why were there no women philosophers in the history of philosophy?

Answer 1

To is basically equivalent to the question -
Why haven't there been any women presidents of the United States?
There are several factors that have been in play -

Educational opportunities were reserved for boys.

Women were not allowed the priviledge of higher education until very recently.

Generally speaking, feminized brains have less developed
analytical spheres
(This is not to say all women's brains are feminized brains, but this is more often the case. Some men also have strongly feminized brains, and of course some women have strongly masculinized brains; women astronomers and mathematicians QED).

Feminized brains tend not to be interested in analytical matters as much. For instance, even today only 1% of airline navigators and commerical pilots are women. It's not because there aren't women who can do it, but because of those capable, very few are interested in it.

There are very few people in the history of philosophy. Perhaps as many as there have been US presidents.

Philosophy as a field has tended to be the domain of landed gentry, of aristocrats and rulers, gentleman scholars and lords. Within this highly conservative social context, men had the role of running the estate and leadership in the household, women would organise the household matters and the care and welfare of the family and servants. Few marriages in the higher reaches of society could find freedom from these traditional roles.

The roles of men and women in society were defined, and the definition was that they were different and separate.

Philosophy used to subsume also the fields of psychology, physics, biology, chemistry, pedagodgy, aesthetics... the natural and social sciences were Philosophy and Natural Philosophy. Groups of men would meet and discuss matters, research and write treatises. Women were unlikely to be welcomed into such a context. Also, few women were likely to be interested in joining in any case, just as relatively few women are interested in studying philosophy nowadays.

Try answering these questions to get a clearer idea -

Why are there few male midwives, or wedding planners?

Why are there few female builders, or mechanics?

Interestingly, men who are interested in areas that usually appeal more to women, such as cooking, dress-making, nursing, primary school teaching, counselling, social work... often excel in these fields, in part because of male competitiveness, egoism and social / instinctual pressure to provide for a family. Stuides have shown the status is extremely important to men in their social relations with other men, to their self esteem, and in their ability to attract a mate. This is not so much the case for women.

And after all, what is the history of philosophy but a story of successfully marketed intellectual prowess, or rather The History of Ego!

Also just to point out, quite a lot of philosophers who figure in The History of Philosophy have killed themselves -
Frederick Nitzsche
Gottleb Frege
Socrates
Keirkegaard
to name four off the top of my head.
So perhaps being in the History of Philosophy, much like being A Great Artist, is about having interesting anecdotes told about you as much as it is an indication that you did some worthwhile work.


Finally, a question for you -

What I want to know is, why are 'feminized' jobs paid less than 'masculinized' jobs?
Shouldn't primary teachers be paid the same as secondary school teachers?
Shouldn't nurses be paid the same as doctors?
Shouldn't counsellors be paid around the same as engineers? After all, most engineers I've known couldn't counsel someone to save their lives, or someone elses!
And most secondary school teachers could not teach primary school, or enjoy it. How many doctors could work as a nurse for a year?
Shouldn't the skills be recognised as equally valid, albeit different, and renumerated accordingly?

I think I'll go post this question. Thanks for the stimulus :)

Answer 2

It is the psychological characteristic feature of men
and women.

"Our two minds .... One is an act of the emotional
mind, the other of the rational mind. In a very real
sense we have two minds, one that thinks and one that
feels" (Daniel Goleman, Emotional Intelligence,
Bloomsbury Publishing, London, 1996, page 8).

The Upanishads call the emotional component of mind as
Chitta and the rational component of mind as Manas. In
general, women excell in Chitta and men excell in
Manas. Men have the ability to transcend the
limitations of Manas and activate the higher component
of mind Buddhi (intellect or wisdom) which deals with
philosophical thinking. Very few women can activate
this component.

I have published a paper on this topic:

V.Siva Prasad, Various states of mind - revelation
through Vedic scriptures, Express Star Teller,
August 2006, p 13 - 18.

For more information, my email id is:
[e-mail]

Answer 3

That's a good question.
It is almost saying that what is the ratio and proportion bet. female president and male president. For me, I am a woman(sometimes a child lol), i believe man should always lead for they carry stronger personality.
I also believe they are always more intellectual and more wise than women when it comes to decision-making. Women, use their emotions sometimes thus may end up with biased judgment.
I also buy to the idea that they are far better in mathematics, numbers and figures.
In philosophy, that would only suggest that they are indeed wiser.
It should always be this way, man should lead and woman follow.

Answer 4

There have been women philosophers, but as with all activities they are not much celebrated, so overlooked. I think, as in all things, this stems from male domination of public affairs. That may be because women are mostly concerned with the fundamental and essential issues of life, from food to children, which has given men more opportunity to contemplate their navels and abstract ideas - and then to pursue them competitively. As a man, interested in "philosophy" as practical wisdom, I think women's exclusion is a shame and a loss. But also, as a man, I am fascinated by the games men play, from science to politics, and recognise the benefits. Perhaps a factor is women's reluctance, as well as lack of opportunity, to play men's games? They've certainly done more good in both those fields than they generally get credit for.

Answer 5

there was a woman philosopher!...i forgot her name...
it was about like womanhood.!

well, there were many male philosophers in the history of philosophy because in that time, people believe that women were just for household stuff & or for nursing babies, and believe men are more capable of thinking. Because they believe that men are more superior than women, and since men are stronger, they assume that they are more superior.

that is why in early years, there were many countries that women were not allowed to vote.

Answer 6

Because women weren't allowed to be educated. For a long time, women didn't know how to read or write. They were encouraged to be silent, not join in discussions, or even think, really.

But there were women philosophers- they were just not as prominent as male philosophers.

Here's a link to a paper about it, with a lot of guidelines and suggested reading about women in philosophy.

Answer 7

Because woman used to be seen as the most unintellectual human beings they werent allowed to get education to work and to share their knowledge
I think most of the philosophers were woman but it was never mentioned
Keep in mind behind each good and successful man stand a almost perfect woman

Answer 8

Thanks for a really STAR question!!!

Women find better things to do than indulge in idle thinking that Philosophy involves.

Jesting apart, I believe that women have traditionally been suppressed a lot which has affected them in two ways... firstly too busy with house chores and childcare to spare the time for pure thinking such as philosophy and secondly, being kept busy in practical activities like that also has over a period of time made their thinking faculty more practically oriented than being prone to theoretical acumen or abstract thinking.

Answer 9

Probably because women are more concerned with themselves than with humanity at whole.
Listen to what the women are saying right here on this thread = they're all angry about their personal worth or the worth of women on whole.
... And, that's what women do. They get angry because they take this sort of criticism as a personal attack. Because, they only care about their sexy bodies and control over their fellow girls and control over their boys.
But, men care most about purpose! Science, or religious meaning. Two sides of the same coin. Men see the world further than woman can. Women are... kind of retarded. Yes, women, I just called you RETARDED. I give you permission to go totally batshit crazy over this. Go ahead: Go crazy, you retarded gender.

Answer 10

Thats a damn good question!!! But it was propbably back in the times when they really did think that men were the superier one! You never know with this day and age that in many years to come, we might actually get our female philosopher....