Philosopher Women... Where are they?

[[Outside]]

Coming across an artical with a title reading;
"A Dearth of Woman Philosophers"

One of the statements were:
"One reason may be that women are turned off by a culture of aggressive argument,"

Excuse my french but WTF?!

Women are the most argumentative creatures on this planet and
can be very good at it. Yes, I know philosophy has a lot more to
it then arguing but don't tell me I don't belong here because
a few words will hurt my feelings.

I need to understand, Why is there such a separation in these two things?

[James S Saint]

Philosophy is about reasoning (despite the obvious lack of it on these forums).
It often entails ontology which is a subject of more interest to the masculine than the feminine.
It's critic is precision, another more masculine concern than feminine.
It is much like the game of chess.


There are evolutionary issues that kept the two genders distinct.
Removing that distinction is tampering with far, far more than social engineers can imagine.

[Uccisore]

The only reason there aren't more women philosophers is because there's such a thing as "Women's Studies". Women were actually on the rise in philosophy until somebody decided they needed their own special rumpus-room of academia where they didn't have to deal with big words or hard questions.

[Faust]

To generalize, women know too much. For instance, they know the meaning and origin of morality, and they also know that it would never be taken seriously by men. Morality, as a philosophical matter, is usually a monstrosity based upon maternal, life-preserving admonishments. "Don't hit your sister" becomes "thou shalt not kill" - the guilt (directed anxiety) we feel when mom's mad gets burlesqued into a "moral faculty". No one believes me when I say this, so I usually don't.

Also, men want to build. They want to design. So they design and build a garden of thought. Women understand that the main thing is to plant a few seeds and then to prune and weed. Women understand, all too well, that philosophy is largely an "eliminative" endeavor. Hume and Nietzsche knew this, but few other professional philosophers have. Better to build fictional epistemologies than to simply take out the trash from our thinking. But women know better, in the main.

[[Outside]]

Philosophy is about reasoning (despite the obvious lack of it on these forums).
It often entails ontology which is a subject of more interest to the masculine than the feminine.
It's critic is precision, another more masculine concern than feminine.
It is much like the game of chess.


There are evolutionary issues that kept the two genders distinct.
Removing that distinction is tampering with far, far more than social engineers can imagine.

Funny, you should mention chess when the queen rules the table... Once the queen is gone more then likely your king is in check.
Why wouldn't women find ontology interested when we are the reason for it. Life is not created without us.
I am not talking about shaking the foundation of male and female distinction just, why can't my ideal be as profound as
a males?

[Ichthus]

It would be cool to be on this list some day:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... ilosophers

[[Outside]]

The only reason there aren't more women philosophers is because there's such a thing as "Women's Studies". Women were actually on the rise in philosophy until somebody decided they needed their own special rumpus-room of academia where they didn't have to deal with big words or hard questions.

Thank you someone said it.

To generalize, women know too much. For instance, they know the meaning and origin of morality, and they also know that it would never be taken seriously by men. Morality, as a philosophical matter, is usually a monstrosity based upon maternal, life-preserving admonishments. "Don't hit your sister" becomes "thou shalt not kill" - the guilt (directed anxiety) we feel when mom's mad gets burlesqued into a "moral faculty". No one believes me when I say this, so I usually don't.

Also, men want to build. They want to design. So they design and build a garden of thought. Women understand that the main thing is to plant a few seeds and then to prune and weed. Women understand, all too well, that philosophy is largely an "eliminative" endeavor. Hume and Nietzsche knew this, but few other professional philosophers have. Better to build fictional epistemologies than to simply take out the trash from our thinking. But women know better, in the main.

We know to much so there for we can not input?
I do agree about the "moral faculty" but what i have
to say about that is buck up. If a man can get denied in
his advance towards women and continue even after. He can get over
that hump too at a certain point.

Why are men doing all this thinking for women? Has anyone ever thought to ask,
"Hey, while your making dinner for me and all the other men in this philosophical debate,
What do you think about reality?"

With so many women around at the time, don't you think they over
heard many of these talks between men
and talk among themselves about it.

[Typist]

Generally speaking, women are too intelligent to be philosophers.

Philosophy is based upon a premise that humans are rational creatures. This is just barely true, it describes only a very thin surface layer of the human mind.

Philosophy in general, philosophy forums especially, are part of an entertaining fantasy game which nerdy people like you and me find compelling and satisfying. I agree it's fun, but there's actually very little evidence that this activity accomplishes much beyond fun.

Being intelligent, women tend to see this reality, and thus the fantasy is spoiled for them, and they proceed to more practical and interesting ways to have fun.

Now, your job is to jump up in outrage to demolish all my points!!! And then I will challenge you back!!!

And then we will have accomplished....

Um...

Well...

Hopefully some nerdy fun.

[Ichthus]

Philosophy is the highest form of The Fun.

[James S Saint]

Funny, you should mention chess when the queen rules the table... Once the queen is gone more then likely your king is in check.
Why wouldn't women find ontology interested when we are the reason for it. Life is not created without us.
I am not talking about shaking the foundation of male and female distinction just, why can't my ideal be as profound as
a males?

You asked of where they were.
You just expressed where they are.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Depends on the age... from my experience, there are more women interested in Philosophy earlier than men.... but the emphasis switches, and in the end, the men dominate.

I think I know part of the answer.... the part of my reason why my ride of celibacy eventually came to a end..... women, when they are young, when confronted with a somewhat decent looking, intellectual male, gives up being a philosopher and tries to seduce him. This has happened many times, from philosophy groups to Zen meditation sessions (which I found weird).... they come with the intention to be philosophical, but can't suppress their instinct. They end up with a guy, complicate the fuck out of their life, etc. So.... the women who do come to meetings when in their late teens, early twenties are the same in terms of numbers as men.

However, they disappear from late college to menopause. Like a fucking plague wiped them out, and when they reappear, they are wrinkly, and have a divorce behind them, and their kids are in college.

Men, we're better at compartmentalizing this. Yes, some guys like Sartre fed on women given his philosophical skills.... but for the most part, a man will be allowed by a woman, so long as it doesn't interfere with her designs of paying complete attention to her, to read philosophy, and join groups, or write. It's largely safe, and doesn't involve him going out on stagnight. Many relationships are on a rockyroad, and men pull away from a unloving wife and do their own things after a while... philosophy offers this opportunity.

Third reason, is male dominated academic professions. Yes, universities try really hard to get females in.... but females flock to teaching positions.... not because it's a female job, but because female students flock to it and it's rather simple to teach your own sex. Philosophy requires more argument and more personality. Females can do this well.... but not in group settings. One on one Mad Maggie will demolition any man in the least bit attached to her.... but it's not natural for women to take on whole groups, and if they do, every man knows instantly to label her as a dyke. And even feminist, though they hate this, know this instinctively as well, so you can have a silent tention between the two sexes that just doesn't make anyone happy. Ayn Rand solved this by having her own studs.... no one thinks she's a lesbian, they thought things much worst, but not dyke, and that solved that situation.

So in the end, men end up dominating philosophy. Women do make a bit of a comeback later on in life. Men are less likely to read them though.... as men just learn over time not to take women's ideas seriously having learned it's usually just a vagina monologue, demanding they do even more stuff for her. It's like the Charlie Brown adults mumbling in the background.... that shit has nothing to do with us, and if we give enough lipservice and make a motion as if we're getting up to doing something, we'll get left alone.

However, women dramatically dominate sub-genres of philosophy no longer taken seriously by men, such as alchemy and astrology..... which as Jung proved, still has a lot of life in them. I found this out having attended a few groups themed around that. They dominate church social groups in this inter-age category, and do alot in public services as volunteers around intellectual pursuits.... however, here too it appears mostly so they can attract other males to them, given their emphasis on sexuality..... but they are also usually of the married age, implying affairs.

Honestly, women think with their vaginas. Just think 'what would a vagina do' and it answers most of one's questions about why women do the shit they do. It's sexist as fuck, but it's accurate, and women say much the same of men... we think with our cock.

[Trajicomic]

The same place there are unicorns, leprachauns, faeries, satyrs, and other magical, mythical creatures!

[Trajicomic]

Philosophy is based upon a premise that humans are rational creatures.

Correction, WESTERN philosophy is based on this premise of rationalism.

But not all philosophical branches use this presumption and premise. There are "alternative" methods of "philosophy". Welcome to the dark side.

[Trajicomic]

Philosophy is the highest form of The Fun.

This is our Divine Comedie! If you cannot laugh as a philosopher, then you're not doing it right.

Irony is only possible through the acceptance and rule of Chaos over Order, laugh at absurdity as Mister Walker does best!

[Faust]

outie -

We know to much so there for we can not input? I do agree about the "moral faculty" but what i have to say about that is buck up. If a man can get denied in his advance towards women and continue even after. He can get over that hump too at a certain point.

I have no idea what this means. My point is that women are not generally as interested in philosophy as are men. I'll try bucking up, whatever that means. I'll let you know how it goes.

Why are men doing all this thinking for women? Has anyone ever thought to ask, "Hey, while your making dinner for me and all the other men in this philosophical debate, What do you think about reality?"

Again, no idea if this is even meant as a response to my post. It certainly has nothing to do with what I wrote.

By the way, be prepared for a lot of "battle of the sexes" stuff on this thread. It's second in popularity only to conspiracy theories around here.

[Ichthus]

CN, I became interested in philosophy in high school. Moreso in my early twenties after we got Internet access. I am now almost 35 with two boys (11, almost 14) and 15 mostly happy--all in-love--years of marriage. I highly doubt you are even slightly accurate.

I'm not who u think I am, tragicomic.

[MagsJ]

The average woman is too interested in being the most attractive to men, putting other females down, bitching about each other, and generally thinking that they are better than other females to bother with philosophical matters... the female members here seem to have risen above such meaningless instincts in order to further their minds.

[Moreno]

As far as I can tell most women consider the primary activities involved in being 'interested in philosophy' are a kind of mental wanking.

Sometimes this seems spot on. Sometimes not.

Perhaps men wouldn't philosphize if they could have as many orgasms as women.

[von Rivers]

Perhaps men wouldn't philosphize if they could have as many orgasms as women.

What?

[[Outside]]

I have no idea what this means. My point is that women are not generally as interested in philosophy as are men. I'll try bucking, whatever that means. I'll let you know how it goes. Again, no idea if this is even meant as a response to my post. It certainly has nothing to do with what I wrote.
By the way, be prepared for a lot of "battle of the sexes" stuff on this thread. It's second in popularity only to conspiracy theories around here.

I apologize if I sounded harsh in any manner but men get to dribble on and on about things other
then clothes, nails, and the color pink. Philosophy is my escape and finding out in many ways
I am in a sea of "cock" being the few of a couple of hens. (Bucking up means to put your chin up)

Goodness, I dislike Sigmund Freud and I hate that I am proving his penis envy theory right.

I don't want battle of the sexes that is least of my interest and conspiracy's are for those who can't handle reality.
I just wanted to understand and the conclusions brought up were mostly true.

Also Contra-Nietzsche, though you had some good points. I fell in love with Philosophy as a child and its still a growing relationship.
Philosophy begins in wonder ~ Plato

The average woman is too interested in being the most attractive to men, putting other females down, bitching about each other, and generally thinking that they are better than other females to bother with philosophical matters... the female members here seem to have risen above such meaningless instincts in order to further their minds.

I agree, and put a spin on that and try being my age and talking to other females about Plato's caves.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Ichthus, check the timeline for what I said against this:

CN, I became interested in philosophy in high school. Moreso in my early twenties after we got Internet access. I am now almost 35 with two boys (11, almost 14) and 15 mostly happy--all in-love--years of marriage. I highly doubt you are even slightly accurate.

I'm not who u think I am, tragicomic.

You pretty much prove my case. You got interested in it early. Your now 35 with two boys.

Once those two boys hit the age you can leave them alone and head off to philosophy groups on a regular basis, 11 year old needs to become 16.... you'll be 40. Menopausal, with a few wrinkles setting in.

So.... oh yeah, that means I'm right. I feel like yelling HOTDOG like in 'It's a Wonderful Life' in nailing that one. I did note that more introverted forms of philosophy, such as astrology and alchemy, becomes a central aspect of many women in the middle stage your coming out of. This isn't be default, case by case universal of course, but a internet forum is in a extroverted sense a limited stimuli, save for introversion to come out and play, as alchemy and astrology allows for. It's not common for women to get into the large, heated extroverted battle to the death debates here.... they will join in more often in the smaller scale, few person debates- get's most intense in terms of participation when the other females join in, if a male comes in, it's derailed in essence and they disappear back into the shadows.

This is common, and it will continue till women hit the age where they stop desiring designer clothing, Chanel and Hermes or whatever their fancy was in life, when they cut their long hair and adopt a grandma style. Then they become more willing to debate, and hash it out with someone like me. I got some tough grandma's always hanging around in debates.... they got claws... cat's meow!

Honestly, it's too bad younger women are not like this. You gotta wait till their breasts are all pruned up and face has more wrinkles in it than a baby puppy.... which isn't fair. We should get the mental fruits now, but gotta wait like, till their late 50s to 60s for them to become decent, inquisitive people.

Young women suck. If eternal youth was possible, I wouldn't even bother with a woman under 90. It's all bullshit. Older women shrug it off and tell it as it really is.... no, not as it 'is' theatrically, to impress others, not emotionally, but as it really is, with the support of earned wisdom. Your still too young of a pup for me.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Philosophy begins in wonder ~ Plato

"young men should not utter maxims" Aristotle.



We get better at this stuff as we grow. We just get longer to practice.

[Moreno]

Perhaps men wouldn't philosphize if they could have as many orgasms as women.

What?

Don't take me (too) seriously here, but it was an extension of the idea that philosophy can be mental wanking.

[Joe Schmoe]

Men have it easy. All they have to do is ejaculate. After that, they've free reign to think.

Women can't escape so easy. They have to satisfy their drives to be a mother. This typically results in them losing their prime years to that endeavour.

I think this is the primary reason you're surrounded by cocks.

[Moreno]

Men have it easy. All they have to do is ejaculate. After that, they've free reign to think.

This is cart before the horse or man before the dick. Men have to plan for the great orgasm. They do not have that many in an evening and certainly have to wait between orgasms. Women can have a mediocre orgasm and it's just foreshadowing the big one around the corner two minutes later. Why plan? Why mull? Why worry if it's too early? Just triangulate intuitively and keep on going.

Men however, so much planning just to get the woman in bed, then so much planning to get that precious orgasm right.

This model fucks up other activities as well....like thinking. Imagine how disappointed Kant was at the end of writing Critique of Pure Reason - I know I was. What an anti-climax.