Why is PHILOSOPHY
such a SAUSAGEFEST
my m8 says it's the party arky keeping womyn-writers from being first educated then published but i think that is not it. i think it's more a certain love for the quantifiable and hence amassable (bitches, knowledge, power) inherent in men and missing in women. i think a big factor is conquering truth itself by persuading your folks to accept your philosophical terms and quirks (which have to be the biggest, baddest terms and quirks around) by means of being slightly smarter or at least more cunning than your barrel dwelling contemporaries.
i'm interested in your views on this, dear b/lit/zkneissers
every field involving extraordinariness will be dominated by men for more or less the reasons you gave
also just distribution of ability which results from the factors stated (more male retards; more male geniuses)
yes, but they seem to be a tiny minority.
still, in most fields there's at least some amount of women. i mean there's been female novelists, scientists etc for some time now yet there are pretty few female philosophers. i'm wondering what's so explicitly male about the discipline of philosophy beyond what i've already stated.
you better fucking believe i am, but that doesn't mean there can be no validity to my observations
> you can't prove there's no god so there definitely is a god
anyways it really seems to me this is something that's less patriarchal suppression and more simply something that comes more naturally and easily to men. like, say, um, doing their hair, for women.
>like, say, um, doing their hair, for women.
There is scientific and popular dispute about whether there are sex differences in cognitive abilities and whether they are relevant to the proportions of men and women who attain high-level achievements, such as Nobel Prizes. A recent meta-analysis (Lynn, R., and Irwing, P. (2004). Sex differences on the progressive matrices: a meta-analysis. Intelligence, 32, 481–498.), which suggested that males have higher mean scores on the general factor in intelligence (g), proved especially contentious. Here we use a novel design, comparing 1292 pairs of opposite-sex siblings who participated in the US National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY1979). The mental test applied was the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), from which the briefer Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) scores can also be derived. Males have only a marginal advantage in mean levels of g (less than 7% of a standard deviation) from the ASVAB and AFQT, but substantially greater variance. Among the top 2% AFQT scores, there were almost twice as many males as females. These differences could provide a partial basis for sex differences in intellectual eminence.
>there are many female philosophers
the % of philosophesses amongst philosophizing people in general seems low. i don't see them at college, not as students and neither as professors. i'm not sure what kind of hidden mid-level-philosophical-class where women are plenty you would be referring to
first and foremost it was a JOKE, you dope, but nonetheless: de-fucking-batable, mate. there's a plethora of studies that tend to show nurturing, caring behaviour is inherent to females rather than males. and i'm using the term females because this has been shown to be a tendency in humans as well as in our closest relatives (bonobos and other great apes). converesly, competetive and protective behaviour (protective as in stomping an unhinged wildebeest into the ground to save your peers from harm, rather than as in caring, nurturing) seems to be innate to males.
our bodies are built around this. men build muscle faster, women have a higher % of bodyfat. men have less pain receptors. women have (in some regards) better immune systems, their hearts are less susceptible to disease and failure; women are, simply put, more adapted to a sedentary, calmer, perhaps also more enduring lifestyle. by extension it makes sense women will tend to care about their body more, tendentially (in a cosmetic / ornamental way).
it's certainly not as clear an affair as you make it out to be.
>inequality is growing
You're wrong, anon. Income disparity has been narrowing since the 70s onwards. Please do some actual research before spouting ignorant opinions.
> "do your research"
> posts a fucking TED link by some euro clown that is very vaguely related to the question at hand, at best
here's some shitty graph off google. that's all you get unless you back up your ludacrous claim with something other than a link to some popsci cabaret act.
Epic insult bro. Why is income inequality a problem when everyone is getting richer, just at different rates? We have less people in poverty by the year and you still manage to complain.
redpilled /r9k/-/pol/-hybrid coming through to lecture you brainwashed liberals:
Men are smarter than women. But not only that, but men are also more inscribed into the symbolic text than worthless whore women. Men can experience the true depth of subjectivity and its perils, and they are more able to experience the spiritual, ethical, and existential aspects of being human.
Women simply are not as human as men. They are more like animals. Like dogs, or children even. They cannot ever be as insightful or deep as a man, because their experience doesn't allow it. They simply cannot experience the depth of being human, because there's no depth to them.
They're only worried about looking hot to Chad (Chad means an alpha male with a massive cock, probably not an intellectual like me, but women don't care about that because they're stupid and worthless). If it were not for the vagina they would be worthless.
Let's face it; men built civilization while women rightfully should be kept as male property. That's the way it has worked and which has given us so many innovations and technological wonders. Women should know their place.
I wrote it myself, you idiots.
Have you even read Schopenhauer's 'On Women'?
They deserve nothing but contempt, they're only concerned with cock and appearance. They cannot truly reflect on existence. This is a fact.
Women these days have taken upwards of 500 dicks by the time they're finishing up on high school.
Giving them the vote and allowing them to stray from their human nature as housewives is the greatest calamity to befall Western civilization.
See where the West is headed today. Women have sex with blacks and we're expecting to applaud it? Whiteness is disappearing, many men like me are not considered worthy of romantic relationships because we're not Chad Thundercock.
And romantic relationships? They don't exist any longer because of feminism. All women want is to exploit men financially and emotionally, because they're incapable of loyalty, trust, and true love.
They'll dump you the second Chad shows up, that's a fact.
The people at the top get paid more because they have a higher level of responsibility. A frycook isn't going to be burdened with debt if McDonald's goes under. Franchise owners and CEOs will.
you seem to be unaware of what a corporation is designed to do
well then i dunno which uni you go to but the majority of my phil profs were women
however the majority of the profs teaching upper-level courses or graduate seminars were men
so the ones with a name were men, the well-paid grunts, women
it's not a question of wrong
he wrote in so cartoonish a fashion that i actually laughed and i can't believe it had any other purpose
if you believe our friend isn't a ruseman you engage him
first of all, the last thing that philosophy needs is a movie made by woody allen showing a male teacher taking advantage of his role as a father figure to a younger student in order to explore a sexual relationship with her.
secondly, actual person studying philosophy at the graduate/doctoral level here. i don't have time today to make a big debate but the OP is right, philosophy is a big sausage fest at the academic level. there are very well respected female philosophers but they are in the minority.
> i think it's more a certain love for the quantifiable and hence amassable (bitches, knowledge, power) inherent in men and missing in women. i think a big factor is conquering truth itself by persuading your folks to accept your philosophical terms and quirks (which have to be the biggest, baddest terms and quirks around) by means of being slightly smarter or at least more cunning than your barrel dwelling contemporaries
is a grade a bunch of horse shit and you should feel ashamed for thinking something as stupid as this. there are dozens of factors of why philosophy is male dominated, some of them pernicious and some of them banal. historically, philosophy has been male dominated so it's not like the tide is going to turn overnight. philosophy departments are mostly men, and in turn (in general) take male students on as phd candidates. it's better than it was but universities like Texas A&M have noticed this discrepancy and have basically made it ridiculously attractive to apply to there--they literally advertise that they 'highly encourage women and minority applicants' to apply to the program and offer them sex and race-based scholarships not available to cis scum like myself.
secondly, american philosophy has been dominated by analytic philosophy, which is very much a STEM kind of field and doesn't really attract women to the field.
third of all, there has been a great number of scandals in recent history of really shitty sexual abuse/discrimination/etc happening in philosophy departments, which has tarnished the reputation of american philosophy as a whole. there is a blog entitled "what it is like to be a woman in philosophy" or something out there. it's basically a tumblr-style roll call of complaining (there are writings both of the "microaggression" level of worth and also extremely articulate and disheartening stories obviously written by very intelligent and well-meaning women) but it is actually quite well known in the professional philosophy circle and is widely considered to be a very shameful topic.
anyways, typically horrible red-pill discussion as always on /lit/. hope you all can get outside some day
i think people don't understand how sexist academia really is, sure womyns got the literature dept on lock, but for a lot of shit it's a bunch of sexist dicks...i work in education and notice the stem guys are also teasing girls about how they suck at math or only get into grad school because they got affirmation action, but pervesely women love the guys who tease them like that and think it's so charming (on the other hand the muslim arabs who actually rub their shoulders and get in sneaky gropes creep them out) so it's weird, the STEM dudes are clearly sexist but unless a guy is physically rubbing his crotch against her ass, the chicks seem to think it's cool to be teased by some macho stem dickhead....so what do u want me to do about it? i'm just some humanities nerd, stem "geniuses" aren't going to listen to my scolding....
if you'd stop trying to ooze progressiveness you'd see you're not that far off from previously stated opinions, you just emphasize different things
>secondly, american philosophy has been dominated by analytic philosophy, which is very much a STEM kind of field and doesn't really attract women to the field.
you didn't emphasize this, but obviously this leads to why -- and the answer is hidden in the moderate "redpill" discussion (don't take cuntish trolls seriously, it makes you look retarded)
i know philosophy (and academia) in general teaches us to show oneself as different as possible but that's not a good way to actually have your opinions heard in normal situations
This is retarded. I'm not red-pill or any of that shit. I'm in drag school in a STEM but not in US so my views may be different. I literally have never seen someone tease girls that they can't into math. Not saying it doesn't happen but STEM people are the most autistic people I've met . They have no concept of teasing and that women like it.
Seriously now, what is in this age holding women from achieving great feats of artistic or scientific accomplishments. How long are people going to blame males for females lack of accomplishments. How about some personal responsability? I come from a very poor family and climbed the social ladder throw academics and I did it because I worked hard.
forgot to say that I didn't cry and blame my poor financial status on society, parent or other people.
It seems that if we were to say the road to success is filled with light stops, people think for men that road is filled with green light stops while for women it's filled with red ones. Which is bullshit, an kinda sexist, each individual person will have a road with a mix of red and green.
>I come from a very poor family and climbed the social ladder throw academics and I did it because I worked hard.
he fell for the i'm successful because i work hard meme, your success just comes the fact that ur a privileged cis white male
I'm sure there's some great female philosophers out there. Right now though I'm trying to read the classics and work my way through.
I detach philosophy from the gender/race/sexuality of the philosophers. These people are handling ideas much greater than our petty vanity, so I just don't believe it's important.
I study philosophy and while there are a few more men than women, percentage wise, the men are just as foolish as the women. From anecdotes, I found the top 3-5 people in class has solely been men, and I found that women tended to be more interested in 'feminist' issues. While women being as generally foolish as the men, but majorily women being interested in this, it comes off as if this discipline is muddy and non-critical.
My point is, a lot of sillyheads from class are interested in marcism, feminism and gender issues, but since they're generally unlogical, their presentation of the idea also comes out unlogical and incoherent.
Oh, but more women than men do homework religiously. That could be the party arky keeping women down, making them do what the authorities says (teacher), while it benefits them in the end
I study philosophy and I'm going on exchange in the US next year. Ive only had philo courses here, but going to take math and Comp Sci over there.
I hate the current 'philosophy is a human science' meme
All women care about are women. That's why.
>History Student: PHD in Gender Violence in Ancient Greece
>Scientist: Works in fertility/IVF research
>Philosopher: Gender and Queer theory
There are women philosophers out there, it's just that they deal with a shockingly narrow range of subjects. Women aren't really interested in anything that doesn't relate to their reproductive organs.
Women are inherently subjective. Men are too to some degree, but definitely have an easier time thinking objectively. That's a skill required for philosophy, which is why the most famous philosophers are all male.
>PHD in Gender Violence in Ancient Greece
I hadn't given that much thought before.
It's not that women are majorily overrepresentated in women studies, but that the majority of women in e.g. philosophy are in women studies.
Means absolute shit though.
>A frycook isn't going to be burdened with debt if McDonald's goes under
Hey guys! It seems like someone in here might have thought inequality is a problem. The truth is probably more that we care about the prioritization of wellfare, rather than the relative distribution of it alone.
Imagine someone A being on a tall mountain and someone B being at sealevel. If A is injury prone due to lack of oxygen, and we have an oxygen tank, we should provide him with it, rather than B. Is that because A has less oxygen than B? Because A is higher, and therefore has it worse?
In some sense yes. But of course, A's problems would still be there even if B came up to the same altitude. If the Equality principle is true, we wouldnt need to help A if B got in the same position as him, but thats clearly not true. We need to help A because his needs are prioritized in the scenario.
This so fucking much
>in grad program
>"what are you researching"
>History of Women's Cat Fancying in Victorian Britain
>History of Women's Confessional Literature
>History of Women Writers in the Spanish Revolution
>History of Women's Sexuality
>History of Women's Holocaust Narratives
>History of Women Musicians in Renaissance Italy
>find some of the people who have penises
>"what are you researching"
>Comparative medieval economics
>Early modern military revolutions
>History of higher education
>History of scholastic natural science
EVERY FUCKING TIME
women are more self centered
this has even been proven in studies, who compared male vs female comedians and the jokes for their topics. men usually had a wider variety of topics, while the women usually only talked about thinks that directly affected or related to them.
marie curie was amongst the first to research radioactivity.
rosalind franklin provided the necessary xray data to create the first model of DNA.
i only know one chick studying philosphy. she's doing her dissertation on something nietzsche related.
i'm a huge redpill by /lit/ standards but to say women havent done any work of importance in science is stupid.
Women don't want to do the philosophy and especially don't want an advanced degree in the philosophy because they feel that such intelligence will be intimidating or otherwise a turn off for a potential mate.
Conversely, men want to do the philosophy because they think women will want to have sex with them if they have an advanced degree in something trendy and continental.
This also explains why so many women philosophers are lesbians.
>Among the top 2% AFQT scores, there were almost twice as many males as females
Ok, but even so, that means that there's something like a ~1.5:1 ratio of men:women at the upper levels, which still isn't seen at all in these fields. So even if men /are/ more intelligent, they're still highly overrepresented for extraneous reasons. To try and pin the absence of women in academia on innate lower intelligence is to ignore these extraneous possibilities, and thereby the ways in which nurture, rather than nature, may be a cause of the problem.
>marie curie was amongst the first to research radioactivit
she only got the research gig because of her husband and then ended up killing herself with radiation, pretty weak "feminist icon" brah
>sexual dimorphism is a modern construct
>gender roles didn't organically evolve from the different traits of humans in early hunter gatherer societies
Nobody said this, you're strawmanning. We're talking in generalisations, and the reason women ~~generally~~ don't contribute as much as men is because they tend to be more self centred. Exceptions to the rule don't disprove the rule, this is pretty elementary logic.
Here's where you're wrong. Being well-educated in your world = going through leftist institutions like college and university. That's brainwashing. If you drop out before being too brainwashed by the Judaic-feminists Marxists that run such institutions, then you'll find that you're closer to truth. And coming to places like /r9k/ and /pol/, and among other dropouts, you'll see the light. There are infographics that are distinctly anti-academic (i.e. non false) and you'll find that all the beliefs that are natural to so-called "uneducated" people, i.e. that men are inherently superior to women, that whites are inherently superior to non-whites, and that a certain group of Bolshevik-Jews run the world. Capitalism would function without contradiction and class struggle if only it weren't for the lizardian Jews. Now these redpilled people have soon ousted the Marxists from 4chan, and driven them back to plebbit. This is where you find the true intellectuals of our time. But those that aren't validated by liberal marxism in universities.
>they tend to be more self centred.
every human being is. it just shows differently. you could just as well argue women are much less self centered because they tend to be more caring and more nurturing. whatever you think about the syrian refugee crisis, most of the helpers were women.
Helping the Syrian "refugees" is hardly a selfless act, it's virtue signalling of the highest order. It shows a lack of insight and a desire to appear compassionate above all else. Convincing people to cross the Mediterranean in rubber dingies is not humanitarian. Nor is enabling the sexual abuse of the locals because you were too browbeaten by the press to engage your critical thinking skills. For the record, it's a migrant crisis, not a refugee crisis. A large portion of these migrants aren't even from Syria.
i lolled when i saw that all the muslim rapists in germany were from places like morrocco and turkey not syria, so much for "regugees", also HOW THE FUCK can a male of military age be a refugee? you ain't a refugee u coward, ur a fucking DESERTER, defend yo homeland bish
This. If a woman does a charitable act or an ostensible act of care towards other people, it's solely for status and to post it on facebook or get validation.
If a man does the same, it's because man is an ethical being. Women simply aren't.
Here's my take.
Historically, say up to the late 19th century, it was expected for women to just take care of the home and the children, therefore not encouraging them to work on a phylosophical treaty or leaving much free time for it. Remember that writing was still mostly done by rich people with tons of leisurery hours and trips then. Since this was the expected behaviour, even if there were women reflecting on the philosophical issues of the day (which there likely were), they would not have been published, and thus no documents of those women remain to our days. SO up to that point the "patriarchy keeping da womyn down" argument is accurate.
Then in the beginning of the 20th century many female philosophers were published and for people interested in modern philosophy they are as well known as the male counterparts.
So why are there no notable female philosophers today? I reckon for the same reason that there are no notable philosophers altogether. They exist but they aren't exposed to the public, because as positivism has risen to the category of collective religion of our civilization (talking about industrial capitalist civilization here) philosophy has retreated into a few fairly obscure corners: epistemiology, ethics of medicine and biology, fringe anarchism and totalitarianism, transhumanism, etc. Older philosophical themes were more pressing as they dealt with daily life subjects, and so influential/well exposed people (businessmen, politicians, psychologists, etc) got into it. I.e. older philosophy has more marketing appeal.
In my opinion, these newer obscure subjects simply attract a kind of single minded personality which has nothing to do with gender and is rare to find altogether.
>If a man does the same, it's because man is an ethical being. Women simply aren't.
the funny thing though is that all the "red pill" fedora men always want to find a woman who is their "equal" or something, even the most liberal chadberg knows women are never going to equal men, so just accept that they are weak and you will have to care for them, everyone KNOWS this, we just don't say it out of politeness to let women save face, now stop being gauche, we all know women are useless, but we're polite...
I would argue anyone of any gender involved in helping the "refugees" was a self centred asshole interested solely in virtue signalling. I should clarify that I do believe women are capable of genuine charity, but the migrant crisis is a terrible example. Not to mention, my original point was about women in academia. They're only interested in studying subjects directly related to women and womanhood.
Nice canned response. You have no argument to counter my point on the migrant crisis.
>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.
It's true. The amount of self righteousness on the left is incredible. They don't really care about anyone else outside of some superficial feeling of being altruistic and "sticking it to the man."
>Nice canned response. You have no argument to counter my point on the migrant crisis.
you had no argument to begin with, you had opinions. to take a "it's nature" position then go on to say women are definitely, without a doubt less selfless is idiotic. you're seeing everything through your rosy redpill glasses. if you were honest with yourself you could come up with a dozen examples of how men can very well be more selfish on the spot.
your whole problem is that you are quite willing to rationalize any potentially selfless act by a women into something selfish while you fully accept your delusional romantic image of the ethical man with even reflecting upon it for a second.
this is my last post. have fun typing out that witty elaborate rebuttal.
Are you deliberately misinterpreting my post? I was talking about academia, women frequently choose "women-centric" fields of study over other areas.
>this is my last post
Oh, okay then.
it's because their brains don't lend themselves well to serious fields. They aren't as equipped intellectually because of their biology.
Tell me: If men were to start doing work in those fields, do you not think women would soon be rendered superfluous and cucked out of the field?