Sexism in the Philosophy PDF thread

I want to give a shout-out to bluecyclist64 for having the guts to call out the sexism on this forum that nobody else seems to care about—honestly, seeing someone actually stand their ground like that shows a level of character and backbone that I can genuinely respect.👍🙂

placidorca16 said: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.🙄👎

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:

Illana said:How does one sexually evolve into a higher being?

ModusQuo said:Through major shifts in female behavior—specifically in the lifestyle of a woman who develops through various pursuits outside of motherhood and parenting—a micro-evolution occurs, the effects of which only truly manifest after a hundred generations.

😁

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:

The flying one said:We evolved sexually—both men and women—the moment we started using contraception and utilizing sex for purposes beyond mere reproduction. And before we had all these options at our disposal—condoms, pills, IUDs, tubal ligations, vasectomies, and so on... abortion was (despite all the inherent risks of the procedure) the only reliable way to control how many children we would have. And people had them as often as they wanted. Rural herbalists couldn't brew enough "special teas," so for home abortions, things like knitting needles and other implements were used. Truly, that isn't a phase anyone sane wants to revisit.

Abortion needs to remain accessible to prevent those horrors (much like infanticide, which also occurred, even among nuns), but society should primarily focus on educating young people and preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

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.

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.

Nobody is claiming evolution is "done" for anyone—the whole argument is whether it's still ongoing for women while everyone just ignores what's happening with men.

Should women have to accept their innate biological obligations, or should abortion be an option—a privilege that allows women to evolve into higher beings through sexual agency?

What exactly do men need to do to "evolve into higher beings"? What rights are we supposed to hand them? Or are they already there?
This is just straight-up sexism wrapped up in pseudo-philosophy—honestly, watching people try to justify this stuff is pathetic.

The "Philosophy" subforum is basically a guys' pub, so I’d suggest the author stick to other sections to discuss her interests. 🙂

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.

So, basically, this lady believes humans—women included—evolved from animals simply by hooking up without any social strings or moral hang-ups attached? Good for her for being so liberated. And good luck to her husband, assuming he managed to snag her during that "animalistic" phase. He must be feeling pretty zen, much like Šeks, having such a free-spirited and independent woman by his side.

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.

Why not? I get the impression his wife is absolutely thrilled.

Megan Green72 said:Nobody is claiming evolution is "done" for anyone—the whole argument is whether it's still ongoing for women while everyone just ignores what's happening with men.

Should women have to accept their innate biological obligations, or should abortion be an option—a privilege that allows women to evolve into higher beings through sexual agency?

What exactly do men need to do to "evolve into higher beings"? What rights are we supposed to hand them? Or are they already there?
This is just straight-up sexism wrapped up in pseudo-philosophy—honestly, watching people try to justify this stuff is pathetic.

Good grief. Their evolution finished the second they managed to land a woman; after that, they’re free to obsess over philosophy, TIPS, and watching sports with a beer in hand. It’s up to women to achieve that same level of fulfillment on their own terms (minus the sports and the beer, obviously). Honestly, I think some women have already cracked the code by ditching their biological programming and living life on their own terms—something one of our dear colleagues here pointed out earlier.
So, tell me again, where exactly is the sexism in that? 🤷

mistybison said:The "Philosophy" subforum is basically a guys' pub, so I’d suggest the author stick to other sections to discuss her interests. 🙂

Maybe try the women's corner? Though, in there, women haven't just evolved—they've reached some kind of supernatural, untouchable, divine status.

Megan Green72 said:Nobody is claiming evolution is "done" for anyone—the whole argument is whether it's still ongoing for women while everyone just ignores what's happening with men.

Should women have to accept their innate biological obligations, or should abortion be an option—a privilege that allows women to evolve into higher beings through sexual agency?

What exactly do men need to do to "evolve into higher beings"? What rights are we supposed to hand them? Or are they already there?
This is just straight-up sexism wrapped up in pseudo-philosophy—honestly, watching people try to justify this stuff is pathetic.

Exactly!👍 Every single justification here is just further proof that sexism against women is totally fine on this forum—even from the moderators—and that any "rules" supposedly banning it are purely for show.🕺 But hey, I guess that’s just the level of gender equality we’re dealing with here.👎

placidorca16 said:Exactly!👍 Every single justification here is just further proof that sexism against women is totally fine on this forum—even from the moderators—and that any "rules" supposedly banning it are purely for show.🕺 But hey, I guess that’s just the level of gender equality we’re dealing with here.👎

It seems to me that women's equality often boils down to: "Now you can be just like men!" 😁

This is particularly evident in politics and the corporate world—essentially any field that was traditionally a male arena.

But, we are drifting off-topic now. 🙂

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?🙂

Brian Gray5 said:Good grief. Their evolution finished the second they managed to land a woman; after that, they’re free to obsess over philosophy, TIPS, and watching sports with a beer in hand. It’s up to women to achieve that same level of fulfillment on their own terms (minus the sports and the beer, obviously). Honestly, I think some women have already cracked the code by ditching their biological programming and living life on their own terms—something one of our dear colleagues here pointed out earlier.
So, tell me again, where exactly is the sexism in that? 🤷

Love the sarcasm—almost misread you there. 😁 👍

mistybison said:It seems to me that women's equality often boils down to: "Now you can be just like men!" 😁

This is particularly evident in politics and the corporate world—essentially any field that was traditionally a male arena.

But, we are drifting off-topic now. 🙂

Look, I have nothing against people doing or choosing whatever they want—that's their business. This isn't actually a debate about women's emancipation or what that entails; rather, it's about one specific sexist post that opened up a discussion in the philosophy section—a discussion that is generally discriminatory toward women. It should have been sanctioned, but instead of just slipping by "unnoticed," it now clearly has legitimate support from the moderators, who seem to be justifying it.👎 So, it's not a matter of me missing something—it's first about the silent endorsement of sexism, and now, an outright one, despite the forum rules. That’s what I wanted to clarify, and I got my answer—so, thanks for that, I guess.

Honestly, in my opinion, there is nothing more pathetic than women supporting sexism against women.👎

mistybison said:The "Philosophy" subforum is basically a guys' pub, so I’d suggest the author stick to other sections to discuss her interests. 🙂

Thanks for the tip, really—but unless the "Philosophy" section explicitly labels itself as "Men's Philosophy," I don't see any reason to avoid it.🙂

placidorca16 said:Look, I have nothing against people doing or choosing whatever they want—that's their business. This isn't actually a debate about women's emancipation or what that entails; rather, it's about one specific sexist post that opened up a discussion in the philosophy section—a discussion that is generally discriminatory toward women. It should have been sanctioned, but instead of just slipping by "unnoticed," it now clearly has legitimate support from the moderators, who seem to be justifying it.👎 So, it's not a matter of me missing something—it's first about the silent endorsement of sexism, and now, an outright one, despite the forum rules. That’s what I wanted to clarify, and I got my answer—so, thanks for that, I guess.

Honestly, in my opinion, there is nothing more pathetic than women supporting sexism against women.👎

Different subforums are moderated differently. The "Philosophy" section is essentially unmoderated, allowing content to pass through that would be sanctioned or at least removed in other areas. It functions much like the old "Mad House" on the "Politics" board—anything goes. 😁

That is why I mentioned in my first post that if this atmosphere doesn't suit you, it might be better to post in a different subforum. 🙂

mistybison said:Different subforums are moderated differently. The "Philosophy" section is essentially unmoderated, allowing content to pass through that would be sanctioned or at least removed in other areas. It functions much like the old "Mad House" on the "Politics" board—anything goes. 😁

That is why I mentioned in my first post that if this atmosphere doesn't suit you, it might be better to post in a different subforum. 🙂

Look, it isn't about the "atmosphere." It's about the specific content of the opening post. I wanted to see if it went unnoticed or if the mods were actually okay with that blatant sexism. Well, now I have my answer.

For the record, I've never been afraid to post about certain topics anywhere, and I'm not starting now. So, "atmosphere" doesn't really move the needle for me if I have something to say. But, likewise, I'm not going to stay quiet when I see discrimination that should be sanctioned under the rules of an organization, a social network, or this forum itself. Maybe "atmosphere" is your main priority regardless of what's being said—hey, no judgment—but surely you realize we aren't all wired the same way.🙂

placidorca16 said:Look, it isn't about the "atmosphere." It's about the specific content of the opening post. I wanted to see if it went unnoticed or if the mods were actually okay with that blatant sexism. Well, now I have my answer.

For the record, I've never been afraid to post about certain topics anywhere, and I'm not starting now. So, "atmosphere" doesn't really move the needle for me if I have something to say. But, likewise, I'm not going to stay quiet when I see discrimination that should be sanctioned under the rules of an organization, a social network, or this forum itself. Maybe "atmosphere" is your main priority regardless of what's being said—hey, no judgment—but surely you realize we aren't all wired the same way.🙂

Of course. 🙂

mistybison said:Of course. 🙂

👍🙂

Honestly, there’s nothing groundbreaking or even remotely novel being said here. Dostoevsky was already dissecting this exact same thing ages ago, leaning on those fundamental Nietzschean concepts regarding the superman destined for upheaval, whereas the average person exists merely to ensure the continuation of the species.

And just like that, case closed.

Jamie Davis9 said:Honestly, there’s nothing groundbreaking or even remotely novel being said here. Dostoevsky was already dissecting this exact same thing ages ago, leaning on those fundamental Nietzschean concepts regarding the superman destined for upheaval, whereas the average person exists merely to ensure the continuation of the species.

And just like that, case closed.

Finally, a post that isn't stuck in a single gendered perspective 🙏

I honestly feel a bit nauseous seeing how much everyone is ramping up the sexism and obsessing over "women's issues" lately.
Look, don't hold it against me. 🙄