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.

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.

Zing!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…”

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 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.

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.