Feminism and why it's bad.

I am not saying that spliting of tasks wasn't done frequently. It does make sense that males would hunt more frequently at least if we consider pregnancy and taking care of infants, at least for those crucial months where the female has to take care of it. But it seems that there is a growing number of scienstist which believe more males participated in child care and females in hunting than they thought before. And it makes sense in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a Vault experiment is the only way to solve this Crni, maybe Vault-Tec was right!

In all actuality, I think the takeaway here is still off the mark. Of course when you need to survive, anyone could attempt to do anything, to fill any role. But what is optimal and comfortable? That's different than what is possible.
Gender segregation of tasks is almost certainly highly suboptimal and uncomfortable, given the huge variability within and between genders. Which is exactly why your spiel about happiness is nonsense.
 
But we already have a whole lot of social experiment results at our disposal. Human societies were isolated from one another for a long time. Each one of them is a separate experiment. And did we ever encounter a society where women weren't primarily homemakers and men primarily providers? Not as far as I know.

Even if what you suggest is true, you can't erase millenia of culture by snapping your fingers. It's a time-consuming process, and whichever civilization chooses to undertake it will inevitably be severely weakened by it. It's practically suicide.

And of course, the inconvenient fact that we shouldn't risk doing anything at all that has such a chance of lowering our birth rates even further.
 
But we already have a whole lot of social experiment results at our disposal. Human societies were isolated from one another for a long time. Each one of them is a separate experiment. And did we ever encounter a society where women weren't primarily homemakers and men primarily providers? Not as far as I know.

Even if what you suggest is true, you can't erase millenia of culture by snapping your fingers. It's a time-consuming process, and whichever civilization chooses to undertake it will inevitably be severely weakened by it. It's practically suicide.

Actually that is true, EVERY society I know of (and I know quite a bit) had men as the top... wonder why...
 
American slavery was a part of capitalism, sure. So were these other systems of forced and coerced labor. In the aftermath of the abolition of slavery, former slaveowners all across the globe sought to maintain their wealth and the profitability of their plantations and factories by (often violent) coercion and force. This involved laborers who were displaced and disconnected from family and support systems and had little alternative but to work under extremely harsh conditions, with wages withheld or so low that laborers were barely subsisting and never building toward a better future. As one example, when the Dutch abolished slavery (one of the very last countries to do so) in Suriname, they brought in people from India with the promise of well-compensated work to replace the slaves of African origin. Those Indians were then stuck in South America with no way of returning home and no support system -- instead of being well-compensated, they were effectively forced to labor for very low or withheld wages, under threat of force, with their only alternative being starvation. Several times, Dutch forces violently struck down any resistance to these conditions. That's what I'm talking about.

What you have stated is no different to any other economic system, even your own beloved marxism when actually practiced. There's always a hierarchy of people hurting other people.
 
*little bit of nonsense*

*lots of nonsense*

And your conclussion is what ... that females have been opressed because it worked? Is that what you guys want to tell us? Male superiority or something?

Lots of societies also had slavery, human sacrifice, war cultures etc. I guess because those worked too. Maybe we should get back to it than. Oh wait. No we should not. Lots of people (sadly) are simply dumb. For example using religion or culture to justify slavery or opression of females or other crazy shit. Or what ever group they want to humilate/controll.
 
Last edited:
I am not saying that spliting of tasks wasn't done frequently. It does make sense that males would hunt more frequently at least if we consider pregnancy and taking care of infants, at least for those crucial months where the female has to take care of it. But it seems that there is a growing number of scienstist which believe more males participated in child care and females in hunting than they thought before. And it makes sense in my opinion.

I agree entirely, so I'm trying to find the hair that splits us. I think it may be that you think flexibility = equality, while I don't.
@Sander

I don't agree that gender segregation of tasks is highly suboptimal or uncomfortable - in fact, this goes far beyond genders, this applies to everything. Humans are wired to fill pre-designed roles, which is why hierarchical systems like monarchy and autocracy have been the most frequent and normal organization of human society, as compared to the republic and democracy experiments which have had maybe half a millennia in the sun in total. As for huge variability between genders, I would like to see what suggests this. While people are all individuals and there are exceptions to any rule, there is also a common trend that most of society generally fills at any given place and time. As the posts above mention, is it mere coincidence that males were in charge of more physical tasks like war and hunting while females were assigned to more resilient tasks like childrearing and gathering, in hundreds of societies, all separated from each other until relatively recently? Why would separated social models each reach the same conclusion? Either there was practical purpose as I assert, or the astronomically low chance of "mere coincidence" and the roles were ultimately relative in the grand scope of things.

But now that I think about it, people in your camp usually buy into the social construct model of human behavior, rather than behavior being manifestations of natural instincts and drives. Nature vs. Nurture argued for the ten billionth time.
 
Last edited:
This thread sure picked up. It's funny how discussions like this encourage more people to post. Let's talk about things that people strongly disagree on more often. :lol:
 
What's amazing is how starting a joke this now turned into a serious discussion.
 
Dude I'm just bored and want Sduibek back. But yeah, conversations can arise from the most innocent things. In fact I only;y really got into this because I think it applies to the Fallout world in a big way, otherwise I would take political conversation to a more appropriate forum.
 
*little bit of nonsense*

*lots of nonsense*

And your conclussion is what ... that females have been opressed because it worked? Is that what you guys want to tell us? Male superiority or something?

Lots of societies also had slavery, human sacrifice, war cultures etc. I guess because those worked too. Maybe we should get back to it than. Oh wait. No we should not. Lots of people (sadly) are simply dumb. For example using religion or culture to justify slavery or opression of females or other crazy shit. Or what ever group they want to humilate/controll.

You took me sarcastically? No seriously I was asking a question.

'Facepalm'

I feel bad now that someone actually took me for a sexist pro slavery dumb fuck.
 
But now that I think about it, people in your camp usually buy into the social construct model of human behavior, rather than behavior being manifestations of natural instincts and drives. Nature vs. Nurture argued for the ten billionth time.

Everything is a social construct, and some are just superior to others. The thing he refuses to realise is that morality is nothing more than the philosophical justification of a group entity's will to survive. And, in terms that apply specifically to the West: Whether it even possesses this "will to survive" in the first place.

Evolution applies to human civilisations just as it does nature (because a human civilisation is ultimately a part of nature despite wielding tremendous power over it). A polis with a moral code that does not serve its will to survive will be destroyed and be replaced by one that does, and if it wishes to survive it will abolish "social constructs" which do not serve this aim. I find it supremely ironic that people who believe in evolution refuse to actually follow any of the logical conclusions of its existence.
 
And as for the hunting thing, ask a large or even medium-size breasted woman how comfortable she feels running without a brassiere.

Ask a large or even medium-size bellied man how comfortable he feels running without a girdle.
 
Science is sexist, part 259346930874:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/09/16/1510159112.abstract
A paper about how gender contributes to the success of getting personal research funding in the Netherlands.
And it's a rather nice demonstration of the Simpson's Paradox, as explained here: http://blog.casperalbers.nl/science/nwo-gender-bias-and-simpsons-paradox/
It's a shame to see the peer review process fail so miserably.

/edit:
And as for the hunting thing, ask a large or even medium-size breasted woman how comfortable she feels running without a brassiere.

Ask a large or even medium-size bellied man how comfortable he feels running without a girdle.

Yeah, turns out the physical body does contribute to how well a person can run*. I don't think a fat person would fare well as a hunter in a hunter/gatherer society... Or even exist, because eating nuts, fruits and meat while moving all day kinda works against obesity :D

*Yeah, I know. Fathletes. Sorry, I don't recognize walking a marathon in 9 hours as an athletic achievement.
 
Last edited:
Arguing for "traditional" gender roles by speculating about gender roles in hunter-gatherer times is about as useful and scientific as the "paleo diet" fad. We are not hunters and gatherers. We have machines and easily exploited poor people in remote-ish countries that hunt and gather for us so that we can get away with sitting on our fat asses the entire day and think about more efficient ways to exploit our hunter-gatherers.
 
Arguing for "traditional" gender roles by speculating about gender roles in hunter-gatherer times is about as useful and scientific as the "paleo diet" fad. We are not hunters and gatherers. We have machines and easily exploited poor people in remote-ish countries that hunt and gather for us so that we can get away with sitting on our fat asses the entire day and think about more efficient ways to exploit our hunter-gatherers.
It is moreover bullshit because we don't actually know what our ancestral environment looked like, nor do we really know what human societies in the ancestral environments looked like, nor do we have any real clue about the ways in which gender influenced an individual's role in society. Nor do we know that, because that happens to have been how early humans organized their societies, that was actually the most efficient way to do it. Those are a whole lot of unknowns just skipped over in an effort to buttress a gendered fantasy.

Of course, we do have some evidence that the chauvinist fantasy of "men hunt, women gather" isn't necessarily what would happen. Like kinship studies suggesting that there was equality between sexes, or the fact that we certainly do know of modern hunter-gatherer groups that don't sex segregate (Wikipedia names Aeta and Ju|'hoansi). In addition, the importance of large game hunting was likely very limited, making it unlikely that any division of labor would have focused on that. Contributing to the problem is the fact that a lot of the early anthropological research was tainted by unwarranted assumptions of women's work and gender distribution, as suggested by Linda Owen's Distorting the Past (insightful review here) -- and we keep uncovering evidence that those early assumptions were unwarranted, such as revelations that cave paintings were primarily (but far from exclusively) made by women, that Viking warriors' skeletons thought to have been men turned out to have been women, that there is a vast amount of variability between different groups because of different environments and that a lot of the work done was likely to have been communal, not sex segregated.

Finally, the assertion that this sex segregation is somehow more efficient than simply allowing each individual to do what they do best is obviously wrongheaded, yet that needs to be reiterated again and again because people have been so trained to see gender as a strict and very important marker of difference that they can't think beyond it.
 
There is true in that evolution has made male take different roles than female along the centuries, however in today's society where none of us are running away from lions trying to eat us, evolution cannot be used as an excuse to treat men and women differently nor impose roles upon them. Both people who thinks women belongs home with the kids and radicals who think men are inherently oppresive or evil really have nothing to contribute to the improvement society. Or at least that's how I see it.

My two cents.
 
There is true in that evolution has made male take different roles than female along the centuries, however in today's society where none of us are running away from lions trying to eat us, evolution cannot be used as an excuse to treat men and women differently nor impose roles upon them. Both people who thinks women belongs home with the kids and radicals who think men are inherently oppresive or evil really have nothing to contribute to the improvement society. Or at least that's how I see it.

My two cents.

I really don't like that these kinds of discussions invariably end up with people having to say this kind of shit like anyone here thinks differently. I feel it's the idiocy of ideology that has created a need for an enemy, rearing it's ugly head.

My, how could anyone even think of disparaging women? I am asserting my superiority by condemning such universally condemned things! *stomps feet* *blows hot air*
 
Back
Top