Ahh good point. This is why I try not to generalize too much because usually I AM ALWAYS WRONG like here now that I take a step back. I read the article and agree with a lot of it. Actually in my experience I find it statistically irrelevant the positives vs negatives in any particular gender. Neither is superior, they both are very human, that's usually where I leave it, but this time I didn't and look where it gets me, nowhere. Anyone that finds a person's background a skill or liability as far as things they cannot help is committing a civil rights violation in my opinion, end of story. Employers are allowed to be shady in this respect up to a point because more often than not, that's the law, whether we like it or not. Until the exact wording and full enforcement of the law is carried out, the behavior continues until it is outgrown and rightfully shamed out of (especially mainstream) existence. That's why I wish reformers would more so lobby collectively for their vote to truly matter and get the attention of everybody in higher office, like in PACs, or whatever legal option there is to form collective single issue interests. I have not read it because I cannot locate the title at the moment, but there was a book I'd really like to read by someone who studies the Quakers, and found that they had been on the ground floor of countless social change in the United States, even worldwide. The author laid out about 20 principles, of which only a few I can remember him discussing on the radio, one was not caring about getting credit for your accomplishment or caring who gets credit for the accomplishment. Another was carrying out the movement for the social change throughout your lifetime and accepting that you may not live to see the in this desired social change in your lifetime. All I could remember was that they were the polar opposite of the most tightly held ideals, at the minimum of national politics as of today, lol. Of course the Abolitionist Movement of the 19th century comes to mind there and the Civil Rights Reforms of the 1960's (and ongoing). That's what I get for generalizing, like usual wrong again.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Oh that's alright! We're here to untangle this and think through it together. :) The problem with a platform like this that is completely decentralized and lawless is that there's no way to enforce anything unless you get everyone to bandwagon on it, and mob rule can be really... bad. And if we're in a situation where women are outnumbered 5 to 1 then obviously women's interests aren't going to be pushed by the mob. IMO, the only solution is for us to bring more women onto this platform. Same goes for any underrepresented group on here. We need more diverse voices. Only then will the balance of power even out!
Yes, agreed, you get bat (excriment) peasant revolution craziness like this. I visited your blog because I saw you on @davemccoy 's page earlier as well on as on asher's abh12345. I actual started the day before @davemccoy did, and we have been chatting up ever since very early on here. I am on most of the same discord servers (cryptkeeper17 #6637) if you would ever like to explore some options in how to organically grow your account with others I have been lucky enough to work with. Thanks for the great chat, if not interested best of luck keep up the great work!
I added you on discord. I’m always up for sharing ideas!