Bidisha is right to complain that women are vastly under represented, but fixing the problem is far from simple

I edit a magazine that contains many more articles by men than it does by women. I'm on the advisory board of two festivals which have significantly more male speakers than female ones. I'm precisely the kind of person Bidisha complained about in yesterday's Guardian when she wrote: "The establishment, patriarchy, the mainstream, whatever you want to call it, just doesn't find women interesting. It makes sure that women are heavily outnumbered from the very beginning by offering us only a fraction of available opportunities, slots, placements, commissions, trips, panel places, star jobs, reviews."

This is not, however, a public confession of my unreconstructed sexism. I entirely agree that it is terrible that women are still outnumbered by men in so many important public arenas. But fixing this is not as easy as critics suggest. Let me explain a few reasons why.

Bidisha argues that the present and past lack of women becomes a self-perpetuating justification for their future exclusion. Having excluded women, the "establishment" then argues that there aren't enough of them around to fill half the seats at society's high table.

The trouble with this is that "the establishment" is a rather vague and shadowy entity. The kind of circular logic Bidihsa complains about is certainly a factor in the ongoing struggle of women for equal consideration, but it is not always easy to distinguish between those who impose the logic and those who are forced to fall in line with it, like festivals and small magazines.

Academic philosophy is a case in point. The Philosophers' Magazine, which I edit, reflects what is going on in the world of philosophy, for better and for worse. One such "worse" is undoubtedly the representation of women. In a recent investigation for TPM, we found that only 18% of full-time staff in the 20 elite Russell Group of British universities' philosophy departments were women. That's worse than history (32%) and psychology (39%), both of which still fall far short of equality. In the US, it's not much better, with 22% of faculty at the top eight philosophy departments female.

Given those are the facts on the ground, what are we supposed to do about it? We do try to make sure that we invite as many quality women contributors as possible, but then we hit upon a second problem. Although this is only anecdotal evidence, over 13 years of editing the magazine, I can say with some confidence that women decline invitations significantly more often than men do. For instance, I've been asking a lot of philosophers to contribute to our forthcoming special 50th issue, and while two-thirds of the men I've asked have responded favourably, just less than half of the women have. Although I can't speak for the Bristol Festival of Ideas or How the Light Gets In, the two festivals I advise, my impression is that they too approach more women per positive response than they do men.

Some critics may say that's all very well, but it's no excuse. All the more reason to really battle to make sure that the magazine and festivals are not simply reflecting the prejudices of society, but challenging them. Up to a point, we already do that, inviting more women to be involved than are represented at the top of the profession. But there are two limits on how far this can go.

The first is simply a matter of time and resource. Festivals and small magazines run on the seat of their pants. Deadlines mean you can't pursue contributors and speakers indefinitely. If it takes extra effort to ensure the proportion of women is nearer half than 20%, there is a practical limit on how much effort like this can be made.

Of course, you could sacrifice quality, but no one wants that – especially the women. Bidisha says she's fed up with being the token woman, but if you invite more women just because they're women, all you get are more token women. Although I do make efforts to try to get a decent gender balance, I have never – and never would – insult a woman to contribute by inviting her just to make up the numbers. In theory, I'm certain that having 50% women in the magazine need not compromise quality, but if the system is hiding them, I don't have time to find them. And if you're tempted to say "well make time then", I'm afraid you have no idea how little of it I have.

So what is the solution? I really don't know. All I'm sure of is that if you think it's easy, you're wrong. So go easy on me and my ilk, Bidisha. The main responsibility lies not with festivals and other organisations that reflect the worlds of academia and culture. It lies with those worlds themselves.