One day, I found myself arbitrarily contemplating the enigma of the female mind—a thought that has intrigued me time and again. The answer, however, remains elusive, buried in an abyss beyond reach. Cracking the IIT or IIM entrance exams seems far easier in comparison. Just when I think I've discerned a pattern, the very next interaction defies it. Understanding when a woman is being truthful or merely reshaping reality to gain an advantage in the next moment is an art that no science has yet mastered. And the most formidable weapon? Tears. Even the gods falter in their presence. Rationality collapses, and one is left adoring whatever she desires. Many battles—both historical and personal—have been waged over this very predicament.
But if the female mind is so intricate and sharp, why are there so few renowned female philosophers? This question led me to investigate, and to my pleasant surprise, I found a long list of female philosophers. Yet, they remain relatively unheard of in everyday discourse. For most of recorded history, groundbreaking philosophy has been a male-dominated field, almost a genre of its own.
This, however, has little to do with capability. Historically, women lacked access to education and the leisure to pursue a life of intellectual rigor. In modern times, they have made immense contributions to literature and the arts, yet their presence in philosophy remains less pronounced. I have often found women to be more articulate than men, with an uncanny ability to express something apt for every occasion. Yet, as a whole—barring exceptions—they seem less drawn to the austere, cold, and analytical nature of philosophy. The female mind, in general, appears more attuned to practical, personal matters. Like a modern operating system, it can multitask effortlessly but rarely lingers in the abstract depths of existential reasoning.
It is not that women inherently lack the aptitude for philosophy or higher mathematics. Rather, they seem less inclined to devote their lives to the detached, frigid realm of abstract contemplation. Many have realized that they are among God’s most beautiful creations and have thus gravitated toward commercial fields where their presence is strongly felt. Is it then an inherent disinterest, a materialistic inclination, or a self-centered pragmatism that has led to a scarcity of great female philosophers? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in between—a blend of history, choice, and the innate pull toward the tangible over the theoretical.
Comments
Even Shankaracharya could not fathom a woman's mind. There is an incident in the life of Shankaracharya which is worth relating. A woman got him into trouble.
He had a debate with Mandan Mishra which Mandan lost. But Mandan's wife made a very womanly argument, which only women can make. She said, "Only one half of Mandan Mishra has lost. I, the other half of him, am still alive. Until you have defeated me, you can't claim to have defeated Mandan Mishra totally."
Shankara was put into difficulty. Although what the woman said was right, it didn't really carry any weight. Mandan Mishra was fully defeated. One doesn't have to defeat Gama, the wrestler and his wife too in order to become the winner. But the wife of Mandan Mishra, Bharati, was worth having a debate with. The world has seen very few learned women of her caliber. So the idea of debating with her appealed to Shankara. He thought it would be fun. He figured if Mandan couldn't win, how long would Bharati last before him? But he was mistaken.
It is very easy to defeat a man, but it is not so easy to defeat a woman, because the arguments of man and woman, winning or losing, are never the same. They follow a different logic. That's why so often husbands and wives don't understand each other. Their ways of reasoning are different, they are never harmonious. They often go parallel, never meeting anywhere.
So Shankara thought Bharati would discuss matters like Brahman, etcetera. But she didn't raise any issue regarding Brahman, because she had witnessed how Mandan Mishra had got himself in trouble on that ground. She knew very well any discussion of Brahman and maya will be of no use. So she said to Shankara, "Please say something about sex."
Shankara was at a loss. He said, "I am an accomplished celibate. Please don't ask me anything about sex."
Bharati said, "If you know nothing about sex, then what else do you know? When you don't know even this much, I wonder what you may be knowing about the Brahman, maya and so on. You will have to say something about sex because, after all, it is the very source of this world you call maya. I will debate only on that topic."
Shankara said, "Please allow me six months' time to learn about this subject. I have no knowledge of it, no one ever taught me. I don't know the secret of sex."
In order to learn the secret of sex, Shankara had to leave his body and enter into another body, that of a King in Kashmir. It was only later that He could beat Mandan Mishra's wife. (Brig MG Bodwadkar)