I know there have been a few, Simon de Buevoir comes to mind, but why so few?
Could it be, as Nietzsche says, because women have no depth? 
i think it’s a question on male/female psichology difereces. their wishes and priorities in life. men want to know how everytihing works, they relie on their logical thinking more than women and they want to know the reasons and purposes for mostly everything.
It is demography. In any given generation, there are only so many philosophers who are going to be worthwhile (as in, have recognizable names – even within amateur philosophy). Up until relatively recently, women were denied access to the sort of institutions that would allow for the cultivation of such a status. Put those together and what do you expect?
I have noticed tendencies for women to be more shallow than alot of guys, but I have also noticed that women seem to be more rational in many cases than men. I doubt that rationality means that should be philosophers but it is closely related. There were not many women philosophers in the past because they never had much rights until the 19th/20th centuries but now hopefully alot more should spring up.
I think women have more practical inclinations to be involved in philosophizing.
Women are generally too shallow to achieve the high degree of introspection necessary for one to become a great philosopher.
But that’s not prejudice: the same applies to MOST men.
“It is proven that they have brain size of squirrel”
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8hSLqd9RuU[/youtube]
[youtube]
This could be one of the questions for the gender debate in the debate chamber… We still need teams.
Exactly. In order to be a philosopher you need (spare) time in which to think and until relatively recently women have not had access to that kind of freedom because they have been required to undertake a greater share of the practical duties, such as childcare. As a consequence, institutions have developed (such as academia) that have favoured men and this has made it difficult for women to break into these areas because the social structures deem them “more suited” to practical, empathetic disciplines (like nursing or art or drama). The inevitable consequence is that the majority of women are then alienated from the closed professions, which creates a vicious cycle (take a look at departments of physics and engineering, for example, and you’ll see the same story).
This is very accurate.
Xunzian and matty are not even close. It has nothing to do with “denied access”. (Why have 99.9% of women and children been “denied access” to war?) That’s feminist bullshit.
Women know every male-logical consistency they do through memorization, not abstraction. Men actually create thought. Women do not.
I’m going to temporarily agree with your basic notions of the feminine and the masculine for at least this post. So men are more logical, women more intuitive, blah blah blah. Now how are men better philosophers again?
It’s not “feminist bullshit”, Unreasonable, it’s just simple sociological observation. Let’s even say that your assertion about psychological programming is even halfway true (and I’d want some evidence before I bothered giving it any credence) - why would that be? It wouldn’t have anything to do with generations of lived experience within the social structure, perchance?
Also, Anon makes an excellent point.
Oh I don’t know about that UR I have just created a very specific abstract technical thought ,Pretty darn artsy too, it involves you 
Abstract thought is not male domain, really seriously… no, seriously we do have abstract thoughts too. We just don’t require a big old pat on the back and an atta boy like men do, so men recieve the accolades 
My sister has a PHD in Math and she has absolutely zero interest in any kind of philosophical discussion. My other two sisters look at me like I just landed on Earth from the planet Mars if I ever bring up any kind of philosophical discussion. I made the mistake of talking about philosophy with one of the girls I dated and she had basically the same reaction.
The question is really what a philosopher is and if it take being read to be one. I think the answer to that will show that there are just as many female philosophers to their male counterparts.
I haven’t yet met a woman who’s seen any value in the type of abstract thought involved in philosophy. I’ve met plenty capable of it, but none who thought it worthwhile.
this board is full of men who find it worthwhile yet are incapable of that same abstract thought
It sure is.
I’m just going to write an essay tonight in response to this thread. I’m tired of seeing this issue over & over again.
Hannah Arendt, not strictly speaking a philospher,though. I think about Sarah Kofman’s suicide alot.