If feminists think patriarchy is so obviously unjustifiable, how do they account for the fact that in all other places and times it's been viewed as obviously right?
They must at least recognize that there are prima facie appealing reasons for it, right? Or do they really just think everybody was a crazy idiot until like the 20th century?
>murder is justified because historically there has always been murder
no but murder can be justified in self defense
not all patriachal societies are just but they aren't necessarily unjust
ib4 semantic games with the words just and murder
Roasties are evil insane creatures who just want to torture people.
> have an entire class of people with a childlike worldview
> magically give them adult rights overnight
> What could go wrong?
Women aren't necessarily evil. They just have difficulty seeing things from the viewpoints of others. They're born solipsists and they never really develop any other means of looking at the world. They live in their heads and if the rest of the world doesn't match the preconceived notions they live by, well then fuck the world. That's how children think. Men get over that shit usually by adulthood and the one who don't usually end up completely fucked. But women can play the pussy card and work around reality to some degree... usually a pretty great degree if not totally. Ever tell woman she was wrong and have her do the same shit you told her was wrong even though it was obviously wrong and ended up with her being totally screwed and you having to fix it? That's solipsism.
It's also why women are cruel. Children are cruel. They're cruel because they can't see themselves as The Bad Guy even though what they're doing is fucking monstrous. It's not sadism. It's just a lack of maturity and emotional depth.
Work in a female-dominated field like medicine some time. Women say and do the meanest shit to each other constantly because they simply lack the maturity to realize that other people are humans too.
youtube.com
CS Lewis has a really interesting take on this.
>Marriage / monogamy = everyone gets a wife and can reproduce happily
>In a marriage of 2 democracy will not work because there will never be a tiebreaker vote
>this means there must be a leader to the family - so why the man?
>women are more emotional when it comes to decisions regarding their families, we can see even in the work environment they are more likely to hurt their co-workers if it will allow them a raise and benefit their household
>Because of this the male is the only decision that will work as leadership of the family - the less reactionary or emotional responses from the male will gaurentee that his decisions will not always be about the immediate family but can concern the community as a whole
>this creates a healthier community while still advocating for good things within his immediate family.
This makes the most sense to me. But there is no way you can try to explain this to someone in modern western society without being called a sexist or bigot or some other philosophically empty word
Everything is different now compared to before; you can apply this way of thinking to everything.
Current or historical state of affairs aren't usually the way they are because they're just or correct, but because of the given power relations of a society (although morality and justice is part of the mix).
So: state of nature>men can beat their women if they don't behave> establish social structures based on that power> patriarchy > industrial revolution> women gradually gaining work/education/status>feminism
>This
The previous user is trying to imply that "because bad stuff existed historically that means bad stuff could be be justified by the same argument" While completely ignoring that "Murder" has ALMOST NEVER been societaly accepted by any civilization EVER. Patriarchy was the default for almost every tribe and culture since pre history - if murder was the default we wouldn't be here typing on a message board we would be most likely wiping poop on ourselfs to mask our sent from the roaming bands of zombie-like savages.
From where does he derive all those descriptions of males and females?
I have to disagree here, feminism claims equality and egalitarianism. Regardless of your feelings on those things they have never existed in any culture or civilization, and are metaphysical concepts without out any real world examples.
I do agree that patriarchy is literally what happens when you take natural law and extrapolate it with the structure of civilization - but equality is not found anywhere within nature, and as such is "un-natural" if we are to follow your chain of events the claim would be that feminism is some sort of natural progression due to civilizational advancement and industrialization, but how could something that is inherently contrary to the nature (or natural state) of man just be the healthy next step for human civilization.
You really do not see the fight for womens rights until late into human history - post enlightenment, If i were to hazard a guess i would say that perhaps enlightenment thinkers and individualistic philosophy had the majority to do with why humans see equality as some golden standard -> leading to evolution of feminism.
saying something is or used to be X gives no insights into the normative value of that claim, so 'things used to be this way therefore it must be right' is just as useless as 'things are like this now therefore it must be right'
Is slavery justified if it happened in the past?
How about religious persecution?
And mass genocide?
They all happened in the past all the time. Does that mean they are justified.?
You know I am not entirely sure,
I have just recently started really digging into CS Lewis after bumping into the channel that I posted in the link above. So I cannot say where he got his ideas of male/female relationships. However as far as looking at his claims from a contemporary standpoint there are quite a few studies which reinforce his ideas on male/female roles. Now obviously everyone will claim "but i know a 100 % emotional man and a 100% logical woman" aka NAXALT fallacy - but when we are speaking of generalities I am fairly sure that there is enough scientific data speaking of the hormonochemical difference between the man and woman as well as the seemingly innate gendered predispositions (which were originally made taboo to talk about before the disproving of "Tabula raza" or blank slate theory) which proves that males and females have inborn preferences as early as infancy relating to preferred colors and toys/activities based purely on the sex of the test subject.
TLDR: in short we know that there are differences between the way men and women innately think - if there is a measurable difference then surely there must be a "better" or more preferable leader of the house judged by the aspects innate in male / female thinking.
Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean something is good. You can't make normative claims based on the nature>civilisation opposition in itself.
>are they justified?
It depends, are we being relative and judging justice and morality by our feelings or are we using some standard of objective morality and law?
Simply put - if slavery was legal at the time your were doing it it would be "just" because you are not breaking any sort of law. Unless you are using a method like the categorical imperative or some religious text there is no way to place ANYTHING into the category of "immoral" only unjust - which is in practice simply the act of breaking a law which is deemed "Mala en se" or "Mala prohibita" , Socrates spent alot of time seeking the actual definition of "justice" but I think philosophers are still working on that one.
as for
>religious persecution
well that could be both just and moral depending on the type of religion - for instance ancient Canaanite tribes use to burn children alive in offering for their god (as in pic above) and bury the charred remains under the foundations of buildings as a way to garner favor.
>mass genocide
Mass genocide was never widely accepted by the civilization though - just because officers and armies did a think because of military tactics does not imply that the populous of that said "society" backed the decision.
Well explain "good" because unless you are using some sort of objective moral framework you cannot really say what is and is not "good" unless you are talking about "efficiency" or maybe that which generates the most happy populous? Even then I think you would find that a civilization which embraces egalitarianism fails on those fronts.
Well most feminists like the positive traits of patriarchy, so they aren't egalitarians.
I mean, have you ever heard a feminist campaigning against the fact that women get vastly less jail time for the exact same crime as men?
Of course you haven't. And even if they did consider it wrong, they are too busy whining on social media about Trump's seemingly misogynistic comments instead.
Doesn't matter what they think, patriarchy is literally the cornerstone of civilization and no feminist can ever prove this statement wrong.
>imblying women would ever form the first militias to defend itself /attack the nearby tribe because of scarcity
>imblying men would do this for free
>imblying it isn't the most logical of all social contracts
If it's self defense then it's not murder, numbnuts.
That's just wrong though, the survival of particular behaviors or social structures for most of our history attests to its evolutionary efficacy.
>this
Feminists are just arguing for their collective interests, just like everyone else. They just lie and couch it in high brow esoteric language to pretend they are noble or care about values.
absolutely.
But within modernity; tradition will be looked at as silly superstition without any deeper investigation 9 times out of 10.
Yes there are differences, obviously. But:
1) The link between what the natural sciences can describe about the hormonochemical differences of men and women to your claim about what is the preferable leader of the household is way too muddy.
2) I don't buy justifying hierarchy based on the preferences of babies. This is difficult because we are socialised and """gendered""" from infancy onwards (babies are given a red or blue blanket at birth depending on sex, at least in my country), and so social constructivist will always say the differences are a matter of social structures and not biological. In other words; it's gender, not sex.
3) ..and (this is not really an argument, just appeal to history): biology has been used to justify all sorts of horrible shit. The 'Women/jews/blacks shouldn't/can't do this or that because biology'-argument very often turned out to be a pseudo-scientific excuse for oppression (in the case of women), or even worse in the case of blacks/jews
this
>imblying women would ever form the first militias to defend itself /attack the nearby tribe because of scarcity
REEEEEEEEEE
> MUHSHIELDMAIDENS.bitmap
feminism aint free. okay? muh shield maiden found in like 400 graves, dont question. okay? Praise shortstack.
Yes, evolutionary efficacy. But I didn't say that, did I? Good is not efficient.
This is the only decent post in this threat. For most of human history patriarchy existed because men had the ability to enforce it, and activities such as violence and manual labour where men have comparative advantage made their contributions more important than women's. As with any power group they invented narratives to justify their position, ranging from 'God said so' to 'Women are more emotional than men'.
Reduction in the value of physical strength has reduced the practical justifications for patriarchy, while the pursuit of equality has eroded its moral basis.
Additionally, the blurring of once-distinct gender roles has created more competition between genders in the workplace, education, politics etc. Whether they consciously acknowledge it or not, women are no different from any other group in that they seek to enhance their status and privilege within society. Traditional patriarchy (and the justifications used to sustain it) are barriers to that and therefore have to be challenged in the present and the past.
So what you are saying is that feminists are in reality just lobbyists for women as a group, and actually are engaging in political subversion when they claim feminism is about equality.
>Even then I think you would find that a civilization which embraces egalitarianism fails on those fronts.
I live in one of the most egalitarian countries in the world. It is also among the most gender equal, productive, and happy, according to almost every scientific attempt to measure those aspects of society.
Even though measuring happiness is pretty stupid, egalitarianism and efficiency/utilitarianism/good society is definitely not mutually exclusive.
Mmmhmm definitely and thank you for remaining civil. This subject usually ends in people all capsing and posting shitty memes instead of actually trying to figure stuff out.
I would definitely agree with your "1)" point - but the reason why the research might seem muddy is because the funding for such research is few and far between. I have a pen pall who is a professor at a pretty major university and as a Anthropologist he talks all the time about how its almost impossible to get funding for socially taboo subjects - the same can be said for the field of human biodiversity. The instant there is irrefutable evidence of a large degree of "superiority" or "difference" between any group it would essentially collapse a large part of western civilization's culture . It would show egalitarianism and even the idea of "equality" was not only external of any physical reality - but that it would be unobtainable external of some sort of crazy genetic eugenics program to make all humans somewhat similar.
2) maybe i didnt describe it well enough but in the study i was speaking of the point was to examine the behavior of babies (Before) socialization and gendering could take place - a similar study was preformed on chimpanzees and got the same results showing that there may be some sort of primate universal gender behavior.
As far as (3) I would agree that horrible things have happened as a result of examining the traits of different races and men/women - but the underlying goals of this was always trying to find evidence to prove that these races were not quite human allowing you to violate certain rules of "human rights" IE slavery. But we KNOW there are differences - Bone density between M/F, Protein digestion between Saharan African races and Eurasian races, I have taken biotechnology and forensics classes and the bonestructre of a human skull is usually distinct enough to tell the race of a corpse with nothing more than the skull itself without any dna
Not him, but I also living the most egalitarian countries in the world.
We have a birth rate that is below replacement, and 25% of men aged 40 don't have children, and it's increasing.
So even if our countries are happy, that happiness isn't going to last forever.
Not him, but: fighting for equality and fighting for your genders status can be overlapping if society is unequal.
It really isn't if you're like me and don't believe that society can ever be equal.
I mean, capitalism by definition creates inequality, which means that a society that is capitalist cannot ever become equal.
>patriarchy exists because men did all the work
agreed
>Reduction in the value of physical strength has reduced the practical justifications for patriarchy, while the pursuit of equality has eroded its moral basis.
To this date we still need a lot of jobs where is needed a man's prowess (as in stamina, not strenght) like truck driving and mining, so patriarchy has all the practical justifications to stay in charge until we invent self driving cars at least
we probably live in the same country. Time will tell, but I think we'll be fine. My point was simply to prove that egalitarianism is not incompatible with various definitions of "good society".
In part, although contemporary feminism has become such a broad concept that your description only applies to a portion. That by no means applies only to feminists though. The prevailing western narrative is that everyone is created equal with equal opportunities, and that your status is a direct result of your own individual efforts. Of course, that is complete nonsense, hence all kinds of groups trying to tip the scales more in their favour. I'm sure there are people out there who genuinely want equality but the stakes are so high that many people see it as a zero sum game. I doubt many people want to consciously admit they are doing as you describe and unconsciously perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to feel in the right.
Your post implies men wanted to beat their wives without any real basis for it. It's all assumptions based on the stark reality that female members of a tribe were more valuable (for the obvious reason of procreation/childrearing) to the long term survival of the tribe, whereas men were probably viewed as more expendable.
So men went to fight other men to protect the tribe while women stayed back at the cave, and in return they were rewarded with social prestige if they were victorious. And so the most successful tribes were eventually the ones who could eventually capable of developing a sedentary lifestyle, meaning they probably came along with a martial elite hierarchy. From which the patriarchal model is derived. Men were willing to die to protect or accumulate more women, damaging them for no reason really seems antithetical and while I'm sure early "domestics" happened, I doubt it ever was the norm or the goal.
the implications of decreasing fertility + increasing automation are pretty strange
Well suicide is in all time highs in western society this study is about teenage girls/young women but the highest demographic is actually older men: medicaldaily.com
studies have found that women are actually less happy now than they were pre-womans rights movement the study name is : "he Paradox of Declining Female Happiness"
The overall health mental health has actually fallen throughout the west in general there are increasing levels of mental disorders especially those regarding anxiety and depression. Even economically the quality of life was better before the womans workers movement - a time where a single worker family could support 3-5 children, a large house, car, food, clothing and more even if the said worker was a low-skill laborer such as a factory worker; when you double the workforce you innately reduce the value of the work itself- lowering the payment for ALL workers -> supply and demand macro economics 101
Men are checking out of society because they now no longer have a predetermined "place" or duty within society - and women are lamenting their choice of materialism and corporatism once they hit their 30's and cannot find a husband now that their sexual market value has fallen to an unnatural low.
It might sound "primal" or "uncivilized" but men and women often need to attach themselves to an idea larger than themselves to properly actualize as a human being and live a fulfilling life.
>Of course, that is complete nonsense
Is it really "complete nonsense", or just not true in an idealistic sense?
I mean, you're way more likely to get anywhere in life through your individual efforts in a Western country than in Pakistan or Nigeria.
We also have a lot more jobs where a women on average have comparative advantage (interpersonal intelligence) like HR and customer relations. Of course there will always be some need for manual labour but the trend is towards knowledge-based professional activities generating much more economic value.
It doesnt have to do with capitalism. Western philosophy has convinced people that equality is actually a "Real" physical thing. When in reality it is a metaphysical idea - note that socialist and communist political ideologies constantly harp on about equality and have killed roughly 100 million people in the quest for it - yet have never found it ,because it does not exist. Its like if you based an entire political philosophy or culture around utopian-ism it only leads to mountains of corpses and oceans of blood because its adherents cannot stand that their idea of "justice" or "right" can never be actualized or manifested by its very nature.
Why are you replying to me with that exactly?
What?
1.120 years ago, women could not work, vote, or hold positions of power.
2.They fought for those things, enhanced their status *in their own self interest*
3. They can now do those things mentioned in 1. Society became MORE equal because a group within society (albeit a pretty big one at 50%) gained social status.
and patriarchy itself can make those jobs where a woman would (allergedly) excel more man based by either simply ruling women out (see islam and imams for teaching) or by giving those job a social status that only a man can achive (see professors and universities).
Until you give a system the phisical need to change it won't change
I was just agreeing with your point and adding to it, equality cannot be manifested but the reason you offered of "capitalism" is not the whole story imo.
so feminism in the long run has benefited employers by turning it into a buyers market for employment giving workers rights less leverage on the corporate level
i suppose its the same as with immigration, more workers means less labour costs and less labour power
And the only reason these things could happen to women was because they already applied to men in a capitalist society.
If we're going by the dictionary definition of feminism, e.g the economic, social and political equality of women, then that's obviously not possible in a capitalist society.
A poor woman will never be equal to a rich woman.
>I mean, you're way more likely to get anywhere in life through your individual efforts in a Western country than in Pakistan or Nigeria.
Yes, and some branches of feminism argue that you're way more likely to get anywhere in life through your individual efforts as a man than a woman.
What? First you said it makes economic sense for patriarchy to exist, now you're saying that doesn't matter because patriarchy can just use its power to sustain itself?
>Yes, and some branches of feminism argue that you're way more likely to get anywhere in life through your individual efforts as a man than a woman.
Which is probably true if you're a woman in Pakistan or Nigeria, but increasingly not true if you're a woman in the West as women now dominate higher education.
>note that socialist and communist political ideologies constantly harp on about equality and have killed roughly 100 million people in the quest for it - yet have never found it ,because it does not exist.
Not the user you responding to, but I think it's because many people have various understanding of "equality". If we go back to the ancient greek and the concept of "isonomia", it basically simply meant "Equality before the Law" and it made sense in the development of their culture and their experiment with democracy. And since them and the romans were the only ones who tested out that model and then it fell out of favour for 1400years, these ideas haven't really been refined or developed as much as the others.
But if we now go forward to modern times, it's gotten a lot more complex. For some equality ought to be interpreted in the same classical context, for others it also involves access to material goods, for others it must include social outcome, etc etc. In this miasma of definitions, it is hard to even come to an agreement on what people mean by that word - before even trying to attempt to achieve it.
I don't disagree with your point about "equality" being a social construct and therefore not an objective thing. But it is arguable that depending on your definition of "equality", some types are more achievable than others. "Equity" is a more fitting term for all the rhetoric about reaching the same social or economical outcome, and it is debatable as whether it is even desirable.
Simply, classical equality on the other hand is a lot more "easy" to enforce (and rationalise) in my opinion and should be the main social meme we should strive to maintain. People can argue about equity then all they want afterward, but conflating the two is bound to lead to be problems.
>A poor woman will never be equal to a rich woman
Yeah, and it's a big thing in feminism, it's called intersectionality. Why do you think black women are more poor than white women? I don't understand how it's even related to my original claim, you seem to be saying that equality is useless unless there can be 100% absolute equality?
yes
men>women
because men do the work that is phisically necessary for the society and women can't
the rest of jobs that women allergedly excel in are either
-lernable by men
-somehow precluded to them
Of course society can't ever be completely equal because you can't develop an objective measure of equality that captures all the complex factors that determine it. However just because you can't achieve complete equality doesn't mean there's no value in addressing clear sources of inequality.
A lot of the debate now is about identifying when close-enough is good-enough, and whether pushing for complete equality is worth it now many of the quick-wins have been gained.
Perhaps there are minor differences on average but there will always be outliers. We're too far advanced to tell people to just be happy with their lot in life by giving them assigned roles.
No, I'm saying that as long if you want privileges in a capitalist society, you can't really be called an egalitarian. Hence my admission that feminists are simply a woman's lobby.
What exactly constitutes "smashing the patriarchy" anyway?
If it means getting rid of legal power structures that prevent women from achieving what men can achieve, then the western world qualified for that and then some for a while now.
Or does it mean we need something near a 50/50 split of women to men in positions of power? What about the same in positions of weakness? Considering the differences in distribution of male versus female cognitive abilities, how can you justify this as a reasonable position?
At what point will the "patriarchy" be smashed? Will we need to smash any matriarchal power structures within our society? Do women who want to be midwives need to check their privilege?
they were able to work before then and could hold fairly prominent roles in society as well.
Mmmhm I agree, but I have a feeling that "equality before the law" is not what most people are talking about when they are protesting about "equality" Ive looked and cannot find a single law whether it be "Mala en se" or "Mala prohibita" where women or minorities are disadvantaged - I think they are talking about "Social equality" and "Economic equality" Which both are impossible to manifest and which both were pursued by Communist Russia and other destructive or entropic regimes.
Also talking about greek practices of equality under the law - it has been quite a few years since I looked into it, but I do recall that the democratic process was only for the land owning male cast, not the plebeians (whether you define law and politics as the same thing or not is really semantic) but I was curious if there were other types of inequality found in ancient Greece? I have no knowledge of this but if I were to guess I would assume that a rich learned land owning patrician would be treated much better under the law than the slave. If you have any examples of this or the opposite I would totally be interested to see it.
>120 years ago, women could not work
For the sake of intellectual honesty, I'm assuming you're talking about the plebs (aka 90% of the people). And women could and did work in those days, their positions were simply limited.
>could not vote, or hold positions of power
And 200-220years ago, neither could the overwhelming majority of men. Serfdom and the 3rd estate were not memes. For the longest time in history, it wasn't a case of men vs women, it was a case of optimates vs populares. So the average joe had a 100-80year headstart on the average jane, so fucking what. It's been fixed now, stop crying crocodile tears over an idea of history that only exists in your head.
Capitalism can be more or less equal. You can have gender equal capitalist societies and gender unequal capitalist societies. Base>!= superstructure. Class!=gender.
Yes capitalism can be more or less equal. But I would argue that feminists want to keep the elements of patriarchal society that favor women alive, e.g presumption of the caretaking ability of mothers in family court, less jail time for the same crime as men(e.g presumed agentlessness and lack of individual responsbility), and a whole cohort of other things that could be argued are patriarchal institutions.
And yet not a single feminist I've ever heard of wants these things abolished.
Yes, I agree. Class>feminism, materialism>identity, Marx>Butler. But you clearly didn't read what I was responding to.
Just because it was even shittier before it was shit doesn't mean the shitty situation wasn't shit.
>I think they are talking about "Social equality" and "Economic equality" Which both are impossible to manifest
You're not gonna get an argument from me on this one. Perfect equity or "economic/social equality" is pretty much a pipedream as long as scarcity is a thing, at least in my opinion.
>but I do recall that the democratic process was only for the land owning male cast, not the plebeians
Nah, it truly was pure "equality before the law" for all male citizens. At least in the case of Athens and all the other polis who later copied it during the Hellenic-delian league/classical greece period.
The plebeian model is from Rome, and it was actually closer to a timocracy where you had to assets to become a fully fledged citizen and being allowed to attend the assemblies (although they had complex systems to represent the proletarii with tribunes appointed to represent them during senate hearings).
When it comes to Greece, it was a long process of evolution. The closest ancient greece got to the plebeian caste system was in the days of Draco when he enforced the "Horos" (boundary stone) system where indebted citizens would be essentially forced to work their land (strangely enough land was an inalienable right in ancient greece) and pay back their debt through their labour. They were called the "hektemoroi" (1/6th men), meaning they only kept 1/6th of their earnings by the end of it. So you could see if they had a couple of bad harvest years how that system would almost fall in indentured servitude.
That was eventually fixed by Solon in 594BC, who actually instituted an actual timocracy with the "measure men" system (every men was allowed representation, your wealth simply dictated how prestigious the public office you could hold would be).
For example the 500 measure men could become eponimos archon or strategoi (generals); the 300 measure men could be lower archons; the 200 measure men could be eligible for council at the boule; and the below 200 measure men could still attend the assembly.
It sounds fairly regressive but for the time it wasn't. He also created the Boule (greek council of 400 men which would rotate and decide on what the assembly would want to debate).
Then under Cleisthenes in 510BC, they really had their democratic "revolution" (it was more of a reform really, no system collapse actually happened to manifest it). They Boule became a council of 500; he restructured the entire "phylae" system (the tribe/district system) to avoid gerrymandering by the Aristoi families (as you can guess, the old greek aristocry). he also made the judiciary branch completely rotational and opened to all citizens; and many more reforms. From that point onwards, any male citizen was eligible for any position if he could get a seat on the council (the Prytany) and prove himself to be influential enough. Note all these positions would rotate all the time, once you became a prytani (each phylae would select/vote for 50 men to represent them), you could only hold that position for a year, and each month the 10 phylae would rotate, so the "head council" would be different from month to month. And then you couldn't be elected to the council (Boule) for 10 fucking years. And if the assembly found that someone was growing too influential/troublesome, then they could also hold a vote to ostracize them from Athens for 10 years (they didn't lose any property or citizenship rights, they simply couldn't physically be in the city for the duration of the sentence).
sex differences are the one thing that persist throughout the ages.
Athenian democracy was actually a lot more about breaking the monopoly of the old ruling families and trying to prevent tyrannies than anything else, so the whole system was actually built to encourage every tom, dick and harry to attend the assembly and try to get a seat on the council. Considering the size of ancient athens, virtually every male citizen would be a prytany at one point in their lives. That Cleisthenes was quite the smart fellow.
And his system lasted pretty much all the way til the end of the peloponnesian war when Sparta destroyed the athenians in 404BC. It went back to democracy for a while some 30years later after sparta lost its hegemony, but democracy was never quite as steady as it was before and then by 330BC, you have Alexander and that's the end of the story for greek democracy.
One of the founding mottos of America, by far the largest power on earth today was "no taxation without representation" Women still payed taxes on any income they recieved and yet did not have representation in government, saying "lots of people did it before us" is a shitty argument because the same could be applied to obviously shit ideas like execution, torture and a myriad of other ineffective ideas, finally.
>Do not try to treat this board as /pol/ with dates.
>and a high level of discourse is expected.
>For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago
>not their contemporary consequences
This thread is about the current actions of an existing movement, even though said movement has existed for longer than 25 years the thread is not about the historical significance of the suffragette movement, instead it is a political argument being put forward against an existing political idea, this thread is non historical, mods, please move this thread to /pol/.
>Just because it was even shittier before it was shit doesn't mean the shitty situation wasn't shit.
Er sure, I guess. Kinda pointless arguing about it now though since equality before law is now a reality, at least in the western sphere.
>sex differences are the one thing that persist throughout the ages.
Probably because some of those biological differences will always necessitate some degree of difference in the law. There will never be a need for women to demand a paternity test; just like there will never be a need for men to demand maternity leave. If we try to be pragmatic here, the main goal should be to close the "gap" as much as possible without actually starting to deny the objective differences between the two genders. And that process of approximation will probably never truly end as our society carries on evolving/progressing and new commodities, industries and roles are created.
Dictionary definitions are useless, it is absurd to claim that feminism seeks to undermine capitalism because as clearly seen movements to get women in the workforce have skyrocketd productivity rates, an increase in workforce (and competition) frees up companies to lower their wages, clearly these activites wouldn't be supported by a communist, so why the equivilance?
>but increasingly not true if you're a woman in the West as women now dominate higher education.
Except when it actually comes to employment, women are under represented
(although the stats i have on this are a bit out of date, 2009)
Firstly, the 25 year rule only applies to distinguish current events from history; th is thread is discussing both over 25 year old events, and other humanities subjects like anthropology and sociology.
Secondly, the level of discourse here is exceptionally good for Veeky Forums standards. You know full well what kind of shit we would get on /pol/.
>do feminists seriously think sectioning off massive chunks of the workforce in tasks that didn't require men was stupid?
In world war 2 Women started created war supplies, a drill doesn't give a fuck about how strong you are, it's pusing a fuckin' button, before the advent of tools that relied less upon strength men would do a better job due to men being stronger, as our tools eclipsed us the person behind the tool became less and less relevant, and the argument for gender equality made more and more sense, companes would like it because more workers = lower wages per worker, and women workers would like it because being able to spend your own money is pretty dang swell.
Not if you're under 30, which is a much better indicator of current opportunities and obstacles to success. Women are out earning men in this demographic.
>women are universally hysterical therefore a logical man must save the family from failure
>"why do people say i have a bias against women"
Huh, real head scratcher.
>And yet not a single feminist I've ever heard of wants these things abolished.
That's because feminism isn't egalitarianism, and anything that they say to counter that is spindoctoring.
You could argue 1st wave (civic representation) and 2nd wave (work opportunities) feminism was egalitarian as there were indeed inequalities before the law which could be remedied by legislation. That is no longer the case and the 3rd wavers are literally entitled crybabies wanting to rock the boat in their favor.
>MUH GENDER PAY GAP
Literally the biggest (((equality))) meme out there
Too bad civilizations hate it due to low birth rates
The West took away what made women actually unique and important ,motherhood, and made them into facsimiles of men.
What a bargain!
You said:
>saying something is or used to be X gives no insights into the normative value of that claim
Which is wrong. Traditions and behaviors that have persisted over thousands of years DO give you insight into their value simply by nature of their continued propagation, as they would not have survived for so long if they were detrimental to the survival of human societies.
>The West took away what made women actually unique and important ,motherhood, and made them into facsimiles of men.
>the west took away the idea of forcing people into lifestyles based upon the circumstances of their birth and gave them social and economic freedom
Let me find my violin.
Fuck off faggot this is an increasingly interesting thread
>how do they account for the fact that in all other places and times it's been viewed as obviously right?
I don't even abou this thread. I just want to say that is the weakest argument ever.
>If feminists think patriarchy is so obviously unjustifiable, how do they account for the fact that in all other places and times it's been viewed as obviously right?
this is the dumbest #meninism argument I've ever read.
*don't even care about
How can you expect women to fight for man's rights if they are not fully aware of it in the first place.
It is not as they are actively suppressing man's rights
>MUH BIRTH RATES
Relax /pol/, birth rates are stabilizing across the globe. Dropping extremely fast in the developing world and stabilising around 2.0 in the western world. The human race isn't gonna die.
un.org
I don't expect anything other than people being honest about their motives.
If you tell me you are for equality, and you aren't, expect to be called a hypocrite at least.
>The human race isn't gonna die
You're right but Western civilization most certainly will. Augustus knew it about Rome though no one would listen. So he passed the lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus to try to turn it around.
But the damage had been done.
Also, pol? What the fuck is this nonsense you're seemingly obsessed with pol for some reason.
And I don't expect a women to be in fully in touch what a man wants and needs in a system to fight and represent those things. Those things can only be defined and fought by men, at best women can give support or signal boost, but must never speak for men
>Western civilization most certainly will
How can it when it has become a universal template? All the most successful emerging nations are trying to emulate it.
Even if the actual West goes under, the world will be populated by Westaboos.
Except it's not really socially acceptable for men to speak about male issues unless it's under the rubric of and accepted by feminists.
If they do, they usually get harassed and demonstrated against, and have speakers de-platformed.
>Also, pol? What the fuck is this nonsense you're seemingly obsessed with pol for some reason.
Just like pol says every contrary opinion comes from a "jew"
Oh lord, this faggot thinks we've reached the end of civilization. Look kid, the last 240 years have been marked by American expansion and industry. An utterly unique phenomenon which will not repeat.
Now America today has hit the wall and is stuck in the same ancient stubborn divides the rest of the world has been stuck in for eons.
Global war is unavoidable and all that remains to be seen is which madman will catalyze it first.
Really interesting man, thanks for educating me on Greece, I think ill crack open one of my history books and do some reading as a result.
>"women are universally hysterical"
I dont remember ever saying that, but you seem to have a really volatile reaction to even the insinuation that there may be some sort of biochemical or hormonal difference with how men and women handle situations.
Maybe if you could entertain the idea and too some googling on the subject instead of making snarky 3 line comments you could see that opening yourself to human biodiversity doesnt inherently mean a negative predisposition to anyone - merely the acceptance of or openness to the possibility of skill specialization in primate species..
>Oh lord, this faggot thinks we've reached the end of civilization
Not at all, I am responding to the other user who does seem to think the West is done for. That isn't my personal opinion. I was just pointing out that EVEN if he was right, the "spark" would still be passed on to the others since the western model of governance and economics is getting adopted by every emerging nation would wants to make a success of itself.
In the absolute worst case scenario, we get overtaken by a westernised China and we become their Greece for the duration of their own empire.
>Except it's not really socially acceptable for men to speak about male issues
Wow imagine that, a group of people that felt their voice was silenced but resolved to speak up. Let me get my smallest violin.
>If they do, they usually get harassed and demonstrated against, and have speakers de-platformed.
Proofs? And no people laughing at MGTOW doesn't count
>the western model of governance and economics is getting adopted by every emerging nation
Haha absolute hogwash. The western model of governance has been rejected everywhere from Africa to South America, Asia and even parts of Europe.
Our massive military has to FORCE newcomers to adapt our system.
We're right now in the process of strangling a Muslim nation in it's cradle AFTER we destroyed the existing governments of the region.
So much for democracy
>this
>Implying you could take western nations remove all of the population - insert a foreign population with the same mannerisms and it would be the same group of nations
This is why I hate shitty post-modern materialism. Everything is relative, there is no such thing as tradition or folk beyond some shallow accent or food preparation - everyone is replaceable everyone is just a unit of work which can be unplugged and plugged into any community on the fly for muh cheap cell phones and gaming consoles.
>Proofs?