Gender roles

I never understood why certain things and traits were ascribed to certain genders. Ideas like pink being for girls or video games only being for boys always confused me as a kid. I can see some purpose to some gender roles to an extent. Like it makes sense why men would be the breadwinners for the family while the mother takes care of the children, but outside of a few examples most gender roles and norms seem to be pointless and exist for no reason. Why cant I wear makeup or dress femininely? Why cant girls be into wwe? It all seems pretty contrived and useless. What do yall think?(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

>outside of a few examples most gender roles and norms seem to be pointless and exist for no reason All 'traditional' human cultures made a clear distinction between male and female spaces, tools, clothes, and activities. Most had more than two genders but the distinction still applies. These distinctions fit into a larger cosmology or worldview that saturated everyday life (what we today call religion) e.g. Yin Yang metaphysics, Confucian humanism etc. The basic point is that gender roles weren't contrived at all but part of a bigger whole. You can look at it like a game that everyone plays, with different gender expectations being the rules and tools of the game that everyone's playing. Since its possible to break the rules, misinterpret them or come up with new ones, the conventions of gender shift and change or have all kinds of expectations. Its irrational because life isn't rational. It either didn't serve a purpose or played a role in a bigger beautiful religious system. Industrialization, capitalism, and secularism destroyed these traditional societies (you can add colonialism to that list in the third world). Today, we don't believe in any transcendent metaphysics, any gods, whatever. At the same time, society doesn't share a common belief system or ideological glue outside of liberalism (either conservative or progressive). Extreme individualism produced extreme subjectivism. So old gender traditions appear absolutely arbitrary and pointless. In the past, women wearing frilly dresses, make up, and behaving modestly meant something to people, but those beliefs and ideas died out a long time ago or were choked out. As technology (birth control, sex change, hormone therapy etc.) broke down traditional ideas of sex, gender became commodified in a consumer society. That's why you get dozens of different gender identities and pronouns, gender abolitionism, people declaring themselves nonbinary, genderqueer, bigender whatever. Even conservative right wing gender politics is just another piece of consumer slop. Neoliberal consumerism has a tendency to make things arbitrary and is all about aesthetics and consumption. Since you can be whatever you want to be (as long as you have the money), then there's really no point or any deeper purpose to anything and that's why you find old gender roles to be pointless, arbitrary, and useless. Because for you the imperative is to be a free individual in line with liberal consumerist ideology. Basically, gender roles aren't pointless, they just don't align with post-modern social values in advanced industrial countries.

pink used to be for men and blue for women, got swapped somewhere 70s or so. Look it up for full history. Either way your clothes display a role in society. It doesn't matter how the clothes look. What matters is that every social role has its own clothing to signal the assumed role. Clothing has a gender split because social roles are split by gender. Makeup is for women cause men's value was to get rich and provide while women had to look desirable to get a good provider. Guys lie about being rich while women lie about looks as a consequence. Personally i would rather get rid of makeup than start normalizing it for guys. I believe that would have a positive effect on society.

I'm against strict gender roles but gender signalers I can understand why they exist as a sort of signal to help you identify the desired sex easier but I don't think people doing something different should be seen as bad or anything for it. The pink for girls blue for boys thing aside from it being reversed from what it used to be it was created by capitalists to sell more products.

>>87505 It's a little weird to tell the world what's in your pants via your choice of dress. Once society is comfortably beyond the point where reproduction is required of everyone, I'm in favour of a vibes-based sexuality system; e.g "I dig the way you are" not just limited to "I want your genitals" first.

>>87506 You don't get to choose what you're into.

>>87507 nope, but the range of outlets for that kind of feeling are socially defined. How many people were furries before the advent of forms of media that demonstrate it? We're given a language to understand our heads and hearts; some sensations may be underlying (visceral wants/needs), but the way that we then express them is different.

>>87507 this I doubt very much. Good deal of freedom at least for some people exists, society pushes though and maybe kids have no agency. Society chooses how it pushes though and nowadays it pushes a lot of people to be fvggot tunes

>>87511 Just because sexuality is made more rigid from norms doesn't mean everyone is suddenly bisexual without them. Even animals only around 12% are observed having same sex sex. >>87512 Then why doesn't gay conversion work?

>>87513 Dunno I expect its because the therapists are all too busy diddling kids to have ever figured out whether or how anything in their field works.

>>87499 >never understood why certain things and traits were ascribed to certain genders The why varies from thing to thing, and a lot of it's lost to history and muddied by rationalizations that came after the fact, so I think we can never answer that question in its entirety for every gender norm. Some are a result of biology, some marketing, some religion, some seemingly arbitrary. But I think your question is "what's ethically wrong with violating gender norms" to which I think the answer is, in most cases, "nothing." Some religious folk seem to think you dressing femininely will somehow turn their kids gay or trans and that will lead them away from God and into the pits of Hell, or will cause God to show his wrath on mankind. Fortunately, God isn't real, so one can safely ignore that perspective. Some people think certain gender norm violations are gross and thus feel its unethical for you to do it around them. They're entitled to feel grossed out by it, and while I believe there are some things so offensive it is unethical to expose unwilling parties to them, gender norm violations fall a long way short of crossing that line. I guess there are some people who think it's corrupting the moral fabric of society, or who prefer the culture with the current gender norms and don't want it to change. But I fail to see the corruption, and though I like a fair number of gender norms, that personal preference doesn't make it unethical for someone to violate them or want to change them.

>>87499 men can't do girly things due to homophobia and women don't generally do manly things because they get creeped on by other guys who do it

>>87500 >>87516 This. A lot of people cling to gender roles, because >People still cling to modern and pre-modern structures because postmodernism offers nothing of substance to fill that gap. If you have no clue what you want to or should be, "a man" is better than nothing. >We socially reinforce this by teaching children, punishing deviance, and preferring those who conform as mates. Once you're deep enough in a belief, cognitive dissonance makes it natural to lash out at evidence your worldview is incomplete.

>>87513 >why doesn't gay conversion work? About 1/3 of raped boys go gay same as raped women end up in sex industry as whores. There you have your forced conversion.

>>87516 >men can't do girly things due to homophobia and women don't generally do manly things because they get creeped on by other guys who do it show me a normal woman (not a musclehead) that can do 3 proper pull-ups and i'll believe you. try your hardest not to creep on her, because that would mess up her focus or something. context: woman have soykaf shoulder muscles compared to men- something to do with testosterone and bone-structure i have met exactly 2 women that can do even a single pull-up, and both are jacked far beyond avg >>87499 >What do yall think? i think this is a retarded bait thread and a sign that lainchan is dying.

>>87525 This thread made you angry so you assume it’s bait. Everyone else is trying to have a mature discussion like adults

>>87500 Çatalhöyük was a city active during the neolithic and chalcolithic eras (stone and copper ages, respectively) with a evidentially high degree of egalitarianism - not simply a relative lack of social hierarchies, but also with no clear discernment of male or female sexes. Insomuch as social status did exist, men and women did not have distinct roles in it, consuming roughly the same amount of food, while things like gathering and craftsmanship were not performed more by one sex over the other but rather by adults rather than children. https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/catalhoyuk-excavations-reveal-gender-equality-in-ancient-settled-life-72411 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk I bring up Çatalhöyük for a number of reasons: many examples of 「ancient egalitarian」 or 「matriarchal」 society are seen as undeveloped tribes which don't enjoy the luxuries of their era, typically in conjunction a narrative of modern excess, and so forth. Additionally, cities are considered to be a cornerstone of civilization, which is sometimes defined in terms of having social stratification. Çatalhöyük is a not-too-uncommon social formation of its time, but I also want to emphasize the fact that, as opposed to the common and slightly-more-anthropologically-grounded assumption that early egalitarian societies were 「long-housed」 - that is, where many resources were held in commons that were often managed by women - Çatalhöyük did not seem to have specialized areas for food storage that would suggest this arrangement. Rather, Çatalhöyük had a more distributed society, with close-together dwellings between which resources were shared. Çatalhöyük is not an especially unique and rare situation for early human history - it is typical to the paleolithic era that there is little to no sexual distinction in terms of roles for things like hunting and gathering or craftsmanship - this is a consensus among researchers of the era, but one textbook that discusses this is 「A Global History: From Prehistory to the 21st Century」 by Leften Stavrianos. https://libgen.li/ads1b8a15a4b46e7b73c5d1fd7436b2c9ebQNOAQT5K >All 'traditional' human cultures made a clear distinction between male and female spaces, tools, clothes, and activities. I appreciate your quotation of traditional as the word is fairly meaningless in anthropology. Rather, anthropology defines human history into a series of eras based on serious social or technological differences, with longer transitional periods than people assume the categories to be (even though specific changes could be remarkeably fast, at times). The Paleolithic, Neolithic, and Chalcolithic eras I've already mentioned are some examples which compose these eras, as well as distinctions like stone, copper, iron ages as well. However there might also be different dividing lines for them - for instance the onset of Agriculture is very important to some historians and others might even argue it is the very beginning of sex, and therefore gender roles and patriarchy as well. You might be thinking of the so-called ancient era, which begins at 3000 BCE and ends around 500 CE, and is also referred to the era of classical civilizations. There certainly were time periods in human history where most civilizations were patriarchal and had distinct roles for all sexes, even though those roles didn't consist of distinct spaces, tools, and clothing. However it is a serious reach to say this was true of all societies existing before the modern era - which itself has a serious difference in its definition between fields such as art, architecture, music, religion, and philosophy. What's more, an example classical civilization that did not have clearly delineated roles for men and women was one you probably learned about in school - ancient Egypt. As one of the oldest and longest lasting civilizations, Egyptian civilization proceeded for several thousands of years it did have some serious variations in social structures. however it consistently also had a number of aspects that would be seen as egalitarian by our standards, as well as some aspects that might be seen as showing a greater respect for women than people say of modernity, albeit within feminine roles. This has been argued in different ways by historians, and in certainly many more ways by cultural commentators. This however gets away from some of the facts, which are that women were property owners and could serve high positions in government, religion and business, including being queens or empresses, for thousands of years. In this way, I would argue that Egyptian society was much closer to our own, and even to a society that feminists want than your conception of a 「traditional society」 which "made a clear distinction between male and female spaces, tools, clothes, and activities". An additional detail about Egyptian society which is relevant here is that, unlike the egalitarian societies mentioned earlier, it was often highly stratified. Meaning that women could hold significant power in the same ways men could even when other sectarian class hierarchies existed. >Today, we don't believe in any transcendent metaphysics, any gods, whatever. I actually found your post to be surprisingly agreeable in some ways especially towards the end. However I would largely disagree with the point that "we" as a broader category don't believe in any gods, especially those coupled closely to a transcendent metaphysics (or metaphysics at all really). You and I might certainly not believe in the god of christianity, but most of society still does - in fact, only about 4% of society considers themselves to be atheists, although it is a common overestimation of Americans to assume their neighbors are godless, the average presumptive amount being about 20%. This is not to claim there has been no loss of faith, however, and something I would agree with you on is the Nietszchean point that, insomuch as God is a transcendental metaphysics, it no longer provides the answers it once seemed to. while vast majority of those in USA identify as Christian, about one third identify as nondenominational and therefore, if going to church tend not to care particularly which one they're going to. This is an issue for a number of reasons, but its not one that religious authorities - especially Christian nationalists, or the corporate megachurches - haven't capitalized on. this is why i agree when you say that the gender politics of the right tend to be arbitary and consumeristic, although i would argue that their arbitrary aspect has more to do with the personal tastes of whatever individual consumer is drawn towards them. A man who desires unlimited power would be naturally attracted to a social arrangement in which men and women were given the roles he agrees with, and ultimately which gave him a special place of final authority. If a woman wanted unlimited power, she might be attracted to the social arrangement with roles assigned as *she* saw fit, or she might perhaps be attracted to the idea of a singular woman with ancient power and ability to wield it from a forgotten matriarchal civilization. as most people aren't that megalomaniacal the popular stories of our culture might sound a little different, but you see my point. If it was supposed to be uncertain whether a future Undemocratically Elected Supreme Leader was going to be a man or a woman, then I would sell all of these stories and more.

>>87526 this thread made me disappointed, because it IS bait, and proof that /hum/ was a mistake OP is asking some loaded question with some half-assed context without setting up a clear framework for useful further discussion. compare with >>87500, where some poor lain gives an actually thought-out answer the fact that some lains, like 87500, gave good answers is in-spite-of, not because of, OP's post >>87529 >Çatalhöyük let's see who did the work on this magical city of fairyland >The site was first excavated by James Mellaart in 1958. ... Mellaart was derezzed from Turkey for his involvement in >the Dorak affair, in which he published drawings of supposedly important Bronze Age artifacts that later went >missing. well, that's not a good start. who went next? >After this scandal, the site lay idle until 1993, when excavations began under the leadership of Ian Hodder ... (who) >chose the site as the first "real world" test of his then-controversial theory of post-processual archaeology. >post-processual archaeology what could that POSSIBLY be? >Post-processual archaeology, which is sometimes alternatively referred to as the interpretative archaeologies by its >adherents,[1][2] is a movement in archaeological theory that emphasizes the subjectivity of archaeological >interpretations. ... Within the post-processualist movement, a wide variety of theoretical viewpoints have been >embraced, including structuralism and Neo-Marxism, as have a variety of different archaeological techniques, such >as phenomenology. > neo-marxism well there ya have it a thief and a neo-marxist succesfully determined that once upon time in an ancient ruin, marxism really work (tm) and everybody was happy being blunt, this reminds me exactly of the sort of soykaf uncle ted warned us about in anthropology, post 1950 all the tribals under study magically became women-respecting and kind and all the instances of blatant heirarchy, ritualized rape, etc. got swept under the table (see his writings and sources, i can dig particulars if needed) cherry picking some other soykaf from the article... >while things like gathering and craftsmanship were not performed more by one sex over the other but rather by adults rather than children. >In a woman's grave, spinning whorls were recovered and in a man's grave, stone axes. (source: the wiki article you linked) i mean that seems to show the stereotypical labor division if anything would. >Female figurines have been found within bins used for storage of cereals, such as wheat and barley, and the figurines are presumed to be of a deity protecting the grain. more signs of the traditional "woman food baby" "man hunt labor" division... >Conversely, a 2014 paper argues that the picture of Çatalhöyük is more complex and that while there seemed to have been an egalitarian distribution of cooking tools and some stone tools, unbroken quern-stones and storage units were more unevenly distributed. anyways... > it is typical to the paleolithic era that there is little to no sexual distinction in terms of roles for things like hunting and gathering or craftsmanship i find this claim frankly shocking why would modern tribal societies all involve strict divisions of labor, and ancient ones not? can you post some more direct sources (i appreciate the textbook, but i do not want to read an entire textbook) >for instance the onset of Agriculture is very important to some historians and others might even argue it is the very beginning of sex, and therefore gender roles and patriarchy as well. again i ask, why are modern day non-agricultural tribal-groups still strictly divided by sex? examples: inuit aboriginals (australia) that tribe in SA that cannot count past 3 (can't remember the name, you can argue they are remnants from a fallen civilization, which is plausible)

>>87531 OP here, I did not intend for this thread to be bait whatsoever. I just dont post here very often and so im not as familiar with the proper etiquette and expectations when it comes to posting on this board. I'm also no where near as good of a writer as many of the other lains here. Im sorry for my thread being poor quality.

>>87525 Muscles aside sinews also attach different in men which gives better grip strength. Monkeys are even better but their supergrip comes at price of less fine motor control. >>87529 >consuming roughly the same amount of food >it is typical to the paleolithic era that there is little to no sexual distinction in terms of roles for things like hunting and gathering or craftsmanship. Men have ~10% higher maintenance calorie requirement (untrained). Pregnancy or on period poses either a problem for women going to hunt. Even today male athletes have it easier because they don't get period downtime impacting training and men also incur less injuries. Guys are literally build to fight and not making use of that sending women to hunt is fighting biology. And dont forget medieval wars. Basic logistical sense to run women at home as baby factories pumping out more guys to send to die at frontlines. If you tried the reverse you could have one last gay orgy before your group went extinct. tldr: biology favors dividing labor by sex. Gender roles are build upon that with some extra crap due corporate greed. Now forbidden economy knowledge: Gender based colors are a product of marketing. Think about handmedowns for kids where families usually had 4-5 kids - if boys cant wear pink and girls cant wear blue you can sell 2x clothes per family. The division of men&women is good because women are willing to pay more than men for their products. You cant allow women to buy men goods because that would kill pricing them different to maximize your earning potential. Even stupid soykaf like taking the same soap and selling it as "soap for women" "soap for men" works to price gouge women because they will actually buy the "for women" soup at higher price.

>>87532 I'll assume good faith that this is really OP OP: if it really wasn't bait than i'm sorry if i was rude i don't care about the writing being "good" for a thread to be good, it generally needs: 1) a clear topic 2) clear boundaries for the topic 3) clear direction for exploration of the topic you hit #1 OK, but you left a lot ambiguous e.g: - do you want philosophical reasons? biological reasons? sociologicall reasons? historical comparisons? etc - do you want arguments for and against, or just one or the other - do you care about the right to do so in private, or about forcing these things on others? (e.g: in most first world countries, nobody cares if you are a closeted cross-dresser, they just dont want to have to stare at your gross hairy man-ass in a dress) etc. etc. obviously i'm not the god of threads or the gatekeeper of lainchan, but leaving the question "too wide open" often leads to senseless wandering and people talking sideways to each other eg: "this is my opinion-tan vs inherent biological differences-senpai vs marketing determines color-preference-sama" and to political soykaf-flinging fights now i guess i'll just go down the list: >I never understood why certain things and traits were ascribed to certain genders. Ideas like pink being for girls ... some lain addressed this as being part of advertising, i buy it. pink also just, yknow, looks girly. light colors in general are girly looking, not just pink. even baby blue looks girly. >why? probably some mix of language and genetics >or video games only being for boys always confused me as a kid. i think this is a mix of history and biology in the 80's-90's, my understanding is that you had to be a weirdo to own and operate a computer more autistic men were open to being weirdos than women, so that's who played video games today, basically everyone owns a computer, but women still CHOOSE not to play video games, even though ~90% of games can be played without disclosing your gender/identity/whatever this suggests that women are naturally averse to the sorts of environments/situations/etc that video games tend to create a plausible argument is that this is a mixture of social training/biology, since many video games are competitive in a fashion that just doesn't appeal to women alternatively, maybe women are more susceptible to the do-nothing propaganda of the modern first world (to quote my "gamer" brother, "what do you DO in your free time besides play video games?" my sister's response: she shrugged and went back to scrolling on instagram). >I can see some purpose to some gender roles to an extent. Like it makes sense why men would be the >breadwinners for the family while the mother takes care of the children, but outside >of a few examples most gender roles and norms seem to be pointless and exist for no reason. I mean, that seems to cover 90% of gender roles/norms. What others are there? >Why cant I wear makeup unnecessary and dishonest signaling women wear makeup because they are competing in a body-marketplace, which they succeed in by looking attractive (as a substitute for homemaking ability, since modern relationships are increasingly barren and mechanized) men don't need to wear makeup, because they are breadwinning instead you CAN wear makeup, but then people will assume you are a f4ggot, and that you want to seduce some other breadwinning man some male actors do wear makeup, and it is (imo) the g4yest thing ever although honestly i think noone should wear makeup, reflects an obsession with appearance that is frankly depressing >(why can't I) or dress femininely? basically, female clothes are made to look good on female bodies a man in a dress looks gross, his shoulders are huge, his hips don't exist, he arms dangle like an apes, and there is hair EVERYWHERE it is horrible. if you are a girly-looking boy, you CAN dress like a girl, but then you assumed to be a f4ggot because you a dressing a way that attracts breadwinning men this is again a signalling issue, people need to be able to signal to each other about their intentions and to judge each other based on this information >Why cant girls be into wwe? I uh... don't think I've ever heard of organized opposition to this I think they even have female fighters now... Now, if my fiance decided to wear and spandax and prance around a ring play-fighting, I'd probably take issue with it- but that has more to do with our personal relationship and a lot less to do with abstract gender roles. personally, i would like to see the thread focus on: 1) biological differences between men and women that lead to different gender roles (e.g: muscle levels/tendon attachment for strength, differentially expressed genes correlated to behavioral trait variation b/t men/women, etc.) 2) economic/sociological/historical arguments addressing old/modern differences in gender role (e.g; why they were a certain way in the past, why they might be the way they are now today) 3) examples of other species with/without gender roles and comparisons with ourselves- are higher species more/less separated by gender? what about tool using species? etc. but again, i'm not the god of the thread or whatever, i just think those are places where we can share interesting data

>>87529 There's a lot of variance in cultural attitudes to gender. But I don't think its right to take one early settlement and imply that therefore original human society was egalitarian and genderless. Its also relatively difficult to determine this from purely archaeological evidence. There isn't one type of human society and there probably wasn't a single typical model back when Çatalhöyük was populated. I don't know much about the paleolithic period though. >I would largely disagree with the point that "we" as a broader category don't believe in any gods, especially those coupled closely to a transcendent metaphysics I don't take issue with this. What I mean is that an enchanted world where humans are part of a bigger cosmic order filled with living entities etc. isn't something we believe in. Charles Taylor calls this the immanant frame. Modern liberal societies don't really think there's anything beyond the immanent material world. If people have an idea of God, its usually very abstract, cold and mechanical. I just wanna say, the drive to individualize gender and eliminate it, replace stuff with gender neutral alternatives might be something people will come to regret in the future. Just as we mourn the death of God, we might one day regret killing off gender roles. I'm not trying to be annoying right winger here. But it seems like gender roles and a gendered world were once very meaningful for people and really moved them. Confucianism is a great example.

>>87534 >alternatively, maybe women are more susceptible to the do-nothing propaganda of the modern first world (to quote my "gamer" brother, "what do you DO in your free time besides play video games?" my sister's response: she shrugged and went back to scrolling on instagram). This could be related to oxytocin levels. I personally believe most hormone-based arguments are weak (aggression levels, for example, flip depending on whether subjects are being observed. IQ spread could easily be a result of societally-driven factors like likelihood of being tested, early childhood socialization and education, etc.) but the oxytocin is made from estrogen in the body. Since higher oxytocin creates higher in-group/outgroup bias, a thing social media deliberately exploits, it would make sense for females to fall into social media addiction more often. >basically, female clothes are made to look good on female bodies a man in a dress looks gross, his shoulders are huge, his hips don't exist, he arms dangle like an apes, and there is hair EVERYWHERE it is horrible. >if you are a girly-looking boy, you CAN dress like a girl, but then you assumed to be a f4ggot because you a dressing a way that attracts breadwinning men This is bullshit. The lack of "feminine" (body-tight or overly flowy, opulent and overdecorated, meant to signal value) clothing designed for men's proportions is a historically recent thing (lining up well with the industrial period and the start of gendered marketing). See pics rel. Was it worn on the farm? By the poors regularly? No, but neither is a suit or miniskirt.

>>87536 >I just wanna say, the drive to individualize gender and eliminate it, replace stuff with gender neutral alternatives might be something people will come to regret in the future. It was for economic short-term profit. B()()mers took a loan on the future to prop up their pensions. They pushed women into work force to double labor market and inflate productivity. So now they had more workers to farm at the cost of career women having no time for kids = rip sustainable child birth rates. Another problem was women refused to do some jobs and that was hindering the wage dumping so they advertised "Lack of women is injustice. Proof the men you are just as good" as empowering. Same soykaf as pimp telling girls whoring is empowering. Another step was the beauty industry commercialized beauty as a product and not something you are gifted with. A beautiful women is someone who buys our soykaf. The fact that femininity got redefined by industry products killed the gender division as a unexpected side effect. Since the products make you a woman you can naturally now have guys buy the product and claim hey im a girl now! Pharma hopped onto the money train because they smelled immense gold mine turning boys into chronic patients and started funding ngos to peddle the social movement supporting it. Most of the social movements that get advertised as progress turn out to be someone profit chasing marketing a sellable cause to the masses. Tell people they are the good guys and they will support any crap.

gender roles and adaptation to them are memes that lived on due to evolutionary successes. they signal desirable traits tied to successful reproductive strategies to opposite sexes, making them more desirable. it's why women get a primal ick when seeing men into stuff like sanrio unless it directly ties into their social success (eg you're dealing an artist) and one instinct overrides the other considering adaptability signals. etc. humanity finds it very hard to overcome its basic heuristics. this, along with man's propensity for stupidity, is at the core of social engineering.

>>87541 right and also this doesn't just have to do with reproduction, that only makes it more obvious. since humans are social animals they're very sensitive to their peers. a failure of our brains to adapt to the abstractness and ephemerality of the wired has us engaging in all the typical tribal behavior that's on the interest of collective survival (because sharing something like "being a lainon" ties into an individual's self-worth, stupidly enough, and reflects on their perception of shared identity) and probes our peers for competence or places stressors on their behavior for the collective's assured survival. it's a way to fighting an anxiety that doesn't exist anyways because internet friends are fake, but if you're wondering why cyberspace socialization is so addicting it's because your social instincts get hijacked by dumbass platforms. hence why memes like "you will never be a woman" spread, or why trannies overtake (often meaningless) spaces to fight existential anxiety, why everyone's telling you how to think and to heckin validate them, and so on. it's pretty sad if you think about it.

>>87531 you are ignoring the vast majority of my post wherein i describe how Egyptian civilization was comparatively much more egalitarian than you are making 「Traditional Civilizations」 out to be. You are also ignoring the part where I say >>Çatalhöyük is not an especially unique and rare situation for early human history with a citation from Leften Stavrianos, since you also seemingly read the Wikipedia article I linked I should hope that you are familiar with the other citations mentioned on the page for the fact Paleolithic Society was generally egalitarian. For instance R Dale Gutrie in The Nature of Paleolithic Art, a pdf I've attached. Now on to the matter of your cherry-picking the Wikipedia article I gave you via Conspiracy Hermeneutics with a large number of >neurosuggestions to claim that... after a fraudulent archaeologist was discredited for doing something desperate, it was believed there might still be interesting research to be done within the ancient city. This turned out to be true and that some archaeologists revisited the site with a modern technique. In fact, it was because of this investigation that Mellaart's fraud was identified, so by attacking the secondary investigation you are unwittingly undermining your own argument. You are also trying to draw an association between the possibility of others synthesizing this technique with 「Neo Marxist Approach」 that it undermines the research of Hodder, who noteably does NOT subscribe to that approach. >once upon time in an ancient ruin, marxism really work (tm) and everybody was happy You are also ignoring the point that I brought this example up specifically because it contradicts what you might describe as a Marxist narrative of primitive communism by presenting a distributed (rather than decentralized, collective food stockpiles) society within which resources were shared. I do want to clarify something I said, though. When I said "shared" i could just as easily have said "exchanged", the point I am making is not whether there was a proto-mercantile debt record exchange system (although there did not seem to be one) like that which progressed into our own vs a proto-enclosed commons (also like that which progressed into our own) but rather that it was a society with both 「Private Property」 and gender egalitarianism. Furthermore, I did not bring this up as a singular counterargument but rather as an example of one of the many egalitarian paleolithic societies that has some interesting qualities you have been somehow triggered into a refusal to think about or engage with because someone contradicted you. >~subjectivism~ there are many non-academics or undergrads who might claim that the word 「Subjective」 when used in academia gives them license to make soykaf up, unfortunately this is not the case. In the specific case you are mentioning, it simply means recognizing the ability of past archaeological investigations - like the one of Çatalhöyük - to make assumptions which on a deeper investigation turned out to be wrong. This tracks perfectly with how the secondary investigation of the site countered Mellaart's fraud, in doing so spent much longer on each part of the city, deriving more complex conclusions and completely dismantling Mellaart's fraudulent claims about the society being matriarchical. And it's disappointment that you would 「Cherry Pick」 the Wikipedia article I gave you for counter argumens on account that there is a significantly more interesting paragraph about the historical situation of Çatalhöyük society, that you quote but don't talk about at all - for instance the argument Katherine Wright makes in 「Domestication and inequality? Households, corporate groups and food processing tools at Neolithic Çatalhöyük」( https://sci-hub.ru/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.09.007 ), that a deeper investigation suggested that accumulation was only beginning to occur, as such buildings were not quite specialized like they would be in later Indo European cities. This study describes a mixed economy of commons and private domesticity, an emergent complexity of the site's development into a city. What is interesting to me is the ways in which private or common might have been made more permanent as the city's traditions and structures built up over time. >being blunt, this reminds me exactly of the sort of soykaf uncle ted warned us about 「Uncle Ted」 was a mathematician, not an archaeologist and I do not recall this part of his manifesto anyway, only that he argued humanity was becoming weak and feminine because of technology and that it was necessary for the government to implement Luddism. There are many misconceptions of him however, such as that he was an anarcho-primitivist, which he wasn't. >i mean that seems to show the stereotypical labor division if anything would. it does not contradict my point, axes and looms are both crafting tools. both men and women engaged in craftsmanship. >more signs of the traditional "woman food baby" "man hunt labor" division... the religious artifacts in question were uncovered and argued by the discredited Mellaart that the society was a matriarchy that worshipped the divine feminine. However the claim that a goddess idol of protection for grain is a rather spurious one of the association women = food men = hunt when it has also been argued protection of resources was a men's job due to their biological advantage. Please keep in mind that my argument of >no clear discernment of male or female sexes is not that no difference could be made whatsoever, as there were obviously skeletons that could be identified, but that it didn't seem to mean much. only the separation into unique areas, clothing, social roles etc. was in excess. Although I would amend with something you said earlier as there are >2 sexes - it is not my argument that there were no sexual divisions at all only that they weren't that serious. I am addressing this part of your argment because it is the main part that you've presented, but I want to reiterate the discussion on Egypt's relative egalitarianism (and patriarchy) as more similar to our own than the >>clear distinction between male and female spaces, tools, clothes, and activities would suggest. >can you post some more direct sources (i appreciate the textbook, but i do not want to read an entire textbook) I can, thank you for asking. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6664064/ and https://libgen.li/ads1604f8a81c91bb8964b131ddcd6a80267OTBY3YE ,sorry that is another textbook. here is another: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8675.12680 which states >Gender equality has been widely reported by Mead (1982) for the Arepesh, Mundugumor, Tchambuli peoples of New Guinea; by Kaberry (2005), Bell (1983), and Leacock (1981) for Australian Aboriginal peoples; and by Gómez (2008, 2017) for the Bijagós (Guinea Bissau) and Zapotecs (Isthmus of Tehuantepec). Similarly, among several Amerindian peoples in North America, prior to European colonization, women possessed powers and rights similar to those of men (Leacock, 1981; Ward, 2006). This article is interesting because it also discusses how things might have changed in the neolithic, and the debates over this. My viewpoint is that ancient societies and civilizations had a more-than-intuitive degree of variance due to being spread apart and not the globalized monoculture that we know today. >again i ask, why are modern day non-agricultural tribal-groups still strictly divided by sex? They aren't for the most part. The Stavrianos source from section 9-13, and page 9 cites the research of Eleanor Leacock stating that >It was beautiful to see the sense of group responsibility... and the sense of easy autonomy in relationships unburdened by centuries of training by deferential behavior by sex and status. Leacock was certainly pleased about the society she was observing but it was not just her who observed the phenomenon. that book a few paragraphs earlier talks about a jesuit missionary who seemed unhappy with the deferment to female authority that was observed in the 「Montagnais-Naskapi」. >that tribe in SA that cannot count past 3 if you're talking about the Pirahã, that society is considered to be very egalitarian from initial observations. I cannot recall where I initially read this but i seem to recall the sexual distinction of men wore shirts while women crafted clothing of their own, that there was no cultural taboo in chastity and thus men and women engaged in prostitution from trade and that this was how the men got shirts. However I do not know where this was initially stated, it might have been Everett's initial research or from the Wikipedia article. Since it is an elaborate claim I will not die on it like some of the other hills in my posting. One citation from Everett's research was 「Men Fish, Women Gather, both tend gardens」. There is another modern tribe that has even less sexual differentiation that liked body paint a lot, I do not recall which one however. I do know that the Yoruba were one of the tribes with high sexual equivalency according to https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2023.2213171#d1e577 . Similar statements were also made about the Igbo and Dagaaba, with gender being assigned later on, or anatomy not being used for its assignment.

Part Two of >>87543 , because of the body was too long error. I want to apologize for my tone, I grew hungrier and fell apart verbally. >>87533 >tldr: biology favors dividing labor by sex. Gender roles are build upon that with some extra crap due corporate greed. It is funny you mention that, because gathering citations actually came across an 「EvoPsych」 article attempting to redeem the field, in the wake of this supposed「Rational」 argument - 「Men Strong, Women Weak」 which contradicts the widespread evidence that societies were much more sexually egalitarian prior to the onset of agriculture, and even proceeding well into Classical Antiquity in some examples. Someone sympathetic to it, which I am not, might see the argument you are making as a typical strawman used to discredit other theories such as the more complex assertion that >A future-oriented strategy also facilitates the emergence of prestige-based hierarchies governed by non-agonistic, rule-regulated competition, which, in turn, reduce the power asymmetry between sexes. Therefore, gender relations are seen as largely malleable, rather than fixed, and can be systematically explained by examining the interplay between ecological and social environments in the human evolutionary history, cultures, ontogenetic environments, and transient situations. The article is here, if you want to read it: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6664064/ As for an evidence of the anthropological argument against「Men Hunt, Women Gather」, pay attention to this study: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287101 . A more 「PopSci」 article on the subject is https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-theory-that-men-evolved-to-hunt-and-women-evolved-to-gather-is-wrong1/ . others were early in my post. >>87532 some of the people calling thread 「bait」 are relatively dishonest because they do not want /hum/ to exist as a board at all but the clear topic, clear boundaries, direction for exploration from >>87534 are good to start out with. I think that 「what kind of reasons」 does not need to be exactly clear but some clear points of focus, or examples, would be helpful. 「do you care about the right to do so in private」 is more of a question the poster has for OP rather than about the thread quality. >>87536 you like other poster are cherry picking out one part of my argument, that is okay if you read my post above when i contextualize it as merely one interesting example for a number of reasons, you are ignoring the discussion of egalitarianism in classical antiquity. it seems like i was not clear enough about the other parts, maybe because of citations? anyways, i hope that sources are interesting. >as we mourn the death of God Do you mean to say that the Christian God in e.g. Middle Ages was like this too, and this is equivalent to enchanted world of cosmic order? think it is misleading to describe the death of God as a mistake that could have been avoided, it seems like consequence of 「Techno Progress」 that we do this, it was not really 「our」 choice at all. >Confucianism is a great example you've repeatedly mentioned confucianism but have not given any books of the Confucius at all or other confucians about this. can you please share?

Here’s an improved version of your post with better flow, clarity, and a stronger argumentative structure: Evolutionary Biologist here. Many traits we see in human societies didn't evolve for times of peace, but for times of war and survival. When things are stable, societies can afford to be more permissive, letting individuals—especially women—pursue personal desires. But when survival is at stake, reproduction becomes a priority. Societies that fail to ensure their women reproduce when necessary will eventually vanish, whether slowly or suddenly. History is full of examples—look at China, where the most developed Han regions also enforced strict controls on women. This pattern isn’t random; it's a product of evolutionary pressures. The same logic applies to men. The behaviors and customs that lead to survival and the production of healthy offspring tend to get reinforced over generations. Over time, both men and women who successfully adopt these survival-oriented norms begin to find pleasure in them, as natural selection favors traits that align with long-term success. However, evolution isn’t just about maintaining stability—it’s also about adaptation. This is why there's always a counterforce: a push for change, differentiation, and novelty. It’s a constant balance between preservation and evolution. Whatever works stays. And you see it as gender associated. There's nothing stopping men from showing skin. And it's not the fact that no one is buying it. It's the fact that no one figured out a way to become a nations of Zerg out of glamorous men.

>>87545 >Here’s an improved version of your post with better flow, clarity, and a stronger argumentative structure: >Evolutionary Biologist here. rofl daily reminder that the internet is dead and filled with psyop-zombie cretins who are unable to formulate a coherent paragraph without algorithmic handholding, stop reading this and go outside

Is this written by an AI?

>>87546 it's not like these cretins fare much better in real conversation and statistically they're what you'll find 99% of the time outside THOUGH

>>87548 Seems to me like he just used an AI to proofread his argument.

>>87551 More like rewriting it to launder their uninformed opinion as considered expertise

>>87545 sorry boys, indeed im not very clear when writting so i proof read my text using AI. I am indeed an evolutionary biologist. Did my best to explain modern theory.

Let my try explaining things with an actual example. Skirts for example, being associated with men or women. You can imagine it, for the sake of argument, as being completely random. Some guy had a vision for men to wear skirts, or the tribe wants to be different from other tribes. Which make the skirt wearing of man, a kind of shibboleth (inward recognition mechanism) of that tribe. Two things must happen for the gender norm to spread. The tribe must under pressure to maintain its cohesion (normally from war and strife) and the tribe must be winning and spreading itself. The thing is, those behaviours are part of a fabric of behaviours and beliefs, whose value will be tested against others'. Even if a behaviour is very fit (good for war and reproduction), because they are random in origin, if it exists associated with a ton of bad behaviours it will disappear. So the skirt wearing in men, if "good" has a ton of criteria it needs to pass to spread and become normative. Normally half random, half predictable. hope it was clear. no ai used.

>>87544 i love taking publications apart so here we go >https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287101 >examines tribes in last 100 years with sources to large degree post 90s expeditions we went and talked with tribe >important hunting tool for women is a dog (unavailable to caveman) >women hunting includes scaring animals into men and solo hunting small game like rats >some tribes got machetes&guns >men are still responsible for large game hunts So still role division in hunting and women rely on modern tools to participate... and that's supposed to translate to cavemen equality. Next took a look at one source, read the bakola tribe linked publication: >spears are for men, boys get to train from early age >married women allowed to use spear of husband for protection gathering in jungle & hunt rats >gathering is still mostly done by women&children >hunter gatherer division persists, its just not a hard line as women can part-time hunt small game >publication calls it egalitarian society aight +2 to academics dickriding the current social climate to get paid.

Why is my post removed? >>87499

In the 60s it was legally forbidden for a man to dress as a woman and it was a good law. Now we have RuPaul and rampant masonic pedophilia. If you can't see how this is bad I cannot help you. Pages upon pages of talk here is useless.

>>87540 Modern liberal and secular societies embraced an attitude of expressive individualism where its seen as morally important for people to express their true authentic self and overcome external forces that try to restrict it. This value system is linked to consumerism and fashion but it has deeper roots in Western Christian religion. Gender got swept up in this i.e. people have a true gender inside themselves they have to discover and express etc. Evangelicals have a similar idea about faith. Now fashion and women working is as old as time so they aren't the direct cause, but modern fashion and white collar work has a powerful individualist ethic. >>87544 I'm pretty skeptical of the claim that early societies were egalitarian or authoritarian or using big broad classifications like this. Classifications seem to tell us more about anthropologists than societies they study. They aren't necessarily wrong though. >Do you mean to say that the Christian God in e.g. Middle Ages was like this too, and this is equivalent to enchanted world of cosmic order? Yes. Max Weber and Charles Taylor have written about this. Look at Mexico with all the folk saints, local superstitions, belief in ghosts and demons and compare it to Europe/US. Even staunch trad Catholics in the US don't believe in literal demons anymore. >Confucianism Confucius lays out an ethical system where humans attain virtue by playing their social roles. Daughters, fathers, mothers, wives etc. all have ideal roles they should fulfill to be happy. Chinese women writers thought along similar lines. If you read Ban Zhao's Lessons for Women or the Women's Analects, you'll find no interest in egalitarianism or individual expression. Instead, these women find happiness and pleasure in reverent submission. They enjoy strict gender roles even if they disagree on what those roles are e.g. Ban Zhao thinks its good for a daughter to criticize her male elders, something male Confucians probably don't like. The average American woman would be horrified by this because they assume humans want to be expressive free individuals in an egalitarian society and they read this desire into nature when actually its just their own culture. OP's post would probably be seen as absurd by Confucian women like Ban Zhao. If your a man, you will only be happy by becoming a junzi not by exploring yourself and wearing skirts and nekomimi. When this gendered religious ideology collapses, stuff like wearing dresses seems arbitrary because now there's no belief system grounding gender norms. This is what right wingers get wrong. Femboys and twinks in skirts aren't nihilism, they are a reaction to nihilism. People are trying to create meaning by playing around with gender in an individualist and subjective way in an era where gender norms have become purposeless and meaningless.

>>87548 >>87552 >>87551 No, I didnt use AI. Im just autistic.

>>87563 Where did you get the idea that christianity would favor individualism? They inquisition exterminated outliers, individualism got you killed. The push for individualism happened long after christianity, its is imo just basic divide&conquer of a community from classic political forces. Consider simple game theory: If everyone does nepotism its a even playing field. If you can convince people to stop favoring your group cause its evil while still doing it yourself you just gained an advantage over them. Its just telling the dude to 1v1 you and then showing up with full gang. Corporations also had an interest to destroy group cohesion in their fight against unions.

>>87555 >>examines tribes in last 100 years with sources to large degree post 90s expeditions we went and talked with tribe >One of the most prominent discoveries recently includes a 9,000 year old burial located in the Andean highland area of Wilamaya Patjxa in Peru [9]. The burial included an adult female alongside a hunting toolkit consisting of stone projectiles as well as animal processing equipment [9]. Researchers typically presume that stone projectiles buried alongside males are hunting tools but are less persuaded when projectiles are associated with females; the specific assemblage clearly evidenced hunting in this case. In their own review of the literature, Haas et al. [9] examined burials in the Americas from the Late Pleistocene to the Early Holocene period, identifying eleven females from ten sites who were associated with big-game hunting tools. By using a probability analysis of all twenty-seven sites which had evidence of big-game hunting, Haas et al. determined that females made up a “nontrivial” amount of big-game hunters across the Americas [9]. In fact, their analysis suggested that females represented up to fifty percent of big game hunters from the Americas prehistorically. First paragraph. >>dog (unavailable to caveman) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_dog >The genetic divergence between the dog's ancestor and modern wolves occurred between 20,000 and 40,000 years ago I know it is pointless wasting my time on this discussion. "caveman" is not a period of history. if you are talking about the stone age, that ended in 2000 BCE. if you are talking about the paleolithic, ended in 10,000 BCE. Either way, dogs existed for longer than all of human civilization. Recommend you read my other post >>87543 as you will find more publications to「Deconstruct」. Perhaps you can do so privately. >>87563 Thank you, I will download this. have you read, 「Gender and the South China Miracle? 」 it is a good analysis of the gender norms in different regions and how their history led to their present.

>>87566 >we found corpses with weapons >they lived identical to men olympia jump

>>87565 The Protestant Reformation. Protestants believed that individuals could interpret scripture by themselves on their own authority and that faith is private. Its an inner deep conviction and can't be coerced. Individuals should be given leeway to determine morality and theology based on their own inner convictions and intuitions without defaulting to the Pope. Liberal societies believe everyone can have their own morality and their own beliefs within reason, we can also use our own intuition and interpretation to determine our identity, including sexuality and gender. Similarly, the liberal idea of possessive individualism, that people have a fundamental right over their own body as their property to do with as they please, was justified on Biblical grounds. John Locke, the father of liberalism, derived this theory from the Bible. That's why Charles Taylor (devout Catholic) argues that modern hedonistic individualism is a degenerate form of a noble idea that can be cured through a revival of Christian values. So people should be allowed to play around with gender, wear skirts, be non-binary, figure stuff out for themselves but they should do it in the spirit of faith and agape love to stop them from going off the cliff. Christian virtues will help create a common ethical standard so you don't get a decline of morality but is still flexible enough to accommodate non-Christians in a secular society. >Corporations also had an interest to destroy group cohesion in their fight against unions. True. One reason for social atomization and individualization is that it was deliberate government and cooperate policy to make workplaces and populations more manageable and controllable. But why did ordinary people embrace an individualist value system and how did that value system come out of a Christian dominated society? Corpos promote expressive individualism via marketing. So its a combination of factors, but the basis of that value system has Christian roots. >>87566 >Gender and the South China Miracle No. I'll add it to my list.

>>87568 My interpretation of the protestant movement is a bit different: The peasants couldn't read latin and priests could fabricate bible rules. The height of it was selling letters to forgive your sins. Wanna commit sins and god to forgive you? Just pay us! That got many very mad. One madlad Martin Luther translated the bible from latin and then everyone was okay i can read this i can fact check the priest no more church scams. Morality was still confined to the teachings of the bible. Later they compromised with the nazis to stay the dominant religion in germany and everyone called them sellout whores, almost century later they did it again compromising on "bible says gay bad" to stay relevant to modern society that wouldn't accept such a stance anymore.

>>87570 >morality was confined to the Bible Yes, but the right to determine what the Bible means went to the individual believer rather than clerics and a key idea was that personal conviction and intuition, inner mental states or conscience, can guide an individual. Seculars have abandoned a Biblical anchor, but the sentiment is the same. Even Catholicism helped create the sexual culture they now condemn. Catholic pastoral practice and confession drove home the idea that each person has an inner psychology, sexuality, an orientation that ties together different sins of the flesh and sex, that has to be investigated through confession and policed through pastoral care. All the LGBT types did was take this idea and run with it. If you've ever been in LGBT spaces, the whole culture is Catholic-like, about identifying your inner sexual truth and coming out (confession) and disciplining your feelings and sensations so it aligns with the sexual identity the therapist or counselor has diagnosed you with. Just as pastors and confessors manipulated people's emotions, LGBT counselors have to keep molding people's feelings to reassure a lesbian that she's still lesbian even if she fantasized about a guy one time etc. Conservative Christians might look at trannies and gays as immoral and unchristian but the LGBT movement has components of Christianity in it. The idea of salvation through confession, that suffering is noble and makes you righteous, pastoral care of the soul, and idea of sin that's inverted so that bodily pleasure and sinning are flipped into something good. Even their pronoun and language policing are very Protestant/Evangelical. Yes, its not based on the Bible and it rejects a Christian worldview, but its essentially post-Christian. That's also why liberal clergymen have no problem accommodating LGBT culture. You might think Protestantism was a bad development based on your religious views, but both sects of Christianity helped create the modern liberal and secular value system, even if it was an accident.

>>87571 Makes actually good sense, would have never made that connection myself cause i never had confession booth in my view.

>>87571 as lgbt person i would agree, even though your examples are a little absurd >disciplining your feelings and sensations so it aligns with the sexual identity the therapist or counselor has diagnosed you with therapists and counselors do not do this. the experience is pretty much the opposite, actually. > reassure a lesbian that she's still lesbian even if she fantasized about a guy one time etc. is this your experience?

>>87579 Yes, they are a little absurd. When I say discipline, police, and manipulate, I don't mean Full Metal Jacket type punishment. I mean discipline the way it appears in sports. The way you are brought into a new community, you have to learn its language and its culture, you take on its history, and the way the therapist and counselor helps you through this process and push you in a direction. Becoming LGBT is like converting to a religion. I don't mean this negatively in the "its just a cult" sense, but that its emotionally and spiritually moving in way that faith is and involves belief. The counselor and therapist massage you into the correct identity and the correct way to live out that identity. In a similar way, Christian pastoral care is about love and acceptance, but you are still being pushed into a specific set of beliefs and feelings. >is this your experience? No, but I've seen things like this happen. People getting doubts about their sexuality because of an experience they had (again very Christian) and have to be reassured and made secure in their identity or that some other LGBT related label fits them better. There all sorts of biases, moral judgements, expectations, and group pressure involved in the process. I've heard lesbians and bisexuals complain that they get unfair treatment and that bisexuals are expected to or encouraged to see themselves as gay. I was put under a lot of (well intention and well meaning) pressure to come out as gay from LGBT types trying to 'reach out' to me but I ended up being diagnosed with a mental disorder that has nothing to do with sex.

>>87587 >The counselor and therapist massage you into the correct identity and the correct way to live out that identity. In a similar way, Christian pastoral care is about love and acceptance, but you are still being pushed into a specific set of beliefs and feelings. Agree in the sense that this is basically how our society, which derives from protestant and catholic values, generally transitions people into adulthood, or from one type of adult to another. > People getting doubts about their sexuality because of an experience they had (again very Christian) and have to be reassured and made secure in their identity or that some other LGBT related label fits them better Agree, I've seen it too. Although this is a very online thing, I think. > I've heard lesbians and bisexuals complain that they get unfair treatment and that bisexuals are expected to or encouraged to see themselves as gay Have identifed as both in the past and definitely noticed the weird pressure some might feel to identify as one or the other depending on the ideology of the microcommunity they are in. Can't say I haven't identified differently in different places, but this was moreso in order to protect my identity than to fit in. I'm honestly not sure why people are so neurotic about this, both groups get called dyke depending on dress and if they're holding hands with a girl, in the specific circumstances I'm thinking of nobody would have judged someone for having sex with a guy sometimes. Except that they're kind of cringe for larping about it. >I ended up being diagnosed with a mental disorder that has nothing to do with sex. this is my case in point. very few therapists will tell you that you might be gay, they are more likely to tell you that you just haven't found the right member of the other sex yet, or that you are lying to yourself and aren't really happy with that identity. this comes directly from my experience. There's probably a number of reasons for this, not least of which the gigantic media-and-legal apparatus specifically for people who will press charges over therapist's suggestion they're a dyke or glitterboy. Old ppl still have most of the wealth, the most high paying jobs, the most therapists, they are also the least homosexual.

>>87589 >this is basically how our society, which derives from protestant and catholic values, generally transitions people into adulthood LGBT culture is still has more Christian elements in it than usual. Despite those strong elements its anti-religious and this secular fundamentalism probably drives a lot of Christian anxieties about LGBT people. Its not unbridgeable but I don't see that relationship being fixed anytime soon. > I'm honestly not sure why people are so neurotic about this Probably because different identities bring different social expectations and there's an unwritten hierarchy that has to be socially policed to stay coherent. Sexual orientations are supposed to be scientific and reflect a deep truth about a person so people will naturally be very picky. In a liberal capitalist society, its important for people to know their assigned role in bureaucratic structures that otherwise strip them of any specific identity and where their position depends on their utility within a larger system. Sexual orientation as a concept doesn't make that much sense and these labels basically fail. The response has been to cover the grey areas by producing even more labels but this will lead to fragmentation, loss of meaning. >very few therapists will tell you that you might be gay, they are more likely to tell you that you just haven't found the right member of the other sex yet, or that you are lying to yourself They gently nudge you in a direction. A careful system of manipulation and conditioning. I don't know how else to put it. I don't mean it in a negative way. I remember two gay guys approaching me and really wanting me to join their club and mentor to me. It upset me at the time but I don't feel so negative about it now. Its like when Christians try to sign you up.

>>87563 Something i -as femboy will answer to >Femboys and twinks in skirts aren't nihilism, they are a reaction to nihilism. I account things that exist as what they are, and these which potentially do, as such. Thus acknowledge existence. Is life meaningless inherently ? Thats up to you and your standards and perspective. Im a femboy because i want to be able to appreciate myself. Cute things are cute. There is no reason to adhere to a social standard. I find it funny how men try to be as masculine as possible assuming to get something in return. These men are indirectly obedient and adhering to a norm. True masculinity, associated with ones own strong thought and will, is not what most men practice. Therefore, I suppose im somewhat a Nietzschean. much love Lain

>>87615 Boys being dolled up to be 'feminine' isn't a new thing at all. It was there in most pre-colonial civilizations, Byzantine, Islamic, Chinese, Japanese etc. it thrived in a gendered world. It didn't require the collapse of gender to exist >There is no reason to adhere to a social standard. This is where you run into issues. Extreme subjectivism and rejection of social norms is destructive and leads to a fading of moral horizons. Nietzscheanism can fail because there's no way to create your own values just as you can't invent your own private language. So you always end up being shaped by social standards, even if they are the standards of a niche internet culture.

>>87622 >there's no way to create your own values just as you can't invent your own private language Now this isn't really true. You can do both, and with cases like social values it's actually to your benefit to detach from them and understand the game of life as a path you walk, ultimately, alone. Societal values are often more destructive than not. It's only your survival and successful reproduction, genetic or memetic, that matters. Through that heuristic and your embedded, personal beliefs (which arise from more than social interaction or consumption) and preferences you can build a much more resilient core of being that can withstand the kind of soykaf life tends to throw at you. Society is ultimately an abuse relationship; you're either the abuser or the abused. Christianity was the monster in Nietzsche's time but the reason his ideas echo is because they're just as prevalent today down to hedonism (the abused) and last men.

There are at least two aspects of gender roles. One is the physical, biological, genetic aspect. Another is the cultural, learned aspect. Sexual reproduction appeared on the scene a long, long time ago in the history of life on Earth. Male and female differences appeared, some physical and some behavioral. However, even those physical differences aren't absolute and can sometimes vary or blur. For example, homosexuality is not uncommon among other species besides humans. Human cultural gender roles probably grew out of these physical differences. But since we have big brains and are capable of learning so much, we often invent and cling to nonsense. So some of our gender roles may be based on physical differences, and some on learned nonsense. At any rate, I think there are definitely people who are born with gender roles and sexual preferences that are not mainstream. They don't "choose" to be different from the average person, they just are. That's a normal part of nature. There are also people who have learned one way or another to have non-standard views of gender and sexuality. IMO, that's their business. As long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to act and think as they like, they should also be free to act and think as they like. There are people who seem to believe that there is only one proper way to act and think. They come on two varieties: 1. the ones who follow their own principles, 2. the ones who think everyone else has to follow their principles. The latter typle are, IMO, defective and potentially destructive. Nature made me a pretty standard CIS white male. But I'm aware that I didn't "choose" that, and that nature and culture make other people other things.

>>87626 Humans are so embedded in society and and culture that living according to your own path, in a literal sense, is not possible or desirable. Cultures are like a big bunch of nested social games. You can move position, you can break the rules, you can fight the other players, you can even play the game wrong, but you are still being shaped by the parameters of the cultural system. Those parameters are always shifting as people play, break the rules, write new ones, edit them to fit circumstances, but its never up to a single person. Culture and language are not instruments of the person, its language and culture that shape the person. You can play around with what's left of gender, you can be a femboy or a drag queen or just exploring, but you are still working within a tradition even if its not very clear to you.

>>87647 I don't buy tabula rasa arguments. Language is shaped by what you see, not the other way around. So long you have interest in the external world you can build your own internal semiotics to describe it and its interactions. So long you feel anything you can build your own language to internally express these things. Look at your own body (a collection of cells, but still), in the whole it makes its own language to self-referentially communicate what's going on through sensation and your consciousness's qualic interpretation of those. You're not making clear what "literal sense" means but pretty much every successful survival strategy in society boils down to understanding you're alone and using others for your sake with little or no remorse. I'm not arguing in favor or against gender roles (I think the ego is the most easily exploitable quality in human beings), though I do think past Darwinistic abstractions they're meaningless, I just thought it's always worthwhile to point out the central paradox at the core of society. We're also living in a pretty individualistic time where cutting yourself off increases your survival chances. It's why it comes as a first instinct to so many, societies aren't built to last forever.

>>87648 >Language is shaped by what you see, not the other way around No, language structures our experiences. There is no pure thought or pure sensation that can be separated from language. We can't invent private languages either because we have already inherited concepts, ideas, and signs from the languages we inherited and were brought up in. You could come up with an alternate semiotics, but what you will end up doing is simply re-labelling words and concepts you've already received. And there is no individual outside of society and culture. This individual vs society distinction runs deep in Western thought and its deeply flawed. Your very sense of self is shaped by your relations to others. This is inescapable. Even the idea of living as an authentic individual is a set of inherited concepts. In reality, there is no real distinction between individual and society because we are all composites. LGBT culture's focus on expressing a unique secular individual identity fails because we cannot create values from scratch, instead people remake or modify what already exists. The effort to coin new labels to plug grey areas or allowing each person to identify in their own specific way will lead to fragmentation and incompatibility. But LGBT types also expect everybody to use the supposedly scientific identity labels they have invented and to play by their specific rules. The gradual collapse of gender may be something future generations will regret.

>>87531 This is a much appreciated reply to the blatantly revisionist post. These leftoids really HAVE TO infect everything, laterally, vertically, in space and time altogether. My marxoradar went on as soon as I read >with a evidentially high degree of egalitarianism >not simply a relative lack of social hierarchies >no clear discernment of male or female sexes It is obviously impossible for the simple reason that a rougher way of like would have no time to waste to allow itself to be infected by ideological frauds from dubious intellectual elites composed of people with frail bodies and twisted minds. Left to themselves, men and women will grow differently and demonstrate a real cleft in physical and mental attributes. Which means that men will likely sustain themselves in proportion to their physical requirements, which would be higher than those of their women. Which means that claims such as >men and women did not have distinct roles in it, consuming roughly the same amount of food are nothing short of lies. It's on the same level of claiming that ancient tribes were matriarchal because of a few **twerking** fat venuses found here and there. Yeah, "interpretative archeologies" much. >>87533 This post is just as solid; it may be possible that the purpose of that thread was to open the way for the marxist to post his crap. There is one point I disagree with though. >Gender based colors are a product of marketing. Think about handmedowns for kids where families usually had 4-5 kids - if boys cant wear pink and girls cant wear blue you can sell 2x clothes per family. Men being taller on average and having a different physique means that they would not be able to use the same kind of clothes than the women that would come in both blue or pink or anything color, until the age where gender neutral clothes with no real shape and made too long on purpose would allows men and women to fit in, the age we now live in with oversized unshapely clothes. The irony? Does that mean that gender neutrality has vanquished capitalistic greed? >Even stupid soykaf like taking the same soap and selling it as "soap for women" "soap for men" works to price gouge women because they will actually buy the "for women" soup at higher price. That however is correct. Women using their men's own disposable shaving blades and shaving cream is a fact because of the purely artificial price difference.

>>87660 I'm sorry, there is pure sensation and observation that can exist with or without language. Language is our means of rationalizing and understanding the experience; the experience is regardless of our attempts. The world exists separate of language, and it exists separate of society. Society, like language, is a construct through which we try to interact with the world. Like any construct it's malleable, fallible, and like any construct or abstraction it breaks the moment it fails to accurately represent and interact with the world beyond itself. At base reality there is not even a thing like identity, only action. That's enough for sanity. The reason I refuse to condemn gender expression (despite the visceral repulsion I feel towards those who go through these changes in the flesh) is because at a higher, metaphysical, occult and abstract level past the obvious social engineering of a bunch of vulnerable nerds and their identity needs for profit men and women are never that simple. And the material might not even begin to express what's actually happening (we're paradoxical beings and our identities don't so much give in to our environment or pressures as through these concessions we take a chance to truly express ourselves, regardless of time and place) but that's super scary occult territory oooh.

>>87534 >(e.g: in most first world countries, nobody cares if you are a closeted cross-dresser, they just dont want to have to stare at your gross hairy man-ass in a dress) You meant >in most ultra-liberal cities Because I can see very easily that outside of these places, queerness is certainly not accepted even if it's done in private. The violent push for inclusiveness in media is an illusion and does not represent society at large. Take for a fact that in many European countries and now the US, the right-wing and their radical side groups have taken much volume in voting power. >pink also just, yknow, looks girly. light colors in general are girly looking, not just pink. even baby blue looks girly. As much as I stand on the right side of the political spectrum I will tell you that this largely culturally ingrained. Yet there could be an indirect biological reason to that: flowers. Aside from a few frail and slender animals sporting this color, which again would liken them to a more feminine body type, flowers are really the kind of life form that abundantly uses pink, and if there's a thing that is certain is that flowers have often if not simply always been associated to women: fragile, thin, frail, you name it. Again, what is thought of feminine physical attributes. The weaker sex by definition. It's not limited to vibrant pink but any sort of pale and washed out color, including blue or yellow. They're are less assertive, more subtle, softer. Again, to us humans, they're feminine. >today, basically everyone owns a computer, but women still CHOOSE not to play video games, even though ~90% of games can be played without disclosing your gender/identity/whatever >this suggests that women are naturally averse to the sorts of environments/situations/etc that video games tend to create Yes, obvious misreports aside from sources with one huge bias, it is clear that the games played by women are on the average very different from those men enjoy and it's logical because men are going to turn towards things that fill a spot close to their biological needs: action, competition, dominance. Which means that "armored" women with guns is only OK as long as it's done for the male gaze, and the male gaze needless to say is totally fine and natural unless you're accepting to be rhetorically castrated by feminists and their simping cohorts, which will affect your life and stature as a man.

>>87660 >In reality, there is no real distinction between individual and society because we are all composites. I agreed with you until this point and you had to peddle the idea that we're all communist ants. You cannot and should not deny the individuality of a person just because we're social creatures also shaped by millennia of legacies and collective language tools. Culture is a set of ideas within which the people evolve, but from there they can create and express themselves. It is particularly important to the more Western spirits because it reflects high levels of creativity. >This individual vs society distinction runs deep in Western thought and its deeply flawed. It's only flawed insofar as it's not a vs but an &. >LGBT culture's focus on expressing a unique secular individual identity fails because it's mostly concerned about creating a new class of individuals with new codes, not creating isolated "individualities" on the pretense that each person's inner self is absolutely unique and original.

>>87499 It's done for aesthetic reasons. The man you posted hides his face for a good reason - femboys look retarded in women's clothing.

>>87534 >alternatively, maybe women are more susceptible to the do-nothing propaganda of the modern first world (to quote my "gamer" brother, "what do you DO in your free time besides play video games?" my sister's response: she shrugged and went back to scrolling on instagram). There is a reason why women have traditionally been taken as being passive and submissive, on the receiving end of everything in almost all religious traditions. >basically, female clothes are made to look good on female bodies a man in a dress looks gross, his shoulders are huge, his hips don't exist, >(his) arms dangle like an apes, and there is hair EVERYWHERE >it is horrible. That's why the HRT is pushed harder to intervene at a much earlier age and why we have a proliferation of the twink body type because of all the endocrine disruptors found in food and water, and in no small part because of contraceptives. It ends in body fluids were are then flushed into the toilets and thrown back into the rivers, only for people downstream to consume them. It's gross and disastrous because these chemicals are hard to intercept and they affect the wildlife such as fish. >women fighting Y/N To put it simply, seeing a female display a manly angry face full of bruises is highly unpleasing, to say the least. Wife beating is not a pleasant thing either, so it's not a good thing to have women show the same physical symptoms as a form of entertainment. Pictures related.

>>87678 those pics look like cis women goals.Seriously, cis women world is very cruel. >his shoulders are huge huge shoulders look amazing if you have a great neck to make triangle proportions > hips don't exist my hips are bigger than most women around (thank you estrogen) >and there is hair EVERYWHERE just shave and get a good tan

>>87671 >Language is our means of rationalizing and understanding the experience; the experience is regardless of our attempts. There's lots of evidence in philosophy, linguistics, and anthropology that suggests this is not the case. Regardless, we cannot approach an objective reality without our approach already being contaminated by language and culture. Its something mystics knew well. >>87672 >queerness is certainly not accepted even if it's done in private. The violent push for inclusiveness in media is an illusion NTA It depends on what you mean by queerness. Even radical right wing groups in Europe/USA are supportive of gay and lesbian rights, gay identity, and hypermasculinity but they oppose trans rights. If you take queer as a catchall for LGBT then you get a skewed picture of what's happening. >>87673 You have called me a communist without basis. Western societies make a distinction between the atomic individual and society as a collective. Its assumed society is nothing but a consensual collective made up of atomized individuals. This cultural attitude is false. This does not mean that any single person has no agency whatsoever, but the specific type of autonomous self-directing agency independent of social relations does not exist. Humans are dividuals rather than individuals. Our very sense of self is shaped by our relationship to our environment and to other humans, we also shape that environment and those relations, but we do not exist independently from them. There is no Cartesian ego. >it's mostly concerned about creating a new class of individuals with new codes, not creating isolated "individualities" on the pretense that each person's inner self is absolutely unique and original. Both these elements are in LGBT culture and this contradiction creates internal tensions, which is one of the reasons they argue over which labels are real or what kinds of behaviors are valid or which faction has gone too far.

>>87678 You posted some gross examples. But I remember a girl in my class appeared one day with a blue eye in the classroom. It wasn’t much damage, just some blue skin. I felt the weirdest attraction to that girl on that day. The fact that she can take a hit and just come to school the next day and laugh about it, I like women who aren’t fragile.

>>87567 >>they lived identical to men No-one is saying this. It is simply that ideology, often including Marxist or Feminist ideology, blinds those of the evidence before their eyes. Such that superficial reasoning that is ultimately not thought out can take over from actually analyzing the data. My Claim: >there were NOT an exclusivity of male and female tools, dress, activities, spaces in 「Traditional Society」, Insomuch as this un-historical category of 「Traditional」 pertains in any way at all - assumed this encompass the broadest stretch of history from 「Cave Man」times - stone age / paleolithic, and neolithic, to 「Classic Antiquity」. While it must feel scary to you that these distinctions exist at all, there are many important differences. For instance, the existence of Agriculture, Cities, one vs multiple Gods, Currency vs trade vs commons, Plumbing, Horses, Accumulation, Textile, whatever. This was agreed upon in the discussion, and we resolved to that there were many different societies which had their own developmental periods, due to the lack of 「Global MonoCulture」 that exist now. >>87669 >leftoid >marxoradar >「Just Common Sense」 based cliche of revisionism >then accuses me of revisionism >zero sources posted I am insulted that you consider me to be one of those Marxist, when I specifically presented my examples as case against Marxism - every society of my initial example flourished in a market state with private property. but it is reassuring to know that I am not the only one you are intellectually dishonest accusations of the Marxist bogeyman. I understand it is pointless for me to give attention to this child, but I sincerely think your crusade on 「Marxism」 would appear less ridiculous to all if you read a singular of the many sources linked, instead of masturbating yourself publicly as you now are. Of course you do not care for this theoretical backing as it does not matter to your goal of 「Post as much Shit to cover up the reality」, and assume that you do not care if there is any of study history in the world at all. Nonetheless I will catch you up in sources on the discussion. This is of course avoiding the side discussions (or lack there of) RE: egalitarianism in Egypt, Application of Nietszche to Religious History, and >Çatalhöyük a (relatively) egalitarian, distributed (not decentralized or centralized) society, did not have matriarchical commons (as Marxists argue) >Also, it existed during the late paleo / early Chalcolithic https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/catalhoyuk-excavations-reveal-gender-equality-in-ancient-settled-life-72411 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk >there was little sexual distinction in the paleolithic, it developed later https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk (mentioned here) https://libgen.li/ads1b8a15a4b46e7b73c5d1fd7436b2c9ebQNOAQT5K (pg 9) https://libgen.li/ads1604f8a81c91bb8964b131ddcd6a80267OTBY3YE https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0309543 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8675.12680 >Mellaart, the initial research head of Çatalhöyük, was Fraud who claimed it was matriarchy with goddess worship >A secondary investigation found that the society had no serious evidence of patriarchy or matriarchy at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk >The leader of secondary investigation, Ian Hodder, was initially a post-processural archaeologist who rejected Mellaart's progressive drivel / probably made it up for grant funding and to get laid from feminist >Post-Processual Archeology was Hodder's concern that subjectivity of investigation was unaccounted for (e,g. Mellaart making things up) >Also, it was claimed that it can combined with Neo Marxism by others https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%87atalh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Hodder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-processual_archaeology Actually, I should thank you, because reviewing these sources is more research into the matter of archaeological method. >Conversely, a 2014 paper argues that the picture of Çatalhöyük is more complex and that while there seemed to have been an egalitarian distribution of cooking tools and some stone tools, unbroken quern-stones and storage units were more unevenly distributed. >accumulation was beginning to occur, there was 「Mixed Economy」 https://sci-hub.ru/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.09.007 this article was interesting to me because it showed the ways that accumulation, specialization, etc. were beginning in a relatively isolated society that had only begun to specialize in some ways (such as consisting of two 「Tribes」 that were theorized a prevention of incest). This was crux of why Çatalhöyük interest me in first place - there is a claim that domestication, agriculture private property, accumulation, gender and patriarchy all developed upon each other - for instance, Hunter, Virginia in https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/llt/1988-v22-llt_22/llt22re01.pdf There is also a claim that primitive society had a 「Longhouse Commons」in a state of communism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_communism. While there are many historical examples of each, Çatalhöyük I chose specifically because it contradicts those narratives - i.e., a counterexample to Marxist & AnPrim claims that world history resembled in some way that of European Paleolithic. It is also one late example of the general tendency in Paleolithic, that shows how cities began to develop. Also interesting is how Wright addresses ~equal distribution of resources, relative undifferentiation of male vs female spaces, within domestic setting (contradicting claims about domestication), while collective parts are seen as more unequal. >>tldr: biology favors dividing labor by sex. Gender roles are build upon that with some extra crap due corporate greed. >Even 「EvoPsych」 treats this as Strawman, used to discredit the field. >>A future-oriented strategy also facilitates the emergence of prestige-based hierarchies governed by non-agonistic, rule-regulated competition, which, in turn, reduce the power asymmetry between sexes. Therefore, gender relations are seen as largely malleable, rather than fixed, and can be systematically explained by examining the interplay between ecological and social environments in the human evolutionary history, cultures, ontogenetic environments, and transient situations. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6664064/ tl;dr, future orientation (not dying tomorrow) develops rules and prestige, which reduce power asymmetry and enables malleable gender relations - in the sense of Eco Social environments (NOT 「Radical Individual Subjectivism」). this also connects to https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8675.12680 , i feel. >There is Enchanted World of Cosmic Order that creates a meaningful world of fulfillment statement of Weber and Taylor, not sure what texts exactly, which actually I am also looking for Download. >Female Confucian Ban Zhao could reject Confucian Men (feeling it was the daughter's role to criticize the father, for instance), and believed in strict gender roles albeit with differences in what the roles specifically were. >Femboys etc would be seen as absurd in this world order, which aligns with that of Weber and Taylor >Gender and the South China Miracle overview of how traditional societies in that region (some being confucian) developed into the present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Zhao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber (?) Taylor? https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=03156B2C6FBDAE6618FBBC5ACBA0DC1F

>>87696 Forgot inclusion of discussion overview. It was excluding the discussion of other societies that are identified as sexually mixed in today, which are seen as examples of 「Primitive」or continuation of 「Stone Age」. I briefly mentioned Igbo, Pirahã, Yoruba. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2023.2213171#d1e577 http://books.ms/main/F35B5A5A520341F3A23DFE7955A720DF And the discussion of how ideology prevents recognition of historical evidence, with some claiming matriarchy (such as the case of discredited Mallaart), and other claiming evidence like burial with weapons could have never occurred. Argument was made that dogs were modern tools to assist women, however, dogs were domesticated in paleolithic, at least 20,000 years ago. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287101 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_dog Another disappointment, because actually, I agree that modern tribes are all colonized in some respect and therefore not the same evidence as e.g. a historical dig site. which is why I chose https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287101 article in the first place, because first paragraph 1) reviews prior evidence (aka, includes evidence from before supposed 1950 「Woke Moment」), and 2) reviews new evidence (aka, includes new dig sites with which are post the affairs for which progressive revisionism, or other lazy method was exposed) 3) uses mathematical analysis to quantify overall, rather than qualitative analysis as in the Çatalhöyük dig. So, it is a shame that you did not read it. Also wanted to make another point about the Igbo society mentioned before, though, as an example of feminist ideology failing itself. European feminists looked at the society of e.g. Yoruba and saw it as unequal, that roles women had before European women came were better off and basically Europeans claimed to liberate women they destroyed the lives and traditional way of life they had before, under the banner of egalitarian independence. This is like the claim of how Confucian women would reject the autonomy of modern feminism. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2023.2213171#d1e577

>>87696 >>87698 Not sure if you are confusing me with some other anon. >statement of Weber and Taylor, not sure what texts exactly, Charles Taylor talks about disenchantment and the immanent frame in his book A Secular Age. I don't think he talks about gender much, but he does have an interesting take on how sexuality became an essential part of the modern sense of selfhood. I suspect that disenchantment has played a role in making gender norms seem arbitrary rather than connected to a transcendent and porous world of spirits, gods, elaborate cosmologies etc. It seems that nowadays there's a tendency towards instrumentalization and transgression. i.e. gender norms should only exist as tools for expressing one's inner true self and that transgressing social norms is good and more authentic. This could only happen in a secular society, where gender norms aren't determined by God or kami or ying yang metaphysics and there is no longer a religious system to make those older gender roles seem meaningful. >Also wanted to make another point about the Igbo society mentioned before, though, as an example of feminist ideology failing itself. European feminists looked at the society of e.g. Yoruba and saw it as unequal, that roles women had before European women came were better off and basically Europeans claimed to liberate women they destroyed the lives and traditional way of life they had before, under the banner of egalitarian independence. This is like the claim of how Confucian women would reject the autonomy of modern feminism. Interesting article. Are you familiar with Saba Mahmood? Politics of Piety is a good book. Determining whether ancient societies had gender or sex distinctions is complicated by the fact both are modern and European ideas. Aristotle saw women as simply deformed men, essentially there was only one sex with different modes. Its when you get around to the Enlightenment that people begin distinguishing between a male sex and a female sex. Many societies today, have divisions that go beyond man and woman, some put children in a separate category, some have additional categories, and the basis for making these distinctions differ. I'm not sure how archaeologists determine the culture of a long lost society where there's sparse documentation and no living members to observe or texts to interpret. I'm not sure what their method is.

>>87698 >b-b-but some obscure civilization from 5000 years ago briefly existed without gender roles therefor implying implications Nobody cares. The point is they didn't survive. You're free to rebel against nature if you want just don't cry because nobody wants to follow you off the cliff.

>>87709 Guess that means when people who think like you die off other people who think gender is a social construct will be correct. First it was back in the magical good old days people didn't believe in communism like there are "more than" two genders. Once this is disproven, the goalpost is moved further. Is being a dentist male or female? What about working in an office? What about growing and harvesting apples?

>>87698 "ancient dogs existed" is missing the point - those dogs weren't identical to our current ones. 1.Obedience is a trait gained through breeding dogs for it through generations and even modern dogs cause still trouble to control them, ancient women would face wilder bigger dogs if they had them. 2. how do you rate tribes using breeds more recently imported? Not everyone is running their prehistoric ancestral dog breed. tldr: you can do it now cause our modern dogs are easier to control and easily available which wasn't a thing before. Btw ideology killing evidence is something that annoyed me too. Too much stuff gets thrown out because "it would be impossible" aka "doesn't fit our current textbook" People are way to uncomfortable to say we don't know.

>>87711 >Guess that means when people who think like you die off other people who think gender is a social construct will be correct. The side that thinks gender is a social construct is also the side that is cutting off their dicks and sterilizing themselves with T injections. I am not worried about them outliving my children.

>>87713 All people who believe gender is a social construct are transgender?

>>87714 >All people who believe gender is a social construct are transgender? Fine. >You're not transsexual. >You're not gay. >Your lack of sexual dimorphism doesn't make you utterly repulsive to the opposite sex. >You have enough money to start a family despite your liberal arts degree. >You decide to get pregnant despite all the anti-natalist propaganda like muh global warming. >You don't claim your free abortion at a DNC rally. The real question is how do you stack the deck so hard against procreation and still think the other side are the ones who will die out?

>>87713 >The side that thinks gender is a social construct is also the side that is cutting off their dicks and sterilizing themselves with T injections. I am not worried about them outliving my children. I think people on both 'sides' of that divide are of low intelligence. It is objectively true that it's simply as question of the definition of the word gender. There is a culture war over the definition. If it's equivalent to biological sex, then sure that's simple. I can also understand if it refers to the cultural construct and culturally-defined qualities like masculinity and femininity, and people can make up their own pronouns and soykaf if they want. It doesn't matter. Anyone that 'takes a side', fights for it, and says it is the real truth is an idiot who somehow can't understand the full situation. Baffling amount of stupidity around this. The political elite have used the culture war very effectively to divide people and distract from the class war.

>>87715 I fail to see how procreation is being discouraged by acknowledging that gender is a social construct. You haven't established this. Also I don't see how climate change ties into this. You just mentioned a lack of sexual dimorphism that I supposedly have. That reminded me of intersexual people. Their existence does nothing to suggest that gender is a social construct? A person born with XY chromosomes, with male sexual organs, but with an external appearance of a female, who acts as a female, does not suggest this?

>>87716 class war soykaf is real but the people had also reason to be upset. canada tried to have you jailed for using wrong pronouns. England had a women jailed cause she called her rapist a man while he claimed to identify as a women. The insanity went too far.

>>87715 >I believe gender is a social construct Interesting, did your parents also think that? >N-no... What do your children think? >I don't have children... Yeah, your revolution looks a lot more like a suicide pact to me but good luck. >>87716 >I think people on both 'sides' of that divide are of low intelligence I didn't say they are low intelligence. It's mostly university educated white people who believe this crap because it is easier to train a smart dog.

>>87717 >I fail to see how procreation is being discouraged by acknowledging that gender is a social construct. Women are attracted to strong men who can protect and provide. Men are attracted to fertile women who have wide hips and large breasts. When you're talking about abolishing gender or gender roles or whatever what you're actually talking about is making men unattractive to women and women unattractive to men. And then you have the audacity to say how does that affect procreation. My dude we are watching the absolute collapse of birth rates in western countries. All because women are trying to live like men and men are trying to live like women. It is a recipe for suicide or sabotage >You just mentioned a lack of sexual dimorphism that I supposedly have. If you're the same person talking about wearing makeup and dresses then yes I find it unlikely that you are engaged in a long term sexual relationship with a woman who will let you impregnate her. >I don't see how climate change ties into this You don't notice to propaganda just like a fish doesn't notice the water >Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them. https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/science-proves-kids-are-bad-earth-morality-suggests-we-stop-ncna820781 >I'm Choosing Not To Have Kids Because I Care About The Environment https://www.huffpost.com/entry/not-having-kids-for-environmental-reasons_n_5defdbcfe4b0a59848d160bc >Want to save the planet? Don't have children! Study finds bringing new life into the world is the most destructive thing you can do to the environment https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4687400/Study-Want-save-planet-Don-t-children.html >A person born with XY chromosomes, with male sexual organs, but with an external appearance of a female, who acts as a female, does not suggest this? The point you keep avoiding is that yes gender confused people can exist but they are not a sustainable long term trend. They appeared in the past. Then they died out. These ideas have resurfaced in the west and guess what. The west is dying out.

>>87499 Think about it for a few hours then get back to us. Try to not think "objectively" because if you're too objective then you fall into useless nihilism

>>87725 Just because I don't jerk off to Nick Land doesn't mean I'm dumb. It means I don't feel like I need to read other people's ideas to feel better about myself. But you'll understand once you graduate highschool.

>>87682 >NTA It depends on what you mean by queerness. Even radical right wing groups in Europe/USA are supportive of gay and lesbian rights, gay identity, and hypermasculinity but they oppose trans rights. If you take queer as a catchall for LGBT then you get a skewed picture of what's happening. The political parties do but not the people voting for them who pick the party that has the most good points, not all the good points.

>>87499 To answer the OP, male and female bodies are completely different, including the brain. One of the consequences of that fact is that men and women tend to have specific centers of interest. It's not cultural, even little kids show it, the boys are more object oriented while the girls are more people oriented. There is a reason why the sims is a mostly girl game and CoD mostly a male teenager game. There are male things that women can not understand and visibly, some women things that we can't understand. As a result, we see a lot of women in some careers, like social activities or childcare and more men in the industrial ones. How is this even a problem? Why are so many people trying to raise boys as if they were girls and declared a war on so called toxic masculinity? What's the deal? Who do even want to abolish gender roles and why? Nobody ever say it, they just insist that we must.

>>87729 >men have greater object special intelligence while women have more emotional intelligence and people skills thank you for cracking it lainon. now we know why boys love to be pretty in dresses and makeup (visual reasoning), while most politicians and business leaders are women (emotional intelligence)

>>87730 You don't understand what emotional intelligence is. None of the women I know is even mediocre at this. They are so bad at understanding their emotions and handling it that they turned therapy into a religion and they are so bad at managing the emotions of others that they have invented HR and turned it into the Spanish inquisition. Most politicians are men because most psychopaths are men, and that's a vital quality to move up past a certain point. What does painting your face to make you fit a norm have to do with spacial intelligence? To me it look like it's liked to the incapacity to challenge social norms.

>>87499 You can wear and do whatever you want OP but you will be punished because as things are now men are expected to endure pain and punishment and suffer in exchange for respect (ie. the ability to enforce the rules and put down those beneath them) and no obligation to present themselves to the world beyond basic grooming. Women are denied this respect by and large and are expected to maintain their appearance to be appealing largely to men, but in exchange they are spared the expectation to "toughen up". You can't really have your cake and eat it to but you can go against societal trends if you wish, but you will likely end up in a situation where you will get the worst of both. Even trannies who pass well will find themselves in the latter camp with a loss of respect and an expectation to always be well kept for men. It's not particularly fair but it is how it is, you're free to do as you wish but if you defy these expectations you will be punished worse than if you "pick a lane", I think this is why places like Brazil and latin America are known to have quite feminine looking trans people as there is a massive machismo culture in those countries and men who "flunk out" must do so all the way and renounce their manhood completely so they can maybe blend into society.

Wait, there are still people out there who don't know that all this woke propaganda is a ploy by the Jews to destroy g.o.y. societies? Have you been living under a rock the past ten years?

>>87696 I'll give you that, marxism seems to have been eschewed by the left at large for a new type of struggle not so much focused on class warfare and private property but sex and ethnics. However using some sources known for being marxist hasn't helped you at all and you have evidently focused on a slant towards genderless and egalitarian societies in ways that are just so blatantly forced that no amount of novella writing will defuse. We have seen so much manipulation of history by prominent academics and historians who know what side of the bread slice is buttered that we now have to become very cautious with any figure of authority or any consensus. Late in date that of shield maidens in Scandinavian culture or even the gross manipulation of genetic evidence concerning the race or appearance of given individuals. What is there to make of Eleanor Leacock's own words, which we are supposed to take as unbiased, when she's in awe of finally finding a case devoid of taint by the patriarchy? >>87543 >The Stavrianos source from section 9-13, and page 9 cites the research of Eleanor Leacock stating that >>It was beautiful to see the sense of group responsibility... and the sense of easy autonomy in relationships unburdened by centuries of training by deferential behavior by sex and status. >Leacock was certainly pleased about the society she was observing but it was not just her who observed the phenomenon. that book a few paragraphs earlier talks about a jesuit missionary who seemed unhappy with the deferment to female authority that was observed in the 「Montagnais-Naskapi」. >>87529 >Çatalhöyük was a city active during the neolithic and chalcolithic eras ... with a evidentially high degree of egalitarianism >not simply a relative lack of social hierarchies, but also with no clear discernment of male or female sexes. >men and women did not have distinct roles in it >Çatalhöyük did not seem to have specialized areas for food storage that would suggest this arrangement. Rather, Çatalhöyük had a more distributed society, with close-together dwellings between which resources were shared. >Çatalhöyük is not an especially unique and rare situation for early human history - it is typical to the paleolithic era that there is little to no sexual distinction in terms of roles for things like hunting and gathering or craftsmanship Or your attempt at painting Egypt as some superior egalitarian society just because it had queens or even perhaps an empress here and there over the course of thousands of years, ignoring the plotting and assassinations that at times made for truly unstable governments and thus hardly making any of this positive, and just as forgetful of Europe having known queens and empresses too without being egalitarian societies at all, which was also most often due to the fact that no king was available. >In this way, I would argue that Egyptian society was much closer to our own, and even to a society that feminists want >An additional detail about Egyptian society which is relevant here is that, unlike the egalitarian societies mentioned earlier So the religious power wasn't managed by an overtly male priestly class and the scribes were just often women as they were men? And women obviously did the fighting just like men did? Or the construction? I also looked into Stavrianos and it seems he wasn't without a significant bias that had him projecting his views onto the future, and thus likely onto the past too. >claims in Leften Stavrianos >leften The guy seems to have been a devout lefitst. On this The promise of the coming dark age, we read this in the commentaries >Joseph Somsel >Reviewed in the United States on October 1, 2009 >Read this book as a test case for the ability of leftist thinking to predict the future. > >I too read this book when it first came out so this review is also based on memory. It was typical of the time in portraying communist countries like Yugoslavia as very nice places to live. Worst, the author predicted that when the Tito, the dictator of the central Yugoslav government passed away, things would get even better! > >Of course, events didn't turn out that way with genocide, war, and fragmentation making life there a hell. > >You'll recognize any number of leftist world view assumptions stated here and applied to the then Yugoslavia. You'll hear the same arguments today in American and European political debates. History here gives you a chance to see just how those predictions turned out. https://www.amazon.com/promise-coming-dark-age/dp/0716704978#customerReviews >>87566 These historians just ignore the possibility that under some circumstances of inheritance, a woman may get her husband's goods and that weapons might have been moved from the man's hands to the woman's for self defense purposes for example.

>>87544 >As for an evidence of the anthropological argument against「Men Hunt, Women Gather」, pay attention to this study: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287101 . A more 「PopSci」 article on the subject is https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-theory-that-men-evolved-to-hunt-and-women-evolved-to-gather-is-wrong1/ . others were early in my post. The second link sends to an article that reeks off so much of mad raging feminism that it's almost embarrassing, coming such bullshit as >Overall, females are metabolically better suited for endurance activities, whereas males excel at short, powerful burst-type activities. A stupid claim on its face if for the simple fact that even at similar masses, the male frame provides more room for lungs. Nature not being stupid, bodies capable of having oxygen circulate would not exist in bodies that can or require that surplus of oxygen. >You can think of it as marathoners (females) versus powerlifters (males). What about marathoners of both sexes? We know the truth. The part about the power of estrogen was equally cringe, with the two female authors clearly trying to paint it as some kind of super(ior) hormone. >Anne Friedlander of Stanford University and her colleagues found that females use as much as 70 percent more fat for energy during exercise than males. LOL. No excuse for being land whales then! >If you follow long-distance races, you might be thinking, wait—males are outperforming females in endurance events! But this is only sometimes the case. Waiting for the big reveal... >Females are more regularly dominating ultraendurance events such as the more than 260-mile Montane Spine foot race through England and Scotland, the 21-mile swim across the English Channel and the 4,300-mile Trans Am cycling race across the U.S. Sometimes female athletes compete in these races while attending to the needs of their children. In 2018 English runner Sophie Power ran the 105-mile Ultra-Trail du Mont-Blanc race in the Alps while still breastfeeding her three-month-old at rest stations. Performances which are so irrelevant to the normal daily life of hunter gatherers that it's not even funny anymore. Not only because humans wouldn't run or even less swim for miles towards the hunting area, but they would certainly not need to cover 260 or even 4300 miles to reach their targeted big game. >Low sexual size dimorphism is characteristic of egalitarian and monogamous species. Modern humans have low sexual size dimorphism compared with the other great apes. The same goes for human ancestors spanning the past two million years, suggesting that the social structure of humans changed from that of our chimpanzeelike ancestors. That's a typical feminist fantasy that at some point men seem to have conspired to acquire some greater muscle mass, around the time of the rise of agriculture I suppose, and have abused this position ever then until today, thanks to the rise of the hormonally stunted men called twinks. >Nevertheless, many Neandertals show both genetic and anatomical evidence of repeated inbreeding in their ancestry. For for thought. But why should we care about these hominids when looking at the different Homo Sapiens? >They are hardly alone. A recent study of ethnographic data spanning the past 100 years—much of which was ignored by Man the Hunter contributors—found that women from a wide range of cultures hunt animals for food. Abigail Anderson and Cara Wall-Scheffler, both then at Seattle Pacific University, and their colleagues reported that 79 percent of the 63 foraging societies with clear descriptions of their hunting strategies feature women hunters. The women participate in hunting regardless of their childbearing status. These findings directly challenge the Man the Hunter assumption that women's bodies and childcare responsibilities limit their efforts to gathering foods that cannot run away. That women could be used as part of the strategy is one thing but it doesn't say much about how they were used. It then takes a turn for the formidable when it claims that "women participate in hunting regardless of their childbearing status" which is hardly believable since there comes a time during the pregnancy when it's not feasible for a woman to move with ease, and this would obviously contribute to a loss of endurance and strength. To say nothing of how expanded breasts due to feeding after giving birth would again keep the women away from the hunting grounds but would also make for inconvenient frontal masses in the wielding of bows. And then it also goes on to argue that women hunted more than men, apparently. In other words, the article is very stupid and you should really question yourself for using it as evidence. But I'm not surprised at all that you did. It's every bit as retarded as any modern feminist claim. In fact their big claim stems from a misunderstanding of the study they cite. Also you can check the marathon running times here https://runninglevel.com/running-times/marathon-times I'd like to know if men train as much as women for the ultra-marathons. I also went looking for the second link on my own and found this https://www.thetimes.com/uk/science/article/ancient-man-did-most-of-the-hunting-after-all-claims-scientist-sstlkszmr?id=20410123333&gad_source=5 >Study claiming women hunted as much as men was agenda-driven, says scientist >The scientists behind the study said they had discovered, by reviewing accounts from anthropologists dating back as far as the 1800s, that women hunted in 79 per cent of modern hunter-gatherer societies, and that this provided a glimpse of how our Stone Age ancestors were likely to have lived. >Women in Kung societies in southern Africa “think hunting is boring” and prefer men to do it And going back to your post, sorry, you said >there was little sexual distinction in the paleolithic, it developed later The claim sounds really dumb on its face and a bunch of "sources" won't make it any better. Unless men were significantly different and dimorphism was reduced to almost zero variance back then, men having a physical advantage in strength and stamina, and perhaps in pain tolerance (yeah, that other big myth that girls withstand pain better than men just need a verification to how they react to the same slap or pinch on the arm in comparison to boys) would lead them to obviously being more suited for activities where such capabilities would be better suited. >A secondary investigation found that the society had no serious evidence of patriarchy or matriarchy at all. I may take that with a pinch of salt too because it's one spurious argument to claim one can guess the intricacies of a society's ruling system that from the state of bones and the stuff found in graves, especially coming from scientific people who could be engaging in denial of physical body realities. Perhaps it is true though.

>>87721 >All because women are trying to live like men and men are trying to live like women I don't see the how you've reached that conclusion. Birth rates have been lowering in America long before transgenders became more prevalent in society. The same is true for other 'Western countries', the statistics are all available online, you can view them in seconds. Transgenders have only been prevalent for about eleven years now, in as much that people wouldn't rarely refer to them in a derogatory manner, and they gained wider recognition. However, they've always been around. Yet birth rates have been declining in most 'Western countries' for decades. You just mentioned earlier the concept of having enough money to start a family. Economics in no way has contributed to lower birth rates? People aren't able to reach a point of stability in their lives where they can start a family, with economically rooted causes? There's no lowered fertility caused by chemicals in the environment? What do you say about countries where transgenders are not as accepted? Birth rates are declining in Russia, other Eastern European countries e.g Slovenia, Slovakia, Czechia (random things I selected), Turkey as well. These countries do not accept transgenders, or gays, anywhere near as much as America. Even in America many many people dislike transgenders. If you think otherwise, it's likely that personal bias is causing you to only notice people who accept transgenders. Birth rates are falling exclusively because "men are acting like women and women like men"? What does that even mean? It cannot refer to transgenders, as they compose a small portion of society. I don't see people around me getting HRT or surgery to remove their dick or boobs, nor do I see them crossdressing. I've seen one transgender in my entire life actually. You're probably referring to women's increased entry into the workforce, which is necessary for many people due to their financial situation. You're also presupposing that the decline of birth rates is an inherently bad thing. Do you think that an infinite amount of people can live on earth? There's no possible limit to that whatsoever? Not having enough people to maintain society is one thing, but you haven't even assumed this will happen. It's not possible that part of the reason why the population is declining is because a limit in population sustainability is being reached? You have this preconceived, kind of Nixonian idea, that transgenders or people like them are historically bad for a society and lead to its collapse. You choose to reject scientific evidence that gender is simply not this dimorphic reality due to this baseless fear. To you, evidence that transgenders have always existed, by examining archaeological evidence, just proves to you that they existed in the past, and people associated with them "died out", even though you've cited no evidence as to how their existence would contribute to this, given that they were a minority of the population, as they've always been. Transgenders among American Indians didn't die out, they were around when the colonists arrived. >You don't notice to propaganda just like a fish doesn't notice the water No, I'm just asking you to explain how your worldview is reality. Some guys at a news organization saying you should stop having kids because of CO2 emissions leading to climate change does not then mean that climate change is false, or CO2 is not contributing to it. It doesn't necessarily mean you should stop having kids either, just examine their reasoning and see how it's flawed. This is petulant reasoning. You dislike what people are saying and doing, so you're disregarding all of the evidence associated with their claims. All that you're proposing here seems to suggest to an organized global conspiracy to lower the populace, which you haven't admitted to believing either.

>>87753 Reducing the population would require pushing the current Western model even further, then applying it to all nations, and on top of that using genetics and health programs to shove in sterilizing agents. Admitedly the latest part sounds crazy but looking at what happened with Covid, the halted pregnancies and the fact that future health will involve personally tailored solutions that target the individual's DNA for a so-called more efficient response through mRNA altering drugs, what sounds like a nightmare could become a reality. For one, some of the owners and investors of the Wuhan lab are also involved in that kind of science for the benefit of mankind supposedly, looking into cataloging an entire's population genetic data in order to provide superior defensive solutions to future pandemics, which as we know will happen and will be terrible if we don't do anything, of that I am sure, right? Such tools in evil hands seconded by considerable power in the hands of propaganda spurning engines would lock our populations into such a state of docility in the face of terrible microscopic threats. Most of the people would agree to take the New Pill™, perhaps slightly reluctantly for some. They'd be scared by the next hybrid cough thing or the next ebolaf and accept the safe and effective 12-booster multi-year plan, now with 99% more efficiency as the vaccine is different for each individual since it's engineered from the individual's gathered DNA, a result of a procedure which would become more or less mandatory if not simply highly incentivized through a severe promotion and enforcing of further biometrics and genetic testing at birth. Your newborn's entire genome would be extracted and saved in a database, for good use obviously. From there, any tool specifically targeting your kid's DNA could be used at a later time. With vaccines even more mandatory where in certain countries kids are required to be gigavaxxed before the age of ten or even earlier, it would be obvious that aluminum adjuvants that cause autism would be the least of our troubles. All for the greater good of course.

>>87755 various outlets openly stated they are cooking genetic weapons to target specific ethnicities, they want to mimic how america got conquered - not through war but by infecting the locals with diseases that are harmless to you and deadly to them.

>>87757 History repeats itself, this will definitely happen at some point.

>>87754 > i can assure you , things will change in the future.Females are the reason for stupidity and weakness and the reason for trans is prob to create a feminine gender that will supersede traditional females I can assure you that you aren't one of the smart ones.

>>87750 Women aren't evil. They're just cursed with a follower mentality. On the large scale, womens' brains seem to not be able to handle independent/intelligent thought too well.

>>87766 I don't think it's a gender thing. It's more a gender role thing. Females get the perks of better social connections they also get the negatives of that as well. But they don't conform to the whole just their own interests. This is generally speaking of course.

>>87615 Nietzschean femboy, very cool!

>>87767 its a weak people thing. If you are elite you can win by merit. You dont need any other ladder to compete one because you already winning. If you are avg or below you can't compete on merit, so you need to find an alternative way to win. That alternative happens to be obedience. Now why are women more affected? Cause women are more genetically stable which means the iq distribution is narrower. Men have more geniuses & retards and the retards don't register in statistics. So men look on avg better. Nobody is even asking for hobbo opinions which is predominantly men.

>>87767 It isn't a gender role thing. It's innate. Spend any amount of time around women and you'll get it.

>>87680 Why so much efforts just to get rammed in the soykafhole though?

>>87708 Not trying to confuse you, sorry if it did. anon jumped on discussion because of hearing trigger words like 「sex」 and 「equality」 assumed saying something i was not. so, i posted overview of conversation, with citations from each of us so far, so that it could catch up. unfortunately, i do not think they did. thank you for the book. I will download. >This could only happen in a secular society, where gender norms aren't determined by God or kami or ying yang metaphysics and there is no longer a religious system to make those older gender roles seem meaningful. think this is true in some of society, but not everywhere. it is cause of much angst, as seen in thread. Perhaps the internal Sense of gender expressionists is based on other rules, too. >Are you familiar with Saba Mahmood? Politics of Piety is a good book. I am not. thank you again. >Determining whether ancient societies had gender or sex distinctions is complicated by the fact both are modern and European ideas True. it was my hope that 「sex」 could refer more generally to the different systems, but that did not work here. >I'm not sure how archaeologists determine the culture of a long lost society where there's sparse documentation and no living members to observe or texts to interpret. I'm not sure what their method is. it is hard to know finer details, which is why i said it was hard to distinguish sex throughout my posts. so that only statements about whether or not there were >major, obvious difference in spaces, tools, roles, jobs, etc which is not generally true. i was never trying to argue about finer details of sex, since they cant be known really, only the extreme position i wanted to argue against, as it was disproveably unsound. Actually, i believe that sex existed in different ways, as you or somebody stated earlier, but that it was more tied to culture than itself a material factor. >>87709 i lay every single argument made out in posts and you proceed to ignore and resort to 「Straw Man 」. Çatalhöyük was not a civilization, a nuance you are incapable of grasping. if any counter example was made, it was to the Marxist argument about primitive communism and Longhouse, due to private property. and a counter argument of matriarchy. but really, it was just a proto city i found interesting. but i guess i cannot discuss these things in your presence. one other thing. >>b-b-but >>N-no you seem use this way of talking refer to your opponents often, and also seem to accuse them of transsexual. as if they were demure, shy, femboy, or talk like girls in manga. why is this so? >>87711 there is no coherent point, simply a reaction to trigger words, arguments that contradict one another in response to journalistic evidence, as if a knee was jerking them. >>87712 >how do you rate tribes using breeds more recently imported? fair. but no reason to assume it was european-style males who did this. >Too much stuff gets thrown out because "it would be impossible" aka "doesn't fit our current textbook" agree. thank you >>87736 >sources known for being marxist you mean, sources you have accused of 「Neo Marxism」. The source do not identify or their technique as Marxist. No citation of Marx, or Marxism, it could go on. And you had to play 「Wikipedia Game」to get to Marxism from the sources posted. You are upset as many of us have come to a conclusion about the diversity of society before what you might call 「Post Modern Monoculture」. If you click enough links on Wikipedia, you will also find the 「Banana」 article. much to think about. >accusing me of leftism, even if i am not Marxist I do not care what you think i am, politically. 「Left」in USA means 2 things anyway, Liberal and Marxist. Or maybe 「Anprim」. I just want to research. You want to say i have 「bad rapport」, due to using words you do not agree with. like 「sex」. but actually, respect is gained through high quality discussion, and critical thinking skills. your post, unfortunately, is not quality of other posters, and the quality of your lain is not high either. >slant towards genderless and egalitarian societies I do not know why you are now arguing those societies were genderless. it is not my position. only that it is much harder to determine than > made a clear distinction between male and female spaces, tools, clothes, and activities. claims, from「dubs post」 8700. there are some genderless society mentioned, but specifically as outliers after they were brought up earlier in conversation. >What is there to make of Eleanor Leacock's own words, which we are supposed to take as unbiased, when she's in awe of finally finding a case devoid of taint by the patriarchy? it is in my quotation. Page 9 again. A missionary, and Leacock, saw the same thing, and had opposite reactions. So, high probability of its existence. >Or your attempt at painting Egypt as some superior egalitarian society no, i do not consider it superior, or especially egalitarian. it was simply brought it up because of how women, for thousand of years, could own property. among other examples. read this post from beginning, including my other replies. as it should make more sense to you, that way. As I even said Egyptian society had spiritual roles for different sexes, and common social roles for them as well. Your society also has this. Feminists want that women can own property, like men, in USA for longer time period than since the 1970. Egypt had this for much longer. Other things, too. >>Leften Stavrianos >his name has "left" in it you see what I mean. this is retarded. >On this The promise of the coming dark age, we read this in the commentaries Amazon review section is not commentaries. and 「The promise of the coming dark age」 is not even book we were discussing. but Yes, there are many people like yourself who will accuse anyone of Neo Marxism. congratulations that you found him, maybe Joseph Somsel and you can become friends? >under some circumstances of inheritance, a woman may get her husband's goods and that weapons might have been moved from the man's hands to the woman's for self defense purposes for example if it was buried with the woman then it is likely a spiritual significance. what we cannot know. could have been strong hunter in life, or to defend oneself in afterlife. either way, it is unlikely that inheritance existed in the way that you are familiar. but, by same argument, males buried with weapons also called into question. especially with high quantity of findings, and additional findings of sex and the hunt. >>87737 >The second link sends to an article that reeks off so much of mad raging feminism that it's almost embarrassing, coming such bullshit I shared second link because it might be easier time for you reading, being a 「PopSci」 article on subject. as you seem to be having difficulty, however. you seem to like it the most, though, and did read it, so I am proud of you. >discussion of bodies and article the EvoBio / EvoPsych angle seems most concerned with this, from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6664064/ . we only briefly discussed this in >>87544 , but it is an interesting subject. non-agonistic competition is key to development of society in a competitive lens. As you do not need this naive 「bio realism」 for the arguments you make- perhaps children play games organized into prestige hierarchies, with rules meant to prepare for effectiveness in the hunt. Although, I do remember that Marxists believed something similar, that biological differences give rise to sexual difference, which is exaggerated by markets. Other posts in thread say this, which I cannot find the best example of right now that sounds like I was looking for. I can find you the essay later. >The part about the power of estrogen was equally cringe, with the two female authors clearly trying to paint it as some kind of super(ior) hormone. I am sorry it offended you. >LOL. No excuse for being land whales then! nobody is making excuse for 「Land Whale」. You seem very upset by 「Mad Raging Feminism」. I am sorry, but it is not evidence that you are thinking about the conversation, only mad by the concept of your enemy. >Not only because humans wouldn't run or even less swim for miles towards the hunting area the debate of 「Human Persistence Predator」 still rages. https://carrier.biology.utah.edu/Persistence%20Hunting.html , but I think it was culturally varied. >hormonally stunted men called twinks. we were not discussing twinks. do you think about them often? >you should really question yourself for using it as evidence well, it seemed to be your favorite, so i am still glad you found out about it. >I also went looking for the second link on my own and found this https://www.thetimes.com/uk/science/article/ancient-man-did-most-of-the-hunting-after-all-claims-scientist-sstlkszmr?id=20410123333&gad_source=5 it is an opinion piece. Opinion piece written by scientist != peer-reviewed study in journal, Kung example for instance is like posters who say >just one example of an obscure society doesn't prove sex wasn't real (thing that nobody was saying anyway), and that Kung seems to be a 「Post Colonial」 society anyway, so all your method critique also applies. >Unless men were significantly different and dimorphism was reduced to almost zero variance back then oh, I see the mistake. I used 「sex」 in reference to all systems of gender, sex roles, and the like. because 「gender」 might have been an upsetting word to you. other reasons, too, if you review my earlier discussion, or like poster of Aristotle stated. there are different sexes and roles too, but they are different across societies, and not dramatically identifiable like somebody made them out to be.

>>87776 because i like putting effort on it , thats why.

>>87778 >Çatalhöyük was not a civilization Okay, so it was a kibbutz and just as gay.

>>87735 Without jumping to Charlie Chaplin points, the world make more sense if we understand that we live in an occupied country. The school system have been designed by Rockefeller after the Prussian schools built in Poland to domesticate the Poles and make them more subservient to Germany. Yes, they have done that for centuries and still do it today. It's not by accident that the main thing we learn in school is to sit 8 hours a day and to repeat what we have been told. During Occupy WallStreet, it became clear that feminist, gay and black activists are good at preventing the workers from organizing, and it should not be a surprise to see their points being teached in school. A generation of schlongsuckers isn't a problem to the elite-capitalist-rootless clique-globalists.

>>87829 This is such a reach. A person's sex acts doesnt dictate how they act in actual society. Also feminist, gay, and black activists have done significant advancement in organizing the working class in movements other than occupy wallstreet. >>87729 Are these inherent unchangable aspects of the brain, or are children taught these throughout childhood? How a child is socialized has a major effect on how their brain develops. Boys are taught to be more object oriented, and girls are taught to be people oriented, then grow up to instill these traits into their children. And as for toxic masculinity, people do not mean masculinity as a whole, they are referring to the toxic aspects of it, like that boys shouldnt express emotion or that violence is manly. Thus getting rid of toxic masculinity is a good thing.

>>87937 >Also feminist, gay, and black activists have done significant advancement in organizing the working class in movements other than occupy wallstreet. nice joke, sjw activists actively disrupted occupy with mememe antics splitting the group into camps And what else did you accomplish next? Supported the blm chimpout over a criminal robbing pregnant women while ignoring a black women shot in her own home same week Nothing more than media steered dogs trying to do tricks as instructed.

>>87715 procreation isnt the only purpose of life. Just because someone's lifestyle doesnt promote birthing offspring doesnt mean that lifestyle is bad. I personally would never have children, seeing as taking care of them would be horrid.

>>87941 children in the 21st century are neglected and abused, alienated, and generally sired by incapable parents to grow up in an authoritarian world that completely devalues them. more people should think about how to significantly improve the world, and their own communities, before even thinking about having kids.

>>87937 >This is such a reach. A person's sex acts doesnt dictate how they act in actual society. You mean sexual acts? In a way they are a reflexion of what a person is and this could be mirrored to an extent in that person's daily activities. >>87941 >procreation isnt the only purpose of life. Just because someone's lifestyle doesnt promote birthing offspring doesnt mean that lifestyle is bad. But procreation is essential to life so it's still a thing that a sexual life totally detached from reproduction, therefore sterile, could be viewed negatively. A century ago your opinion would have been unacceptable and your attached lifestyle considered equally bad because that's how most people would think, that sex and procreation should not be too separated. I can equally understand one's opinion about the hardships of child bearing, education and all that. But I think there's a price to pay for everything and you have to contribute. If you don't have children, other people will have to and compensate for you otherwise the people disappears. Ancient societies had women take care of children until they were mature enough to be educated by men or trained. You may not want to have children right now because you have not sorted your own life and you are scared about the economical downturn but billions of people had families in far worse conditions. >>87942 There is no point improving society if there is no one to inherit it. Otherwise it's pure selfishness and hedonism.

>>87947 >There is no point improving society if there is no one to inherit it. Otherwise it's pure selfishness and hedonism. This. What is the point of fighting climate change if we don't make kids? What is the point of creating new technologies, or to do basically anything? Any society that don't reproduce will disappear and other societies that do will take their place. This mean we either find a way to have both women's right and fertility or no society will ever have women's rights for more than 2 or 3 generations. That's to talk only about women, obviously. If you are a troon and care about the troons in 50 years, you should be very concerned about the fertility of the few cultures that ever gave you the right to exist. >>87937 >Also feminist, gay, and black activists have done significant advancement in organizing the working class in movements other than occupy wallstreet. Such as? Raising taxes on the working men to fund your well meaning programs? DEI? There is a reason why classical communists made their movement illegal at best or executed them at worse. >A person's sex acts doesnt dictate how they act in actual society I wish it wouldn't. You guys and other things have flags and made it your identity, you are asking for representation and created DEI which in turn have made the incompetency crisis so bad incompetency has become indistinguishable from domestic terrorism. Boeing make planes that refuse to obey its pilots, helicopters find themselves in the path of commercial airplanes, boats ram bridges and the protection of presidential candidate is so poorly done you can ask if they are not in bed with the assasin.

>>87937 >This is such a reach. A person's sex acts doesnt dictate how they act in actual society. g*ys and likely tr**n*rs as well are responsible for some major disease spread and associated society bourne costs. Nothing against them but if they are to have a high net positive contribution to society they must be reined in, either by themselves or by someone more responsible. >toxic masculinity the problem with terms like this is that its unspecific. Toxic things are bad therefore toxic masculinity is bad also. But what specific behaviors or tendencies are toxic here ?

>>87951 Back when there was nothing for AIDS and getting it gave a 100% chance to die a slow and painful agony, gays still didn't wanted to use condoms. It's beyond my comprehension that anyone would place feeling a bit better while they fuarrrk strangers above staying alive, let alone die in an horrible manner, but in the gay community (yes, such a thing exist, I have never been explained why they need one) it's really common, if not what pass as normal. It's not normal to fuarrrk like that, it's not normal to have a 4 digit bodycount it's not normal to make your entire identity revolve around your sexuality. Imagine if feet fetishists did it, or the BDSM. Even the few good gay people they present to us to show how gays can be normal clearly aren't. Turing was sterelized and instead of simply living his life without fuarrrking like a rabbit, like anyone normal, he took his life, because this is what not being capable to plow asses do to an homosexual. I am tired to have to call that love but they are protected by the authority and telling the truth come at a high price.

>>87953 Least bad faith post I've ever seen on lainchan.

>>87953 >he took his life and understandably so, because at the time, if you were publicly found to be gay in the UK, it was game over. doesn't matter if you are Turing, nobody is gonna touch a homosexual with a 6 foot pole. It's only in 2012 that a bill was passed to pardon him.

>>87955 pretty sure a lot of glitterboys would have touched him with rather shorter poles, if you know what I mean

>>87954 Promiscuity isn't normal and debauchery isn't love. Deal with it. >>87955 > nobody is gonna touch him with a 6 foot pole That look bad. I am glad none of us are rotting in level of social isolation never seen before in history.

>>87958 >Promiscuity isn't normal and debauchery isn't love. Deal with it. Love is a set of emotions and behaviors with the purpose of bringing people together and producing offspring. In that sense it would technically still be considered love, even if it isnt the same kind of romanticized love you think of when you hear the word. As for promiscuity, it may not be normal but that doesnt make it bad or wrong. If someone wants to sleep around it doesnt effect me, so why should I care?

>>87958 I was referring to the fact that your every single word is a blatant lie. I myself am not a fan of debauchery either and would be repulsed by people who had "4 digit body counts," but they are more a figment of your imagination than a phenomenon grounded in reality. At least try to make your bait believable next time.

>>87961 >doesnt affect me it does. They fuarrrk way more = get a lot more std's (was something crazy like 25x more) and spread it over bisexuals to heteros. So they constitute a rampant disease vector. The cost of treatment is furthermore distributed to your insurance price. Socialist systems automatically lead to you paying for every bad decision someone else makes. The university grift letting kids waste their money&life on useless degrees is probably the greatest tragedy in that aspect. They are breeding neets and the working people will be the ones paying for it.

>>87973 Do you remember what so many people said during the other coronavirus pandemy? I think it should be done in this case. They don't want to wear a condom? Okay, don't use public money to take care of them. And yes, I think this logic should apply to fat people too, a much bigger problem. (no pun intended) >>87972 I think that it's the truth. Demonstrate to me that they are lies.

>>87977 One of the morbid things i encountered was a us government study titled something akin "fat people are tax positive" They did a statistical analysis of spending/income/... and concluded fat people are actually tax positive because they die early and skip the retirement benefits. I lowkey believe thats why they dont do more against people growing fatter - they concluded its good.

>>87973 Gay sex doesnt create STDs. Straight people have served as a rampant disease vector far more times than gays.

>>87977 Look, dude, all I can tell you is to keep trying. The only bit of your obvious bait post that was remotely believable was the room temp IQ take about Turing. Everything else you just took standard homophobe rhetoric and upped it by a magnitude of 10 for more funny. Try harder next time.

>>87973 Non hetero male rates of some STDs has nothing to do with the sex of the people involved it's different rates of anal sex. The same thing happens with straight people who do anal they have higher rates. This is why lesbians have very low STD rates because they are not on the receiving end of anything that is easier to pass on an STD whether anal sex or coitus.

>>87994 Gay culture seems to be correlated with several factors that lead to disease spread, including both promiscuity and anal sex. There is even a small "bugchaser" subculture etc. Im gay myself and want nothing to do with that. It's all statistical correlations that dont apply to the individual or the sexual orientation specifically. It bothers me a lot that people keep applying stereotypes and statistics to individuals. It's the classic problem with sociological discrimination.

>>88000 its just impractical for discussion. Everyone knows good individuals exist in every group but any discussion on groups has to resort to statistics.

>>87980 >sticking your pee pee up somebodies bumhole doesn't create stds uhm are you really sure about that buddy sounds pretty sketchy to me >>87994 yeah obviously buttseques and promiscuity should be both avoided. The observed situation though is that gays are at the extremes on both of those axis. Serial killers being the worst murderers doesn't excuse one off guys of course. >>88000 have you considered just getting over it and leading a normal life ? ps how many penis have been in your bumhole/how many bumholes has your penis been in

>>87986 I have noticed that you can not form an argument against standard homo-so-called-phobia rhetoric. You just badmouth it and hope that nobody will notice. >>88000 The sole fact that there is a gay culture tell you everything you need to know. Why can't you just fuarrrk each other? I go by the ancient saying that tell me to always judge a tree by its fruits, and as you said this culture that shouldn't even exist produce death, on top of preventing the creation of life. If you have to fall to the argument that there are OK ones, you know it's bad. Why do many gays have the kink of converting the youth? Why do bugchasing even exist? >>88005 When someone make the debate fall into semantic issues, that mean they know they are wrong but still want to look like they are right.