0
   

Is sexism prolonged psychological latency?

 
 
Deckard
 
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 06:29 pm
Freud said there is a latency period, a period of libidinal dormancy, during which the boy resolves the Oedipal complex and the girl resolves the Electra complex. This is a period of time when the boy and the girl are choosing sides in the family drama. Resolution means the boy chooses the Dad over his Mom and the girl chooses her Mom over her Dad. It makes some sense that during this time the child will seem to despise the opposite sex. Boys will say "girls are yucky!" and girls will say "Boys are yucky!" but really this is fall out from the resolving complex...there are unstated and unconscious premises. For the boys the unconscious logic is "Mom is a girl (and I'm choosing Dad and therefor all girls are yucky!)" and for girls the logic is as follows "Dad is a girl (and I'm choosing Mom and therefor all boys are yucky!)"

It makes sense to me that sexism, whether it be in the male or the female, is a sort of prolonged latency perhaps due to an unresolved Oedipus complex. Now puberty kicks in whether one is ready for it or not so when the hormones start pumping those who are still struggling to resolve the complex will still start having sexual feelings. Perhaps "latency" isn't really the right term to use but I am speaking of a purely psychological latency lagging behind the inevitable biological programming that ends the libidinal latency. After puberty and in later life "girls are yucky!" becomes "women are *****es!" and "boys are yucky!" becomes "Men are pigs!"

Thoughts?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,695 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
Jebediah
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 06:38 pm
@Deckard,
Sexism isn't really something I've read much about. Off the top of my head I can think of two kinds, which I would call informational and spiteful.

Informational is similar to many other areas where people come to false conclusions because of how we infer generalized statements from minimal data. People come to false conclusions about women or men in the same way they come to false conclusions about socialism, the weather, the best kind of soap etc. I think that people who are passionate about gender issues react too harshly about this sort of sexism.

Spiteful would seem to come from the naturally emotion laden interaction between the sexes. Like when people who have been rejected a lot, or feel they don't meet what they perceive as the standards of the opposite sex, react defensively.

I don't know much about Freud so I can't really respond to your theory, but this popped into my head when I read it.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 07:19 pm
@Deckard,
Sex is a form, and a form of relationship...But, it is also a persistent state of identity that is often used as a pat explanation for all sorts of behavior... I wish I could agree with Anni Defranco that women learn to be women and men learn to be men; but there seems to be some sense of it almost from birth... So in some sense it holds the place in peoples minds as an idea explaning all sorts of things, and also that of a form directing and structuring human behavior... of what you say... I am not sure I agree, but i will think of it...
0 Replies
 
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 07:30 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;158602 wrote:
Sexism isn't really something I've read much about. Off the top of my head I can think of two kinds, which I would call informational and spiteful.

Informational is similar to many other areas where people come to false conclusions because of how we infer generalized statements from minimal data. People come to false conclusions about women or men in the same way they come to false conclusions about socialism, the weather, the best kind of soap etc. I think that people who are passionate about gender issues react too harshly about this sort of sexism.

Spiteful would seem to come from the naturally emotion laden interaction between the sexes. Like when people who have been rejected a lot, or feel they don't meet what they perceive as the standards of the opposite sex, react defensively.

I don't know much about Freud so I can't really respond to your theory, but this popped into my head when I read it.

Yeah that's a pretty good answer. I think what I'm talking about lies somewhere in between the two and overlaps both the informational sexism and the spiteful sexism perhaps underlying both at a subconscious level (since I am talking about Freud). But I think your two categories are good.

The spiteful: Perhaps the experience of rejection sort of pushes for example a boy back into that stage of psychologically latent stage "girls are yucky/women are *****es". I mean the stage is there, it is a familiar pattern of thinking that the rejected may fall back on and find comfort in. In a sense the stage of latency (most of grade-school really) is a spiteful stage in which girls are excluded from the boys activities and boys are excluded from the girl's activities.

The informational: First, at least some of the information is disseminated by the spiteful. Also the normal latency stage creates an informational rift between the boys and the girls. Speaking for myself, I had one tom-boy friend when I was around 4 named Mandy but didn't really hang out with girls until 5th grade and didn't really start having longer more interesting conversations and relations with girls until maybe 8th or 9th grade. That's quite a long period of no communication.

So I think both forms of sexism that you propose: the spiteful and the informational could both be attributed to the latency stage in some round about way. The oedipal or phallic stage according to Freud occurs between the ages of three and six. The latency phase lasts from the end of the phallic to the beginning of the "genital phase" which begins with puberty. Freud focuses heavily on the oedipal stage and the oedipal complex perhaps because he was more obsessed with the idea of the subconscious than he should have been. It is during the latency stage that children really start to become conscious. Freud seems to almost disregard this stage as a sort of recovery period from the trauma of the Oedipal/phallic stage of choosing between Mother and Father. The Latency phase is really a mental phase during which ideas and logic reign supreme. Are you smarter than a fifth grader? After puberty the "genital phase" follows the latency phase and logic gets a bit muddled with this new riddle.

It is during the latency stage that consciousness of the human sort of comes into its own...though still lacking the mysterious information of sex. Again i think Freud underemphasizes this stage because he was so obsessed with the idea of the subconscious Id and Super-ego (which is really part of the Id). What is more if maladies like sexism (whether spiteful or informational) have their root in that more conscious phase well then it stands to follow they would be much easier to resolve i.e. we don't need some psychoanalytical witch doctor to dig them out of our subconsciousness they are all right there on the surface in plain sight...the battle of the sexes began in grade-school ...and some are still fighting it. But saying that understates the trauma of puberty...but how much more difficult that trauma of puberty is if the lessons of latency have not been learned.

---------- Post added 04-30-2010 at 09:19 PM ----------

Fido;158616 wrote:
Sex is a form, and a form of relationship...But, it is also a persistent state of identity that is often used as a pat explanation for all sorts of behavior... I wish I could agree with Anni Defranco that women learn to be women and men learn to be men; but there seems to be some sense of it almost from birth... So in some sense it holds the place in peoples minds as an idea explaning all sorts of things, and also that of a form directing and structuring human behavior... of what you say... I am not sure I agree, but i will think of it...


"Anatomy is destiny" - Freud

I think learning to be men and learning to be women is what the latency phase is all about so that when the bombshell of puberty hits we are ready for it...and then we have to sort of learn it all over again for real rather than just by imitating our elders. I think the phallic phase (age 3-6) is really about the child becoming conscious of the two sexes and how they relate to the mother and the father. Maybe this presumes the bourgeoisie family unit but I don't think this is enough to discredit Frued and is overemphasized by his critics. The Oedipal struggle does not necessarily have to be associated with ones actual mother and father. In any societal familial setup (barring some radical segregation of the sexes) the boys and girls are going to become conscious of the difference between the sexes the ages of 3 and 6. That the latency phase lasts as long as it does and/or that it is necessary to have an adolescent stage that is as long as it is may indeed be a bourgeoisie construct. The same pattern has to happen regardless: Recognition of the difference...recovery and learning what this difference means...puberty...recovery and learning what puberty means. I think Ani Defranco is right more or less...and perhaps in a perfect world and a perfect society (which has never yet happened and probably never will) the task of learning to be men and learning to be women would be accomplished before puberty or shortly after.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 08:33 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;158621 wrote:
So I think both forms of sexism that you propose: the spiteful and the informational could both be attributed to the latency stage in some round about way.

...the battle of the sexes began in grade-school ...and some are still fighting it. But saying that understates the trauma of puberty...but how much more difficult that trauma of puberty is if the lessons of latency have not been learned.

Does this conflict necessarily result in females being seen as sub-human? Do we always see an enemy as inferior?

And how would we figure in social change? Would condemnation of sexism represent a profound alteration in the way humans develop psychologically?

Or is sexism hard-wired so that it will eventually return as the accepted norm?

I think the only way to see what female humans really are is to separate femininity from female. Femininity is a collection of human traits that the sexes actually share. A female human is just that: a human. I wonder at what stage of development the ability to recognize humanity appears... to see the living person behind the sex. Or is that actually a primal state which we eventually lose?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 09:04 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;158634 wrote:
Does this conflict necessarily result in females being seen as sub-human? Do we always see an enemy as inferior?

And how would we figure in social change? Would condemnation of sexism represent a profound alteration in the way humans develop psychologically?

Or is sexism hard-wired so that it will eventually return as the accepted norm?

I think the only way to see what female humans really are is to separate femininity from female. Femininity is a collection of human traits that the sexes actually share. A female human is just that: a human. I wonder at what stage of development the ability to recognize humanity appears... to see the living person behind the sex. Or is that actually a primal state which we eventually lose?

We always objectify our enemies, label them, and make them things instead of human beings... To do this to women is like trying to dance while standing with one foot upon the other...

The problem is is our conception of the individual... We can talk of individual men, or individual women, or even individual bricks, but the individual human is one capable of reproduction, since we are dieocious, and so individually sterile... Only with women can men complete their life cycle, and only with men can women complete theirs...And unless you cannot be divided you are not an individual, but to divide men from women is the destruction of both as a biological entity...To be joined is what it takes to be a complete individual human, and that seldom occurs with an overburden of sexual preconceptions...We can trust only one person to tell us what it means to be a woman, or a man... The form is essentially meaningless with the focus on the relationship... Or as Shakespeare said: When two people ride a horse, some one has to sit in front...I don't like my wife much now, and I don't know if I ever did, but in most respects she was my mental superior...If I had tried to hold her to a certain formula of behavior I would have been the loser...I would probably be far ahead if I had taken her lead more... So it does not matter who sits in front if the goal is the same for each... It does not matter who drives as long as they are drunk...Or something like that...
0 Replies
 
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 10:46 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;158634 wrote:
Does this conflict necessarily result in females being seen as sub-human? Do we always see an enemy as inferior?

And how would we figure in social change? Would condemnation of sexism represent a profound alteration in the way humans develop psychologically?

Or is sexism hard-wired so that it will eventually return as the accepted norm?

I think the only way to see what female humans really are is to separate femininity from female. Femininity is a collection of human traits that the sexes actually share. A female human is just that: a human. I wonder at what stage of development the ability to recognize humanity appears... to see the living person behind the sex. Or is that actually a primal state which we eventually lose?


I wince a little at the thought about separating femininity from the female as that femininity is perhaps what I find the most attractive at the instinctual level. I wince in the same way that I wince when someone tells me that a "1" is a "0". Femininity as weakness and dependence is a different thing but femininity qua femininity? No I think that is a difference that we want to keep around.

I think as humans, and as conscious beings we have a special case. Humans and maybe some of the other primates don't have a specific mating season. Males are pretty much ready to go all the time and females too with some perhaps some monthly exceptions. In the off season I think the other mammals are virtually oblivious to their sexuality. But to us humans there is no off season really so we have to figure it out at the conscious level.

That conscious recognition of the difference between male and female as an actual rather than instinctual difference is really similar to the Oedipal/phalic phase that Freud identified in the individual human. It's something that the other mammals don't really experience with the possible exception of the great apes.

The menstruation cycle I think is very important here. Most other mammals the females only ovulate once or a few times a year. Mice, rabbits and other rodents are an exception; I haven't researched the facts as to how often they ovulate. Regardless, it is reasonably safe to say that (even after reading Watership Down) the rodents don't really have the mental capacity to be conscious of the differences between males and females in anything similar to the way that humans (and perhaps some of the great apes) are conscious of them.

Instincts are not enough to deal with the ever-present recognized reality of a division between male and female within the population that has a year round mating season makes necessary. At this point I might even pose the theory that higher consciousness i.e. consciousness above the instinctual level was born out of the necessity of keeping the difference between male and female straight. That is a realization that occurs in humans (at least) well before puberty. I think that Darwin's criteria of "survival of the fittest" would likely naturally select those humans who could distinguish sexual difference well before puberty rather than those who didn't have such foresight.

This is not to say that consciousness of the difference between male and female is not an instinct. It could still be an instinct but it would be an instinct unattached from the instinct towards reproduction. What other reason for such a pre-procreative distinction than the advantage over those who only became aware of this distinction when the female was ovulating.

I am out on a limb here but I find the idea intriguing. Consciousness of the difference between male and female before breeding age could very well carry with it many epiphenomenal facets...such as the difference between one and zero... perhaps even the difference between yes and no... and whatever binary oppositions that the young human race would be capable of distinguishing yin and yang my brothers and sisters yin and yang. The duad. Not something to spit at my dear Pythagoreans but the beginning of it all and yes it was all about he and she all along. Once the floodgates were opened enough to allow for the (Darwinisticly adventageous) conscious distinguishing between male and female all else sort of follows as a matter of course... a cosmic trigger that opened up to us the world of yes and no, of black and white, of you and me, of this and that. What Freud called in his naive understanding of it's broader implications "the phallic stage".

There are other binary oppositions that would be adventageous to a mammal year round but none quite so subtle as the difference between male and female. And with the constant level of awareness of the subtle difference between male and female many other subtle distinctions followed as a matter of course accidentally and natural selection made the most of these differences until one day several million years later we were making computers that knew the difference between a "1" and a "0".

Yes I am out on a limb, but it is possible that this is the case. Sorry for the prolix; it's time for me to turn in for the night.
Razzleg
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 01:47 am
@Deckard,
I'm not as familiar with Freud as I would like to be, so I'm not sure if I am in an appropriate position to evaluate your theory. From what you've said it sounds plausible, although I imagine that other conditions would have to be in play to actually produce something resembling sexism as an ideological position.

Of course, perhaps I'm exaggerating a little, and sexism isn't an ideological position, per se. As Jebediah brought up, there are different kinds, and perhaps different degrees, of sexism. I think that spiteful sexism is something that probably everyone has experienced at some point or other, most likely as a defensive (and passing) reaction. I find the informational variety slightly more pernicious, simply because I think that falsehoods that are not linked with experience are actually harder to refute. It's very difficult to point out a blind spot.

In my experience, sexism is often something that people learn from their parents. I don't mean that it is a conclusion they reach just by observing the family dynamic, but it is a set of values actively communicated by a mother or father. Perhaps children are more vulnerable to the views of the same-sex parent in their latency period? What I am suggesting is that a boy, say, does not merely identify with the father in his role in the Oedipal drama, but also "absorbs" some of his views as truisms during this stage. I guess what I am playing with is the idea of traditionalism as a form of psychosis. Or perhaps sexism (or what have you) is more of a neurosis, a fixed but often unconscious notion that only resurfaces as a result of some trauma. Am I saying something really obvious or silly? It just seems, based on my observation, that people that behave in, what I think could be called, a systematically sexist way tend to have been raised that way by a like-minded parent.

Another observation, perhaps related and perhaps not, is that couples in which both members have an entrenched sexist perspective often last much longer than one might expect, since the sexist behavior of each reinforces and confirms the expectations of the other. I'm oversimplifying here, of course, but I've seen couples in which each member has such a low opinion of the opposite sex, that they will tolerate all sorts of abusive behavior from their partner simply because they cannot imagine it being otherwise.
0 Replies
 
HexHammer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 04:00 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;158600 wrote:
Freud said there is a latency period, a period of libidinal dormancy, during which the boy resolves the Oedipal complex and the girl resolves the Electra complex. This is a period of time when the boy and the girl are choosing sides in the family drama. Resolution means the boy chooses the Dad over his Mom and the girl chooses her Mom over her Dad. It makes some sense that during this time the child will seem to despise the opposite sex. Boys will say "girls are yucky!" and girls will say "Boys are yucky!" but really this is fall out from the resolving complex...there are unstated and unconscious premises. For the boys the unconscious logic is "Mom is a girl (and I'm choosing Dad and therefor all girls are yucky!)" and for girls the logic is as follows "Dad is a girl (and I'm choosing Mom and therefor all boys are yucky!)"

It makes sense to me that sexism, whether it be in the male or the female, is a sort of prolonged latency perhaps due to an unresolved Oedipus complex. Now puberty kicks in whether one is ready for it or not so when the hormones start pumping those who are still struggling to resolve the complex will still start having sexual feelings. Perhaps "latency" isn't really the right term to use but I am speaking of a purely psychological latency lagging behind the inevitable biological programming that ends the libidinal latency. After puberty and in later life "girls are yucky!" becomes "women are *****es!" and "boys are yucky!" becomes "Men are pigs!"
Don't really think it's true, it's Freud's usual nonsens such as penis envy.

I think it's more like a cynically egoism, that are expressed in a strong sexual drive, that will seek to exploit the opposit sex, and group up with r fellow fellow sex.

..but it also depends of which kind of sexism, is it discrimination, or harrasment?
0 Replies
 
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 07:45 pm
@Deckard,
Deckard;158671 wrote:
I wince a little at the thought about separating femininity from the female as that femininity is perhaps what I find the most attractive at the instinctual level. I wince in the same way that I wince when someone tells me that a "1" is a "0". Femininity as weakness and dependence is a different thing but femininity qua femininity? No I think that is a difference that we want to keep around.
I also believe there is difference.. although I might be out on a different limb. The image that looms in my mind is of a Catholic saint... don't remember his name right off.. but he's always depicted with a baby in his arms... almost Virgin Mary-like. The image is deeply meaningful to me. It means that men have the same basic ability to nurture that we associate with females. Going Jung on it: this saint has made friends with the anima to the point that it appears on the surface.

I've been reading Dickens lately. Bleak House. Wow. It's affecting my outlook to the point that I've found myself talking like a Dickens character. Anyway... it points to the way that culture shapes our expectations of the sexes. What we call sexism, our forebears called common sense. That's why I'm saying that this question you've raised is profoundly important to our generation. Old roles and rules have faded leaving us with a mess. The old rules are still present as ghosts. We delve deep to see what's real.
Deckard;158671 wrote:

The menstruation cycle I think is very important here. Most other mammals the females only ovulate once or a few times a year.
Yes... my own "limb" involves the idea that menstruation is a sort of biological introversion. A woman is tied to a cycle. It's the same cycle the day and year goes through... it's the same cycle everything goes through... it's the primal event arc: birth... youth... adult.. age... death. To balance a connection to a cosmic cycle, would it be normal for a woman to be psychologically extroverted?

And testosterone is biological extroversion... binding a man to the here and now with a drive to own and manipulate the plastic world of things. Would this strong tie to this moment allow men to become psychologically introverted for the sake of balance?

I use this to explain why extreme introversion in women can be precarious, just as extreme extroversion can be for men. Hey... I said it was a limb.


The difference between one and zero is the foundation of the intellect. Defining oneself requires seeing what you're not. One facet of this is sex. What you are physically obviously bears on how you define yourself. Does this definition result in the driving down of part of one's potential to the realm of the shadow?
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 10:04 pm
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;160184 wrote:
I also believe there is difference.. although I might be out on a different limb. The image that looms in my mind is of a Catholic saint... don't remember his name right off.. but he's always depicted with a baby in his arms... almost Virgin Mary-like. The image is deeply meaningful to me. It means that men have the same basic ability to nurture that we associate with females. Going Jung on it: this saint has made friends with the anima to the point that it appears on the surface.

I've been reading Dickens lately. Bleak House. Wow. It's affecting my outlook to the point that I've found myself talking like a Dickens character. Anyway... it points to the way that culture shapes our expectations of the sexes. What we call sexism, our forebears called common sense. That's why I'm saying that this question you've raised is profoundly important to our generation. Old roles and rules have faded leaving us with a mess. The old rules are still present as ghosts. We delve deep to see what's real.
Yes... my own "limb" involves the idea that menstruation is a sort of biological introversion. A woman is tied to a cycle. It's the same cycle the day and year goes through... it's the same cycle everything goes through... it's the primal event arc: birth... youth... adult.. age... death. To balance a connection to a cosmic cycle, would it be normal for a woman to be psychologically extroverted?

And testosterone is biological extroversion... binding a man to the here and now with a drive to own and manipulate the plastic world of things. Would this strong tie to this moment allow men to become psychologically introverted for the sake of balance?

I use this to explain why extreme introversion in women can be precarious, just as extreme extroversion can be for men. Hey... I said it was a limb.


The difference between one and zero is the foundation of the intellect. Defining oneself requires seeing what you're not. One facet of this is sex. What you are physically obviously bears on how you define yourself. Does this definition result in the driving down of part of one's potential to the realm of the shadow?


Looks to be Saint Anthony. Here's some info about it.
Why St. Anthony Holds the Child Jesus

Quote:
Before exploring the image of Anthony and the Christ child, however, we should look at one of the popular stories explaining the origin of the custom. A good number of Franciscan historians, I believe, would advise us to approach the story as legend rather than as solid historical fact.
According to one version of the legend-and there are many-there was a Count Tiso who had a castle about 11 miles from Padua, Italy. On the grounds of the castle the count had provided a chapel and a hermitage for the friars.
Anthony often went there toward the end of his life and spent time praying in one of the hermit cells. One night, his little cell suddenly filled up with light. Jesus appeared to Anthony in the form of a tiny child. Passing by the hermitage, the count saw the light shining from the room and St. Anthony holding and communicating with the infant.
The count fell to his knees upon seeing this wondrous sight. And when the vision ended, Anthony saw the count kneeling at the open door. Anthony begged Count Tiso not to reveal what he had seen until after his death.
Whether this story be legend or fact, the image of Anthony with the child Jesus has important truths to teach us.


It is interesting, but to tell you the truth I question how much time and energy we should really be spending dwelling and meditating on this image of Saint Anthony as Jungian archetype and pondering its meaning as a representation of the anima. The webpage I linked to manages to say quite a lot about the symbol without once mentioning Jung.

I believe Jung advised against men exploring the anima and women exploring the animus until after they had explored those archetypes that are more immediately relevant to their sex. Exploring the anima and animus is not something to jump into on ones first Jungian analysis session but more like several years down the road. They are potentially dangerous especially if the individual is not ready to explore them.

In today's society the exact opposite often happens. The immediately relevant archetypes are often spoken of with sarcasm and irony as something cliche and outmoded. Exploring the anima and the animus is still considered a bit daring and a sign of being enlightened and open minded - yet perhaps it has been more of an impetuous fad than an enlightenment.

Looking at the Wikipedia article reminded me that the anima and animus concepts (and archetypes in general) were developed as part of his theory of collective unconscious. So I think it is important to keep that in mind. Archetypes are really part of a theory of social psychology rather than a more individually focused psychology. Like language, archetypes loose their purpose if we are only talking to ourselves as individuals. Understand the unconscious anima and animus and making them more conscious does not imply necessarily manifesting them but I do think it definitely implies respecting and recognizing them within society in others rather than in ourselves. They are inside the psyche to an extent but more for the sake of this recognition outside in the medium of the collective psyche. They keep the other from being completely foreign and alien something to be feared or conquered. They are not, for example, an invitation to the formation of a more hermaphroditic individual psyche but rather They form a basis for a deeper understanding between the two sexes. The animus and anima are only known to the individual (un)conscious by virtue of their role and purpose within the context of the larger collective (un)conscious.
Arjuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 08:00 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;160206 wrote:
It is interesting, but to tell you the truth I question how much time and energy we should really be spending dwelling and meditating on this image of Saint Anthony as Jungian archetype and pondering its meaning as a representation of the anima. The webpage I linked to manages to say quite a lot about the symbol without once mentioning Jung.
I'm sure you're right.
Deckard
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 09:46 am
@Arjuna,
Arjuna;160358 wrote:
I'm sure you're right.

Yeah I overstated my point. I really only wanted to emphasize Jung's belief that it was dangerous to explore the shadow archetypes (such as anima and animus) before one is ready to handle it. I wanted to take a different more cautious approach to the subject rather than just rushing into it as if it was no big deal.

I had not heard of the image of Saint Anthony holding baby Jesus before. It is very interesting to think of the Jungian archetypal implications of this image especially in comparison the Mother Mary with child.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is sexism prolonged psychological latency?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/21/2019 at 04:31:03