Sexism in the Philosophy PDF thread

Dear moderators,

Back in January 2019, a thread was started in the Philosophy section titled "Abortion" and "Because of the Child." The original poster used some pretty blatant sexism to frame how women exist in society—basically painting them as subservient to men and defined solely by their relationship to children. I’m attaching a link to my own response from that time, and I’d love to get some clarity on why such sexist rhetoric toward women is permitted here when it clearly violates the rules.
Thanks!

Good God, seriously? If your definition of sexism is just some meathead shouting about a girl’s anatomy at a local dive bar, then you’re missing the point entirely. Where on earth did you get this ridiculous idea that sexism actually has anything to do with how women are perceived within a patriarchal society? Is that how it works now, Boeing?

I wouldn't go so far as to call the topic sexist—though, granted, it was framed pretty poorly—but since it racked up 500 posts in just a few days, it stayed put. It basically morphed into a broader discussion about abortion in general.

Besides, I don't see why everyone is getting so worked up over the opinion of one single forum member (honestly, we’re all still struggling to figure out what he was even trying to say). His main point seemed to be that people tell women how they should act, and then women end up acting that way because of it. That’s just basic social constructivism—the kind of thing a lot of feminists talk about regarding how gender stereotypes and cultural pressures shape women's lives. Or... maybe those social and cultural pressures don't actually exist? Who knows.

I don't think placidorca16 should be weighing in on women's reproductive rights. Honestly, I find that kind of mindset quite troubling, especially since we live in a democratic society. As things stand, I can't see any immediate way for those rights to be stripped away—though perhaps we might face different challenges in other eras. To me, women's rights are truly only at risk when their autonomy is threatened, whether that means being denied the freedom to choose their own career, their right to move freely, or the liberty to decide who they associate with and enter into relationships with. Gender stereotypes will always exist, simply because men and women naturally differ in their behaviors and how they approach their professional paths.

placidnomad87 said:I don't think placidorca16 should be weighing in on women's reproductive rights. Honestly, I find that kind of mindset quite troubling, especially since we live in a democratic society. As things stand, I can't see any immediate way for those rights to be stripped away—though perhaps we might face different challenges in other eras. To me, women's rights are truly only at risk when their autonomy is threatened, whether that means being denied the freedom to choose their own career, their right to move freely, or the liberty to decide who they associate with and enter into relationships with. Gender stereotypes will always exist, simply because men and women naturally differ in their behaviors and how they approach their professional paths.

That’s just not true. I never said people "can't" comment on reproductive rights—I write about them myself. My point about sexism was aimed squarely at the OP and his opening post, where he claimed women are "lower-class beings" along with a bunch of other nonsense I quoted. I never suggested other users were being sexist, so please stop putting words in my mouth—or at least quote what I actually said.

Besides, I asked the moderators to weigh in, not just anyone.

placidorca16 said:I used the title “sexist topic” just to flag this for the moderators. I was quoting the author's opening post where he kicked things off with total sexism and some pretty offensive generalizations about women. I’m asking the mods to step in here, not the other users. Thanks!

Just a quick correction on that quote: you didn't actually quote his opening post; you quoted one of your own posts from that thread. Anyone who bothers to click the link in the post where you started this topic can see that for themselves.

Matthew Castillo5 said:Just a quick correction on that quote: you didn't actually quote his opening post; you quoted one of your own posts from that thread. Anyone who bothers to click the link in the post where you started this topic can see that for themselves.

Since when did you become a moderator—or are you just delusional?🙄 I quoted the original post that opened the thread along with my own comment, yes. It’s all right there in the link. If you're having trouble seeing it, maybe go visit an eye doctor.

placidorca16 said:Since when did you become a moderator—or are you just delusional?🙄 I quoted the original post that opened the thread along with my own comment, yes. It’s all right there in the link. If you're having trouble seeing it, maybe go visit an eye doctor.

Now both the OP's quote and your reply are visible; before, it was just your response showing up.

Matthew Castillo5 said:Now both the OP's quote and your reply are visible; before, it was just your response showing up.

Everything was visible from the start, but if you couldn't see it, that's really on you. Unless you're a moderator, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop commenting.😲

placidorca16 said:I titled this "sexist topic" specifically to get the moderators' attention. I was quoting the author's opening post, which kicked things off with sexist remarks and an offensive take on women in general. I asked the moderators to weigh in—not the other users. Thanks!

Well, Andrew Booth29 is a moderator...

briskwalker10 said:Well, Andrew Booth29 is a moderator...

Yeah, I saw that later. It’s funny how they can't see why they shouldn't bother engaging with some random guy who thinks women are "lower beings" and all that—I'm guessing if a woman had said the exact same thing about men, it wouldn't have gone "unnoticed."👎

placidorca16 said:Yeah, I saw that later. It’s funny how they can't see why they shouldn't bother engaging with some random guy who thinks women are "lower beings" and all that—I'm guessing if a woman had said the exact same thing about men, it wouldn't have gone "unnoticed."👎

From what I can gather, men get pushed around quite a bit too, yet somehow nobody seems to view it as sexism or discrimination. Every single day, whether I'm scrolling through news portals or listening to the radio, I hear about men committing horrific crimes, being violent, or facing all sorts of derogatory labels. If you were to write something like that targeting a specific race, the authorities would react instantly. Personally, I don't believe men are being discriminated against, even when it seems blatantly obvious. To me, that's just total nonsense. But when it comes to women, discrimination feels justified. After all, isn't the female sex inherently more vulnerable? They often find it much harder to defend themselves in sudden, unpredictable situations—whether they are at the office, in their own homes, or just walking down a street in the middle of the night.

placidnomad87 said:From what I can gather, men get pushed around quite a bit too, yet somehow nobody seems to view it as sexism or discrimination. Every single day, whether I'm scrolling through news portals or listening to the radio, I hear about men committing horrific crimes, being violent, or facing all sorts of derogatory labels. If you were to write something like that targeting a specific race, the authorities would react instantly. Personally, I don't believe men are being discriminated against, even when it seems blatantly obvious. To me, that's just total nonsense. But when it comes to women, discrimination feels justified. After all, isn't the female sex inherently more vulnerable? They often find it much harder to defend themselves in sudden, unpredictable situations—whether they are at the office, in their own homes, or just walking down a street in the middle of the night.

Where exactly is this "stepping on" men happening to the point where they're labeled a "lower species"? People write all sorts of things about women, too—not to mention the actual physical abuse and violence they face. We even have court cases where abusers try to play the victim... it's a mess. You're more than welcome to reach out to the proper authorities if you can find specific examples where you feel men are being discriminated against.

placidorca16 said:Where exactly is this "stepping on" men happening to the point where they're labeled a "lower species"? People write all sorts of things about women, too—not to mention the actual physical abuse and violence they face. We even have court cases where abusers try to play the victim... it's a mess. You're more than welcome to reach out to the proper authorities if you can find specific examples where you feel men are being discriminated against.

The truth is, no one can discriminate against me because I simply won't allow it. I might have been vulnerable to it back when I was just a young boy, but not anymore. There are certain feminists out there who exaggerate their struggles to such an extreme degree that they end up blaming the entire male gender for their personal problems. In our modern civilization, no one recognizes that kind of behavior as discrimination, because honestly, it would be laughable if they did. If some form of discrimination exists—say, through psychological warfare or by labeling a man as weak or ineffective—well, that is entirely up to him to resolve his own issues.

Nowhere in this post does it say that women are lesser beings. This PDF is about philosophy—specifically, it’s about the human being reaching a higher state of consciousness, where one transcends the biological, the material, or the purely instinctive. That’s clearly evident in the dilemma presented by the thread starter. On one hand, you have the biological role; on the other, you have external freedom. Given how powerful maternal instinct can be—an instinct that is notoriously difficult to suppress—abortion serves as a way for a woman to escape the patriarchal trap and her assigned gender role. In fact, Simone de Beauvoir proposed a very similar thesis. So, really, you're just barking up the wrong tree regarding this dilemma.

placidorca16 said:Yeah, I saw that later. It’s funny how they can't see why they shouldn't bother engaging with some random guy who thinks women are "lower beings" and all that—I'm guessing if a woman had said the exact same thing about men, it wouldn't have gone "unnoticed."👎

And why on earth should she care? You can see his name is "Andrew Booth29." Just by looking at the handle, you can tell he doesn't give a damn about gender identity.
To me, that sounds extremely gender-unidentified, unlike "Northwind," which is quite clearly a female name...🤣

Andrew Booth29 said:Nowhere in this post does it say that women are lesser beings. This PDF is about philosophy—specifically, it’s about the human being reaching a higher state of consciousness, where one transcends the biological, the material, or the purely instinctive. That’s clearly evident in the dilemma presented by the thread starter. On one hand, you have the biological role; on the other, you have external freedom. Given how powerful maternal instinct can be—an instinct that is notoriously difficult to suppress—abortion serves as a way for a woman to escape the patriarchal trap and her assigned gender role. In fact, Simone de Beauvoir proposed a very similar thesis. So, really, you're just barking up the wrong tree regarding this dilemma.

Come off it, this isn't an economics lecture.😒

Whoever in this quote...

(image)

...fails to see the insult and the misogyny, they shouldn't be a moderator.

There is no such thing as women evolving into a "higher being" in any sense. I'm not a feminist; I'm a traditionalist. And the position of us traditionalists is that human beings are equal regardless of sex, race, or nationality.

This is incredibly offensive, and I stand by my colleague placidorca16.

bluecyclist64 said:And why on earth should she care? You can see his name is "Andrew Booth29." Just by looking at the handle, you can tell he doesn't give a damn about gender identity.
To me, that sounds extremely gender-unidentified, unlike "Northwind," which is quite clearly a female name...🤣

Come off it, this isn't an economics lecture.😒

Whoever in this quote...

(image)

...fails to see the insult and the misogyny, they shouldn't be a moderator.

There is no such thing as women evolving into a "higher being" in any sense. I'm not a feminist; I'm a traditionalist. And the position of us traditionalists is that human beings are equal regardless of sex, race, or nationality.

This is incredibly offensive, and I stand by my colleague placidorca16.

But if a woman were to "evolve into a higher being," we’d be talking about the author's misogyny, not misandry... 🤣

The issue here is simply that the author introduced the topic in a way that's hard to follow. That said, discussing abortion within the realm of philosophy is a perfectly legitimate subject. What shouldn't fly, though, are the misogynistic or misandrist comments—those need to be sanctioned. The topic itself stands on its own.

bluecyclist64 said:And why on earth should she care? You can see his name is "Andrew Booth29." Just by looking at the handle, you can tell he doesn't give a damn about gender identity.
To me, that sounds extremely gender-unidentified, unlike "Northwind," which is quite clearly a female name...🤣

Come off it, this isn't an economics lecture.😒

Whoever in this quote...

(image)

...fails to see the insult and the misogyny, they shouldn't be a moderator.

There is no such thing as women evolving into a "higher being" in any sense. I'm not a feminist; I'm a traditionalist. And the position of us traditionalists is that human beings are equal regardless of sex, race, or nationality.

This is incredibly offensive, and I stand by my colleague placidorca16.

Like Predrag Raos 😬

🙂

I’d love for my esteemed colleague bluecyclist64 to actually elaborate on his position here. Is he suggesting that women are incapable of evolving into higher beings while men can? Or is he arguing that neither gender has that capacity? Honestly, whatever his answer turns out to be, I suspect he'll have quite a lot of explaining to do at the next Communist Party USA meeting. He’s either being a total sexist or a complete reactionary.

Andrew Booth29 said:Nowhere in this post does it say that women are lesser beings. This PDF is about philosophy—specifically, it’s about the human being reaching a higher state of consciousness, where one transcends the biological, the material, or the purely instinctive. That’s clearly evident in the dilemma presented by the thread starter. On one hand, you have the biological role; on the other, you have external freedom. Given how powerful maternal instinct can be—an instinct that is notoriously difficult to suppress—abortion serves as a way for a woman to escape the patriarchal trap and her assigned gender role. In fact, Simone de Beauvoir proposed a very similar thesis. So, really, you're just barking up the wrong tree regarding this dilemma.

First off, I'm not "barking"—I'm writing, unlike you, who clearly lacks the decency or the backbone to stand behind what should be an "official forum rule"—that we don't disparage or insult women generally or individually, as you stated yourself right here. What you just wrote only proves the opposite.👎 How can you claim "nowhere does it say women are inferior," when it explicitly states:

ModusQuo said:Should women accept their innate obligations or should abortion be an option and a privilege allowing women to sexually evolve into higher beings?

What else is that supposed to mean, if not that women haven't "sexually evolved high enough", because if they had, they'd presumably already be "higher beings," as the OP suggests. I have no idea what you're trying to achieve by twisting his words—especially since you're supposedly a moderator.

Besides, how could abortion be a "privilege" and in relation to whom, if only women get pregnant and give birth?😲

The author wasn't talking about states of consciousness at all—which is a total misread on your part—he was talking explicitly about female reproduction and the biological functions of birth/abortion, not gender roles. Basically, you've completely flipped the original post on its head, clearly just to avoid facing the blatant sexism directed at women—something we unfortunately see way too often on this forum.👎 Even though you have plenty of like-minded supporters, this is a textbook example of overt sexism and a disregard for women's human rights. It's not something anyone should be doing, much less someone who is meant to be a "moderator."😢👎

As for Simone de Beauvoir, if you've actually read anything she ever wrote, you clearly misunderstood it.

briskwalker10 said:But if a woman were to "evolve into a higher being," we’d be talking about the author's misogyny, not misandry... 🤣

The issue here is simply that the author introduced the topic in a way that's hard to follow. That said, discussing abortion within the realm of philosophy is a perfectly legitimate subject. What shouldn't fly, though, are the misogynistic or misandrist comments—those need to be sanctioned. The topic itself stands on its own.

Like Predrag Raos 😬

🙂

I agree that discussing abortion through the lens of philosophy is legitimate. However, the author didn't just open the topic "nonsensically"—he dropped explicit sexism by claiming that for women, "abortion must be an option and a privilege so they can sexually evolve into a higher being." What's with this whole "evolving into a higher being" remark if women are already sufficiently evolved beings, huh?😒 It implies there's something missing... and I'm dying to know what.🙄👎