Sexism in the Philosophy PDF thread

Jamie Davis9 said: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. 🙄

Look, we aren't holding a grudge, but I’m pretty sure the person who actually started this thread is going to have a bone to pick with you. 😁

Matthew Castillo5 said:Look, we aren't holding a grudge, but I’m pretty sure the person who actually started this thread is going to have a bone to pick with you. 😁

Personally, I’m hoping they don't. 🙂
In any case, it would be far more productive to actually discuss the core matter at hand rather than getting bogged down in whether one prefers the nonsense of Tolstoy over Schopenhauer, instead of debating the nonsense of Dostoevsky versus Nietzsche. 😛

Anyway, you should just stick to 🙂)

Jamie Davis9 said:Personally, I’m hoping they don't. 🙂
In any case, it would be far more productive to actually discuss the core matter at hand rather than getting bogged down in whether one prefers the nonsense of Tolstoy over Schopenhauer, instead of debating the nonsense of Dostoevsky versus Nietzsche. 😛

Anyway, you should just stick to 🙂)

Oh, I think it might just happen. I guess you could say the author handles things somewhat like Pupovac does in American politics—she’s essentially an ethnic businessman. In her own way, she seems to be a gender-based businessman, at least that's the impression she left on me.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Oh, I think it might just happen. I guess you could say the author handles things somewhat like Pupovac does in American politics—she’s essentially an ethnic businessman. In her own way, she seems to be a gender-based businessman, at least that's the impression she left on me.

I guess you could call her a businesswoman. 😒 🙂 🙂

😁

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.

You sow the grain, and Friedrich does the rest.

Matthew Castillo5 said:I guess you could call her a businesswoman. 😒 🙂 🙂

😁

I’d suggest "business lady." Or is that still sexist if the suggestion comes from a guy?

Either way, I wouldn't mind being called a business gentleman myself.

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.

Our friend Letec left you a comment over in Philosophy regarding her take on all this, so go ahead—have a read:

Letec said:@Andrew Booth29

Since I have some standing over in PŽK, I’m replying here—and I’d appreciate it if you didn't drag my name into things over there. Frankly, doing that is rude, if not a direct violation of the forum rules. (And yes, I am commenting on moderation, and I’ll happily take the penalty for it.)

This entire thread, along with a huge chunk of the sub-forum you (supposedly) moderate, is sexist, misogynistic, and just plain unpleasant in so many ways. (Plus, it's redundant since there are plenty of other threads about abortion that are being meticulously moderated.) I’m only participating here to point out to certain individuals the undeniable fact that they are—idiots. I'm living in the hope that I might nudge some of them to finally get their heads out of their asses. And you don't just tolerate a thread framed like this; you also let comments fly under the radar suggesting "women aren't human" (in other threads). I can't tell if you see those as harmless jokes or if you truly believe a woman is "fundamentally different"—meaning less valuable, less capable, less rational, or less "evolved."

I don't think I need to state how much I disagree with those views. Nor should I have to say that I find you completely unfit to moderate a flock of mindless sheep, let alone the Philosophy sub-forum. If I were you, I’d step down from that position while you still have a shred of dignity left.

Huge thanks to Letec for her support, her principles, and for standing up as a woman and a feminist—proving that her name won't be used to serve someone else's dirty agenda, despite the moderator's unfortunate attempts here!🧐🙂

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

1.)
I honestly think this post is sexist—specifically, "woman-sexist." 😁

2) First off, let me say that I don't buy into the whole sexism thing; to me, it feels like an ideology used as a vague way to throw accusations mostly at men...

based on those ever-shifting standards where

if a man is quiet and polite, he's just a pushover
but if he's active, suddenly he's some macho type or an aggressor. 😁

3)

By the logic of those looking for sexism everywhere, then mistybison's text would be considered sexist.

She quite pointedly, and somewhat condescendingly, labeled the Philosophy section as "male," even though plenty of women write there too.

And she intentionally chose to call it a "pub" rather than a cafe. 😁

See, calling something a "pub" carries a certain lower status compared to a cafe, a bar, a club, or a restaurant.

4)
So, it’s pretty obvious that mistybison wrote a "man-sexist" post intended to belittle both the Philosophy section and the men who contribute to it.

5)
Personally, though, I find this post entertaining. It actually makes me smile because mistybison almost always writes so politely and gracefully, with such genuine understanding. If we were sitting in a lively bar or a pub right now, I’d probably try to playfully point out that inconsistency to everyone, including her. 😁

6)
But here’s the kicker: when someone writes something "harsh" in a "masculine" way, people feel forced to react. To me, that’s just a more blunt, masculine way of expressing criticism toward someone or something.

I think I’ll take the advice of my esteemed colleague Letec—it’s probably for the best—and I’m asking the forum administration to please remove me from the moderation team for both forums I currently oversee. Thanks...

Here’s an example of imposed "gender sexism" that is actually written into the laws of certain states, including right here in the US.

Specifically, I believe there are laws out there that penalize political parties if they don't meet a specific quota for women on their candidate lists or similar requirements.

But I honestly don't understand why people can't grasp the fact that you shouldn't be FORCING a specific number of women (or men) into politics or any other field.

It wouldn't bother me at all if every single cabinet minister were a woman, but what bothers me is this nonsense where a legal act forces parties or institutions to MUST maintain a certain percentage of women. 🙄

In fact, if there are few women in politics, it should really be seen as a compliment to their wisdom—it suggests they are smart enough to value their peace and refuse to get dirty in the murky sludge of politics, where nothing but bullies and sharks tend to rule.

At the end of the day, there aren't such things as "women's rights"; there are only universal human rights.

Andrew Booth29 said:I think I’ll take the advice of my esteemed colleague Letec—it’s probably for the best—and I’m asking the forum administration to please remove me from the moderation team for both forums I currently oversee. Thanks...

Good God!

hiddenpuma75 said:Here’s an example of imposed "gender sexism" that is actually written into the laws of certain states, including right here in the US.

Specifically, I believe there are laws out there that penalize political parties if they don't meet a specific quota for women on their candidate lists or similar requirements.

But I honestly don't understand why people can't grasp the fact that you shouldn't be FORCING a specific number of women (or men) into politics or any other field.

It wouldn't bother me at all if every single cabinet minister were a woman, but what bothers me is this nonsense where a legal act forces parties or institutions to MUST maintain a certain percentage of women. 🙄

In fact, if there are few women in politics, it should really be seen as a compliment to their wisdom—it suggests they are smart enough to value their peace and refuse to get dirty in the murky sludge of politics, where nothing but bullies and sharks tend to rule.

At the end of the day, there aren't such things as "women's rights"; there are only universal human rights.

👍

Everyone is equal before the law; the same rules apply to everyone. I am not a woman, but if I were, I think I would find being positively discriminated against quite offensive—because to me, it would feel like proof that I wasn't considered equally capable, and therefore needed a little push.

Paul Kern12 said:👍

Everyone is equal before the law; the same rules apply to everyone. I am not a woman, but if I were, I think I would find being positively discriminated against quite offensive—because to me, it would feel like proof that I wasn't considered equally capable, and therefore needed a little push.

I'm with you on this one.

Even if I'm not a fan of your avatar 🤣

Gerald Jackson48 said:You sow the grain, and Friedrich does the rest.

I’d suggest "business lady." Or is that still sexist if the suggestion comes from a guy?

Either way, I wouldn't mind being called a business gentleman myself.

All I've got is a massive stomach ache. 😛

Andrew Booth29 said:I think I’ll take the advice of my esteemed colleague Letec—it’s probably for the best—and I’m asking the forum administration to please remove me from the moderation team for both forums I currently oversee. Thanks...

Oh, there is absolutely no need to step down from moderation! It is enough to give hiddenpuma75 a small cut, and that pub atmosphere will vanish all on its own. 😍 😁

She has already earned it by cluttering every single thread with her blog posts that have nothing to do with the topics at hand, along with various claims—like her saying women are easy to understand if you just strip a man of his ability to reason. 😁

The subforum needs at least a month to recover and regain some seriousness. 😉

😈 😁

mistybison said:Oh, there is absolutely no need to step down from moderation! It is enough to give hiddenpuma75 a small cut, and that pub atmosphere will vanish all on its own. 😍 😁

She has already earned it by cluttering every single thread with her blog posts that have nothing to do with the topics at hand, along with various claims—like her saying women are easy to understand if you just strip a man of his ability to reason. 😁

The subforum needs at least a month to recover and regain some seriousness. 😉

😈 😁

+1

Jamie Davis9 said: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. 🙄

It feels like we’ve crossed a line lately, hasn't it? Everything regarding the whole conversation around sexism seems to be spiraling into a state of pure schizophrenia. Is it just me, or has the discourse become so fractured and irrational that we can no longer see the reality right in front of our eyes?

mistybison said:Oh, there is absolutely no need to step down from moderation! It is enough to give hiddenpuma75 a small cut, and that pub atmosphere will vanish all on its own. 😍 😁

She has already earned it by cluttering every single thread with her blog posts that have nothing to do with the topics at hand, along with various claims—like her saying women are easy to understand if you just strip a man of his ability to reason. 😁

The subforum needs at least a month to recover and regain some seriousness. 😉

😈 😁

Once again, we have a misquote and a false accusation:

I didn't say that; it was the actor Jack Nicholson in the movie Easy Does It
to his admirer

And he didn't actually say what you're claiming, he said this: 😁

So, in this scenario, hiddenpuma75 is Jack Nicholson, and this lovely lady is mistybison 😍

mistybison said:Oh, there is absolutely no need to step down from moderation! It is enough to give hiddenpuma75 a small cut, and that pub atmosphere will vanish all on its own. 😍 😁

She has already earned it by cluttering every single thread with her blog posts that have nothing to do with the topics at hand, along with various claims—like her saying women are easy to understand if you just strip a man of his ability to reason. 😁

The subforum needs at least a month to recover and regain some seriousness. 😉

😈 😁

Regarding our dear mistybison, that "secret chicken" she mentioned 😈 doesn't seem to be working 🙂 so she's trying more direct methods, like channeling Thorov's lightning through conductors in the form of moderators. 😁

hiddenpuma75 said:Regarding our dear mistybison, that "secret chicken" she mentioned 😈 doesn't seem to be working 🙂 so she's trying more direct methods, like channeling Thorov's lightning through conductors in the form of moderators. 😁

I am hardly a regular forum user like hiddenpuma75, so I won't be casting spells on other members. 🙂 😁

mistybison said:Oh, there is absolutely no need to step down from moderation! It is enough to give hiddenpuma75 a small cut, and that pub atmosphere will vanish all on its own. 😍 😁

She has already earned it by cluttering every single thread with her blog posts that have nothing to do with the topics at hand, along with various claims—like her saying women are easy to understand if you just strip a man of his ability to reason. 😁

The subforum needs at least a month to recover and regain some seriousness. 😉

😈 😁

+1