The [feminist philosophy] movement also ignores the finding — consistently documented by a large empirical literature — that, on average, men have stronger interests in investigative and theoretical pursuits and women stronger preferences for social and artistic pursuits… These are just group tendencies of course, and we should be careful not to over-generalise, but they are pronounced and persistent… Yet when the New York Times invited five feminist philosophers to discuss the gender gap [in philosophy] in 2013, not one even entertained the possibility that women might tend to find other subjects more interesting. Instead, the group talked exclusively about things like male privilege, harassment, and stereotypes…
Philosophy departments are not biased against women in hiring. There may be fewer women interested enough in philosophy to pursue it as a career, but those who do are more likely to get hired. According to a study by the American Philosophical Association, between 2012 and 2015, other things being equal, female PhDs were 65% more likely than men to find a permanent academic job within two years of graduating. And look at the APA itself. Over the past 5 years, more than half of its divisional presidents have been women. For 2016, women hold all the top positions. It is difficult to see how a profession that hires women at a higher rate than men and awards them its top leadership positions is rigged against women.
Why is it that feminists must always assume that men and women are the same? Of course, the flip side of that coin is that any differences in pay or other stats must be attributable to the Evil Patriarchy.
On the outside, men and women are different. They have different sizes and shapes. Of course, there is the difference in hormones. It makes a difference. Just get into a pen with a bull and a cow, and insist that all bovine are the same. Then there are all of differences that have been encompassed in the various culture’s wisdom passed through the ages.
Why are they so stubborn in the face of obvious evidence? It is the cat out of the bag problem. Once one acknowledges that there might be differences, then the question(s) become, what are the differences and how pronounced are they? Feminists might believe that such discussions could be flattering to them; but then again, maybe not.
Here is a challenge to Feminists, how about doing just that. Acknowledge differences. Let people understand themselves. Surely a model that better describes reality is better than one that tries to shoe-horn reality into its dogma. May the best model win. How about it?