we "incentivize" them to do things they don't like?

I am not going in the direction of 50-50.

What "direction" are you thinking we should go in, then? 80-20? 70-30?

How do you arrive at the right proportions, especially if we decide we have to "incentivize" (i.e. artificially arrange) for women who don't want to do it to do it anyway?

My point would be that we should let women choose what they want to choose, in this regard. There is no reason why we should compel them to do otherwise.

Who told us women were underrepresented? Or did we just assume that if a profession isn't 50-50, or whatever, that some injustice was involved? Who made us the social engineers who have a right to "correct" this to suit our expectations, rather than the expectations women themselves want to have?

If, as seems the case, women are voting for or against taking philosophy by choice; who are we to tell them they owe it to us to change that?

[simplicity]

What is the meaning of life?

Doing [particularly taking responsibility].

[jayjacobus]

Teachers would find it hard to know how to appraoch critical thinking or ethics.

Teachers should teach critical thinking but they often teach accepted ideas.

Critical thinking will lead a student to personal conclusions.

Critical thinking releases the student from conventional thinking.

With critical thinking, the student will get a personal understanding that depends on his/her logic rather than convention.

If they share their understanding with a receptive audience, they may change conventional understandings.

[Sculptor]

Teachers would find it hard to know how to appraoch critical thinking or ethics.

Teachers should teach critical thinking but they often teach accepted ideas.

Critical thinking will lead a student to personal conclusions.

Critical thinking releases the student from conventional thinking.

With critical thinking, the student will get a personal understanding that depends on his/her logic rather than convention.

If they share their understanding with a receptive audience, they may change conventional understandings.

Agreed.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But why would we "increase their participation" against their "free choice"? That would merely be autocratic, would it not? We'd be telling women that their "free choice" is not okay.

You missed my point.
Evolutionary wise, women do not have the natural proclivity for philosophy.
Thus giving them a free choice will not motivate them toward philosophy naturally.

No, I got the point. I just don't think it's quite the right point.

Why do we want to "motivate women toward" something, if they are not "naturally" motivated toward it? That doesn't even make sense -- we're not doing them any favours by making them do a thing they don't want to do...so whose interests are we trying to serve? Who told us we need to force a bunch of possibly reluctant women to become philosophers?

Where does that guy live?

OK I need to add,
philosophy-proper [in contrasted to the bastardized academic philosophy] is a natural evolved drive in all humans albeit existing in dormancy in the majority especially women.
So theoretically we need to expedite [not through force but voluntarily] the unfoldment and activation of this inherent philosophical-proper faculty in all humans.
(personally at present I don't give a damn with women getting into philosophy).

I am not going in the direction of 50-50.

What "direction" are you thinking we should go in, then? 80-20? 70-30?

How do you arrive at the right proportions, especially if we decide we have to "incentivize" (i.e. artificially arrange) for women who don't want to do it to do it anyway?

My point would be that we should let women choose what they want to choose, in this regard. There is no reason why we should compel them to do otherwise.

Who told us women were underrepresented? Or did we just assume that if a profession isn't 50-50, or whatever, that some injustice was involved? Who made us the social engineers who have a right to "correct" this to suit our expectations, rather than the expectations women themselves want to have?

If, as seems the case, women are voting for or against taking philosophy by choice; who are we to tell them they owe it to us to change that?

I was not thinking about any % proportion at all.
What I intended is to let things, current and future forces [whatever that may be] to take their course.
Nevertheless without any intervention, I believe philosophy-proper will always prevail in the long run albeit very slowly.

Note in the case of morality, it took >200,000 years since humans had its sense of being enslaved to the current state [improved but not up to full expectations yet] of chattel slavery we are in at present.
So [if without intervention] it will take a long time for philosophy-proper to be reasonably effective [re women] and noticeable.

[owl of Minerva]

The meaning of life is relative to philosophy. For science it is different; it does not have a mission statement, except test and verify. What is the mission statement of philosophy today? Time has always been recorded and perceived in the foreground of astronomy. Before what background and in what context does philosophical reasoning occur? The Age of Reason has been beneficial. It has brought us to where we are, to both good and bad. The balance now is precarious.

The meaning of life can be considered from a universal perspective through inquiry or from knowing truth, the latter the province of prophets. If meaning is from a personal perspective it involves infusing life with whatever meaning happens to resonate.

The five major religions, most arriving in the Dark Ages two banned images and forms which was further enforced with the Protestant Reformation. However all five allowed the use of symbols to convey their mission statements. So we have the Wheel of Life in Hinduism and Buddhism. The six-pointed Star of David in Judaism and the five-pointed Star and the Cross in Christianity. The Muhammads have the five-pointed star and the crescent moon which is waning not waxing.

Maybe understanding these symbols would give us an indication of the meaning of life. Rationalizing can get us only so far and not always to a good place. Philosophy with a holistic perspective could rectify that and could spark the interest of women.

[Immanuel Can]

OK I need to add, philosophy-proper [in contrasted to the bastardized academic philosophy] is a natural evolved drive in all humans albeit existing in dormancy in the majority especially women.

Do we know this? What's the evidence that this is true at all?

I am not going in the direction of 50-50.

What "direction" are you thinking we should go in, then? 80-20? 70-30?

How do you arrive at the right proportions, especially if we decide we have to "incentivize" (i.e. artificially arrange) for women who don't want to do it to do it anyway?

My point would be that we should let women choose what they want to choose, in this regard. There is no reason why we should compel them to do otherwise.

Who told us women were underrepresented? Or did we just assume that if a profession isn't 50-50, or whatever, that some injustice was involved? Who made us the social engineers who have a right to "correct" this to suit our expectations, rather than the expectations women themselves want to have?

If, as seems the case, women are voting for or against taking philosophy by choice; who are we to tell them they owe it to us to change that?

I was not thinking about any % proportion at all.

Well, then, how did you decide there needed to be more women in philosophy?

You must have had some fact in mind... how did you decide that the current proportions aren't exactly the ones women want?

[Lacewing]

OK I need to add, philosophy-proper [in contrasted to the bastardized academic philosophy] is a natural evolved drive in all humans albeit existing in dormancy in the majority especially women.

Perhaps there is LIVE-philosophy and DEAD-philosophy. Live-philosophy is how many women I've known are essentially living... every day... in the way they think. There is often some psychology mixed in too. All throughout life, I've experienced very perceptive female beings... who are steps ahead of their male partners who are often bumbling around focused on ONE thing... and the women congratulate the males for that. (Okay, I was just having a little fun with that description. Many men I've known have agreed it's true, however.) Men, it seems, are typically more interested in established, unchanging philosophy, which could be described as DEAD-philosophy. It is set... unchanging... studied... and used to proclaim being 'right'. None of the women I've known would have interest in that. Life is changing every moment, and it requires dynamic interaction to understand it and maintain efficiency with it -- to understand the connections and flows and logic as people and circumstances shift and mutate! Anyone can claim to 'know' or understand a still target -- but what does it take to understand and practice philosophy on moving targets?

[Veritas Aequitas]

OK I need to add, philosophy-proper [in contrasted to the bastardized academic philosophy] is a natural evolved drive in all humans albeit existing in dormancy in the majority especially women.

Do we know this? What's the evidence that this is true at all?

If you look at the trends within humans from since 200,000 years to the present, you will note there is core trait of humans overall trying to be better and better human net-wise, i.e. good always triumph over evil.
It can be any name but I named this instinctual impulse philosophy-proper in line with the core of what we are trying to do within current philosophy, i.e. be wise and good.

What "direction" are you thinking we should go in, then? 80-20? 70-30?

How do you arrive at the right proportions, especially if we decide we have to "incentivize" (i.e. artificially arrange) for women who don't want to do it to do it anyway?

My point would be that we should let women choose what they want to choose, in this regard. There is no reason why we should compel them to do otherwise.

Who told us women were underrepresented? Or did we just assume that if a profession isn't 50-50, or whatever, that some injustice was involved? Who made us the social engineers who have a right to "correct" this to suit our expectations, rather than the expectations women themselves want to have?

If, as seems the case, women are voting for or against taking philosophy by choice; who are we to tell them they owe it to us to change that?

I was not thinking about any % proportion at all.

Well, then, how did you decide there needed to be more women in philosophy?

You must have had some fact in mind... how did you decide that the current proportions aren't exactly the ones women want?

My point is every human [men and women] has this dormant philosophical drive within but at present the women faculty of philosophy-proper is less active as evident. So in a way we need to increase their % not to be more than men, but contribute to the overall %.