Why are women underrepresented in philosophy?

The natural inclination of most women directs them to pursue goals in life different to those of men.

isnt ayn rand the most influential philosopher ever (in mamerica)

>>1753167

No shit. Why isn't philosophy not one of them?

Is that girl Vietnamese? She's cute

>>1753166
Its like you never talked or dated one.

>>1753168

I'm seriously getting triggered by millennials who can't get fucking math.

>"hey why are most engineer students male?"
>DAS NOT TR00 I KNOW A GIRL WHO IS AN ENGINEER >:/

>>1753166
Philosophy is underrepresented in women.

They're too caught up in themselves.

>>1753172

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.

>"hey ayn rand is the most influential philosopher"
(for the sake of our discussion let's not get into whether this is true or not)
>DAS NOT TR000 LOOL WHAT DOES IT MATTER SHES JUST ONE PERSON JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED KILL 50% OF WHITE MALE PHILOSOPHERS

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

>>1753173
This.

>>1753172
that's a different argument than i made if we're talking about representation

>>1753176
>Philosophers
>Thinking logically
Oh god you made me make a /b/-tier post

>>1753176
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"

>>1753175

>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.

>>1753182
>nu male
Stopped reading.

>>1753183

How's your wife's son doing today?

>>1753185
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.

>>1753166
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.

>>1753180
False.

>>1753187
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

>>1753188
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.

>>1753166
Historical process and social norms.

>>1753176
Your taken-for-granted hegemonic masculinity is problematic.

>>1753189
>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.

>>1753192
I'm surprised it took this long for someone to actually acknowledge the real reason for the disparity

>>1753166
racism, duh
sage

>>1753191
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.

>>1753166
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.

File: 1469232416001.png (6KB, 377x330px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 377x330px

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?

File: Arthur.jpg (41KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 400x400px

>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.

>>1753201
got to buy new shoes and text emojis instead

>>1753202
go to buy a new spoiler for your car

>>1753203
cars are very cool and complicated machines that have advanced society in major ways.

File: cl.png (18KB, 120x120px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 120x120px

>>1753204
so have shoes and emojis desu

>>1753205
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

>>1753201
Seems to be the case.

File: 1474847160000.png (53KB, 298x415px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 298x415px

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

File: side eye.gif (41KB, 500x264px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x264px

>>1753206
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.

>>1753209
*shoes desu famu

>>1753190

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

>>1753166
Because Women don't need Philosophy to be happy.

>>1753170
Korean I'd say

>>1753168
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.

>>1753208
Report all frog posters

>>1753167
>natural inclination of women
spook

>>1753212
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.

>>1753169
>why isn't philosophy not one of them
what?

>>1753216
>biology is spook
sure m8

>>1753198
>Ayn Rand exceptional
good post new friend

File: reported.jpg (5KB, 119x163px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 119x163px

>>1753200
>quotes the /redpill bible
ok pal

>>1753219
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

>>1753222
>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.

>>1753223
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.

>>1753224
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?

File: 1471016375999.png (66KB, 741x643px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 741x643px

>>1753166
Oh that's an easy one

>>1753225
>Which part of my assumptions fall into the "evolutionary psychology" category?

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

File: GOD!!!!.jpg (31KB, 797x479px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 797x479px

>>1753225
>Every feature of humans is either cultural or biological

>>1753226
>stem
>intelligence

File: CmZaqxWVIAATqBo.jpg large.jpg (58KB, 501x606px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 501x606px

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.

>>1753231
>of philosopher

great traps of philosopher

>>1753227
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?

>>1753226
Why are women more underrepresented in philosophy than in mathematics?

>>1753226
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

>>1753232
*philosophy
Fucking analytics think grammar is the new god and they know his true face

>>1753228
I'm not him but could you list some that aren't? I haven't read any philosophy.

>>1753238
The ones of direct divine intervention.

>>1753234
>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.

>>1753239
was your post only bashing atheists?

>>1753240
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.

>>1753242
>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.

>>1753241
it's spelled 'shitpost', but yes

>>1753243
>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.

>>1753245
>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.

>>1753246
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.

>>1753245

A penis is a social construct.

>>1753247
>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.

>>1753221
isn't redpil a pol thing?

>>1753248
That is again, not at all what I said or implied or suggested.

>>1753246
>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.

>>1753253
Ok.

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

>>1753252
Go to college

>>1753249
>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?

>>1753256
The assumptions rooted in evolutionary psychology which seek to make human behavior evident through generic principles related to biology in the most generalized sense.

>>1753166
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.

File: 1457256411189.jpg (2MB, 1196x3800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1196x3800px

>>1753230
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]

>>8560685
When did I bring up rationale

>>1753259
I'm going to keep bitching about how annoying these threads are you really can't do anything to stop me

>>1753256
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.

>>1753257
So behavior cannot be explained through biology only? Or that no explanation of behavior may have a biological component?

>>1753263
You are so stupid it hurts

>>1753262
>not knowing how much butterfly is life
leave you newb and stop stealing the plot of my novel.

>>1753265
Anon one morning from pedestrian dreams awoke and found himself into a pseudointellectual butterfly transformed

>>1753230

I find it interesting.
Why can't we address this?
We sure can't anywhere else or we're ostracized.

This is some of the most fascinating subject matter out there: what makes us different.
Why are Asians such and such... Why are blacks more prone to do a or b.. What makes women pick this over that..

Apparantly we can't ask these questions anymore in this society.
That's why many go on this Bhutanese thangka appreciation board, because not even on reddit can you go and have these discussions without being called an immoral danger ( it's getting to the point here as well ).
Tells us more about how fragile this bullshit society of ours is if you cannot even ask questions like these.

>>1753264
Informative.
>>1753262
If you could stick to my statements, it'd be easier for me to find a mistake.
>A butterfly flapping its wings may cause a storm on the other side of the world
It wouldn't be a cause in a regular sense, climatology is stochastic.
>yet we don't go around insisting entomological meteorology is some new field that will transform predicting the weather
Still you imply the "evolutionary" part in my words, while I fail to see any.

>>1753268
No really. You are. If you can't get what I'm saying and make informed conclusions you are stupid. If you have to wiki evo psych you are stupid

>>1753269
Well you also can't get what I'm saying, to the point where I had to wiki evolutionary psychology to make sure my idea about it wasn't wrong (which it wasn't).

Why are women underrepresented in construction work? Why are men underrepresented in nursing? As always: men and women are different; they see carreers differently and choose different fields due to biological imperatives + cultural norms + societal structures in place.

>>1753258
>would you know of Heidegger right now if not for Arendt?
Yes. Are you retarded?

>>1753270
You just said what I just said. You had to wiki what evolutionary psychology js

>>1753271
*farts*

>>1753267
I think it's somewhat inevitable, at least right now. We all live in denial in some way, to get along better or, after all, just to cope with life.

Putting out truths about biological determination would probably have some consequences, especially in ethnically diverse societies like the US.
People are scared to do it. The 20th century history of eugenics and nazism is portrayed as the banner of pure evil.

Things might change in the future, though. With the internet we're reaching critical masses of people where certain topics can be discussed.

>>1753273
Except you're saying made up problems and shitting out evo psych nonsense that isn't actually evident of larger "social problems" you're playing mind games with people pretending to be in college on 4chan

>>1753272
>>1753274
I should definitely read The Art of Being Right. You are like a living annotation to it.

>>1753275
You should go to college

>>1753271
Don't talk about shit you don't know bro. If not for Arendt Heidegger would have been some friendless old dude that was nearly a big deal in philsophy once.

>>1753275
I have. Great book.

>>1753277
Don't talk about shit you don't know bro. He had a professorship in Marburg without Arendt. He was invited to teach at HU Berlin twice. His lectures were disputed and famous around Europe. Being and Time was highly influential even a few years after being published.

>>1753277
you're one of those people who recommend Beauvoir without knowing what the fuck she wrote about, aren't you?

>>1753279
>He had a professorship in Marburg without Arendt. He was invited to teach at HU Berlin twice. His lectures were disputed and famous around Europe. Being and Time was highly influential even a few years after being published.
Then something else happened, WWII and Naziism I think?

I mean his whole fall from grace and into obscurity in the ensuing couple of decades is real unimportant. I repeat:
>Heidegger would have been some friendless old dude that was nearly a big deal in philsophy once

>>1753222
>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
I'm sensing some major projection.

>>1753166
The philosopher's gene is on the Y chromosome.

Women are wiser than men therefore don't need to philosophize :)

>>1753351
*tips vulva*

File: download (1).jpg (4KB, 132x184px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 132x184px

>>1753281
He would have still been influential without his Jew lover, his work was acknowledged by many philosophers even after the Nazi gig. Although admittedly, only on their deathbed.

>>1753166
i like seoulhyun

File: tumblr_od5bh8HGlI1qk12q0o1_540.jpg (76KB, 540x810px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 540x810px

Really makes you wonder about humanities... Oh humans where are we going

File: before plastic.jpg (13KB, 389x401px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 389x401px

>>1753407
Me 2.

>>1753267
I think pretty much every society ever has had some taboo topics. Anons can correct me if I'm wrong.

>>1753440

Women are to be found in other fields in the humanities, but indeed not so much in philosophy.
I studied history and I'd say it was mostly a sausagefest.

Women are subhumans whos brains are not built for high abstract reasoning.

File: 1474498087894.jpg (138KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 768x1024px

>>1753464

Of course. But our society will deny it's a taboo.
It will perceive it as just "common sensical" that you do not hold 'bigotted' views or not even ponder these questions. Why would you? That's the thing you'll hear.
It will say, when challenged, it's "backed by science" that there's "no such thing as race" and it's only 'skin deep', while actual research shows it ain't... And then it will be hurred and durred at as being irrelevant because "I have anecdotes that show the contrary...".

File: image.jpg (426KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

426KB, 1200x1600px

>>1753527

>>1753166

Because they're fucking stupid.

>>1753258
>For famous philsophers there are plenty of female major philosophers.

There aren't.
Anscombe is probably the only one that deserves this title.

File: image.jpg (54KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1280x720px

>>1753566
>>1753527
>>1753226
>>1753212
>>1753176

File: neckbeard-fedora[1].png (377KB, 594x422px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 594x422px

>>1753543
>>1753623
>i will protect you m'lady

File: aba[1].png (151KB, 850x900px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 850x900px

>>1753543
>>1753623

I'm >>1753581

That said, Anscombe will probably be considered as one of the top 10 philosophers of the last century.

So, women will be well represented. Anscombe is great.

>>1753166
Because women are to serve their man in the kitchen

>>1753222
But men and women are different
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

>>1753166

IT IS NOT REGARDING "REPRESENTATION", BUT REGARDING CAPABILITY, AND ABILITY.

>>1753212
Neither do men, and men don't get interested in philosophy in order to find happiness.

More like, women are RECEPTIVE by nature, this nature being rooted in their physiology, and thus don't share the same joys as men do. Their goals are then shaped to "seek out happiness" and other simplistic things.

>>1753191
>women tend to make more practical decisions
I think this is it. Most women just want a nice, safe life where their needs are met, whereas men are more prone to sacrifice their immediate wellbeing in order to chase ghosts (adventure, power, morals, ideas, etc.).

It's not about intelligence at all, it's about drive and the will to conquer against all odds.

>>1753166
Lol in /his/ posting Seolhyun. Seolhyun is amazing.

>>1753193
Is this bait? This is bait right?

When I studied it, most of the class were girls

it's anecdotal, I know

>>1753166

How do you come to the conclusion that there is an underrepresentation? Is proportionality a naturally occurring phenomena? Is it "morally virtuous"? Why? If it is, why not extend this to all walks of life, from the garbageman to the nanny? Why does society conveniently focus on prestigious vocations?

If there is a lack of proportional representation throughout history, why do we not try to understand the underlying factors that caused it? What is to say that the trend is not organically reaching it? Would artificially creating quotas benefit philosophy? If these quotas are insufficient/excessive, would one then have to forcefully create proportionality?

If one creates preferential incentives to accelerate the narrowing of the gap, would this not conflict with existing egalitarian and meritocratic values?

>>1754757

We know what's your pointing to, nu male faggot: the patriarchy.

>>1754807

>We know what's your pointing to

Why do we allow illiterates access to the internet? Why do they aspire to become philosophers?

File: 1468061309366.jpg (143KB, 2418x891px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 2418x891px

>>1753166
women love to get sex
men love to give sex
=>everybody is happy

>>1754757

Stop being so dense and indignant

Philosophers, in the past, came mostly from teachers, which women weren't.

As for today, women can't really gain status or recognition as much through philosophy (not because they don't gain as much as men, but because relative to how much they'd gain otherwise isn't a lot more). Also a lot of amateur philosophers (who don't actually contribute to the field, but just read it), find philosophy through an introverted life without much socializing, and women are much less likely to experience that.

It's because women naturally have less phenomenological intelligence than men.
They are quite simply put less interested in the abstract and the metaphysical.

>>1755092
Did you mean to say "philosophical intelligence"?

>>1753186
Thats almost as bad though.

>>1753166
Why does it matter if women are underrepresented in philosophy? Why should I care if they are?

Women are also underrepresented in coal mining and oil drilling; doesn't really make me think much either.

File: 1454363459322.jpg (249KB, 900x1338px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 900x1338px

>>1753191
>but women tend to make more practical decisions.
>>1754113
>Most women just want a nice, safe life where their needs are met
While I agree with these statements, I kinda doubt that such outlook of life might be as smooth as they would want to, as it often bites women back though later on. Broken, decadent relationships (marriages), etc. Sometimes even becoming mental illness, because of guilt, regret and mental trauma of sacrificing their dreams for mundane reasons, haunting them back.

Meanwhile, men often went full retard with blinding greed and ambitions. That Ugetsu film, I remember quick-gain greed is one of the themes.

Maybe I'm spouting bullshit here, though. Lel.

>>1755234
this tbqh

File: ZpZ9Bjl.jpg (529KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

529KB, 1920x1200px

>>1753166
mind is a neuro-physical scientific phenomina. women are physically inferior species due to their testosterone-estrogen split. they are thus the inferior sub-species and thus proportionally underrepresented to the strength of fields like philosophy, science, athletics, etc

furthermore, it is about a division of labour to most utilise the advantages of man as he see fits and can then orchestrate

>>1753209
And who invented shoes and emojjis? :))

>>1753166

have you ever been really jaded, scheming and paranoid re people and social status when your stoned? thats how women think. You dont touch any philosophical thinking when your that kind of stoned, your brain is in overdrive devoting itself to being critical of others and yourself and being paranoid anout what people think and things peoplr say/have said to you

>>1755454
DUDE

ITT: Feminists pretending that their failure to understand philosophy means they're smart.

>>1753206
Ugggs

>>1753166
>before the XX. century
Women are discouraged from learning, or outright banned from certain fields of studies.
>after XX. century
Feminism and womens' studies are created, marketed specifically for women. These fields suck in philosophically inclined women, but they are complete garbage and basically all people who seriously study those never become real philosophers.

for the same reason 99% of men aren't interested in it. video games, friends, work, life.

>>1753166
Because retards killed smart through history repeatedly for reasons varying from jealousy to religious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia

File: IQ per major and male;female ratio.png (45KB, 741x643px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 741x643px

It's one of life's greatest questions OP

>>1753222

No, you don't understand biology. Men and women are different. It's fucking obvious.

"But muh culture"

It's fucking obvious from toddler's toy preferences.

And only men are stupid enough to be seduced by a vast game like "philosophy". Women are playing the only game that matters (of breeding and rearing).

>>1753218
Why isn't philosophy a "natural inclination" for women?

Thats the question the guy is asking.

>>1753166
The answer is simple, it doesn't benefit them. Women don't philosophize. They have no need for it. Men are the same too.

The ones that philosophize are the eccentrics/intellectuals who pursue some form of higher truths. Of those, men make up most of the category and come up on top.

>>1756015
I am more interested in the middle of the graph, the degrees close to a 50-50 split. What are men and women's common interests, regardless of the cause, and how do they contrast with the differences?

>>1756045
I don't think he meant there aren't any differences between the sexes, just that the sub-layman understanding of biology on 4chan, which actually could be said about a lot of subjects, is simplistic, superficial, and just mostly flawed and made up on the spot to catter to the poster's views. Do you really think anyone on /pol/ or /his/ understands biology, and on top of that sexual biology, aside from the few bio 101 majors who scratch the surface?

>>1753176
Everyone thinks emotionally.
Your motivation be as 'logical' as possible is in of itself, an emotional response.

Philosphers are mostly NEETs.

Women are rarely NEETs.

Do women experience true existential crisis like men do?

>>1753175
Statistically it's more likely to be a Gen X'er than a Baby Boomer.

Women are underrepresented in a lot of fields due to a lot of academic fields being solely for men for the majority of time. Given that a lot of gender spooks are still in place (not a bad thing depending on the individual's choice), you probably won't see a drastic change in a short time. The pertinent question is how to get more women into philosophy.

Imagine a life where you have never been great at anything, never felt the urge to be great at anything, never felt that magnetic admiration to someone who was great at something, wanted to imitate and ultimately defeat him. Just nothing. Literally all you do in life is exist to post on 4chan. Occupy space. pass the time.

You're bored, as usual, posting about your fucking dislikes and not even feeling any kind of happiness from it, just soothing your constant need to be bitter and cunty and petty toward other people. Every single thing you've done in the past year was mundane, shallow, boring. You spent the last six hours reading kinda-interesting plebbit stories about people who made interesting buildings for their populace or some stupid bullshit that you think is interesting and you may say is interesting but you're not really sure if it's really interesting. You're just fucking sitting there, gestating, fermenting, with a moist hole between your ears that guarantees you'll at some point have to get up and move around and perform physical labor to support yourself.

And then you see women, over in some corner, having fun. You've never seen this before. What are they even doing? Instead of their consciousnesses merely sitting in their thick skull and revolving around itself, they are imbuing their conscious energy and intentionality into external objects, crafts, goals, projects. All the bitterness and cuntiness you feel nonstop seems to be absent from them, as they congratulate each other for being victorious, and happily learn from someone who defeated them.These creatures are truly content to be alive. They have found purpose in a purposeless universe.

And your gaze turns back on itself, on your self, and you realise you've never had that.You can never have it. So you sit down, you post on 4chan, and you fucking ruin your life, the whole fucking thing. The five seconds of attention you get will be worth destroying it.Because you're failure OP.

>>1756105

But there are major differences between the sexes in things like muscle mass (90% of men are stronger than the top 10% of women), visual acuity, processing, and modeling (where men have the advantage), inventory and recall of local environmental objects aka landmarks (women have the advantage), olfactory discrimination (women...), variance in "doing directly" vs "asking for help" (the stereotypes are dead on), and others.

The whole valorization of women in work thing is almost literally because the top 5% want to bang them. I don't care about your rationale, that's the dynamics that exist between human beings. Not ideal moral agents.

>>1756234
>90% of men are stronger than the top 10% of women
Can you source that? Most men are not body builders and the world's strongest women go above and beyond that.

>>1753176
Not true.
http://elitedaily.com/dating/guys-more-emotional-girls/1077730/
Men are more emotional than women, they're only conditioned to hide it better.

>>1756271

Men grow more muscle mass in the chest and in most other areas of the body naturally.

If you've ever weight-lifted, you know how beastly testosterone gets you once you start raising levels either naturally (keto/low-carb diet, fat loss, weight lifting) or artifically.

And to be honest, the fact that most men are stronger than virtually all women, with a few exceptions, is something you see everyday.

Women don't have time for muscles in the chest, they gotta have mammeries. Hell they don't have time for muscles. They gotta have extra body fat for the time when they get pregnant and need to support a baby.

Also like virtually most mammals, we're a harem breeding pattern species.

>>1756288
That didn't answer my question.

>>1756271

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/4vcxd0/almost_all_men_are_stronger_than_almost_all_women/

Not the original place where I came across the study but the visual graph is a nice addition.

>>1756295
Thanks anon. Guess I underestimated the difference.

>>1756295
>people are unironically linking reddit
I think you know where to go

File: rs_560x415-150819112153-1024-john-stamos-full-house-081915.jpg (66KB, 560x415px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 560x415px

>>1756400

It was the most "friendly" link to the data fucking sue me fight me fuck me you faggot.

>>1756407
That's nice and all.
But I'm afraid the upvote button doesn't work on this site, maybe try posting it on reddit?

>>1756271
Strong women do not make up 10% of their population. Consider that billions of women are too busy to care about getting jacked: they're starving to death in China or India, or getting stoned to death in some arabic hellhole.

File: wellgoodsir.jpg (58KB, 720x405px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 720x405px

>>1756642
...fair enough.

>>1756280
I buy this. On hormone's I'm a great deal less tumultuous.

>>1756280
Not a valid source. Your click bait news site hyperlinks the word "study" to dailymail (lol) and here is dailymails description of the study

"In the experiment, a group of 30 participants (15 fathers and 15 mothers) were presented with a series of images and videos, while their physiological responses were measured via skin conductance electrodes attached to their fingers. The content they were presented with was categorised into four topics: blissful, funny, exciting and heart-warming. Men demonstrated a marginally higher emotional reaction to the blissful, funny and exciting content, compared to the women."

Remember kids: .org or .edu or /intothetrashitgoes/

>>1756642
are you implying there isn't an equal number of men starving in India and China? If you acknowledge that there's a legitimate reason that steroid use is banned in athletic competitions then you should know that higher testosterone in men allows them to more easily build up muscle

>>1753193
anytime someone uses the word masculinity and problematic in the same sentence you can assume they are white and let black dudes fuck their wife as reparations for slavery

>>1753166
because there are less autistic women than autistic men

>>1753167
In today's climate, this statement is radical and inflammatory...

File: IMG_5439.jpg (334KB, 1278x1920px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1278x1920px

>>1753166
She's a qt here but she's still plastic.. as for your question it's probably because women who don't follow traditional gender roles go into fields where they can attain something like success (money). Philosophy does not provide this.

>>1753180
>Nah, they don't think any less logically than men.

Most people I know, including women, would disagree. I think the group of logically inclined women in your class were strongly selected because they wanted to be there...
I don't think the fact that the best of women are up there with the best of men really plays into the argument at hand. The IQ curves tell us the same, however much this board might hate them. There are more very smart and very dumb men than women, there are more average women than men.

They fail in the holistic and rational and whatever else.

>>1755719
>>before the XX. century
>Women are discouraged from learning,

Not true. Noble women could learn what ever they wanted and often were fairly well read in western European civilization since the middle ages. The idea that women were not allowed to learn or ever hold any kind of power is mostly an exaggeration propagated by feminists. They were barred from institutions generally, but often they would have private tutors. The correspondences between Leibniz and the women of the Prussian royal family is a good example of this.

>>1753167
fpbp

>>1753166
They're underrepresented in almost everything because male dominance behaviours herd them out of high-status careers in literally every society. Even in moden academia, the fields occupied by female majorities are lower status than those with male, because the allure of social prestige and money draws in men who crowd them out. This is psychological moreso than based on size or strength, but nonetheless culturally universal and probably won't change except through genetic engineering or a very slow natural trend towards less dimorphism. Read Steven Goldberg's "the inevitability of patriarchy" (I know, he's le Jewish durrhurr). He doesn't attempt to justify it prescriptively, just explain it. Most primates are patriarchal except the bonobo, who are behaviourally less similar to us than the strongly patriarchal and aggressive chimpanzees.

>>1753376
>his work was acknowledged by many philosophers even after the Nazi gig.
Yeah, because Arendt forgave him and backed him. Otherwise he'd be like a denser and more obscure Stirner, influencing a few major philosophers but not really known in his own right.

Today he's really known for phenomenology and existentialism and on those fronts he's fucked without Arendt. And forget his later work too.

>>1753195
That's because it's a crock of shit.
>society prevents women from thinking
Kek

>>1756216
The great irony of a woman ruining a pasta to turn it against others and get attention. The very thing the pasta chided her for. Delicious

>>1759334
>>>/t/umblr

File: galli_yardan_attis_by_develv-d8ambsd.jpg (33KB, 300x429px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 300x429px

>>1753231
>the great traps of philosophy
I'd like an exhaustive list... for research purposes, of course.

>>1753192
Extremely unlikely. There would have been at least a few cultures around the world where women would dominate philosophy if this was true.