There has been a recent push among philosophy departments to attract more women. As is evident in many classrooms, men outnumber women and are more vocal in their discussions. Some think that this is a consequence of prejudice among philosophy professors. They may be more likely to call on men to answer questions or more likely to praise men than women. As reformers argue, we should correct this inequality by encouraging female participation in philosophy and reducing the imbalance in numbers.
I'm skeptical, however, that this is such a good idea for several reasons. First, opportunity costs. One way philosophy professors try to encourage female participation is by assigning more readings by female philosophers. But any time spent reading a work by a female philosopher is time spent not reading a work by a male philosopher. And if the work is chosen specifically because of the philosopher's sex, then it's less likely that it will be the most relevant/insightful/didactic example of philosophy in that particular field.
Second, and more importantly, I'm skeptical that inequality in a profession is a bad thing. There are more male plumbers than female plumbers. I have yet to hear a feminist complain about that. One explanation for the sexual inequality among plumbers may be because of discrimination and prejudice. Another, more plausible, explanation that I think people implicitly understand is because of sexual dimorphism, the idea that men and women are biologically predisposed to have different interests/abilities. The same principle might be applied to those who decide to engage in philosophy. Women seem less likely to pursue a career in philosophy. And if women are less inclined to be interested in philosophy, then it might be considered a waste of resources to try to attract them if there isn't a countervailing benefit.
Which brings me to my next point; there doesn't seem like there would be a large benefit to actively attracting women to philosophy. There are two benefits that I can think of, neither of which seems plausible: (1) Women bring to philosophy dramatically different ideas than men do, (2) Women create a more welcoming/caring atmosphere in philosophy that encourages cooperation. The first benefit, I think, is weak. A good idea is a good idea regardless of who it came from, and it doesn't seem like a person's genitalia would offer them any kind of new insight into metaphysics, epistemology, etc. The second benefit is a bit stronger, but lacking in empirical evidence. I'm skeptical that a female philosophy department would be more productive, more groundbreaking, or even more happy. I'd like to know concretely what women bring to philosophy that couldn't be brought by men.
Third, an unintended side-effect of encouraging women to pursue philosophy would be discouraging them to pursue other fields that interest them, fields that they may have enjoyed even more or excelled at even more highly. This relates to the same principle as the first reason, opportunity costs. If women are better than men at some tasks or enjoy those tasks more, then all the more power to them. Diversity of interests is what makes the world go round. If I dislike gardening and my neighbor loves gardening, then we can make a wonderful arrangement. But trying to cram enough people of a certain demographic into a department just to meet certain percentages fails to respect people's autonomy. It neglects the actual and potential interests of the individuals who are siphoned into those professions.
Fourth, even if inequality is a bad thing, I'm skeptical that it's the best use of resources to reduce the inequality. First, because we don't actually know how to reduce the inequality, there might be inefficiencies in how philosophy classes are taught until the processes is figured out. Second, even if we do know how to reduce the inequality, money that's used for philosophy departments to encourage women to join could be used to do other things, like buy books, fund research, or subsidize tuition.
