Why Are There So few Women in Philosophy?

I'm guessing that Peter has never witnessed women's sports..

I assume the good professor has not spent any time at a law school recently. According to the ABA, 47.5% of all the JDs awarded in 2006-2007 were earned by women. There certainly is a lot of argument and competitiveness in law school.

Maybe it is male philosophy professors spouting off about how women are less competitive that is offputting to potential students?

Maybe!

I'm a female grad student in philosophy and, for whatever it's worth, I suspect that women with philosophical interests disproportionately choose to pursue them in other departments (gender studies, english, education, sociology, psychology) on account of the level and kind of competitiveness that tends to exist in philosophy departments. In my experience, scholars in these other departments do more collaborative work, and they criticize and build upon each other's work in less formulaic ways (premise two is false! there's a possible world in which that doesn't occur! your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises!)

Surely law school is competitive as well. Some women, like some men, thrive in such an environment. However, unlike choosing a PhD field, there are not alternatives for pursuing a JD, so women who wish to be lawyers have no choice but to enter law school.

pjsw is on target here . . . I suspect there are probably more females in history of philosophy and continental philosophy than in traditional analytic philosophy, which is a male pissing contest.

Lacan for instance tends to be very popular with the ladies . . . try studying Lacan in a North American philosophy department, your application won't get out of the first pile.

It may be because women are more practical. if you're a woman with a competitive nature, you're probably more inclined to channel that energy into a course of study that leads to a high paying job or an MBA/JD. Not that philosophy doesnt pay the bills ( ! ) but if you relish doing battle every day, you might as well be doing it as a $500 an hour trial attorney. You can read Hegel on the weekends.

Prof. Carruthers has, obviously, never worked in the field of real estate, if he thinks women are not aggressive and competitive. It's vicious, I tell ya.

I'm also wondering whether women may be more practical. Philosophy (as distinguished from good philosophy) is often a lot like kids building a fort in the backyard -- it's often about that consequential, and about that connected to real problems. I suspect that guys who are frustrated with the world are more inclined to seek escape in abstractions. Women, first of all, are less likely to be socially withdrawn (fewer women are "evil geniuses in a secret lair"), and even if they are, smart withdrawn girls may have different coping mechanisms than smart withdrawn boys.

I think ultimately this has to do with biology although this is all pure speculation.

And, yes, philosophy has lots of social value too, and plenty of perfectly levelheaded people become philosophers. But I think there is a correlation between philosophizing and a retreat from practical life. A retreat which women may be less inclined to engage in.

Actually there is some research documenting that women are, on average, less willing to participate in competitive environments:

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/nbrnberwo/139...

I don't endorse the practical conclusion of the authors of that paper, but their premise seems well-supported.

I dont dispute that. But when women ARE eager to get into a competitive market, I doubt the philosophy department is the first place they consider.

Anyone whose seen Youtube clips of Margaret Thatcher taking a sledgehammer to her opponents probably isnt reflecting "Gosh, what a waste. She really should have gone for that philosophy degree; that's where the REAL action is..." :)

Will et. al.,

I would argue, as a former philosophy major from Iowa (hi Will), that women don't go into philosophy not because of its competitive nature, but it's cognitive nature. Philosophy demands a high level of abstraction and being able to conceptualize ideas. Like other male-dominated subjects -- economics, political science, physics -- it is best suited for those who can see "invisible constructs" in their heads and manipulate them accordingly.

I highly doubt that women don't choose philosophy because of money and practicality, because women are far more common in English, art history and psychology departments.

This is not a slam on women. Social sciences demand a lot of interpersonal ability and biology requires heavy doses of memorization, both of which are well-populated by women.

Considering all the majors out there, I can't think of one that has high abstraction demands that also has high concentrations of women.

Generalizations about women, like all generalizations (if I may generalize) are dangerous. They're a good way to spark an argument. Try making generalizations about women in company of your wife, and you're likely to get an argument, perhaps of the conflict nature. At least, you would if she's anything like me.

For example, I think that Toolbit sounds like a tool when he implies that women, in general, are less capable of a high level of abstraction and being able to conceptualize ideas.

I'm a woman who, once upon a time, was working on becoming an academic philosopher. Some would say that I like to argue, but I think I just enjoy mulling over questions about what are good and bad reasons to believe certain things. It's fun.

I left academic philosophy not to avoid conflict or competition and not to make more money. I left because I wanted to spend more time experiencing the world outside of books and classrooms. I also wanted to write things that more people would read. But I wouldn't generalize from my own experiences to draw conclusions about women choosing something other than (academic) philosophy.

Melinda,

Am I a tool? Eh, a bit. You are correct that any generalization is going to be fraught with peril. Some women are fantastic at abstraction. I don't believe that women can't abstract or be great philosophers (like Anscombe and de Beauvoir and the rest). But, statistically speaking, which is what Will was talking about, it's my impression that women, in relationship to men, cannot reason abstractly as well as men. Women can be great engineers and economists and political thinkers.

My prediction is that as long as people have choice over their academic destinies, women will always be a smaller part of these fields, because that's not what inspires them, broadly speaking (and for the record, when I talk about inspiration, one component of inspiration is that it's difficult enough to be a challenge but not so difficult that it becomes frustrating). Even people whose abstraction skills are below the average can live quite fulfilling lives; happiness is not dependent on being able to write a coherent thesis on the Critique of Pure Reason.

I don't see why this makes me a tool. If I'm correct, that's just a reality of our biological natures. If I'm wrong, then it's because I simply miscalculated, not because I have ill feelings towards women. It's quite possible that cultural forces determine academic preference and performance in the sexes more than inherent ability. But, in this matter, I place my bet on nature over nurture.

Toolbit out.

Philosophy prfs obviously meet a different sort of women from the rest of us. Do any of the married men here think women are less aggressive in argument, I wonder? The only difference between the sexes that I can see, speaking very generally (and will all the billions of exceptions taken as read), is that women may tend to take less interest in arguments where no practical benefit is at stake. In other words, men quarrel for the sake of it, women quarrel for the sake of something else. This leads to lots of misunderstandings and upsets in, in my (fairly limited) experience. A woman can find it hard to accept that you were so vehement because y0u just really cared that she disagreed with you about the moral status of property rights, or the subtext of the movie in that regard, and weren't, secretly, getting at something else (like 'the relationship').

An anecdote. Years ago my wife and I had dinner with one of my profs and his wife at their home. After dinner, he and I got into a discussion of Wittgenstein's thoughts on rules and rule-following. It got pretty abstract, as I recall. As he and I were getting wound up, I heard his wife say to my wife, "Let's go in the other room, and I'll show you some pictures of our trip to Scotland last year. I mean, you don't really care about any of this stuff, do you?"

I don't think it's a matter of women not being able to engage in abstract thought, after all, there's Gertrude Anscombe, Judy Thompson, Phillipa Foote, and Iris Murdoch, just for starters. Rather, I think that most women just don't care about that "kind of stuff". It has nothing to do with ability--it's just simply of matter of it not being interesting. And I'm not sure there's a better explanation beyond that.

I am an engineer and this is a fairly big issue in my field as well. I think a lot of it is path dependence. Some fields were quicker than others to accept women into them as equals. They gained both a greater skill at attracting female students and a greater reputation among female students. Engineering and philosophy have just fallen way behind in the competition.

Has he ever met a woman? They love to argue and are allergic to reason.

Zing!

Similar experiments have been done in Computer science to some success. I know of one where a group of women were given a piece of debugging software where they could, instead of marking an argument as 'correct' or 'incorrect', were allowed a third or fourth option of 'mostly correct' and 'mostly wrong' (or something to this point where a third 'fuzzy' option was available). Subjects were more favorable to this simple inclusion.

While I'm unsure of if Peter Carruthers is correct in why women are less likely to attend philosophy courses, doing studies like this could reveal something that could be changed in the advertising or product to make the choice more appealing to women.

Three points on this.

First, women (and underrepresented minorities to an even greater extent) will go into practical fields before abstract ones; it's sensible risk-aversion if you don't see a long pattern of past success in academia by people like you. I'm a woman in math, and I see that a lot of women with mathematical talent go into finance instead. Going into pure math is betting the farm on abstract phantoms; I suspect philosophy has some of the same problem.

Second, from what I hear from philosophy people, most current research is heavily quantitative these days. (Formal logic and experimental philosophy.) We should expect to see the same kind of gender breakdown in philosophy as we do in other quantitative fields.

Third, I do think perceived competitiveness or aggressiveness plays a role. But I've always wondered -- why do we talk only about making philosophy (or, more often, math and science) sound less aggressive? Isn't the other side of the coin that we make the humanities sound more gentle than they really are? Historians are bitterly competitive. Artists, musicians, and creative writers, even more so. Yet teachers, especially in high school but sometimes in college, make the arts and humanities sound like a friendly Eden of self-expression. And they do their students a disservice, especially girls.

I'm a woman, and I'm not naturally competitive; I would love it if I could spend my time talking and reading and not having to worry about defeating the other guy. But we can't escape competition in this world; and a lot of women who think they can escape it by being English majors instead wind up being unhappy in pink-collar jobs.

By all means, make philosophy and math and CS sound more "female-friendly" and less aggressive; after all, they are creative and collaborative pursuits. But also, perhaps we should rethink presenting the humanities as so extremely female-friendly; on the professional level, they are as brutally competitive, and in some ways as sexist, as anything else.

I once asked a friend of mine, the chairman of a math department, how arguments went in math, if they were as intense as they can be in philosophy (he knows what they're like). He laughed and said, "Oh, hell no. The worse they get is someone will gently say something like, 'Ah, um, um, I think that comma is misplaced.'"