♀️ Females in philosophy

[Immanuel Can]

Perhaps women simply realise what a load of pretentious hogwash most of 'uni' philosophy is, and they value their sanity. Doesn't mean they don't think about things or have insight.

Yes, that's the point: what is VA's basis for thinking we've got to manipulate women into doing something they may have their own reasons for not wanting to do?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I can't see how that shows we need to "increase" anything, or "contribute" to the overall percentage, whatever it may be. What we need to know is that women actually want to do that. And how do we know that?

As I had stated you need to research and analyze all the trends [positive] to note there is an inherent drive for continuous improvements within humanity [as such entailed men and women]. So in principle all humans, so including women are driven to improve from whatever their current state.
Thus in the case of Philosophy-proper [an inherent positive drive] women in principle will be driven to improve continuously subject to the constraints they are facing at present.

We don't know that they are facing any special "constraints" everybody else isn't also facing. We don't know that forcing them to do something they may not want to do would be an "improvement." We don't know there's anything problematic about their "current state," whatever that may be taken to mean.

So we're back to the problem: if women are choosing not to go into philosophy, (if that is indeed the real case) then on what theory do we force them to?

The fact that there are lesser women in the field of philosophy implied there are real constraints.
One of the constraint I mentioned is biological [the traits women were evolved as women] and there would be other constraints [whatever XYZ].

There is no question of authoritarian force in my perspective.
As I had stated all humans has a natural inherent potential drive for philosophy [more dormant in women].
I believe the current natural and man-made forces [whatever they are] at present are triggering the philosophical drive in more women [as evident] albeit slowly.

Perhaps you are thinking from the feminism perspective where they demand at least 50-50 participation, so some sort of force and basis is needed to justify it, but I am not interested in that at all, so your last question is not applicable to me.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

There are a lot of female philosophers on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuuMQlu ... BBebrowska

[RCSaunders]

Perhaps women simply realise what a load of pretentious hogwash most of 'uni' philosophy is, and they value their sanity. Doesn't mean they don't think about things or have insight.

That's exactly right!

[Immanuel Can]

The fact that there are lesser women in the field of philosophy implied there are real constraints.

You said you have no proportions in mind.

If you don't know what the right proportions should be, then how do you know they're not already right -- that every woman who wants to and has the ability is already a philospher?

And how do you say there are "lesser" women in the field of philosophy, if you don't know what the "more" should be?

One of the constraint I mentioned is biological

If that's true, then why tell women to fight against their biology?

There is no question of authoritarian force in my perspective.

Then how are you going to compel it to happen, since it's not happening by women's free choice? You're going to need force of some kind. And you even said earlier, that one strategy would be to fire the men. If that's not using "authoritarian force," I don't know what such "force" would mean.

As I had stated all humans has a natural inherent potential drive for philosophy [more dormant in women].

A drive for philosophy that's latent in women, dormant but inherent, you say? But more "awake" in men?

What's your evidence that that is the case?

Perhaps you are thinking from the feminism perspective where they demand at least 50-50 participation,

Funny. I was thinking you must be thinking that: for it was you, not I, who claimed there were "lesser" women in philosophy. That sounds to me like you think maybe there should be as many women in the discipline as men. Or did you mean there ought to be more women than men? You certainly must have some final balance point, some proportion in mind: for there would be no other way for you to say coherently that there were too few women in the fieid.

How do you know?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The fact that there are lesser women in the field of philosophy implied there are real constraints.

You said you have no proportions in mind.

If you don't know what the right proportions should be, then how do you know they're not already right -- that every woman who wants to and has the ability is already a philospher?

And how do you say there are "lesser" women in the field of philosophy, if you don't know what the "more" should be?

At present Nov 2021, it is empirically evident there are lesser women in the field of philosophy.
We can count the number of known women philosophy.
We can count the number of philosophical books, articles, etc. [published or otherwise] authored by female philosophers.
Their evident number is less than the men.

I am not expecting any % target.
However I believe for the sake of humanity, the number of female philosophers need to be more relative to whatever the current numbers are.

One of the constraint I mentioned is biological

If that's true, then why tell women to fight against their biology?

I did not claim the biological factors are permanent.
The biological factors I referred to are relative to the current phase of evolution which are expected to change in time and that is very natural evident.
Example in the past, the women as conditioned by their then biological factors were lesser in the field of education, but that has changed in the present due to various changes [evolutionary, social, etc.].

There is no question of authoritarian force in my perspective.

Then how are you going to compel it to happen, since it's not happening by women's free choice? You're going to need force of some kind. And you even said earlier, that one strategy would be to fire the men. If that's not using "authoritarian force," I don't know what such "force" would mean.

In general [not any exceptions] did we force women to go into education and work?

That more women had gone into education and work was due to various other indirect factors and reasons, i.e. social and political, etc. e.g. during the two wars.
When the men went to war, the women were naturally utilized to work in factories which gave them the taste to work in factories after the war as facilitated by the lack of men due to the large number killed in the wars.

It will be same with philosophy where due to various reasons and forces at work, more women will participate in philosophy as already evident [compare the number in 600BC or 500 years ago to the present.]

As I had stated all humans has a natural inherent potential drive for philosophy [more dormant in women].

A drive for philosophy that's latent in women, dormant but inherent, you say? But more "awake" in men?

What's your evidence that that is the case?

If you study all the trends within humanity since 200,000 years ago there is a core inherent trait within humanity of a striving continuous improvement over the previous state.
Surely this is very obvious with technology, agriculture, knowledge, arts, etc. Philosophy as inherent & subject to a trait of continuous improvement is a Johnny-come-lately which is unfolding slowly in humans and more slowly in women.

Perhaps you are thinking from the feminism perspective where they demand at least 50-50 participation,

Funny. I was thinking you must be thinking that: for it was you, not I, who claimed there were "lesser" women in philosophy. That sounds to me like you think maybe there should be as many women in the discipline as men. Or did you mean there ought to be more women than men? You certainly must have some final balance point, some proportion in mind: for there would be no other way for you to say coherently that there were too few women in the field.

How do you know?

Note my explanation above.
The target is an improvement over the previous state not a targeted state [50-50 e.g.]

Note if say its 50/50 male/females.
This meant there are nearly 4 billion females at present.
If there are only say 500 notable female philosophers at present, there is much room for the females to increase [as there are already increments] their numbers say to 1000, 2000, 10,000, 100,000 or more without any focus on 50/50%.

So the principle [my point] here is, to increase over whatever the present state [which can be determined empirically] without any % or quantitative comparison to men.

If someday [Nov 2050] there are 160,000 female philosopher compared to only 40,000 male philosophers [a 20/80%], I am not bothered with it since that is natural to the arising forces.

[Immanuel Can]

The fact that there are lesser women in the field of philosophy implied there are real constraints.

You said you have no proportions in mind.

If you don't know what the right proportions should be, then how do you know they're not already right -- that every woman who wants to and has the ability is already a philospher?

And how do you say there are "lesser" women in the field of philosophy, if you don't know what the "more" should be?

At present Nov 2021, it is empirically evident there are lesser women in the field of philosophy.
We can count the number of known women philosophy.
We can count the number of philosophical books, articles, etc. [published or otherwise] authored by female philosophers.
Their evident number is less than the men.

That answers nothing. How do you know that the number of women's books is not exactly what women freely want it to be?

I believe for the sake of humanity, the number of female philosophers need to be more relative to whatever the current numbers are.

I can see that you "believe" that. I can't see any reason or evidence you have to warrant your "belief" in that, however.

So I have to ask again: what's your proof that the number of women's books or the participation of women in philosophy is too low?

One of the constraint I mentioned is biological

If that's true, then why tell women to fight against their biology?

I did not claim the biological factors are permanent. The biological factors I referred to are relative to the current phase of evolution which are expected to change in time and that is very natural evident.

Again, what gives you the power to look into the future, say what women "should be" doing, and then the right to find ways to make them do it?

There is no question of authoritarian force in my perspective.

Then how are you going to compel it to happen, since it's not happening by women's free choice? You're going to need force of some kind. And you even said earlier, that one strategy would be to fire the men. If that's not using "authoritarian force," I don't know what such "force" would mean.

In general [not any exceptions] did we force women to go into education and work?

Actually, yes we did. As you point out, women were forced into work during two world wars, when the men were away. That was the big swing. And after that, we started telling them that real women had to stay out in the workforce, or they weren't "Feminist" enough. It wasn't a free movement of women into bomb factories; they did it because they had to.

And as for education, we have arranged a system that asks them to forego their biologically most-fertile child-bearing years in the hope of getting a high-paying job. The average woman gets married now between 28 and 30...when fertility is already past is zenith. Add to that the need to establish their careers, and we are pushing the reproductive years toward the mid 30s. That wasn't any woman's idea, either. We did that, because we don't care about whether or not women get to have children in their best years. We left that as "their problem." So no wonder so many Western women are struggling with getting pregnant, and having later and more dangerous pregnancies, and paying too much to fertility clinics to solve a problem we imposed on them.

Now, there's a real "women's issue" for you. But not having as many women in philosophy as VA thinks should be, that's not necessarily a problem, unless the women themselves want there to be more and can't make it happen for some reason we can fix.

But as yet, you've given no evidence that's the case at all.

It will be same with philosophy

You mean we have to force them into it by necessity, like we did during the war?

As I had stated all humans has a natural inherent potential drive for philosophy [more dormant in women].

A drive for philosophy that's latent in women, dormant but inherent, you say? But more "awake" in men?

What's your evidence that that is the case?

If you study all the trends within humanity since 200,000 years ago there is a core inherent trait within humanity of a striving continuous improvement over the previous state. Surely this is very obvious with technology, agriculture, knowledge, arts, etc. Philosophy as inherent & subject to a trait of continuous improvement is a Johnny-come-lately which is unfolding slowly in humans and more slowly in women.

You have no idea whether or not that's true. You call women "slow" in this regard...what's your evidence they're not moving at exactly the pace they want? And what's your evidence that women have contributed nothing to the various departments you listed?

It's all supposition on your part, so far.

Perhaps you are thinking from the feminism perspective where they demand at least 50-50 participation,

Funny. I was thinking you must be thinking that: for it was you, not I, who claimed there were "lesser" women in philosophy. That sounds to me like you think maybe there should be as many women in the discipline as men. Or did you mean there ought to be more women than men? You certainly must have some final balance point, some proportion in mind: for there would be no other way for you to say coherently that there were too few women in the field.

How do you know?

Note my explanation above.
The target is an improvement over the previous state not a targeted state [50-50 e.g.]

But you say you don't believe in any percentage benchmark. Still, you quote 50-50, and talk like you mean 50-50. And even if we take that as reasonable, how do you know 50-50 is what women want? What evidence do you have that, in the most free, women-positive time in the history of universities, women are not being allowed to go into philosophy, so we have to force them?

Just prove it's true. That's all I'm asking. Very reasonable.

...the principle [my point] here is, to increase over whatever the present state

How do you know women WANT to increase it, and how do you know they're being KEPT from increasing it, even though they want to (you suppose)?

I don't think you know what women want. I think you know what you want, what you expect, what you would anticipate...but not whether or not they agree with you about that.

And after my many requests for proof that the current percentages are not what women want, and that they are being somehow prevented from what they want, you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to back your decision.

Are you going to?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

As I had stated you need to research and analyze all the trends [positive] to note there is an inherent drive for continuous improvements within humanity [as such entailed men and women]. So in principle all humans, so including women are driven to improve from whatever their current state.
Thus in the case of Philosophy-proper [an inherent positive drive] women in principle will be driven to improve continuously subject to the constraints they are facing at present.

We don't know that they are facing any special "constraints" everybody else isn't also facing. We don't know that forcing them to do something they may not want to do would be an "improvement." We don't know there's anything problematic about their "current state," whatever that may be taken to mean.

So we're back to the problem: if women are choosing not to go into philosophy, (if that is indeed the real case) then on what theory do we force them to?

The fact that there are lesser women in the field of philosophy implied there are real constraints.

I think you mean 'fewer'. 'Lesser' has a different connotation.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You said you have no proportions in mind.

If you don't know what the right proportions should be, then how do you know they're not already right -- that every woman who wants to and has the ability is already a philospher?

And how do you say there are "lesser" women in the field of philosophy, if you don't know what the "more" should be?

At present Nov 2021, it is empirically evident there are lesser women in the field of philosophy.
We can count the number of known women philosophy.
We can count the number of philosophical books, articles, etc. [published or otherwise] authored by female philosophers.
Their evident number is less than the men.

That answers nothing. How do you know that the number of women's books is not exactly what women freely want it to be?

I believe for the sake of humanity, the number of female philosophers need to be more relative to whatever the current numbers are.

I can see that you "believe" that. I can't see any reason or evidence you have to warrant your "belief" in that, however.

So I have to ask again: what's your proof that the number of women's books or the participation of women in philosophy is too low?

If that's true, then why tell women to fight against their biology?

I did not claim the biological factors are permanent. The biological factors I referred to are relative to the current phase of evolution which are expected to change in time and that is very natural evident.

Again, what gives you the power to look into the future, say what women "should be" doing, and then the right to find ways to make them do it?

Then how are you going to compel it to happen, since it's not happening by women's free choice? You're going to need force of some kind. And you even said earlier, that one strategy would be to fire the men. If that's not using "authoritarian force," I don't know what such "force" would mean.

In general [not any exceptions] did we force women to go into education and work?

Actually, yes we did. As you point out, women were forced into work during two world wars, when the men were away. That was the big swing. And after that, we started telling them that real women had to stay out in the workforce, or they weren't "Feminist" enough. It wasn't a free movement of women into bomb factories; they did it because they had to.

And as for education, we have arranged a system that asks them to forego their biologically most-fertile child-bearing years in the hope of getting a high-paying job. The average woman gets married now between 28 and 30...when fertility is already past is zenith. Add to that the need to establish their careers, and we are pushing the reproductive years toward the mid 30s. That wasn't any woman's idea, either. We did that, because we don't care about whether or not women get to have children in their best years. We left that as "their problem." So no wonder so many Western women are struggling with getting pregnant, and having later and more dangerous pregnancies, and paying too much to fertility clinics to solve a problem we imposed on them.

Now, there's a real "women's issue" for you. But not having as many women in philosophy as VA thinks should be, that's not necessarily a problem, unless the women themselves want there to be more and can't make it happen for some reason we can fix.

But as yet, you've given no evidence that's the case at all.

It will be same with philosophy

You mean we have to force them into it by necessity, like we did during the war?

As I had stated all humans has a natural inherent potential drive for philosophy [more dormant in women].

A drive for philosophy that's latent in women, dormant but inherent, you say? But more "awake" in men?

What's your evidence that that is the case?

If you study all the trends within humanity since 200,000 years ago there is a core inherent trait within humanity of a striving continuous improvement over the previous state. Surely this is very obvious with technology, agriculture, knowledge, arts, etc. Philosophy as inherent & subject to a trait of continuous improvement is a Johnny-come-lately which is unfolding slowly in humans and more slowly in women.

You have no idea whether or not that's true. You call women "slow" in this regard...what's your evidence they're not moving at exactly the pace they want? And what's your evidence that women have contributed nothing to the various departments you listed?

It's all supposition on your part, so far.

Funny. I was thinking you must be thinking that: for it was you, not I, who claimed there were "lesser" women in philosophy. That sounds to me like you think maybe there should be as many women in the discipline as men. Or did you mean there ought to be more women than men? You certainly must have some final balance point, some proportion in mind: for there would be no other way for you to say coherently that there were too few women in the field.

How do you know?

Note my explanation above.
The target is an improvement over the previous state not a targeted state [50-50 e.g.]

But you say you don't believe in any percentage benchmark. Still, you quote 50-50, and talk like you mean 50-50. And even if we take that as reasonable, how do you know 50-50 is what women want? What evidence do you have that, in the most free, women-positive time in the history of universities, women are not being allowed to go into philosophy, so we have to force them?

Just prove it's true. That's all I'm asking. Very reasonable.

...the principle [my point] here is, to increase over whatever the present state

How do you know women WANT to increase it, and how do you know they're being KEPT from increasing it, even though they want to (you suppose)?

I don't think you know what women want. I think you know what you want, what you expect, what you would anticipate...but not whether or not they agree with you about that.

And after my many requests for proof that the current percentages are not what women want, and that they are being somehow prevented from what they want, you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to back your decision.

Are you going to?

I have already provided my argument and justifications.
Point is you are blinded by confirmation bias [to whatever is driven by a God] that you cannot see [not necessary agree] my POV, so subconsciously you ignored my points.

Here again,

1. All humans [males, females and the in-betweens] are 'programmed' with an inherent potential for 'philosophy-proper'. i.e. towards the increasing betterment of the well being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.

2. All humans are also 'programmed with the drive for continuous improvements and this is evident empirically from the acts and consequences of human activities [knowledge, technologies, the arts, etc.] since 200,000 to the present and will continue into the future.

3. The current ratio of male to female is 1.018.
https://countrymeters.info/en/World
For simplicity sake I take it to be 50/50. Thus there are appx 4 billion females at present.

4. There is an increasing trend in the participation of females in philosophy since 500 years ago but at present there are fewer females participating in philosophy, as evident from various criteria, e.g. books and articles published, participation in forums, conventions, etc.
I have done extensive research and reading into philosophy-in-general and it is so glaring there are fewer females philosophers mentioned in most bibliography in philosophy books, articles, etc. I have read thousands of philosophy books and articles and the number of females authors are very insignificant, and also very minimal or none in the bibliography in those books and article. I don't have have exact figures. If you disagree, show me some clues why you disagree?

5. Re fewer females philosophers, note this clue,
"Nevertheless, U.S. Department of Education reports from the 1990s indicate that few women ended up in philosophy, and that philosophy is one of the least gender-proportionate fields in the humanities.[4] Women make up as little as 17% of philosophy faculty in some studies. -Wiki"
The above refer to the USA and I believe the % of the world would be much lower.

6. If say, the average around the word is 10% females in philosophy, that mean 3.6 billion females are not doing philosophy.

7. Since all humans [males and females] has the inherent potential for philosophy-proper [1] and also an inherent drive for continuous improvements [2], with already an increasing trend [4] these elements will naturally drive more females from the pool of 3.6 billion to take up philosophy.
Surely we do not expect this increasing trend to stop suddenly but will continue to increase in the future.
So even if there is an effect and increase of 1% that would mean there are additional 36 million females getting into philosophy [say over the next 20 years].

8. Thus my point, without focusing any 50/50 target, it will be natural following from the current increasing trend and natural inherent potentials within all humans, there will be a natural continual increment over time in the number of females in philosophy-proper toward the future.

I believe the above points covered all the questions and counter points you proposed.

Now show me where I am wrong in the above on a point by point basis, not from your ad hoc confirmation bias.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think you mean 'fewer'. 'Lesser' has a different connotation.

Noted, I agree 'fewer' would be the more effective term.

[Immanuel Can]

I have already provided my argument and justifications. Here again,

1. All humans [males, females and the in-betweens] are 'programmed' with an inherent potential for 'philosophy-proper'. i.e. towards the increasing betterment of the well being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.

But that's neither an "argument" nor a "justification." It's just an opinion, without any evidence to support it. And points 2-3 aren't even relevant to anything.

4....there are fewer females participating in philosophy...

But so what? What makes you so certain that it isn't exactly the "few" that actually want to? And point 5 is merely redundant.

6. If say, the average around the word is 10% females in philosophy, that mean 3.6 billion females are not doing philosophy.

Again, so what? Let's grant that: what makes you so sure these 3.6 billion don't prefer to do something else?

7. Since all humans [males and females] has the inherent potential for philosophy-proper [1]

You don't know that that is true, either. On the surface, it looks obviously false: there are surely people on the earth who have no potential for philosophy, unless you broaden the term "philosophy" to mean nothing more than "brain activity."

and also an inherent drive for continuous improvements [2], with already an increasing trend [4] these elements will naturally drive more females from the pool of 3.6 billion to take up philosophy.

Your assumption is that "continuous improvement" is the same thing as "doing more philosophy"? A lot of people would doubt that the two were true synonyms.

8. Thus my point, without focusing any 50/50 target, it will be natural following from the current increasing trend and natural inherent potentials within all humans, there will be a natural continual increment over time in the number of females in philosophy-proper toward the future.

If it's "natural," it will happen without you doing anything. So what is your rationale for making something happen in an "unnatural" way, like by evacuating philosophy departments by firing the incumbents?

I believe the above points covered all the questions and counter points you proposed.

Oh, my gosh....you believe wrongly. Nothing of the kind, as you can see.

Now show me where I am wrong in the above on a point by point basis,

You have that above. Go ahead and actually answer the question: how do you know that the present proportions of women are not exactly what women want them to be? What's your proof, not your hope, your wish or your opinion?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Misogyny in philosopy. Here's one explanation for the lack of women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6gjD8q ... nel=UnHerd

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have already provided my argument and justifications. Here again,

1. All humans [males, females and the in-betweens] are 'programmed' with an inherent potential for 'philosophy-proper'. i.e. towards the increasing betterment of the well being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.

But that's neither an "argument" nor a "justification." It's just an opinion, without any evidence to support it. And points 2-3 aren't even relevant to anything.

I have provided an overall argument and its justifications. I agree each premise also need to be justified but that would be too tedious but nevertheless I have provided a brief outline of each premises which is undeniable.

In general, which individual do not agree and partake in "towards the increasing betterment of the well being of the individuals..?"
As with nature there are always the exceptions, [the suicidal, self-torture, etc.] but that is because their inherent potential for well-being is damaged.

2. All humans are also 'programmed with the drive for continuous improvements and this is evident empirically from the acts and consequences of human activities [knowledge, technologies, the arts, etc.] since 200,000 to the present and will continue into the future.

3. The current ratio of male to female is 1.018.
https://countrymeters.info/en/World
For simplicity sake I take it to be 50/50. Thus there are appx 4 billion females at present.

2 & 3 is relevant to my whole argument as referenced in the later premises.

4....there are fewer females participating in philosophy...

But so what? What makes you so certain that it isn't exactly the "few" that actually want to? And point 5 is merely redundant.

You missed out point 4, i.e. there is an increasing trend of women participating in philosophy since 3000 to 500 years ago to the present.
Prove me wrong on this, if not, this premise stays.
This miss is critical, thus your unsound counters to my whole argument.

Note 5. "there are fewer females participating in philosophy" is a very evident fact as I had argued.
It is beside the point that they actually want to. If they are counted, it is assumed they want to do philosophy voluntarily. Whatever coercion is discounted for this case.

6. If say, the average around the word is 10% females in philosophy, that mean 3.6 billion females are not doing philosophy.

Again, so what? Let's grant that: what makes you so sure these 3.6 billion don't prefer to do something else?

I did not assert ALL the 3.6 billion want to do philosophy.
This is merely a VERY large pool of 3.6 billion females [in contrast if there are only 100,000 females] providing a great potential for more females to get into philosophy given point 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

7. Since all humans [males and females] has the inherent potential for philosophy-proper [1]

You don't know that that is true, either. On the surface, it looks obviously false: there are surely people on the earth who have no potential for philosophy, unless you broaden the term "philosophy" to mean nothing more than "brain activity."

Not 'brain activity' [your thinking is too loose] but I had defined philosophy broadly and fundamentally "towards the increasing betterment of the well being of the individuals.." in terms of knowledge and wisdom.

and also an inherent drive for continuous improvements [2], with already an increasing trend [4] these elements will naturally drive more females from the pool of 3.6 billion to take up philosophy.

Your assumption is that "continuous improvement" is the same thing as "doing more philosophy"? A lot of people would doubt that the two were true synonyms.

Nope!
Continuous improvement is to "towards the increasing betterment of the well being of the individuals.." in terms of knowledge and wisdom than their previous state.
As such when anyone [female or otherwise] participate in philosophy where they have not done it previous, that constitute an improvement driven by 2.

8. Thus my point, without focusing any 50/50 target, it will be natural following from the current increasing trend and natural inherent potentials within all humans, there will be a natural continual increment over time in the number of females in philosophy-proper toward the future.

If it's "natural," it will happen without you doing anything. So what is your rationale for making something happen in an "unnatural" way, like by evacuating philosophy departments by firing the incumbents?

You are veering off point.
Where did I ever mention I will do something?
The culmination in the increment [whatever the number] in number of females will be natural upon the natural forces within points 1 to 6.

I believe the above points covered all the questions and counter points you proposed.

Oh, my gosh....you believe wrongly. Nothing of the kind, as you can see.

You have not understood my points.
Now that I had added more explanation, my conclusion stay unless you can counter them.

Now show me where I am wrong in the above on a point by point basis,

You have that above. Go ahead and actually answer the question: how do you know that the present proportions of women are not exactly what women want them to be? What's your proof, not your hope, your wish or your opinion?

I told you my focus is not on the proportion.
Given points 1 to 6 above, the number of females participating in philosophy will inevitable increase in the future.
The critical point here is the evident increasing trend of females participating in philosophy since 3000 - 500 years ago to the present. Therefore there is no fixed proportions as you are alluding to.
This is triggered by the inherent potential for philosophy in all humans and the drives for continuous improvements within all humans.

If Plato had predicted in 600BC that there will be more females participating in philosophy in 2021 than during his time, his guess would be correct, and that would be based on 1 to 6.
Therefore I will not be wrong to assert [based on point 1 to 6] there will be more female philosophers in 2050 or 2100, and my guess will likely be correct in the future.

[Immanuel Can]

I agree each premise also need to be justified but that would be too tedious

Not at all, because I'm not asking you to justify every premise. As I said, most of those "premises" are not actually logically "premises" for any conclusion.

All I wanted to know was one simple thing: how do you know that the proportion of women in philosophy right now is not exactly what women want it to be?

One answer. One bit of proof. That's all I need.

So it could be something like, "X number of females are expressing that their desire for philosophy is being repressed by the following measures currently institutionalized by the Patriarchy," or something as simple as that -- some indication that women WANT to get into philosophy, and that the same women are finding they CANNOT because of some specific institutional fact.

Let's hear it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree each premise also need to be justified but that would be too tedious

Not at all, because I'm not asking you to justify every premise. As I said, most of those "premises" are not actually logically "premises" for any conclusion.

All I wanted to know was one simple thing: how do you know that the proportion of women in philosophy right now is not exactly what women want it to be?

One answer. One bit of proof. That's all I need.

So it could be something like, "X number of females are expressing that their desire for philosophy is being repressed by the following measures currently institutionalized by the Patriarchy," or something as simple as that -- some indication that women WANT to get into philosophy, and that the same women are finding they CANNOT because of some specific institutional fact.

Let's hear it.

Your question is too focused on one factor, thus is not wise, rational nor can be answered effectively.

That at present there are X number of females involved in philosophy in various perspectives can be due to many factors and complexity.

What you are interested is, there are fewer females participating in philosophy in contrast to the males. Here, again, there are many complex factors why this is so, i.e. it could be biological, human nature, patriarchy, misogyny, social, culture, religion etc.
I am NOT interested in finding answers to the above re patriarchy [your focus] why there are fewer females participating in philosophy.

I am more interested in the deeper factors re human nature & biological elements and that the numbers of females in philosophy will naturally increase [perhaps exponentially] in the future based on the existing incremental trend since 3000 years ago.
This exponential increase will imply that the various other factors and issues, i.e. patriarchy, misogyny, social, culture, religion etc. would have been taken care of in some ways.

Here again is the argument and justifications on why the numbers of females in philosophy will naturally increase [perhaps exponentially] in the future.

• viewtopic.php?p=537250#p537250
  1. All humans [males, females and the in-betweens] are 'programmed' with an inherent potential for 'philosophy-proper'. i.e. towards the increasing betterment of the well being of the individuals and therefrom humanity.
  
  2. All humans are also 'programmed with the drive for continuous improvements and this is evident empirically from the acts and consequences of human activities [knowledge, technologies, the arts, etc.] since 200,000 to the present and will continue into the future.
  
  3. The current ratio of male to female is 1.018.
  https://countrymeters.info/en/World
  For simplicity sake I take it to be 50/50. Thus there are appx 4 billion females at present.
  
  4. There is an increasing trend in the participation of females in philosophy since 500 years ago but at present there are fewer females participating in philosophy, as evident from various criteria, e.g. books and articles published, participation in forums, conventions, etc.
  I have done extensive research and reading into philosophy-in-general and it is so glaring there are fewer females philosophers mentioned in most bibliography in philosophy books, articles, etc. I have read thousands of philosophy books and articles and the number of females authors are very insignificant, and also very minimal or none in the bibliography in those books and article. I don't have have exact figures. If you disagree, show me some clues why you disagree?
  
  5. Re fewer females philosophers, note this clue,
  "Nevertheless, U.S. Department of Education reports from the 1990s indicate that few women ended up in philosophy, and that philosophy is one of the least gender-proportionate fields in the humanities.[4] Women make up as little as 17% of philosophy faculty in some studies. -Wiki"
  The above refer to the USA and I believe the % of the world would be much lower.
  
  6. If say, the average around the word is 10% females in philosophy, that mean 3.6 billion females are not doing philosophy.
  
  7. Since all humans [males and females] has the inherent potential for philosophy-proper [1] and also an inherent drive for continuous improvements [2], with already an increasing trend [4] these elements will naturally drive more females from the pool of 3.6 billion to take up philosophy.
  Surely we do not expect this increasing trend to stop suddenly but will continue to increase in the future.
  So even if there is an effect and increase of 1% that would mean there are additional 36 million females getting into philosophy [say over the next 20 years].
  
  8. Thus my point, without focusing any 50/50 target, it will be natural following from the current increasing trend and natural inherent potentials within all humans, there will be a natural continual increment over time in the number of females in philosophy-proper toward the future.