Women are villains, men are saints

It’s funny how everyone loves debating "rights" and "freedoms"—as if they’re some universal guarantee—while totally ignoring the fact that these things are basically just nominal labels. Honestly? It’s more accurate to call them privileges, since whether you actually get to use them depends on a massive pile of external factors. Treating "freedom of choice" as a default setting for everyone is just delusional. Freedom is really just the flip side of power, and we all know how power actually gets handed out in a stratified society. You can talk about feminism all day, but unless you start from "how things should be," talking about "how things actually are" makes the whole effort feel pretty much futile. Feminism—just like any other theoretical construct—can't just ignore the reality of human nature and its built-in drive toward hierarchy.

Rachel Stewart36 said:It’s funny how everyone loves debating "rights" and "freedoms"—as if they’re some universal guarantee—while totally ignoring the fact that these things are basically just nominal labels. Honestly? It’s more accurate to call them privileges, since whether you actually get to use them depends on a massive pile of external factors. Treating "freedom of choice" as a default setting for everyone is just delusional. Freedom is really just the flip side of power, and we all know how power actually gets handed out in a stratified society. You can talk about feminism all day, but unless you start from "how things should be," talking about "how things actually are" makes the whole effort feel pretty much futile. Feminism—just like any other theoretical construct—can't just ignore the reality of human nature and its built-in drive toward hierarchy.

Regarding that bolded part... give me a list of women who don't have the right to choose not to sleep with me... photos included if possible.☕

And here I was thinking this was actually a legit PDF—unlike that mess from Lyles. 🙄

Rachel Stewart36 said:And here I was thinking this was actually a legit PDF—unlike that mess from Lyles. 🙄

Look, this is a pretty heavy PDF, even if the subject matter itself isn't exactly groundbreaking. I was just throwing out a specific example to push back against that one sentence I totally disagree with.🤷
You’re claiming that the "right to choose" doesn't actually exist... which just isn't true. If you really want to know where I stand: having a choice is the default setting for life. Everything else we deal with is just various attempts to chip away at that freedom, one way or another. Sometimes it's a subtle nudge, sometimes it's a sledgehammer, but it's always an attempt to limit our options.

Rachel Stewart36 said:It’s funny how everyone loves debating "rights" and "freedoms"—as if they’re some universal guarantee—while totally ignoring the fact that these things are basically just nominal labels. Honestly? It’s more accurate to call them privileges, since whether you actually get to use them depends on a massive pile of external factors. Treating "freedom of choice" as a default setting for everyone is just delusional. Freedom is really just the flip side of power, and we all know how power actually gets handed out in a stratified society. You can talk about feminism all day, but unless you start from "how things should be," talking about "how things actually are" makes the whole effort feel pretty much futile. Feminism—just like any other theoretical construct—can't just ignore the reality of human nature and its built-in drive toward hierarchy.

It seems animals have more rights than people.

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, this is a pretty heavy PDF, even if the subject matter itself isn't exactly groundbreaking. I was just throwing out a specific example to push back against that one sentence I totally disagree with.🤷
You’re claiming that the "right to choose" doesn't actually exist... which just isn't true. If you really want to know where I stand: having a choice is the default setting for life. Everything else we deal with is just various attempts to chip away at that freedom, one way or another. Sometimes it's a subtle nudge, sometimes it's a sledgehammer, but it's always an attempt to limit our options.

Maybe read a bit closer and catch the context next time. I never said the right to choose doesn't exist. Of course it does, it's just heavily conditional. A person's actual freedom depends on a mountain of factors: wealth, looks, education, bank account, social circles, family background, soft skills... Just look at the "privileges" handed to a high-end architect versus a local welder; compare what's available to one vs. the other. The first guy has a vastly larger—though still limited—range of freedom to basically engineer his own reality.

Your idea that "choice is the natural state while everything else is an attempt to reduce it" only works if we're talking about how things *should* be. But looking at "how things actually are"? It's just a long history of the masses fighting for the crumbs of freedom that the "oligarchs" deign to toss down—that's pretty much the standard human story. The notion that people were once truly free and now everyone is equally trapped is absurd. Nowadays, we just have total freedom of "consumption." Actually, that freedom is practically mandatory. For most people, "freedom" is nothing more than a well-packaged illusion.

Jeffrey Rivera2 said:It seems animals have more rights than people.

Ironic, sure, but honestly? Often true. This "civilization" we think we're living in is mostly just a polished illusion. We call ourselves a civilization, but really, it's a system built on the rights of the strongest. Rights and freedoms are mostly just convenient words on paper—usually reserved for a tiny, hand-picked minority.

Morgan Cook10 said:Don't go like that... p**** is incredibly powerful. Granted, it works best when it's paired with a great body.😁 For what it's worth... what man has ever achieved anything significant using just his dick?

I missed this part.😁So why doesn't a man's junk require an attractive body surrounding it? Hair matters, sure, but breasts and a good physique are clearly the two most important factors.

Jeffrey Rivera2 said:I missed this part.😁So why doesn't a man's junk require an attractive body surrounding it? Hair matters, sure, but breasts and a good physique are clearly the two most important factors.

A dick needs to be surrounded by a fat wallet... the body is honestly totally irrelevant!

Rachel Stewart36 said:Maybe read a bit closer and catch the context next time. I never said the right to choose doesn't exist. Of course it does, it's just heavily conditional. A person's actual freedom depends on a mountain of factors: wealth, looks, education, bank account, social circles, family background, soft skills... Just look at the "privileges" handed to a high-end architect versus a local welder; compare what's available to one vs. the other. The first guy has a vastly larger—though still limited—range of freedom to basically engineer his own reality.

Your idea that "choice is the natural state while everything else is an attempt to reduce it" only works if we're talking about how things *should* be. But looking at "how things actually are"? It's just a long history of the masses fighting for the crumbs of freedom that the "oligarchs" deign to toss down—that's pretty much the standard human story. The notion that people were once truly free and now everyone is equally trapped is absurd. Nowadays, we just have total freedom of "consumption." Actually, that freedom is practically mandatory. For most people, "freedom" is nothing more than a well-packaged illusion.

Ironic, sure, but honestly? Often true. This "civilization" we think we're living in is mostly just a polished illusion. We call ourselves a civilization, but really, it's a system built on the rights of the strongest. Rights and freedoms are mostly just convenient words on paper—usually reserved for a tiny, hand-picked minority.

Look, alongside the natural right to choose, there’s also this thing called "consequences"... which is exactly what everyone tends to forget the moment their choice doesn't turn out the way they wanted.

Take your architect and welder example... at some point, both made a choice. One chose to go to a top-tier design school, and the other chose to finish vocational training after the 10th grade. This is particularly pronounced here because, over the last 50 years, our society has essentially provided free education to everyone. Or take the case of a woman being abused by her husband... her choice would be either to stay and hope he changes—getting a certain sense of security in the process—or to leave him, which stops the abuse but simultaneously sacrifices the stability her life with him provides. Rationally, you'd pick the first option... but then again, I've never really viewed women as rational beings.

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, alongside the natural right to choose, there’s also this thing called "consequences"... which is exactly what everyone tends to forget the moment their choice doesn't turn out the way they wanted.

Take your architect and welder example... at some point, both made a choice. One chose to go to a top-tier design school, and the other chose to finish vocational training after the 10th grade. This is particularly pronounced here because, over the last 50 years, our society has essentially provided free education to everyone. Or take the case of a woman being abused by her husband... her choice would be either to stay and hope he changes—getting a certain sense of security in the process—or to leave him, which stops the abuse but simultaneously sacrifices the stability her life with him provides. Rationally, you'd pick the first option... but then again, I've never really viewed women as rational beings.

😂 and it is quite evident that you are not rational yourself

@Morgan Cook10: I find myself unable to agree with you, primarily because your argument rests on the flawed assumption that everyone begins their journey from the exact same starting line...
Even if we were to brush aside all the obvious environmental pressures—things like systemic poverty or a desperate need for immediate income that might force someone to drop out after just three years of high school when they actually had aspirations for college—there are still those innate, personality-driven factors at play. An extreme extrovert and a deep introvert simply aren't operating from the same baseline, which means that even under identical circumstances, they won't arrive at the same conclusions...

Gender carries its own set of distinct characteristics as well. Since you brought up the issue of domestic violence, you're likely aware of how cycles of abuse tend to perpetuate themselves through generations; men who were victims often grow up to become aggressors, while women who experienced abuse frequently end up marrying them. Furthermore, there's the tendency for men to approach problems through a more pragmatic lens, whereas women lean toward emotional processing. These gender differences, when layered atop all other variables, fundamentally shift one's initial standing in life...

As for your comments regarding rationality, I honestly can't take them seriously. Humans aren't rational creatures by nature; therefore, your own reasoning isn't entirely objective either, as it remains susceptible to various stereotypes and categorizations... including the ones you've presented here, which, at first glance, come across as quite chauvinistic and misogynistic... 😁

Excuse me? Most men tend to deal with their problems through alcohol and physical confrontation before they ever consider any other solution.

Jeffrey Rivera2 said:Excuse me? Most men tend to deal with their problems through alcohol and physical confrontation before they ever consider any other solution.

What we’re looking at here is a textbook case of gender stereotyping... it’s a feedback loop where both sides just keep feeding into the same tired narratives 😍

To address the title itself—neither gender actually fits those descriptions. An evolutionary psychologist might argue that this line of reasoning makes sense, given how much more reason men have to stigmatize women's rights and freedoms out of a desperate fear of appearing weak, whereas women simply don't have nearly the same incentive to police men... 😬

Donna Garcia42 said:@Morgan Cook10: I find myself unable to agree with you, primarily because your argument rests on the flawed assumption that everyone begins their journey from the exact same starting line...
Even if we were to brush aside all the obvious environmental pressures—things like systemic poverty or a desperate need for immediate income that might force someone to drop out after just three years of high school when they actually had aspirations for college—there are still those innate, personality-driven factors at play. An extreme extrovert and a deep introvert simply aren't operating from the same baseline, which means that even under identical circumstances, they won't arrive at the same conclusions...

Gender carries its own set of distinct characteristics as well. Since you brought up the issue of domestic violence, you're likely aware of how cycles of abuse tend to perpetuate themselves through generations; men who were victims often grow up to become aggressors, while women who experienced abuse frequently end up marrying them. Furthermore, there's the tendency for men to approach problems through a more pragmatic lens, whereas women lean toward emotional processing. These gender differences, when layered atop all other variables, fundamentally shift one's initial standing in life...

As for your comments regarding rationality, I honestly can't take them seriously. Humans aren't rational creatures by nature; therefore, your own reasoning isn't entirely objective either, as it remains susceptible to various stereotypes and categorizations... including the ones you've presented here, which, at first glance, come across as quite chauvinistic and misogynistic... 😁

Alright, I'll give you this much: not everyone starts with the same hand. But we need to be really careful about how we define "freedom of choice." For instance, I don't have the "choice" to decide whether I buy a Ferrari or a Porsche... I just have the choice of what to do with the money I actually have. Let's get back to the actual topic. Most women don't have the "choice" to marry Tom Cruise or Leonardo DiCaprio... but they do have the choice of whether or not to marry a specific person. My point is simply that everyone is responsible for the consequences of their own free will.

Now, look... if you're telling me that freedom of choice is just an illusion because we're all driven by these external forces you mentioned, then why wouldn't my stereotype—the one you just criticized—be wrong too? It’s the same logic: if victims of violence usually divorce and abused women often marry abusers, then it follows that men are more rational than women. Call it "gender differences" if you want.

Look, I'm happy to walk back my stereotype, but only because the core principle is that people are equal and free, and thus accountable for their actions. But if we're playing by those rules, that applies to everything, not just my stereotype. Just like a murderer can't claim they didn't know killing was illegal, a woman whose husband abuses her for years can't claim she had no choice but to leave him after the very first slap.

And if anyone thinks I'm off base... I'll just circle back to my original question: does anyone here have a list of women who don't have the choice to say no to sleeping with me?

Morgan Cook10 said:Alright, I'll give you this much: not everyone starts with the same hand. But we need to be really careful about how we define "freedom of choice." For instance, I don't have the "choice" to decide whether I buy a Ferrari or a Porsche... I just have the choice of what to do with the money I actually have. Let's get back to the actual topic. Most women don't have the "choice" to marry Tom Cruise or Leonardo DiCaprio... but they do have the choice of whether or not to marry a specific person. My point is simply that everyone is responsible for the consequences of their own free will.

Now, look... if you're telling me that freedom of choice is just an illusion because we're all driven by these external forces you mentioned, then why wouldn't my stereotype—the one you just criticized—be wrong too? It’s the same logic: if victims of violence usually divorce and abused women often marry abusers, then it follows that men are more rational than women. Call it "gender differences" if you want.

Look, I'm happy to walk back my stereotype, but only because the core principle is that people are equal and free, and thus accountable for their actions. But if we're playing by those rules, that applies to everything, not just my stereotype. Just like a murderer can't claim they didn't know killing was illegal, a woman whose husband abuses her for years can't claim she had no choice but to leave him after the very first slap.

And if anyone thinks I'm off base... I'll just circle back to my original question: does anyone here have a list of women who don't have the choice to say no to sleeping with me?

I find myself in agreement with you there, though my intention was merely to illustrate how certain people, caught in a web of unfortunate circumstances, face choices where every possible outcome looks grim from an outside perspective...

Morgan Cook10 said:Alright, I'll give you this much: not everyone starts with the same hand. But we need to be really careful about how we define "freedom of choice." For instance, I don't have the "choice" to decide whether I buy a Ferrari or a Porsche... I just have the choice of what to do with the money I actually have. Let's get back to the actual topic. Most women don't have the "choice" to marry Tom Cruise or Leonardo DiCaprio... but they do have the choice of whether or not to marry a specific person. My point is simply that everyone is responsible for the consequences of their own free will.

Now, look... if you're telling me that freedom of choice is just an illusion because we're all driven by these external forces you mentioned, then why wouldn't my stereotype—the one you just criticized—be wrong too? It’s the same logic: if victims of violence usually divorce and abused women often marry abusers, then it follows that men are more rational than women. Call it "gender differences" if you want.

Look, I'm happy to walk back my stereotype, but only because the core principle is that people are equal and free, and thus accountable for their actions. But if we're playing by those rules, that applies to everything, not just my stereotype. Just like a murderer can't claim they didn't know killing was illegal, a woman whose husband abuses her for years can't claim she had no choice but to leave him after the very first slap.

And if anyone thinks I'm off base... I'll just circle back to my original question: does anyone here have a list of women who don't have the choice to say no to sleeping with me?

I prefer to view those various factors as defining the parameters within which a choice can be made... and that by influencing those very factors, we might actually shift the boundaries of that framework... 😁 I wouldn't call myself an extreme determinist, but I do believe certain variables are set in stone...

Morgan Cook10 said:Alright, I'll give you this much: not everyone starts with the same hand. But we need to be really careful about how we define "freedom of choice." For instance, I don't have the "choice" to decide whether I buy a Ferrari or a Porsche... I just have the choice of what to do with the money I actually have. Let's get back to the actual topic. Most women don't have the "choice" to marry Tom Cruise or Leonardo DiCaprio... but they do have the choice of whether or not to marry a specific person. My point is simply that everyone is responsible for the consequences of their own free will.

Now, look... if you're telling me that freedom of choice is just an illusion because we're all driven by these external forces you mentioned, then why wouldn't my stereotype—the one you just criticized—be wrong too? It’s the same logic: if victims of violence usually divorce and abused women often marry abusers, then it follows that men are more rational than women. Call it "gender differences" if you want.

Look, I'm happy to walk back my stereotype, but only because the core principle is that people are equal and free, and thus accountable for their actions. But if we're playing by those rules, that applies to everything, not just my stereotype. Just like a murderer can't claim they didn't know killing was illegal, a woman whose husband abuses her for years can't claim she had no choice but to leave him after the very first slap.

And if anyone thinks I'm off base... I'll just circle back to my original question: does anyone here have a list of women who don't have the choice to say no to sleeping with me?

Because every stereotype, by its very definition, is flawed. Let’s be honest, we all rely on them; they're practically necessary for navigating the world without losing our minds. However, making an accurate assessment requires much deeper scrutiny—because you will rarely encounter an individual who fits every single requirement of your preconceived notion about them, let alone when you factor in the sheer complexity of a human being...

Morgan Cook10 said:Alright, I'll give you this much: not everyone starts with the same hand. But we need to be really careful about how we define "freedom of choice." For instance, I don't have the "choice" to decide whether I buy a Ferrari or a Porsche... I just have the choice of what to do with the money I actually have. Let's get back to the actual topic. Most women don't have the "choice" to marry Tom Cruise or Leonardo DiCaprio... but they do have the choice of whether or not to marry a specific person. My point is simply that everyone is responsible for the consequences of their own free will.

Now, look... if you're telling me that freedom of choice is just an illusion because we're all driven by these external forces you mentioned, then why wouldn't my stereotype—the one you just criticized—be wrong too? It’s the same logic: if victims of violence usually divorce and abused women often marry abusers, then it follows that men are more rational than women. Call it "gender differences" if you want.

Look, I'm happy to walk back my stereotype, but only because the core principle is that people are equal and free, and thus accountable for their actions. But if we're playing by those rules, that applies to everything, not just my stereotype. Just like a murderer can't claim they didn't know killing was illegal, a woman whose husband abuses her for years can't claim she had no choice but to leave him after the very first slap.

And if anyone thinks I'm off base... I'll just circle back to my original question: does anyone here have a list of women who don't have the choice to say no to sleeping with me?

That seems to hinge on the assumption that the only truly rational choice is one entirely stripped of emotion, under the premise that women are more emotional than men. Yet, emotions are vital to any decision-making process at all—in fact, some argue that without emotion, human action wouldn't even exist. We end up back at the fundamental question of what rationality actually is, leading us once again to the inevitable conclusion that we are dealing with far too many inexplicable constructs here... 😁

Donna Garcia42 said:I find myself in agreement with you there, though my intention was merely to illustrate how certain people, caught in a web of unfortunate circumstances, face choices where every possible outcome looks grim from an outside perspective...

I prefer to view those various factors as defining the parameters within which a choice can be made... and that by influencing those very factors, we might actually shift the boundaries of that framework... 😁 I wouldn't call myself an extreme determinist, but I do believe certain variables are set in stone...

Because every stereotype, by its very definition, is flawed. Let’s be honest, we all rely on them; they're practically necessary for navigating the world without losing our minds. However, making an accurate assessment requires much deeper scrutiny—because you will rarely encounter an individual who fits every single requirement of your preconceived notion about them, let alone when you factor in the sheer complexity of a human being...

That seems to hinge on the assumption that the only truly rational choice is one entirely stripped of emotion, under the premise that women are more emotional than men. Yet, emotions are vital to any decision-making process at all—in fact, some argue that without emotion, human action wouldn't even exist. We end up back at the fundamental question of what rationality actually is, leading us once again to the inevitable conclusion that we are dealing with far too many inexplicable constructs here... 😁

Don't get me wrong—I’ve got nothing against determinism or fatalism. Call it whatever you want. But the problem is that if you lean too hard into either one, the whole concept of "guilt" just evaporates. You have to be careful with those terms; they aren't exactly great tools for building any kind of functional society.

Donna Garcia42 said:I find myself in agreement with you there, though my intention was merely to illustrate how certain people, caught in a web of unfortunate circumstances, face choices where every possible outcome looks grim from an outside perspective...

I prefer to view those various factors as defining the parameters within which a choice can be made... and that by influencing those very factors, we might actually shift the boundaries of that framework... 😁 I wouldn't call myself an extreme determinist, but I do believe certain variables are set in stone...

Because every stereotype, by its very definition, is flawed. Let’s be honest, we all rely on them; they're practically necessary for navigating the world without losing our minds. However, making an accurate assessment requires much deeper scrutiny—because you will rarely encounter an individual who fits every single requirement of your preconceived notion about them, let alone when you factor in the sheer complexity of a human being...

That seems to hinge on the assumption that the only truly rational choice is one entirely stripped of emotion, under the premise that women are more emotional than men. Yet, emotions are vital to any decision-making process at all—in fact, some argue that without emotion, human action wouldn't even exist. We end up back at the fundamental question of what rationality actually is, leading us once again to the inevitable conclusion that we are dealing with far too many inexplicable constructs here... 😁

Look, I honestly think stereotypes can be pretty useful because they’re usually just a buildup of actual information over time. There’s this one line I came across that really stuck with me: Expect the clichés, and you’ll never have to deal with the disappointment.

Donna Garcia42 said:I find myself in agreement with you there, though my intention was merely to illustrate how certain people, caught in a web of unfortunate circumstances, face choices where every possible outcome looks grim from an outside perspective...

I prefer to view those various factors as defining the parameters within which a choice can be made... and that by influencing those very factors, we might actually shift the boundaries of that framework... 😁 I wouldn't call myself an extreme determinist, but I do believe certain variables are set in stone...

Because every stereotype, by its very definition, is flawed. Let’s be honest, we all rely on them; they're practically necessary for navigating the world without losing our minds. However, making an accurate assessment requires much deeper scrutiny—because you will rarely encounter an individual who fits every single requirement of your preconceived notion about them, let alone when you factor in the sheer complexity of a human being...

That seems to hinge on the assumption that the only truly rational choice is one entirely stripped of emotion, under the premise that women are more emotional than men. Yet, emotions are vital to any decision-making process at all—in fact, some argue that without emotion, human action wouldn't even exist. We end up back at the fundamental question of what rationality actually is, leading us once again to the inevitable conclusion that we are dealing with far too many inexplicable constructs here... 😁

Rationality is basically defined as being stripped of all emotion. In a perfect world, the most logical choice would be one completely devoid of feeling. But let’s be real—in the actual world, I allow for some emotional input, just to a certain extent. I draw the line at letting people use their feelings as an excuse to dodge accountability for what they've done. I'm big on using real-world analogies to make a point, so here's one for you: you can't expect a woman to sit there and play the victim after her husband has cheated on her fifteen times.🤷 Men tend to be way more logical about this stuff... once a woman cheats on them for the first time, some guys might let it slide, but most will just walk away and never look back.

brightridge59 said:I certainly wouldn't want to make a broad generalization, but I feel like that is exactly what you're doing right now. 😁

Do you have any examples of female villains? I’m looking for characters that sort of capture the essence of most women, if that makes sense.

To be perfectly honest, I’ve always found myself gravitating toward male-dominated circles. There’s just something about the dynamic that feels more intuitive to me; I find it much easier to strike up a conversation and truly find common ground with men than I ever have with the opposite sex.

Do you happen to be on the same page as I am regarding this matter? 🙂

I’ve found that I tend to get along much more easily with men; there’s just a certain relaxed, open, and genuinely fun energy about them that I find really refreshing. To be perfectly honest, based on my own personal experiences, I’ve often found women to be somewhat more difficult—tending toward being unkind, envious, or even a bit hypocritical. It seems like our conversations frequently drift toward trivialities that simply don't capture my interest or leave me feeling quite bored, so if we’re talking about ease of connection, I definitely give the edge to the guys. Of course, I realize this is strictly my own subjective take on things, and I’m sure many others would have a completely different perspective to share. After all, there's a saying for a reason—different strokes for different folks!

I certainly respect that it’s your personal take on the matter, but I have to wonder—where is the actual evidence to support the claim that women are inherently unpleasant?

To be honest, I find myself gravitating toward male company quite often. It isn’t necessarily about being in a large group where it’s five guys and me, though; more often than not, it’s just those meaningful one-on-one conversations that I truly value. In fact, if I look at my inner circle, I actually have more close male friends than female ones. My relationships with women tend to stay a bit more on the surface level—usually centered around grabbing coffee, going out for drinks, or just chatting about the latest guys we've encountered. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I find the depth I share with my male friends to be much more fulfilling.

I also have a few wonderful girlfriends in my circle whom I can say, with absolute certainty, are truly lovely people. They aren't just friends out of habit or convenience; they are genuinely kind souls through and through. 🙂

I honestly can’t quite wrap my head around how the title even relates to the actual topic at hand. It feels completely disconnected. From what I can gather, it just looks like a gathering of some well-known, rather frustrated men.

What truly weighs on my mind—and I find it genuinely unsettling—is that even when you weigh all those arguments regarding the historical suppression of women, there remains this lingering question. I was actually discussing this recently with an old friend of mine, much like how one might sit down for a long chat over coffee in Seattle, and we touched upon a profound paradox. If women finally have the autonomy to choose their own paths—choices that previous generations quite literally fought and died for—why is it that some still gravitate toward being exclusively a mother, a homemaker, and a wife? It’s a complex puzzle that I can't help but dwell on.

That is a very strange "concern." In reality, most women want to be "just" that, because that role is so massive it fills an entire lifetime.

Raising and nurturing a child is far more demanding than earning a degree and building a corporate career.

Seriously—it’s as if I, someone working a white-collar mental job, would judge or look down on people who make their living through manual labor. They are satisfied and fulfilled by what they do. They couldn't care less about degrees or doctorates or whatever else.

brightridge59 said:I think you might have taken my post a bit too literally.

I didn't anticipate needing to clarify, but I suppose I will.

When I say someone "ceases to exist," I'm referring to her sense of self—who she is as an individual. I don't know how many young mothers you've encountered in your life, but I certainly know plenty.

They often lose sight of themselves—their hobbies, their passions, and all those little things that made them who they were before marriage and children came into the picture. To me, that specific version of the person I once knew effectively disappears, replaced by the roles she has stepped into: mother, wife, homemaker.

Fair enough, but those are just certain instances. How do you account for the women who walk away from high-powered careers specifically to focus on their kids? I personally know two such women, and let me tell you, when they left their firms, there was a massive void left in their departments. They were incredibly talented, top-tier professionals. Now, they're home, fully dedicated to raising their little ones, and they are genuinely happy doing it. 🙂

My point is that these women are making a conscious, rational choice. They have the common sense and the agency to ensure that motherhood and marriage aren't their *only* sources of fulfillment. Kudos to them. 👍

However, I still feel that the percentage of women choosing this path could be higher. I can't help but wonder if it's because men aren't stepping up to shoulder half of the parenting and household duties, which forces women to stay home, or if it's just a matter of following the path of least resistance.

It’s actually quite disheartening when I go to visit a friend who has a child; nearly every single thing she talks about revolves around her kid, someone else's kid, or her husband (usually something about his job at a firm like Goldman Sachs or similar).

In those moments, I find myself thinking—honey, where did *you* go?

That’s just how it goes as you get older, sweetie. I mean, what else is a married woman who just gave birth supposed to talk about? Some guys she met at a club the night before? 🙄

Look, honey, maybe grow up a little first before you start complaining. Or don't, I don't really care. 🤷

Rachel Stewart36 said:Maybe read a bit closer and catch the context next time. I never said the right to choose doesn't exist. Of course it does, it's just heavily conditional. A person's actual freedom depends on a mountain of factors: wealth, looks, education, bank account, social circles, family background, soft skills... Just look at the "privileges" handed to a high-end architect versus a local welder; compare what's available to one vs. the other. The first guy has a vastly larger—though still limited—range of freedom to basically engineer his own reality.

Your idea that "choice is the natural state while everything else is an attempt to reduce it" only works if we're talking about how things *should* be. But looking at "how things actually are"? It's just a long history of the masses fighting for the crumbs of freedom that the "oligarchs" deign to toss down—that's pretty much the standard human story. The notion that people were once truly free and now everyone is equally trapped is absurd. Nowadays, we just have total freedom of "consumption." Actually, that freedom is practically mandatory. For most people, "freedom" is nothing more than a well-packaged illusion.

Ironic, sure, but honestly? Often true. This "civilization" we think we're living in is mostly just a polished illusion. We call ourselves a civilization, but really, it's a system built on the rights of the strongest. Rights and freedoms are mostly just convenient words on paper—usually reserved for a tiny, hand-picked minority.

Oh, please, you've got it wrong. Because feminists know they have the right to choose.

Donna Garcia42 said:@Morgan Cook10: I find myself unable to agree with you, primarily because your argument rests on the flawed assumption that everyone begins their journey from the exact same starting line...
Even if we were to brush aside all the obvious environmental pressures—things like systemic poverty or a desperate need for immediate income that might force someone to drop out after just three years of high school when they actually had aspirations for college—there are still those innate, personality-driven factors at play. An extreme extrovert and a deep introvert simply aren't operating from the same baseline, which means that even under identical circumstances, they won't arrive at the same conclusions...

Gender carries its own set of distinct characteristics as well. Since you brought up the issue of domestic violence, you're likely aware of how cycles of abuse tend to perpetuate themselves through generations; men who were victims often grow up to become aggressors, while women who experienced abuse frequently end up marrying them. Furthermore, there's the tendency for men to approach problems through a more pragmatic lens, whereas women lean toward emotional processing. These gender differences, when layered atop all other variables, fundamentally shift one's initial standing in life...

As for your comments regarding rationality, I honestly can't take them seriously. Humans aren't rational creatures by nature; therefore, your own reasoning isn't entirely objective either, as it remains susceptible to various stereotypes and categorizations... including the ones you've presented here, which, at first glance, come across as quite chauvinistic and misogynistic... 😁

Now, this is a woman who knows how to think. 👍

Though getting rid of stereotypes is easy. That's mostly just folklore. People who believe in them actually know they're illusions. But projections... that's the real mess. And that's much harder.

Morgan Cook10 said:Don't get me wrong—I’ve got nothing against determinism or fatalism. Call it whatever you want. But the problem is that if you lean too hard into either one, the whole concept of "guilt" just evaporates. You have to be careful with those terms; they aren't exactly great tools for building any kind of functional society.

Look, I honestly think stereotypes can be pretty useful because they’re usually just a buildup of actual information over time. There’s this one line I came across that really stuck with me: Expect the clichés, and you’ll never have to deal with the disappointment.

Rationality is basically defined as being stripped of all emotion. In a perfect world, the most logical choice would be one completely devoid of feeling. But let’s be real—in the actual world, I allow for some emotional input, just to a certain extent. I draw the line at letting people use their feelings as an excuse to dodge accountability for what they've done. I'm big on using real-world analogies to make a point, so here's one for you: you can't expect a woman to sit there and play the victim after her husband has cheated on her fifteen times.🤷 Men tend to be way more logical about this stuff... once a woman cheats on them for the first time, some guys might let it slide, but most will just walk away and never look back.

I am certainly not suggesting that stereotypes lack value. 😁 My point is simply that the world doesn't operate strictly according to them; if it did, we would be living in a purely deterministic universe where every single human behavior could be predicted with mathematical certainty. If every victim of domestic abuse fell perfectly into a predictable stereotype, there would be no variation in their outcomes—they would either all escape their abusers or all remain until the situation turned fatal. Stereotypes provide us with mental shortcuts for perception and reasoning, but much like everything else in this existence, they aren't 100% accurate. And let's be clear, I am discussing broad stereotypes here, not the granular subcategories that exist solely to reinforce those very generalizations.

Morgan Cook10 said:Don't get me wrong—I’ve got nothing against determinism or fatalism. Call it whatever you want. But the problem is that if you lean too hard into either one, the whole concept of "guilt" just evaporates. You have to be careful with those terms; they aren't exactly great tools for building any kind of functional society.

Look, I honestly think stereotypes can be pretty useful because they’re usually just a buildup of actual information over time. There’s this one line I came across that really stuck with me: Expect the clichés, and you’ll never have to deal with the disappointment.

Rationality is basically defined as being stripped of all emotion. In a perfect world, the most logical choice would be one completely devoid of feeling. But let’s be real—in the actual world, I allow for some emotional input, just to a certain extent. I draw the line at letting people use their feelings as an excuse to dodge accountability for what they've done. I'm big on using real-world analogies to make a point, so here's one for you: you can't expect a woman to sit there and play the victim after her husband has cheated on her fifteen times.🤷 Men tend to be way more logical about this stuff... once a woman cheats on them for the first time, some guys might let it slide, but most will just walk away and never look back.

Well, yes, but as you noted, that logic only truly applies to machines. Personally, I believe emotions play a vital role in rational deduction, because you need some kind of metric for gain or loss to evaluate any given action. Emotions serve as a sort of internal evaluation system. "This action leads to a sense of happiness, so let's do it more often" or "Oops, I feel embarrassed, I'm never doing that again"!
Furthermore, the prefrontal cortex—the damage of which leads to those "interesting" shifts in decision-making abilities—serves as the nexus connecting the sensorimotor and motor functions with the emotional components of the nervous system. To wrap up this little tirade: the exact role that emotions play in our final conclusions remains far from settled...

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, alongside the natural right to choose, there’s also this thing called "consequences"... which is exactly what everyone tends to forget the moment their choice doesn't turn out the way they wanted.

Take your architect and welder example... at some point, both made a choice. One chose to go to a top-tier design school, and the other chose to finish vocational training after the 10th grade. This is particularly pronounced here because, over the last 50 years, our society has essentially provided free education to everyone. Or take the case of a woman being abused by her husband... her choice would be either to stay and hope he changes—getting a certain sense of security in the process—or to leave him, which stops the abuse but simultaneously sacrifices the stability her life with him provides. Rationally, you'd pick the first option... but then again, I've never really viewed women as rational beings.

I think you’re totally misreading my point. I’m not talking about some "concrete" right to choose; I’m talking about freedom within a static-dynamic social structure. I mean the actual possibility of exercising that freedom while playing by the "rules of the game" the system sets. Your example—saying you can't choose to buy a Ferrari or a Porsche, but you *can* choose what to do with the cash you actually have—is just looking at freedom through a narrow lens. You're missing the "higher order" logic based on the abstract definition of freedom I'm discussing. Donna Garcia42 actually touched on this in post # 172 when she talked about unequal starting positions. Looking at your exchange with her, it seems you're still approaching the concept of choice (which is synonymous with freedom in my terms) from a much lower level of abstraction, so I doubt there's any point in continuing this debate.😉

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, alongside the natural right to choose, there’s also this thing called "consequences"... which is exactly what everyone tends to forget the moment their choice doesn't turn out the way they wanted.

Take your architect and welder example... at some point, both made a choice. One chose to go to a top-tier design school, and the other chose to finish vocational training after the 10th grade. This is particularly pronounced here because, over the last 50 years, our society has essentially provided free education to everyone. Or take the case of a woman being abused by her husband... her choice would be either to stay and hope he changes—getting a certain sense of security in the process—or to leave him, which stops the abuse but simultaneously sacrifices the stability her life with him provides. Rationally, you'd pick the first option... but then again, I've never really viewed women as rational beings.

Chatterbox Quote

Morgan Cook10 said:Don't get me wrong—I’ve got nothing against determinism or fatalism. Call it whatever you want. But the problem is that if you lean too hard into either one, the whole concept of "guilt" just evaporates. You have to be careful with those terms; they aren't exactly great tools for building any kind of functional society.

Look, I honestly think stereotypes can be pretty useful because they’re usually just a buildup of actual information over time. There’s this one line I came across that really stuck with me: Expect the clichés, and you’ll never have to deal with the disappointment.

Rationality is basically defined as being stripped of all emotion. In a perfect world, the most logical choice would be one completely devoid of feeling. But let’s be real—in the actual world, I allow for some emotional input, just to a certain extent. I draw the line at letting people use their feelings as an excuse to dodge accountability for what they've done. I'm big on using real-world analogies to make a point, so here's one for you: you can't expect a woman to sit there and play the victim after her husband has cheated on her fifteen times.🤷 Men tend to be way more logical about this stuff... once a woman cheats on them for the first time, some guys might let it slide, but most will just walk away and never look back.

And that’s only true by definition; in reality, every single human action is conditioned by emotion or impulse to some degree. Consciousness—the intellect—is inextricably linked to will (which is essentially driven by emotion). Any attempt to mechanically strip that organic unity apart just results in a broken outcome.

Drew Lee7 said:That’s just how it goes as you get older, sweetie. I mean, what else is a married woman who just gave birth supposed to talk about? Some guys she met at a club the night before? 🙄

Look, honey, maybe grow up a little first before you start complaining. Or don't, I don't really care. 🤷

Oh, please, you've got it wrong. Because feminists know they have the right to choose.

Now, this is a woman who knows how to think. 👍

Though getting rid of stereotypes is easy. That's mostly just folklore. People who believe in them actually know they're illusions. But projections... that's the real mess. And that's much harder.

I'm not talking about just being aware that choice exists—I'm talking about how messy and difficult it actually is to exercise that freedom.