Andrew Booth29 said:My apologies for the barking earlier; it was merely a rhetorical device—a parable, if you will—and I certainly didn't expect you to take it so literally.
In this specific post, you seem to be operating under the assumption that a woman's evolution—psychological, cultural, sociological, and so on—is already complete. That's a rather peculiar claim to make. Perhaps you're right, but the mere fact that something still possesses the capacity for progress isn't inherently a bad thing. In fact, you're suggesting that the human race as a whole has reached Nirvana, hit the finish line, and that progress is a dead end. Any textbook on philosophy or spirituality will give you endless examples of how humanity continues to strive for advancement.
Simone de Beauvoir posited that the institution of motherhood serves as a manifestation of patriarchal oppression against women. In the opening thesis of this thread, I see a repetition of that very sentiment. I'll quote the great S. de Beauvoir:
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to bring up her children… because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.”
In my own loose translation: "Women shouldn't be allowed to just stay home and raise kids... because if that choice exists, far too many women will take it. It becomes a way of steering women in a specific direction."
The thread starter himself pits biological maternal instinct against the possibility of female evolution. He clarifies this in one post, responding to a question from a colleague:
It’s also worth noting that the aforementioned Simone de Beauvoir was quite active regarding abortion rights—a dimension that ties her directly to this thesis.
And our dear colleague here, Letec, had this to say:
So, she isn't just confirming the possibility of sexual evolution; she’s actually allowing for it in men too (though in another post, she bluntly claims men are just stupid). I should mention, she is an experienced and highly respected member of this forum, and she clearly understands exactly what is being discussed here.
As for our colleague bluecyclist64, I'm still waiting for his quote. However, I don't know how much you've kept up with past drama on this forum, but he might not be your best ally on this specific issue.
edit: I see now that bluecyclist64 has been banned, which explains the silence. I don't doubt he'll resurface eventually.
I’m sure you don't have any complaints either when people tell you you're just barking—you probably just write it off as "stylistic flourishes."😒 No problem.
So, in this specific post, you’re basically assuming that the evolution of women—psychologically, culturally, sociologically, whatever—is already a finished product. That’s a pretty weird take. Maybe you're right, but just because something can still improve doesn't mean things are going downhill. You're essentially suggesting that humanity has hit Nirvana—the end of the road where progress just stops. Honestly, if you look at any book on philosophy or spirituality, it’s full of examples showing that people are still out here trying to level up.
The thread starter says... Let’s get explicit about "sexual evolution"—if we can even call it that."And it’s not even about what you’re listing here—or this whole concept of "progress." That’s a completely different conversation.
Usually, when people talk about evolution, they're strictly referring to biological development—but you know how things work. So, let me get this straight—are psychology, cultural studies, and sociology all just biology to you? Or...😲 Nobody was actually talking about any kind of "progress"—it was all about "external evolution," specifically moving "from the lower" toward a "higher being." The author straight up asks:
ModusQuo said:Should women be forced to accept their biological reality—or should abortion be treated as an essential option and a fundamental privilege? Sexually speaking, I could honestly evolve into a higher being.?
Where exactly in this thread does it mention psychology, cultural studies, or sociology? Please, enlighten me.😲 So, is this whole "sexual evolution" thing actually happening—or is it just unfinished business for women, who supposedly sit at a "lower level" in this game, much like the person who wrote the original post?😲
But wait—there's more. What about this:
ModusQuo said:Honestly, way too many women don't bother checking themselves. People always claim they’re doing everything "for the kids"—which, honestly, makes you wonder why so many women seem to be running in the opposite direction when it comes to having them.
Honestly, women wouldn't claim they’re doing everything "for the kids" quite so much if they weren't constantly being nagged by everyone else about their parental duties. A lot of women—maybe most, actually—probably feel totally different; they might think kids are a massive headache and life would be easier without them, but the societal role of childbearing still imposes its own set of expectations and obligations.
So, why does this sweeping generalization apply only to women and not men? By suggesting women "can't control themselves," it basically implies they lack basic brainpower and need someone else—presumably someone with an actual functioning brain—to pull the strings. Who exactly is that supposed to be?
I already laid all of this out, but you completely dodged the point—as if there isn't a blatant hint of sexism here, right?
placidorca16 said:It also implies that women are mindless, that they "can't control themselves," that they're "afraid of children," and that they won't realize they need to care for them unless someone else tells them.🙄 It further suggests that women generally "don't want" or "don't love" kids—labeling them lazy, essentially—and that childbearing is just some "innate" drive that leaves no room for personal choice. Plus, it frames abortion as a "privilege."
What about all these other sexist generalizations about women brought up by the OP? Why is that somehow considered "normal"?
The author claims women generally:
1. "cannot control themselves"
2. "are afraid of children"
3. don't know they need to care for kids unless others tell them
4. "don't want kids" or "don't love kids"
5. are incapable of making their own reproductive decisions
6. have abortion as a "privilege"
Is there "no" sexism here either, according to you? Or is it just that women haven't "evolved enough" yet compared to men?😒
Andrew Booth29 said:My apologies for the barking earlier; it was merely a rhetorical device—a parable, if you will—and I certainly didn't expect you to take it so literally.
In this specific post, you seem to be operating under the assumption that a woman's evolution—psychological, cultural, sociological, and so on—is already complete. That's a rather peculiar claim to make. Perhaps you're right, but the mere fact that something still possesses the capacity for progress isn't inherently a bad thing. In fact, you're suggesting that the human race as a whole has reached Nirvana, hit the finish line, and that progress is a dead end. Any textbook on philosophy or spirituality will give you endless examples of how humanity continues to strive for advancement.
Simone de Beauvoir posited that the institution of motherhood serves as a manifestation of patriarchal oppression against women. In the opening thesis of this thread, I see a repetition of that very sentiment. I'll quote the great S. de Beauvoir:
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to bring up her children… because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction.”
In my own loose translation: "Women shouldn't be allowed to just stay home and raise kids... because if that choice exists, far too many women will take it. It becomes a way of steering women in a specific direction."
The thread starter himself pits biological maternal instinct against the possibility of female evolution. He clarifies this in one post, responding to a question from a colleague:
It’s also worth noting that the aforementioned Simone de Beauvoir was quite active regarding abortion rights—a dimension that ties her directly to this thesis.
And our dear colleague here, Letec, had this to say:
So, she isn't just confirming the possibility of sexual evolution; she’s actually allowing for it in men too (though in another post, she bluntly claims men are just stupid). I should mention, she is an experienced and highly respected member of this forum, and she clearly understands exactly what is being discussed here.
As for our colleague bluecyclist64, I'm still waiting for his quote. However, I don't know how much you've kept up with past drama on this forum, but he might not be your best ally on this specific issue.
edit: I see now that bluecyclist64 has been banned, which explains the silence. I don't doubt he'll resurface eventually.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what the OP wrote, nor does it support your argument. If you can't see the difference between some random internet rambling and the actual work of Simone de Beauvoir, then honestly, you're beyond help.👎
Even the OP is pitting biblical, maternal instincts against the potential for female evolution. In one post, he explains his take when a colleague asks:
He’d also point out that the aforementioned Simone de Beauvoir was active regarding abortion rights—an extra layer that ties this whole thesis back to her.
And our dear forum friend, Letec, chimed in:
So, they aren't just confirming the possibility of sexual evolution, they're actually allowing it for men too (though in another post, the OP basically states men are just stupid). Just to be clear, we're talking about an experienced and highly respected member here who clearly gets what he's talking about. |
You're trying to defend the indefensible by hiding behind Simone de Beauvoir—whose work has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of nonsense posted on this forum, let alone the sexism she would never support. I'm also pretty sure Letec wouldn't stand for this either, no matter how "bravely" you try to hide behind various feminist icons to justify blatant sexism. It's honestly pathetic for someone acting as a "moderator."👎
As for bluecyclist64, I'm still waiting for him to weigh in. That said, I don't know how much you know about past drama on this site, but he might not be the best ally to pick for this specific issue.
edit: just realized bluecyclist64 got banned, so that's why he isn't replying. I'm sure he'll resurface eventually.
I thanked bluecyclist64 for calling out the sexism and for his critical response, which is commendable—it shows
the guy actually has a backbone and a sense of justice, unlike some people. Honestly, I don't get why you're so "concerned" about my interactions with bluecyclist64; he and I have never had any issues, nor would we have any reason to. If anything, in the few times we've chatted, we've always gotten along fine. What's the big deal?🙂