(untitled)

hey, i'm curious about other people's thoughts on this, but is there a coming age where men and women are becoming more alike in physique and behavior? i'm curious because i feel like i'm treated as a keen example of this, and there are many others i'd cite as better examples. is there a limit to this phenomenon? is there an identifiable cause? do you think it's a problem? i'm starting to suspect there is practically no limit to this, and i've strongly suspected for some time that it's caused mostly by genetics in many different ways, and soy has pretty much been proven irrelevant to this. i don't think it's really a problem, it certainly wouldn't be a serious problem for anyone in the future, i think the problem is the transition (if you'll forgive the pun), because other people do create problems with this for me. alright, your turn. what are your thoughts? and please let's keep it serious

I have no idea what you're talking about, Lain. Do you mean a physical singularity, where we'll become one entity? If that's so, and you mean a natural progression (only cis people) i can't really see where you're coming from, in the sense that i don't see it happening. Can you give an example of what you're talking about?

>>10574 i'm talking about newer generations of men becoming progressively more androgynous. frankly, like picreleated. it's becoming more intense and more common, and i'm concerned about whether or not society can adjust to this phenomenon in a manner that is dignified, healthy, and respectful. i kinda think it can't rn, it may need a few more years

>>10575 You seem to be afraid of a culture that shouldn't concern you, Lain. Yes, people have more access to sexual transition and methods of self expression, but only a tiny fraction of them ever feel the need to do so. I'm a glitterboy, i think i don't have a single straight friend, maybe some straight girlfriends, but no straight male friend, and even in these circles only a fraction of people ever think about transitioning or even going for androgynous looks. And if you consider that the homosexual population is still relatively small, we're talking about a subculture within a sub culture within a subculture. If it's not common for someone like me (openly bisexual/gay), i guarantee you it's not a concern for you unless you want it to be. This is just an aesthetic choice, not a meaningful in demographic. Androgynous people are no different than country music lovers who go for cowboy looks even if they've never seen a horse. As long as you feel like yourself, as if your exterior is an expression of the interior, it's all good. What is your concern, exactly?

>>10573 Evolutionarily speaking, sex differences require constant selection to maintain. Without it entropy takes over and evens them out. Lots of species (cats come to mind) have few characteristics apart from actual genitalia separating the sexes. If a society is reasonably equal and reproduction isn't tethered to physique and behaviour, then what you're saying should happen. It's a big if though. I doubt current society is like that, as it would require preferences for sexual characteristics to also fade / be suppressed. But still... hip size doesn't matter for survival with c-sections, aggression and strength in males isn't so useful in this society either. Who knows.

>>10577 this is a lot more helpful. i was actually thinking the same thing about cats. the challenge is that our society is indeed hung up on sex characteristics that are becoming increasingly on a premium, and i'm afraid if people don't start growing up and rise to this challenge soon, our societies will become under populated. this isn't really even to mention the treatment that androgynous individuals deal with. it makes them poorly adjusted to their self-image and relationships. what i'm saying is that humanity's change in image is only a problem because everyone makes it so. it would be a lot easier for everyone if our cultures became a little less obsessed with 'SEXUAL DIMORPHISM' when it's glaringly apparent that it's in decay

>>10578 In a planet with 7 billion people, where nestlé is privatizing all water it can get so they can profit over the inevitable water crisis in the next decade, billionaires buy land just to house their private militia and brands brainwash people into thinking they're the way out of brainwashing, you're worried about people's sexuality? My nigga... That's like jumping off a plane without parachutes and worrying about if you locked the door or not, with the bonus of having no evidence whatsoever that you left that door open. For this to be a legitimate concern you would: 1. have any indication whatsoever that what you're saying is a danger to society, and not only a shift in culture that you don't approve of (which is natural and happens literally since ancient greece) 2. have any indication that this is in any way a priority

>>10579 i'm familiar with all of this. anti-capitalism is a pretty regular thing for me. i was just taking a bit of time off from that to voice another concern

>>10578 I guess it depends on who is actually reproducing and not directly on society caring about sexual dimorphism. For example, religious communities have higher birth rates than the average population. They are care more about gender differences, however this is likely about conforming to social roles rather than actually having those physical features. The people who often spout off about androgyny / gender non-conformity are usually urban weirdos aka genetic dead ends.

>>10582 regardless, these pattern people use will diminish over time. trying to apply cultural standards to genetics is a game of telephone whether people like it or not, or else how do we get so many with gradually less defined secondary sex characteristics to begin with? people can continue this method of selection, albeit with caveats, and it will get more difficult by the generation

>>10573 Yes, this is happening. No, it's not bad. Ever heard of G/ACC? https://vastabrupt.com/2018/10/31/gender-acceleration/

>>10592 i've been saying the entire time that i don't see the issue itself as a problem, rather i am worried about the consequences of reaction against this direction our genes and cultures are going in. furthermore, i believe that the reaction is also too nostalgic and vapid to be worth any serious consideration

>>10592 skimmed the document. as far as i can tell, it suggests that everything i said so far is true. that humanity is essentially playing chinese whispers with masculinity in an attempt to preserve it, which will make it more difficult. this will ultimately destroy masculinity. and yes women and transwomen are becoming far more accomplished. it's becoming a join-or-die scenario for a lot of people, especially reactionaries. i'll finish reading it later if you want sexual dimorphism as we know it to persist indefinitely, then i honestly have no advice for you, except that it's a lost cause, not to mention non-essential to our fate, and that you're seriously poisoning your mind with all that nostalgia, and you should seriously stop

>>10575 Forgive me if I'm wrong or got the wrong person, but didn't they commit suicide?

>>10595 i honestly wouldn't know, i don't even know their name or whatever pseudonym they went by. i only know this person by their face. could somebody please investigate this? i honestly hope this person (or whoever else) is okay, and that it's just a rumor

>>10595 >>10596 okay, so they went by the name "Frank Wolf" and yes, they committed suicide on account of bullying. knowing the grotesqueries i guessed it was sexual harassment and rape threats, and that guess was actually spot-on. poor thing. ;_; rest in power, beautiful soul. in case it wasn't clear, this is what i meant when i said that the rest of society mistreats androgynes and trans people. the only problem with their existence is that all too often others make it miserable for them simply on account of their looks. people have called me the same names and others on the internet have also indicated that i would and even should be raped, and it's horrifying, but it wasn't so constant and it was never as extreme

>>10593 I'd also be concerned about those consequences. We see them already amongst (most of) the authright, but it seems like mainstream is at least trying to accept it, but I just don't know. I think it's too early to tell how it's gonna turn out, and there's no real way to calculate probability, not even anecdotally or subjectively.

>>10594 I'm so glad we can agree. It's ironic; as a trans bi NRx I spend much of my leisure time with individuals who absolutely despise me for breathing. HRx's hate science, and I hate regression. Contrary to the belief of many, there are some people for whom there truly is no place. In the end it's looking like tradition is, sadly but not without necessity, on the way out.

>>10599 >NRx >HRx what does that mean?

>>10601 NRx means "neoreaction," which is kinda hard to pinpoint so I'll link these to explain it better than I can. I like Nick Land's take on Moldbug and Moldbug's work "Patchwork." https://neorxn.com/introduction/ https://neorxn.com/the-canon/ HRx means "Heroic Romantic Reaction," a different take on Moldbug's writings, but I primarily use it to define reactionaries and neoreactionaries who don't subscribe to the concept of techno-commercialist industrialization as a priority. Whereas techno-commercialist "NRx's" would, say advocate for, say, genetic engineering, HRx's would state that natural is better. That's not a very good example, but it's the best I can give off the top of my head.

>>10594 For this to happen you need more reproduction of gender non-conforming people than those following traditional gender roles. This is not what is happening in todays societies.

>>10603 you're missing the point. even if androgynes aren't reproducing (a claim for which you have given no basis and moreover defies the concept of even being given any basis), YOU CANNOT DENY THE FACT THAT EVEN THE GENES THAT ARE IDEAL FOR MASCULINITY ARE ERODING, AND GENETICISTS EVERYWHERE HAVE OBSERVED THIS PHENOMENON AND CONFIRM IT. sorry to say this, my dude, but i simply cannot imagine any future where masculinity can continue without any existential threats. you are deliberately being dense at this point

>>10604 and that's not all. have you heard of 'androgen insensitivity syndrome'? it is an endocrine disorder that affects males through their androgen receptors and is carried by females in their X chromosomes, and it has been proliferating, albeit rather slowly, and it appears that it will be impossible to detect and route out without invasive and authoritarian measures

as others said, i wouldn't really worry about it. i mean, does it really matter? i see it as a natural thing, evolution just went that way. yes, there are people who have issues with "non-comforming" people, but we as society seem to start accepting not everyone has to be like archetypes we still have in our minds. but then *shrug* i am queer myself, so what do i know...

>>10604 lol you dropkick. enjoy your ideological bubble and not contributing to the future gene pool.

>>10607 are you a troll?

>>10608 no, just an actual geneticist who finds it amusing when people have a shallow understanding of a topic that they use to draw strong conclusions that support their ideology. yes the Y-chromosome is under weaker selective pressure than the others and degrades over time. this doesn't mean "genes that are ideal for masculinity" are eroding (the opposite in fact, it specifically selects for those genes and erodes the remaining genetic content).

>>10609 as one who claims to be a geneticist, you of all people should know that topic is debated in the field. i guess you mistook "geneticists everywhere" with "every geneticist". nobody could be stupid enough to go that far. and just because you haven't seen much evidence that androgynes aren't reproducing as much as you think is required doesn't mean it doesn't exist. and are we going to continue with vagueries, by saying "for X to proliferate, Y would need to reproduce more?" to what extent would "more" satisfy you?

>>10610 and btw, "most ideal" is not same as "most fundamental", so that pretty much rules out genes like SR-Y, very, VERY few genes including SR-Y are as fundamental for sex determination, which is why they are protected by palindromes, but erosion and mutations gradually that lead to androgynous males, lower sperm quantity and quality, and and lax androgen receptors is not the same as erosion or mutations that lead to female anatomy on gentic males, that was never what i was getting at

>>10610 I'm beginning to think you're the troll... fertility related genes are amongst the most tightly conserved genes (similar to those that cause birth defects). Check out the neanderthal DNA mixtures to see how quickly such deleterious mutations are removed. >>10611 If you do you get loss of androgen sensitivity in tissues throughout the body, it'll be a loss of expression of the receptor and not mutations within it. Such mutations lie outside of genes, and currently we really struggle at finding and interpreting their effects. So I am not sure where you are getting this "genes that are ideal for masculinity are eroding from". This is not within the realms of modern genetics to answer (though the question of fundamental genes is, and has been answered). Now I'm sympathetic to the idea that over time a modern civilization might tend towards less sexual dimorphism. It's an interesting question of how much reproduction would be needed to result in such changes, and hinges on future population trends more so than now, so there's no definite answer. However, I'd say that above replacement level would be an important start. Most western, and particularly urban, populations are below that. Queer people even lower. So either there is some hidden source of reproducing "androgyne" people that you know of, or you expect these traits to be developed for and transmitted in some other population without being selected against. Which is it?

>>10611 FYI "protected by palindromes" makes no sense. What are you trying to say?

>>10613 i've only seen palindromes discussed in topics regarding the y chromosome, and many research papers suggest that this particular pattern is meant to maintain the integrity of genes relating to fertility as well as amplifying them. >>10612 overall, this tells me that the problem is 1st world populations trending toward underpopulation in general, and for this to happen for the whole population, there would have to be a variety of events leading up to it, including material conditions (like a famine), socioeconomic status (like poverty), alienation (conditions that are known to lead to poverty or being ostracized), endangerment or extinction of desired stock (or increased difficulty in finding ideal mates), or cultural/legal limitions on procreation. now back to endangerment of desired stock, many biologists are saying that our exposure to harmful substances is making it more difficult to preserve the integrity of our genes, which is difficult for the y chromosome without pollution or poisoning. this was part of my point about 'the game of telephone'. on top of that, there are also substances that disrupt the endocrine system, which in turn affects genetic integrity. on top of all that, there are still genes that have nothing to do with the y chromosome that still impact the male phenotype. sure, everyone can try for best, but everyone else is left with sloppy seconds, and the bar has gotten lower. it's pretty obvious to everyone that it's gotten lower . and who said anything about the queer population? being androgynous does not make anyone gay/bi or trans, but i guess there is an association between these things, but it's incorrect and unfair. on top of that, queer people are often oppressed, and that's pretty obvious, nobody gets to say that a category of the population that most often gets trapped in perpetual poverty and hunted down (which incidentally does affect their fertility) for the crime of existing isn't oppressed. this will diminish the number of people who could be their associates, compounding the problem, and people are making serious attempts to undo this. however, their persistent status as pariahs is affecting their fertility, against their best efforts ironically enough. it is natural to assume that due to inaccurate association with the lgbt community would lead to androgynes facing similar attacks and challenges (see post about Frank Wolf). finally, consider this. there could be genes that do not affect the fertility or sex hormones of either sex one way or the other or even exist in either sex chromosome for that matter, but still be culturally associated with the feminine or androgyny. neoteny seems to be a fairly obvious exsmple. the species can't pursue neotenous women and expect none of that to appear in the dna of all their sons. i see this present basis for selection as not only baseless and harmful, but also futile. it is only delaying what is apparently innevitable, even to the people who don't settle. it's honestly no surprise that our countries are underpopulated.

The race of suicide rate and rainbow genders. Who will win?

>>10616 Nobody. MOGAI will poison and kill our culture whilst making it harder for actual trans people to survive while MOGAI and gendertrend victims get eaten alive by dysphoria after transitioning.

I would weirdly say that quite the opposite is happening at the same time and quite to the extreme examples. Surely I believe that need for sexually distinctive physical markers have declined in NEED but have become really just a desire in todays modern life, just like intelligence and I would even argue that emotion has become more of a desire than a need but let's not go that far into my argument "So what?" you might say, aha, but for how long has this been happenin? I would argue that ever since the advent of agriculture the safety of human kind has greatly increased. The safety that men had to sacrifice in order to gain food. The safety they would gamble whenever they interacted with unknown stranger. This I believe created the initial what we think of sexually distinctive characteristics. I would argue that there was a NEED for those sexually distinctive characteristics BEFORE them becoming sexually distinctive and DESIRABLE in the first place. I could give examples on topics such as male and female physique and personality but we don't have enough time for that, and I am kinda lazy. Now you might ask "You said that it going the opposite and extreme, whats with that?". Well.... some people that still "think" instinctively to put it thusly have created an extreme appeal and desire to express those somewhat culturally repressed sexual desires. IT is a desire nonetheless, not a need, and sexual markers and characteristics have shifted alongside culture and times, but never this fast and never this strong. Some people just go back to instinct whenever faced with paranoia and anxiety I guess. It is easier that way most certainly. Not thinking, just doing.

>>10622 i don't really get your meaning here. are you saying that femboys and chads are coinciding and becoming more extreme both at once?

>>10599 I don't think it's the breathing that people find disagreeable about you, Lain

>>10575 Iprovise, Adapt, Overcome. Surviving Capitalism. Women have it easier in this system so you get the point

>>10630 What I am saying is that there are Chads, but they are becoming extreme and more rare than ever whilst the femboys are the norm. The more femboys there are, the more there is incentive for Chads to exist purely out of rebellion of human instinct to revert back to primal desires. Of course this thing oscillates but with "downward trend" overall. Surely in the future the femboys of today will be the chads of the future. Same thing with women but on the other side. Now look at this picture and decide who is a biological female in it.

>>10637 Cuttlefish have a situation where males adopt two different appearances and behaviours. One group is large and aggressive, and fights to maintain territory and breed with females within it. The other group is small and feminine, which allows it to sneak into territories and avoid fights by pretending to be a female. It then mates with the actual females there. This is kind of like the scenario you are describing. There is no one "optimal" strategy for being a male, and the presence of one group provides opportunities for another.

Mixing specific concepts in ecology with human behaviour is almost always a bad choice and i'm probably enforcing a bias with this post but ecology is really cool. >>10637 The one on the left. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_side-blotched_lizard >>10638 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_mimicry#Sneaky_copulation

>>10639 It's the one on the right That girl was known in lolcow community for quite some time because she always talked about herself being virgin and never being able to find a male. Looking back on her brothers makes that understandable, they all look feminine and she looks quite maleish.

>>10635 Well, since being a girl is a part of *me,* and my body is unfortunately also a part of *me,* my existence, perpetuated by my breathing, is what they despise; they despise my being trans, and therefore me, therefore my breathing for perpetuating me.

>>10640 Then the dude on the left should really shave, his beard looks artificial. She doesn't look so masculine to me, the hair really doesn't help her femininity, but this photo is not the best one for judging so it might be worse in others.

i'd just like to provide an update. i vented about my own personal issues over my own personal issues on 4chan about being treated like a girl (yes, i know that was unwise). i mentioned some things about my luck with women in the past, and that the only women who showed interest in me were either bi or closet lesbians. and i mentioned how my ex-girlfriend encouraged me to take hormones and hoped we'd both wear dresses for our wedding. every time i mention it on 4chan, they insist on seeing images of me. they most often say that i look like a "raging lesbian" myself, and that flannel doesn't help me look more manly, just more like a lesbian. the response that got was, "hott" and "did she try to slam you?" i've also gotten interesting statements about my WHR. given the lewd and rapey comments that follow statements of how i look, i'd say there are definitely unhealthy responses to my phenotype. basically the "dickgirl" phenotype. that was my concern from the beginning. the likes of me are in for a bit of a bumpy and annoying ride. tl;dr complain about being treated like a sex object, and then get treated like a sex object some more. and people wonder why i sympathize with feminists

>>11840 >yes, i know that was unwise You seriously can't expect to have a real discussion with anyone on that site. Shit, even on this one. Stuff was way better before 4chin found out about here. Anyway, I just went through this whole thread and man, I can't even begin to fathom how hard it must be for you. I grew up in a completely mysoginistic environment and just began to wonder if I may actually be bi, and while my friends have actually helped and supported me, I'm seriously afraid to share that with most people. And I look like a typical tall, bearded dude. So it's really hard to imagine what you have gone through. Still, don't lose hope my man. There's a world of people out there who are in similar situations to yours, and if it's any help, I think that you're completely right about the concept of masculinity dying, but it's more of a cultural thing rather than a chemical one imho. Also, as a broad and probably wrong advice, try not to justify your feelings with science. I know what you wrote was earlier this year and a lot of soykaf has happened since january till now, but at the end of the day what matters is how you feel rather than what the hard data says. Also I absolutely agree with you with your view on feminism. Anyone who disagrees lives on their own bubble without facing reality. Cheers bro.

>>11841 underneath it all, i'm a gender abolitionist. why should being 'misgendered' bother me when the very concept of gender is bothersome? it's not "the wrong pronouns", or being mistaken for a female that i mind, it's the objectification

>>11842 well, that's not entirely true. my upbringing does tend to get in the way. it's just my programming resisting my will and how others perceive me >>11841 thanks for your support by the way. most people are so spiteful and antagonistic. it's refreshing to see someone addressing me sincerely

We're going to transcend the human body eventually and all this gender bullshit will be irrelevant.

I, for one, embrace the trap future that awaits us

>>11840 >and people wonder why I sympathize with feminists Nice blogpost, but who are you?

>>11842 >objectification but we are objects that have utility

>>11856 >who are you? who wants to know?

>>11864 heh, funny.

>>11865 what i find funny is the question of why anyone would be interested in the identity of a literal nobody

>>11868 I know who she is. She is Lain you raging newperson.

>>11926 why would Lain want to know who i am?

>>12038 Lain knows everything that can be known.

theres been feminine and masculine periods throughout history, culturally more so than anything else. i think we are entering a hermaphroditic period, which will bring about something great. across many cultures the hermaphrodite is the complete human in a way, reunited, with amazing powers. I dont see it as a problem at all, and I could care less if somebody does because its my belief its happening, will happen, and time will show it a good thing, regardless of how much they dont like it. I could describe to you the innumerable benefits in terms that arent me speaking abstractly. the reason im being abstract isnt to be super cool and smart but because I actually am being lazy and dont want to argue about it and also the specifics are kind of irrelevant.

>>12051 You've mistaken saying nothing for speaking abstractly. Why even post if you're not going to say why this will happen or what these innumerable benefits are?

>>12052 i said a ton to those who understand what im saying and those who dont wouldnt even if i explained it. not because its too complicated to understand or beyond them they just wouldnt internalize it or try to imagine its true. like when somebody is giving you advice and you understand it just fine but you are still going to do whatever it is you want because it isnt real to you. saying nothing is independent of whether it was said abstractly or not, so you saying im saying nothing is about you interpreting it as nothing not how it was phrased. For some people all of the posts on this board or nothing, theyd probably say why say anything about anything.

There's been plenty of cultures throughout both geographical space and time on earth that didn't have the same concepts of masculinity as us. Plenty of periods where men presented more 'feminine' behavior relative to the mores of that specific time and place, or certainly compared to our current mores. What we're seeing now as a sudden and unprecedented diversion from what a lot of people perceive as essentialist norms handed down by nature since time immemorial is just an illusion. Especially in American culture; we've invented a lot of weird cultural ideals in the past couple centuries which are the real anomalies. The nuclear family, consumerist individualism, Marlboro-style masculinity, domestic femininity--we project historicity on these concepts that isn't really true or deserved. A lot of it is propped up with mythologized or selectively-curated views of history, like biblical history which has been colored by millennia of political dogma from the likes of the catholic clergy and the puritans. Our context as westerners has been--until recently--in an extreme position of masculine-feminine dichotomy. We're not going somewhere new, we're going back to what's been for a long time throughout our species in other places and other times. Of course there's a few new things around with respect to surgeries and drugs that never existed before--but that covers a lot more changes in society besides gender/sexuality, and people aren't really reacting to that in the same way. Feels a bit like a moral panic.

It's worth pointing out here that "Lain" is a boy's name.

the picture file op posted reminds me of this species of lizard i found out about link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_whiptail another link somewhat relevent to the conversation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism

>>12114 A bit rich to describe reactions to changes in gender and sexuality norms as a "moral panic", when they are stirred up for ideological reasons and show no real benefit for society. Male - female dichotomy is not a weird aberration, it pops in many, many different species, and in most human cultures. Division of labor is fundamental to more complex societies; having women take care of the home forms a strong society with well-nurtured and educated children. Society at the moment is wealthy but lacks direction, hence why it can support all these parasitical social movements that offer no value.

>>12323 There's a lot of what I call "amateur sociologists" like yourself who forget that two of the key traits of humanity are our ability to adapt to our environment, and our ability to use tools. Our tools alter the environment, and we adapt in turn. Looking to 'most human cultures' won't tell us dick because they didn't have industrial machinery, modern plumbing and heating, instant access to knowledge via the internet, medicine that can cure in a day what would have once been a society ending plague, or mass produced food. Every single one of those things has a massive impact on the way we live our lives. You can't look to precedent for something unprecedented The reason social norms are dissolving is because we as a society have outgrown them. Physical strength was once the key factor in who did what, with men doing most of the jobs because the women physically couldn't. As time went on, the reliance on physical strength gave way to the ability to use tools, which is something anyone could do, including women.

>>12340 >social norms Meant "gender norms".

>>12340 >Men are strong women are weak this is the basis for gender roles. >Calling other people amateur sociologists. ... If your theory made sense then positions of power and nobility wouldn't be occupied almost exclusively by men, since those are divorced from physical labor and strength. You also clearly haven't met women who work outside. Their physical strength is not lacking for most jobs.

>>12340 >>12347 I think that since women have the capacity to bear children, they are inherently more valuable to society. Thus men instinctively try to protect women and children, it's just as built in as the sex drive... something that almost everyone has. This is common with many other large mammals. Of course we're humans and we are intelligent so we invent mythologies around these beastly desires, and many societies have invented the misguided belief that women can't do anything besides raise babies.

>>12353 If this were the case women should be able to control and exploit the protective instinct of men. So they should form a protected and privileged class. Other animals (probably most relevant are elephants and some apes) have matriarchal societies, led by the oldest women since she has a large amount of knowledge and social influence. Why do human societies not follow this? (barring some small scale examples no complex society followed this structure) >many societies have invented the misguided belief that women can't do anything besides raise babies. This seems like an exaggeration. It's not that people believe women can't do other stuff, it's just that it is a lot of work to raise children and take care of a home, particularly in more rural places where this includes producing food. It seems pointless now because it is so much easier with the state taking over schooling and most domestic work being either automated or outsourced.

>>12323 no, that really isn't true. the ancient concept of the nuclear family was developed mostly for nobles and burghers, based on catholic interpretations of gender, and as a social institution to guarantee noble and bourgeois their reproductive interests, by preventing women of their classes from marrying down into lower classes. we ARE discussing members of castes that were comprised of swindlers and conquerors, so of course they cared little for womens' autonomy. throughout the vast majority of the history of western civilization, the vast majority of those living in it were working-class, and being working class meant you had to work, regardless of whether you were male or female, and i even heard about records of women tilling fields working as blacksmiths in medieval society. both parents having to work meant that both parents were responsible for their domestic duties, most of which practically identical to their public duties when they were living out on the commons. commoners and industrial workers simply could not afford the tremendous expense that a nuclear family structure would entail, and there very few moments in history when they could, and those moments were very brief. the nuclear family is literally an institution by and for bourgeois society, and american television's deep focus on middle and upper class families is a deep reflection of this fact, and the fact that american burghers are trying really hard to enforce values and lifestyles that only burghers could afford onto proles

>>12356 >If this were the case women should be able to control and exploit the protective instinct of men why? Just because the men are following their instincts doesn't mean women are able to control them. >Other animals (probably most relevant are elephants and some apes) have matriarchal societies, led by the oldest women since she has a large amount of knowledge and social influence. Why do human societies not follow this? some human societies have followed this. The currently dominant civilizations have not. Humans are different from elephants and apes, just like monkeys are different from apes, and so it's not surprising that we are slightly different as well. >It's not that people believe women can't do other stuff, it's just that it is a lot of work to raise children and take care of a home, particularly in more rural places where this includes producing food. Why can't men do that work? There have definitely been societies where women and men shared the burden of child rearing and other burdens of work. There is no reason why women particularly must do this.

>>11363 also, some people *definitely* believe that. They don't want to admit it, but they do.

>>12362 It's worth adding to this, the modern Leave it to Beaver family was a model pushed onto the post-war generation to sell them suburban homes and at least one car per family. A lot of them could afford that during the boom but it's become less and less true in subsequent decades.

>>12368 yea, throughout most of their history, working-class families embraced an extended family structure (some older examples in europe were matrilocal, others throughout history were patrilocal) where parents and children, grandparents, aunts and uncles, and cousins were to live together in the same household or homes really close together and tend to eachother's needs. sometimes the structure would also care for a member's friends, neighbors, or even a total stranger in need, but they were expected to help with the domestic duties

>>12370 back in those times, and even some rural parts of asia in this day, if you were working-class, and didn't live with or even near your parents or your spouse's in-laws, people would have looked at you like you were an ungrateful idiot

>>12371 to be honest they're right, I think. While it is good to travel a little bit if you can, people need to stick together and family ties are the strongest. The US is really odd in this respect because there is no social expectation of this. The idealized American "came from nothing" and has left their family behind.

>>12371 My friend traveled in some of the poorer, including urban, parts of east Asia about ten years ago and regularly met families who lived together with three generations in one household (and by any western standards, not enough room(s) for them). If he made friends with some 20 year old punk rock kid he had to meet his grandma too.

>>12373 Oh yeah. All over the world, moving out on your own when you hit 18 years old is an extremely new phenomenon. It's just driven by individualistic consumerism. Thank god though, I hate my damn family and that filthy trailer park they still reside in. For some people it makes sense.