I will now say something that might trigger people but might show something radical about the nature of reality:
Have you noticed how few women are contributing on the forum and in interviews about deep questions of existence, morality, etc. ... unless tendentially they're paid to do it as part of their career / hustle... and even then they tend not to be groundbreaking but weak, such as Patricia Churchland, Trish Macgregor, Martha Nussbaum, etc.
I see extremely little female participation. And with extremely few exceptions the contributions are weak, even absurd
In general, I've found that unless a woman is influenced in that direction by a male role model, that women aren't even interested in the nature of reality or morality.
According to evolutionary psychology, women tend to be solopsistic in order to maximise their survival and reproductive strategy. Men, on the other hand, tend to be interested in what is true, because accurate information about the wider world tends to help us
In other words, how much of our striving after truth and the good is merely our evolutionary/genetic conditioning that's programmed us to be this way?.....
I.e. how much is a spiritual, multi-incarnation learning process vs merely our physiology.........
Women tend to be more agreeable. It's not an absolute, because some women are less agreeable than some men.
It's not that women aren't interested in the nature of reality or morality. They just don't typically want to argue about it.