Why are women underrepresented in philosophy?

Women think emotionally and not logically. (Majority at least.)

This.

that's a different argument than i made if we're talking about representation

>Philosophers
>Thinking logically
Oh god you made me make a /b/-tier post

Nah, they don't think any less logically than men. When I took logic at uni, the women btfo the men in the class.

There are reasons women are unrepresented in philosophy, but don't buy into the whole logic is opposed to emotion meme (it isn't) and the men are logic women are emotion meme (men aren't inherently more inclined to logical reasoning in their day to day life)

Why these threads why they are never sincere they are just inane, monotone shitposting

Why do you do this, what makes you look at the agonizing body of this board and go "yeah, I think I can help this by fucking that festering wound a bit more"

>I'm seriously getting triggered by baby boomers who can't get that the fucking amount of individual influentialness is more important than raw numbers.

This isn't about your personal beliefs whether groups or individuals are more important. The OP's question was why women are underrepresented.
But apparantly that shit doesn't matter anymore.
That's good for me too, but get your fucking noodle armed nu male identity politics out of my face then if groups don't matter.

Women are smarter than men and choose not to get involved in a field that is little more than an antiquated exercise in circumlocution masquerading as science.

>nu male
Stopped reading.

How's your wife's son doing today?

My wife would never have a son, that's what abortions are for. Our little girl is enrolled in advanced classes and taking violin lessons though.

Women are more "practical". They perceive reality in a more direct manner, they see the "dirtiness" and can live with it.
Men are more idealistic/romantic, they tend to think in clean abstract terms, which is something that women don't really get on a "gut" level, they find it silly/pointless
.
It's tempting to paint women as "stupider", but:
1. that's not necessarily accurate (how do you define stupidity?).
and
2. the female perspective has some useful insight, at least if you want to be a functioning member of society.

False.

Again, false.

You people fail to differentiate between individuals.

These differences exist first and foremost between individuals. The differences between sexes are more fine-grained, but they do exist.

First, define "philosopher"

If you mean anyone with a perspective that they can articulate somewhat well and garner readership for, then there are plenty of women philosophers in history.

If you mean someone who is actually a part of the heated, high level debate going on between individuals since ancient Greece, then there are none, because women don't care / were never shown this to be going on / know they simply could not keep up with something so intellectually demanding as to require your full life's attention

No it isn't. Give evidence if you believe it's false. As someone who has studied logic, I can tell you that most people, both women and men, use about the same level of logical reasoning during their day to day lives, which is almost nothing. Both men and women are deeply irrational, but women tend to make more practical decisions.

Being emotional also has nothing to do with logic. It isn't inherently opposed to it.

Philosophy is full of men because they tend to think more abstractly and they tend to make riskier decisions. Philosophy doesn't guarantee a good career, women tend to make more economically practical decisions.

Historical process and social norms.

Your taken-for-granted hegemonic masculinity is problematic.

>fine-grained

the differences between the sexes are prominent, practically perceiving the world differently. men and women are almost different species. individual expression varies vastly, but the difference between men and women do not.

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to actually acknowledge the real reason for the disparity

racism, duh
sage

This.
I don't know from where this entire "emotion is the opposite of reason" came from. My best guess is because the neurosis we're immersed. We call "reason" the part of us that repress certain impulses in order to make us function in society. The release of those constrains would be letting "emotion" run wild, which means that "reason" has ceased to exist in this unconstrained place.
The truth is that emotion is, in fact, a constant flux of this impulses, and that how we relate to them is up to plenty of factors, being one of them this so called "reason", which is nothing more than our internal narrative, which is affected by a lot of factors (being one of them our emotions). There's not such a thing as an "emotionless" person, but more like there's people who are able to repress more their emotions and adapt better to the social norm, which is what give them the title of "reasonable" and not "emotional", which would be a person with a lesser capacity to constrain him or herself.

Because most women don't write philosophy as a discipline.
Men write it as posterity, dick-waving, appreciation, compassion, or as a combination of these things.
Women are more apt to just live in pursuit of experience than sit in contemplation, utilize rationality in that pointed, directed way like only men can, and distill thought into a writing.

This is generally how things are. Where are the amateur female philosophers in this day and age where it is all too easy to publish writing, absorb others works, research the world? Facebook more than often. Then tumblr. Then tinder.

Helena Blavatsky and Esther Vilar, as well as Ayn Rand. These women are exceptional, and outshine the average male idiot.

I actually read an article about the "under representation" of minorities in philosophy.
I think, this is just a creation of liberalism.
There are no laws banning minorities from participating in philosophy.
So this, seems, rather, to be capitalism and the quest for more money, coated under the veneer of liberalism and political correctness.

You can see this in most things today, because most things have been commoddiffied.

The real problem of modern philosophy is the academicazation of it.

So you graduated school and received a piece of paper to become a professorial though haver?

>It is only the man whose intellect is clouded by his sexual instinct that could give that stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped, and short-legged race the name of the fair sex; for the entire beauty of the sex is based on this instinct. One would be more justified in calling them the unaesthetic sex than the beautiful. Neither for music, nor for poetry, nor for fine art have they any real or true sense and susceptibility, and it is mere mockery on their part, in their desire to please, if they affect any such thing.

>This makes them incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything, and the reason for it is, I fancy, as follows. A man strives to get direct mastery over things either by understanding them or by compulsion. But a woman is always and everywhere driven to indirect mastery, namely through a man; all her direct mastery being limited to him alone. Therefore it lies in woman’s nature to look upon everything only as a means for winning man, and her interest in anything else is always a simulated one, a mere roundabout way to gain her ends, consisting of coquetry and pretence.

>Hence Rousseau said, Les femmes, en général, n’aiment aucun art, ne se connoissent à aucun et n’ont aucun génie (Lettre à d’Alembert, note xx.). Every one who can see through a sham must have found this to be the case. One need only watch the way they behave at a concert, the opera, or the play; the childish simplicity, for instance, with which they keep on chattering during the finest passages in the greatest masterpieces. If it is true that the Greeks forbade women to go to the play, they acted in a right way; for they would at any rate be able to hear something. In our day it would be more appropriate to substitute taceat mulier in theatro for taceat mulier in ecclesia; and this might perhaps be put up in big letters on the curtain.

Women are too intelligent to waste time and money getting a philosophy degree.

got to buy new shoes and text emojis instead

go to buy a new spoiler for your car

cars are very cool and complicated machines that have advanced society in major ways.

so have shoes and emojis desu

smiley faces have existed since AOL, i dont get the big deal behind the resurgence,
As for shoes, they are worshiped for their style rather than to keep your feet warm and safe

Seems to be the case.

>it's another fucking thread about women that should be on Veeky Forums and isn't literature related at all

wider range of expression and more standardised than ever.

i agree about the shows, but the same point can be made for putting spoilers on your ricemobile.

*shoes desu famu

>BUT WHAT IS A PHILOSOPHER? ALSO WHAT IS UNDERREPRESENTED??? HURRRR IM SUCH AN EDUCATED MILLENNIAL HURRRRR

Because Women don't need Philosophy to be happy.

Korean I'd say

The most influential philosopher in America is none of them because americans aren't taught philosophy unless they choose them as an elective and if you want to umbrella the term influence then the greeks are the most influential philosophers in America because at least most people have heard of Plato, Aristotle, or Socrates.

Report all frog posters

>natural inclination of women
spook

This.

Also, an anecdote: most philosophy professors and students are men. There have been some very smart females in my philosophy classes though. I just think there is something very male about philosophy, and the intense amount of focus it places on compartmentalized pieces of information. It breaks everything up into abstract ideas. Like some have said in this thread, women enjoy subjects that are more holistic, such as sociology and psychology. These deal with broader, less tightly defined concepts. Philosophers, on the other hand, will discuss the idea of Justice until you are sick to your stomach of the word.

>why isn't philosophy not one of them
what?

>biology is spook
sure m8

>Ayn Rand exceptional
good post new friend

>quotes the /redpill bible
ok pal

You don't understand biology at all if you think this is how it works

This is not d&d you fucking autist. Debra doesn't get -12 philosophy but +11 charisma because she's a girl, while you get the opposite. You are -12 philosophy and -12 charisma and -12 understanding how "biology" in the vaguest sense of the word, works

>putting words into my mouth
You know how some people love ordering and connecting information and facts, how they see beauty in such structures, be it a mathematical formula or a piece of computer code? If you thought "autism", it's good. Because my point is, such love is, to a good part, biological. It works as a natural pull towards subjects such as philosophy (or math). And while I don't know for sure, it seems plausible that it's more prevalent in males than females. Which is not the only factor, of course, but it's just to illustrate the point.

I didn't think autism my first thought was that you're between the age of 14 and 16 and think you understand how biology works because you paid minimum attention during class.

But this isn't how shit works at all. Shed the evolutionary psychology before you get into college, everyone knows it's bullshit essentially.

Which part of my assumptions fall into the "evolutionary psychology" category? Anyway, basically every feature of humans is either cultural or biological (in the broader sense, of course). Is intellect, define it however you want, defined by culture, biology or the combination of the two?

Oh that's an easy one

>Which part of my assumptions fall into the "evolutionary psychology" category?

All of them. Why did you put evolutionary psychology in quotes.

>Every feature of humans is either cultural or biological

>stem
>intelligence

This debating whether or not women this or that is getting extremely annoying at this point. And don't say it's because of the subject matter, it's because we do this shit every single fucking day and it's always the same shit.

>underrepresented
I think we need to deal with the fact that OP can see through to the true world in which there are far more women in philosophy than appears to be the case. He knows who the great traps of philosopher are, and has not provided a list.

>of philosopher

great traps of philosopher

Because them being connected to evolutionary psychology is your opinion, not mine. Okay, fuck intellect and shit. Is the object of regular sexual attraction for males (the general shape of female body with breasts and hips) defined only by culture, or does it have a biological component to it?

Why are women more underrepresented in philosophy than in mathematics?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

*philosophy
Fucking analytics think grammar is the new god and they know his true face

I'm not him but could you list some that aren't? I haven't read any philosophy.

The ones of direct divine intervention.

>Because them being connected to evolutionary psychology is your opinion, not mine

What the hell? Since when is your opinion relevant or not you're posting something that is legitimately what you're posting?

You are word for word shoving evolutionary psychology in the argument

>fuck intellect and shit. Is the object of regular sexual attraction for males (the general shape of female body with breasts and hips) defined only by culture, or does it have a biological component to it?

Are you asking whether being turned on is biological in response to me telling you evolutionary psychology is nonsense.

Do

Do you really think that you stumped me on this one? it's "biological", yes. But what you're also saying is that you think I think the other problem's you've mentioned are due to culture. From this.

When they're really non-existent problems you've assumed exist because you are in high school.

was your post only bashing atheists?

I did not "stump" you, not do I imply your opinion on other problems. I merely tried to get a coherent answer from you since before you provided none. Now we have something to work with, thank you very much.

Can you briefly describe what do you mean by evolutionary psychology here? Because my words do not fall into evolutionary psychology as I understand it.

>I merely tried to get a coherent answer from you since before you provided none

They aren't coherent because you have no idea what you're talking about.

>Now we have something to work with, thank you very much.

My posts before were even more coherent.

>Can you briefly describe what do you mean by evolutionary psychology here?

Evolutionary Psychology.

As in.

Evolutionary Psychology.

it's spelled 'shitpost', but yes

>Evolutionary psychology (EP) is a theoretical approach in the social and natural sciences that examines psychological structure from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify which human psychological traits are evolved adaptations – that is, the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection in human evolution.
I never implied any evolutionary perspective. The "worst" thing I implied was a biological difference between males and females with respect to certain psychological qualities. But differences are of given, since we know males and females generally have different biology (penis, vagina, this sort of thing). The question here is how far these differences go.

>I never implied any evolutionary perspective

God you even had to fucking wikipedia it

>The "worst" thing I implied was a biological difference between males and females with respect to certain psychological qualities.

I'm not talking about worst or better, I'm talking about you pushing theory which is largely discredited and shat on by all.

>ut differences are of given, since we know males and females generally have different biology (penis, vagina, this sort of thing). The question here is how far these differences go.

Here's my advice. Wait until you graduate high school to ground your world view. Then you can start giving us your shit for no real reason on the literature board.

You continue to assume I'm in high school as an insult, while I probably have higher degree than you do. But okay. Can you please, for the sake of pontificating the stupid and ignorant me, summarise the discredited and shat on theory that I push? So that I won't be pushing it by mistake anymore.

A penis is a social construct.

>You continue to assume I'm in high school as an insult

Yup.

>while I probably have higher degree than you do

I'm sure. You even had to Wikipedia evolutionary psychology. You've never heard of it before now.

>Can you please, for the sake of pontificating the stupid and ignorant me, summarise the discredited and shat on theory that I push?

All, if not nearly all, function of behavior and mind can be attributed to evolutionary factors over time; from this you can general gauge biological truths to human behavior. Men do x for y and girls do y for z.

Except, that's not actually how the mind works at all and that's completely fucking general to be considered fact. Anything dealing with "human nature" tends to shit out the worst psueds on the internet.

isn't redpil a pol thing?

That is again, not at all what I said or implied or suggested.

>I'm talking about you pushing theory which is largely discredited and shat on by all.

Can you provide some sources for this claim?

I love how everyone is on board with this "womyn r all ekwel" shit nowadays, yet have all these basics live a 100 years ago and they'd just be defending beliefs that would make redpilled dorks look like moderates.

Ok.

This proves....? Society isn't as shit?

Go to college

>Men do x for y and girls do y for z
Now I never said that; I talked about inclinations and never implied the "for" part or any evolutionary factors. Fuck the evolution, I don't ask "why people are like they are", I ask "how they are".

There was thesis one, that biology can influence human psychology, which we happened to agree upon (the example of sexual attraction).
There was thesis two about seeing-beauty-in-complicated-things (or however you may want to call it) having partly biological root.
Then there was thesis three about males presumably possessing the quality above more often than females (not as a statement, but as a possible solution for the OP's question)

Is the mistake, in your opinion, in thesis 3 or already in thesis 2?

The assumptions rooted in evolutionary psychology which seek to make human behavior evident through generic principles related to biology in the most generalized sense.

I've been taking some bio classes on the side, and more than ever now they are over represented there. Philosophy often attracts a fair few women but it falls very easily into who has the biggest penis and who can bullshit most convincingly.

For famous philsophers there are plenty of female major philosophers. But minor (is the word exegeitic or something? Those who really just comment upon other thinkers) philosophers tends to be dominated by males again. I think some of this is social - so males with nothing really worthwhile to say may still be encouraged into writing secondary literature, and often big deal female philosophers are commented on in relation to their male contempories too much.

Think about it: would you know of Heidegger right now if not for Arendt? Would you know of Babbage if not for Lovelace? Yet Heidegger and Babbage are the ones talked about way more. I'm sure you can think of all sorts of reasons for it, but in both cases there the males have made some wanky peacock tail like project that people talk in awe about now, but those projects only found value in how the females talked about them.

You faggots won't let the fact that women have a lower threshold in every facet of life get through your thick skull.

[spoler]Its as if ur a woman[/splr]

When did I bring up rationale

I'm going to keep bitching about how annoying these threads are you really can't do anything to stop me

A butterfly flapping its wings may cause a storm on the other side of the world, yet we don't go around insisting entomological meteorology is some new field that will transform predicting the weather.

So behavior cannot be explained through biology only? Or that no explanation of behavior may have a biological component?

You are so stupid it hurts

>not knowing how much butterfly is life
leave you newb and stop stealing the plot of my novel.