Not to be demeaning but

The desire to dominate is a result of testosterone and feeling threatened all the time. Why do you think gym bros are the most jealous and possessive of their girlfriends?

This is true, any intelligent person- male or female- is studying math or physics.

>equating academia to serious philosophy

Ahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahaha

that was a good one.

>Witless assumption about OP.
>Talks about bullshit not related to philosophy.
>Generalizes bullshit to all of history.
At least please tell us this happened in the philosophy department.

Gym bros aren't and it doesn't just have to do with testosterone. And I mean more than just dominate but simple building and creating itself. There's a reason the ancients associated women with the moon, they just reflect, they have no spark of creation, no capacity for genius. You shouldn't hate them for this though, they genuinely don't understand anything else and they actually like being that way, no matter how disgusting it would be for most men.

Tbh most men who are into philosophy are also retarded. Not all feminism is tumblr feminism, and while women interested in philosophy may identify as feminist they're probably not the caricatures you think they are. Also, many women who would call themselves feminists do not want to dedicate themselves to gender theory or identity politics.

The issue here is that "minority" groups are expected to be ambassadors for their group by people who control media and publishing platforms. Black authors in particular have run into issues with publishers when their work isn't race-related. The content you see is mediated by the choices of others, and their criteria is not entirely meritocratic. There's also the tendency to mostly notice things that confirm your previously-held beliefs.

It's a shame that philosophy is relegated to academia these days, but where else do you see "serious philosophy" being done? I would genuinely like to find some modern philosophy being done outside academia. I believe molding yourself to fit into that system shapes the way you structure your thoughts in a way that is impossible to see in yourself.

Agreed, I think. My personal identity is not tied up with being "a victim of the patriarchy," but frequently I find myself in places where I'm the only woman around and I do think about why that's the case, what other women might be doing "wrong" that's keeping them away. You have to be the sort of woman that men want to be around, without becoming the sort of woman men like solely out of romantic/sexual interest. In practice, this means being intelligent (i.e. noticeably smarter than most men, but it has to be something people naturally see in you. No one likes a show off), being funny/"chill", having well-developed opinions and taste on a wide variety of subjects, being assertive without being aggressive or combative, avoiding talk about women's issues unless you are asked, and, last but not least, being pretty. If you can do this, you can sit at the boys table and people will listen to you. Is this the way things "should" be? Probably not, but I personally am more interested in finding ways to excel within the confines of the system I've found myself in then spending my life chipping away at institutions that are deeply entrenched.

Fields like philosophy, where innate talent is believed to be the main determinant of success, obviously have fewer women. Contrary to what alt-woke 4channers would have you believe, this is not because the world lacks brilliant, talented women who could excel in these fields. But the stereotype is that even smart women are not capable of being geniuses the way men are. The "smart woman" is stereotyped as hard-working, diligent, and studious but without the spark that brilliant men have (as you've just demonstrated). I expect some of you are thinking of the fact that men's iq's have a larger standard deviation than those of women, so men really ARE the only ones capable of genius. Let's assume this is entirely caused by biology (in reality, this is still being debated). At IQs of 140+ (precise scores past this point are not meaningful), a conservative estimate of the gender ratio is still about 60:40. People citing the greater male variability hypothesis seem not to know this. They argue as though they believe the upper end of the range is >95% men. It's possible men and women may never reach parity in some disciplines. But based on the results of IQ tests, we are still missing out on the contributions of many brilliant women to philosophy and other male-dominated fields. Many women are capable of the same creativity and intelligence of male geniuses. Denying the existence of historic and current social barriers to female achievement is sticking your head in the sand.

Lol, where are these mathematical contributions to society? They're all ugly as shit and/or impossibly destructive.

>Probably not, but I personally am more interested in finding ways to excel within the confines of the system I've found myself in then spending my life chipping away at institutions that are deeply entrenched.
That hit home. I am "chill" in that men tend to like me in a non romantic way, and I've just kind of accepted that.

Philosophy has quite a lot of women in it. Hipparchia was considered equal or superior to most of the Cynic school in Athens by philosophers. Hildegaard of Bingen was massive in the middle ages. Simone Weil probably scared Trotsky more than the icepick.

However, those are not most women, like most philosophers are not most men, and most great philosophers like the above overshadow their contemporaries/successors. There's a reason why you've heard of Aristotle but probably not Theophrastus, who wrote the bits of Aristolean philosophy from the First Peripatetic which still stand up today (e.g. he's probably the author of on colours, which says the dress is not blue and black but gold and white in shadow.) Aristotle got memed more throughout history because Theophrastus inherited his school, and so memed Aristotle more than he did his contribution to the corpus being distinct in authorship.

>feminism
>almost every woman who's into philosophy is a feminist
No, you just live in America or some other shithole, and have little contact with philosophy in general. That why basic bitches can lie to you and not get their dress taken off them to check how into cynical anaideia they are.

>face the fact that make lacks exist in men
what does that even mean?

I am a male and i've been fired from a job
because somebody else had to feel me in I am a
male and the guy who took over my job was a male too
turns out the guy was a relative and would work for cheaper pay
If you really look at it it's not a male or female thing but it goes deeper.

Are you a mencius moldbug fanboy? The academy is fucked up for sure, but outsiders are so dismissive of it that they make rudimentary errors the kind any grad student would spot.

I sigh at the musings of a crippled mind that peers into the world and only sees crippled minds looking back. Keep memeing the good memes, kid.

Yeah, when you come up against a wall it's usually faster/easier to look for a way around it than to try to ram yourself straight through

Frequently though, women face barriers to advancement/success because they are women (or because of some other quality that arises directly from being a woman). An easy example is how young women are passed over for hiring or promotion because of the fear that they'll take off on maternity leave. This happens to women even if they are single, have their tubes tied, and IUD, etc.. Men don't have to worry about the expectation of pregnancy holding up their career.

>Frequently though, women face barriers to advancement/success because they are women
>Advancement/success
You really bought into the control memes?

Explain? By success I really just mean ability to achieve your potential. Often this requires access to institutions that make decisions about who can participate/have a platform

> By success I really just mean ability to achieve your potential.
Sounds fatalistic to me.

He's right though. Until I had kids of my own I didn't realize the difficult a woman faces with respect to balancing a career and family, especially in academia.

> I didn't realize the difficult a woman faces with respect to balancing a career and family, especially in academia.
Why the hell would you want a career if you had an alternative?

It's literally the opposite of fatalism. I'm arguing that outcomes are not inevitable, that things can be changed. Obviously some women can be successful in the world we live in now, and everyone should do their best to surmount whatever obstacles they face. It's about likelihoods, and changing our environment to minimize barriers that are unrelated to intellectual merit (and personality, if you're so inclined).

>It's literally the opposite of fatalism.
What are the limitations, then, if not your own failures to fulfill your grand potential?

>almost every woman who's into philosophy is a feminist.
Being a feminist can mean a lot of things, and nowadays it's a pretty broad movement with a lot of conflicting opinions, mate.

why are you writing in prose

why are you?

It must be the corporate ladders,
the great pyramid of Illuminati
luring men and women alike
to enter the world of labor

>Why the hell would you want a career if you had an alternative?
Not sure if serious...

I'm a very lazy and distrustful person. It is not apparent to me, why you'd want to do something.

Interesting post desu. It made me consider if women are promoted in higher positions just to bring down those wages as well. Or are we just trying to make the bourgeoisie more equal, what's the point?

If a woman is president, there will still exist women with shitty jobs and so on.

standard deviation of intelligence in male population is higher than in female population. Therefore over 90% of exceptional people in philosophy, math, physics, psychology, chess are male. That's all the explanation you need. Even the most egalitarian Scandinavian societies can't escape this reality.

That's not how the pay gap works, it's mostly that women just don't get hired for higher level positions

See

>A separate nationwide talent search was conducted in which any student under age 13 who was willing to take the test was eligible. The results obtained by both procedures establish that by age 13 a large sex difference in mathematical reasoning ability exists and that it is especially pronounced at the high end of the distribution: among students who scored greater than or equal to 700, boys outnumbered girls 13 to 1.

science.sciencemag.org/content/222/4627/1029

13 to 1.

>They argue as though they believe the upper end of the range is >95% men.
Depends on where you cut the line. 150+ tends to be the Genius level.
>a conservative estimate of the gender ratio is still about 60:40
[citation needed]- I've actually read that the numbers on African population is 80% females with 140 IQ, but they go contrary to men.

>only one study
Post metaanalyses. And even if this turns out to be an ironclad result it’s only for quantitative/spacial reasoning. As you’re on a literature board I assume you recognize that verbal intelligence is also valuable

Whilst this is important to note when discussing the best of the best, overall populations and trends among the average are not exactly touched by this. The school of philosophy tends to be the most male dominated. This isn't because all those men are of the highest or the lowest IQ range. Although they are above average.
I'm not a genius and I'm interested in philosophy. Always have been.
When women tell me time and time again that they won't choose those [interesting to me] schools or ways of life because they have 'expectations placed upon them', what are they expecting me to do? Give them new directions? New orders? It's this highly submissive, follower-type of personality they have. I think it is biological, because if it were cultural, we'd already have control over female and male interests. It took what, one generation to wreck marriage with homosexuals? This is because it was an institution that was, in fact, a social construct. What a beautiful thing it was.

>establish that by age 13 a large sex difference in mathematical reasoning ability exists

this paper is BS, to find out why listen to Robert Saplosky

youtube.com/watch?v=m5cat-kR0j8

>The teachers choose what the girls are interested in
Bollocks. The most praise I've gotten has been during physical education and I always hated it.

Is this bait or are you genuinely retarded?

I'm gonna speak anecdotally, but verbal intelligence and mathematical problem solving intelligence likely have the same root, every math beast I've ever known in college was very witty with words, but obviously they have a sense of humor strange to most people.

>The teachers choose what the girls are interested in
>bollocks
literally equal number of hands go up and the teachers pick the boys to answer
>The most praise I've...
(Anecdote)

This is from lecture 6

Go to the start of Robert Saplosky 25 part lecture series on Human Behavioral Biology, it will make you a better person

>literally equal number of hands go up and the teachers pick the boys to answer
Yes, but why does this matter? If anything, I raised my hand in order to avoid being asked questions.
>anecdote
Hey, I'm not the one who is on a quest to fulfill his/her potential.

>Men escape problems they face
>Women demand men fix their problems for them
Men don't get to live in peace, and women refuse to live altogether.

>Yes, but why does this matter?
The study is based on the assumption "If the environments are the same and there are differences, the differences must be due to genes"

If girls raise their hands to answer maths questions the same rate as boys but the teachers keep picking the boys to answer how do you think the girls will perform at maths tests? how is that "the same environment"?

for the same correct answer boys get more praise than girls, do you not see how years of this might have an affect on girls performance? how is that "the same environment"?

If this starts happening when they are 8 (if not sooner) do you think there would be a difference in how they would perform at maths test at 13 than if they had had teachers that picked them to answer math questions at a proportional rate to the boys? how is that "the same environment"?

watch Sapolskys lectures, they are pearls

>If girls raise their hands to answer maths questions the same rate as boys but the teachers keep picking the boys to answer how do you think the girls will perform at maths tests? how is that "the same environment"?
I'm sorry to tell you this, but the prodigies would do well even if they were bullied for doing well. Some minor details won't change girl behavior one way or another in a significance of 13:1.

Now that I think about it, why is there a girl for every 13 successful patriarchs? Shouldn't this 14th kid be appalled by the fact that "raising hand" (the most frustrating thing in school) isn't as effective as with boys? Why doesn't she lose her ability to reason?

I think you have misread or misunderstood something. go back and read it again

it is actually your gene study which is a minor detail compared to the bulk of knowledge about environmental factors

>the prodigies
of which gender? did you get to the part where he cites the icelandic situation where women on average perform slightly better than men?

>>the prodigies
>of which gender?
At least boys. I haven't seen girls get bullied over good grades. Maybe we should start, to equalize the playing field?
> the icelandic situation where women on average perform slightly better than men?
That's a small study if I ever saw one.

>I haven't seen girls get bullied over good grades
you haven't seen them get picked to answer at a lower rate than boys and praised less for the same correct answers either

>evolution made men into philly and women not interested
>it's not like women, similarly to lower classes, had to spend all day taking care of the house and were almost forbidden from going out and actually discuss things with other people

this is some next level shitposting

>women are not worse than men
>ignore the fact that they perform worse, goy

Of course they both load on to the g factor, that's why they're included in IQ tests. But there's a reason why they're analyzed as separate factors.. For both verbal and mathematical ability, there are sex differences present at the extreme right tail (with verbal ability favoring women, and mathematical ability favoring men). Male-female math ability ratios have actually been steadily decreasing over the past 20 years (the ratio still favors men though).

Except when they do. Women consistently score higher than men in verbal intelligence (even at the far right ed of the distribution).

It's the truth. Numbers and counting have retarded man's moral and spiritual development and transformed him into an economic unit rather than an individual. In a proper world mathematics would rightfully be recognized as a catastrophic threat to human civilization that only the mentally deranged (autistics, incompetents, insectoids, Asiatics) are permitted to pursue.

>lowkey without a hyphen
>lowkey as an adverb
This is an ebonics-free board.

completely anecdotal, but I've noticed that plainness in women tends to correlate with intelligence
most of my female friends are fairly unattractive - not necessarily ugly, but just 4-6/10 range. I find it easiest to spend time with them at least partially because they can speak and think on my level (or higher desu, I'm a brainlet) whereas the really pretty girls are so busy checking instagram and fucking chad that they never bother to develop their capacity to think. I've never met an attractive woman who read any books.
I think there are a few potential reasons for this correlation:
1) lack of romantic/sexual attention induces them to reach to more cerebral pursuits for passing time
2) they start with intelligence and, through a lack of concern with their physical appearance, end up plain
3) men are neither attracted nor repulsed by them, and see them as almost sexless, allowing them to more easily enter male-dominated spaces such as (branches of) academics without upsetting the balance or getting caught up in gender issues
idk, just some thoughts

For me it's option number 3. I'm not the kind of woman who men mentally undress whenever I enter a room, but I'm not an ogre either. Men will be my friends genuinely, and I can interact with men without the romantic/sexual undertones. I always pursued intellectual things because I was raised that way, by two academics from families of academics, and while I don't devote hours to my appearance, I don't completely neglect it, at least in terms of nutrition and exercise.

Most people who perform exceptionally well on tests of quantitative ability also perform significantly higher than average on tests of verbal intelligence, and vice versa. It's very uncommon for somebody to be exceptional in only one area of intelligence.

You're right, the differences are generally slight, but it's enough to be a pattern in relative performance

good 2 know, I will add that to the list of unfounded assumptions I make about society and human nature

Ah yes, with the sample size of 1.

that's the idea
are you asian by any chance?

There are no barriers to female achievement and never have been, women are just incapable of achieving anything in the worldly sense. Also I'm not talking about retarded 'IQ' nonsense so I don't know why you brought that up, I'm talking about the essence of femininity.

Weininger's answer is that women think almost exclusively in henids as opposed to clean abstractions and hard-cut concepts. Or rather that a completely feminine mind, femininity of course being more common in women than in men, will think completely in henids, so that women who can "think like men" are vanishingly rare and still inferior to high-masculine men.

Henids are like concepts but "mushy," unfinished. They are when you try to think of the answer to a given problem or situation, and your mind's eye is flooded and immersed in all kinds of conflicting desires, hunches, half-solutions, bits of memory and associations, etc. You're supposed to "hold on" to the possibility of hewing a clean concept out of all this, somehow finding the meaning in all the flux of emotions and distractions, taking the bits of memory that are relevant and discarding the ones that didn't work out.

The idea is that men are better at training themselves to complete this process of creating abstract concepts, which then become part of the mind's storehouse of concepts forever, and can be used in future situations, future problems, can be compared and clashed against other concepts etc. Women habitutally don't complete the henid process, so not only do they have fewer principles, abstractions, universals in their storehouse to guide them, they don't really see the point in finding the new principle in a new situation. They just fuzz their mind at it vaguely and go
>UMMMMM I GUESS IT KINDA MAKES ME FEEL BAD SO I DONT LIKE IT, CAN I GET A MAN TO FIX IT FOR ME?? :/ UMMMM IS THIS LIKE THAT THING I SAW ON YOUTUBE? OMGGG IM SO BORREDDDDD I WANT TO GO OUTTTTTT

>When women tell me time and time again that they won't choose those [interesting to me] schools or ways of life because they have 'expectations placed upon them', what are they expecting me to do? Give them new directions? New orders? It's this highly submissive, follower-type of personality they have. I think it is biological, because if it were cultural, we'd already have control over female and male interests. It took what, one generation to wreck marriage with homosexuals? This is because it was an institution that was, in fact, a social construct. What a beautiful thing it was.
It's not biological. It's the intelligent approach to biology. Yes, you could invent the cure for cancer (causing millions of extra mouths), or work out a new integration of a precession of a rigid body under the influence of gravity, or send a puppy into space, or you can retire at 18-21 and clone more intelligent versions of you who you teach how to use factorials to determine risk-reward at an early age. If you were a smart woman, which would you do? Send a dog into space like a fucking frat boy, or make literal hyperintelligent minions who will care for you when dying of cancer?

>Are women lowkey pissed off at the fact that philosophy is mostly dominated by men?
I think women in general probably arent aware of this in particular, but im sure they would be "lowkey pissed off", considering its fairly popular to accept feminist description of reality

>I mean the very first philosophers were men
I doubt most women would care about this at all in relation to the first point

> Why did evolution made men into philosophers and women not interested into philosophy?

Some others have pointed why it generally seems to be the case that men gravitate towards philosophy. Biological want and ability to abstract, disagree, and theorize.

Over enough time its easy to imagine that these small changes in gender would lead one thing over one way rather than the other.

From personal experience, it seems very odd that I have never had a conversation about formal properties or concepts in general with women. Politics, literature, ethics, beauty, yes, but not something like the axiom of non-contradiction. Also, it seems to do absolutely nothing with their own appearance. To many of the anons saying all the pretty girls never learn to think because they are out there being busy getting fucked, you just havent been to the places where those pretty girls go who are also intelligent. Its rare enough to be beautiful, rare enough to be intelligent, and even rarer to be both.Trust me, Ivies are not just ugly people. Far from it.

ITT: /pseud/oscience

For real

>It's not biological.
Then how come things haven't changed, even though men are starting to avoid higher education?

Pareto's law is stronger with girls. More boys raise their hands, whilst it is only the few girls who do it with every question. I saw many teachers avoiding the same students. My solution? Copy the girls, raise your hand every time - avoid being asked anything.