♀️ Females in philosophy

[Immanuel Can]

I agree each premise also need to be justified but that would be too tedious

Not at all, because I'm not asking you to justify every premise. As I said, most of those "premises" are not actually logically "premises" for any conclusion.

All I wanted to know was one simple thing: how do you know that the proportion of women in philosophy right now is not exactly what women want it to be?

One answer. One bit of proof. That's all I need.

So it could be something like, "X number of females are expressing that their desire for philosophy is being repressed by the following measures currently institutionalized by the Patriarchy," or something as simple as that -- some indication that women WANT to get into philosophy, and that the same women are finding they CANNOT because of some specific institutional fact.

Let's hear it.

Your question is too focused on one factor, thus is not wise, rational nor can be answered effectively.

No, it's not. It's easy.

You don't have to talk about anything at all except your proof that women are not being allowed to go into philosophy, and want to. That's dead simple.

And if you can't do it, it's clear to me you've got nothing. And then, the rest doesn't even matter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not at all, because I'm not asking you to justify every premise. As I said, most of those "premises" are not actually logically "premises" for any conclusion.

All I wanted to know was one simple thing: how do you know that the proportion of women in philosophy right now is not exactly what women want it to be?

One answer. One bit of proof. That's all I need.

So it could be something like, "X number of females are expressing that their desire for philosophy is being repressed by the following measures currently institutionalized by the Patriarchy," or something as simple as that -- some indication that women WANT to get into philosophy, and that the same women are finding they CANNOT because of some specific institutional fact.

Let's hear it.

Your question is too focused on one factor, thus is not wise, rational nor can be answered effectively.

No, it's not. It's easy.

You don't have to talk about anything at all except your proof that women are not being allowed to go into philosophy, and want to. That's dead simple.

And if you can't do it, it's clear to me you've got nothing. And then, the rest doesn't even matter.

What do you meant 'you've got nothing'?
Your focus is too narrow and shallow minded rather than seeing things in the wider picture.

That I have argued and justified that females philosophers [as evident by the existing trend from the past 3000 years ago] will increase in the future is definitely something as a highly probable fact in the future.

You have not provided any argument yet why there are fewer female philosophers and presumably will remain so in the future.
Whatever conclusions you arrive at, will likely be, because God said so, period!
But your God is an impossibility and an illusion thus on baseless grounds.

God is an Impossibility & an illusion
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

[Immanuel Can]

Your question is too focused on one factor, thus is not wise, rational nor can be answered effectively.

No, it's not. It's easy.

You don't have to talk about anything at all except your proof that women are not being allowed to go into philosophy, and want to. That's dead simple.

And if you can't do it, it's clear to me you've got nothing. And then, the rest doesn't even matter.

What do you meant 'you've got nothing'?

Very simple: you have no reason at all to think we need to change anything, one way or the other. Nada. Zip. Zilch. And the rest is just clucking and fluffing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, it's not. It's easy.

You don't have to talk about anything at all except your proof that women are not being allowed to go into philosophy, and want to. That's dead simple.

And if you can't do it, it's clear to me you've got nothing. And then, the rest doesn't even matter.

What do you meant 'you've got nothing'?

Very simple: you have no reason at all to think we need to change anything, one way or the other. Nada. Zip. Zilch. And the rest is just clucking and fluffing.

Anything?? nothing???
It is only with reference to this topic.

As I had stated in my first post, as far as this issues only, i.e. re the number of females philosophers at present, I am not bothered [protest, activism, etc.] with it at all.

Then I presented an argument and justification, that despite my indifference to the issue, the number of females philosophers will naturally increase in time.

[Immanuel Can]

What do you meant 'you've got nothing'?

Very simple: you have no reason at all to think we need to change anything, one way or the other. Nada. Zip. Zilch. And the rest is just clucking and fluffing.

Anything?? nothing???

Yep, nothing.

If there's no evidence that women aren't choosing what they do, and that they don't like it exactly the way they've got it, then there's no justification for changing anything. Then, to change anything is to act against their free choice.

They are not hurting anyone; and they ought to be allowed to pursue whatever they want, so long as that's the case.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Very simple: you have no reason at all to think we need to change anything, one way or the other. Nada. Zip. Zilch. And the rest is just clucking and fluffing.

Anything?? nothing???

Yep, nothing.

If there's no evidence that women aren't choosing what they do, and that they don't like it exactly the way they've got it, then there's no justification for changing anything. Then, to change anything is to act against their free choice.

They are not hurting anyone; and they ought to be allowed to pursue whatever they want, so long as that's the case.

That was my point all along.
I did not propose any intervention.

What I proposed is leaving females to the natural forces but I am certain the quantum of females participating in philosophy will increase in the future based on the current trend and the arguments I provided.

[Immanuel Can]

What I proposed is leaving females to the natural forces

That's how they are now. Nothing we know of prevents anybody from being a philosopher...male or female. And if that's so, we don't need quotas, and we don't need to fire any men, or have "affirmative action" measures, far less try to manipulate women into a career choice they are not vounteering for now. It would seem women are fine with where they are on that, and unless we know otherwise, we should leave it alone.

but I am certain the quantum of females participating in philosophy will increase in the future

Since nothing stops them now, we can just wait and see.