The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Rojava Free State]

Should the age of consent be the same as the age you can get married? Just asking.

Me, personally, I also support the Age of Consent being 16, but I think the age for Marriage should be 18 and up. If two people want to get married, they should be allowed to.

I think I misunderstood your question before. What I wanted to say is that age of marriage should never be younger than age of consent.

In our country, age of consent is 14!! FUCKING 14!! That is... way too low. I do understand that lot of people are having sex on that age already, but still, 20 year old and 14 year old?

Age of marriage is 18 normally, but from age of 15 can go to court, with parents permission, and get married.

If I had to get my parents permission to marry, my dad would say yes and my mom would say no.

[Othelos]

I don't understand why any man should want to not conform to traditional masculinity, just as I don't understand women who aren't traditionally feminine in nature. That is the ideal and the gold standard for how people should be in my view. So far as I can tell, people's rejection of their true biology/nature is individualism run amok. With few exceptions, following such a path tends to be more bad than good.

The problem is that these ideas are socially constructed. They aren't natural. They are restrictive and imposed by society and people should be free to express themselves how they want to.

[Purple Rats]

If I had to get my parents permission to marry, my dad would say yes and my mom would say no.

I would also say "no", if my underage kid would want to marry. (this time hypothetically, I don't have kids)

ps. The fact that you were shocked that I'm a woman, was most amusing thing what has happened to me during last few days

[New haven america]

I don't understand why any man should want to not conform to traditional masculinity, just as I don't understand women who aren't traditionally feminine in nature. That is the ideal and the gold standard for how people should be in my view. So far as I can tell, people's rejection of their true biology/nature is individualism run amok. With few exceptions, following such a path tends to be more bad than good.

The problem is that these ideas are socially constructed. They aren't natural. They are restrictive and imposed by society and people should be free to express themselves how they want to.

I like how he ignored my point that human's natural state is existing in egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribe and communes.

Which it is, concrete gender roles really only start popping up once a civilization starts getting to about the size of a small city.

[Saiwania]

I like how he ignored my point that human's natural state is existing in egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribe and communes.
Which it is, concrete gender roles really only start popping up once a civilization starts getting to about the size of a small city.

It should be obvious why this isn't viable past a certain stage of development. If we're hunter gatherers, everyone needs to be involved to survive because it is just that difficult. But if we control our food supply via farming/trade, we clearly need one to take on work/business in general and the other to do childcare or to attend to the home. We're not able to effectively do both at the same time. And today's situation are both sexes trying to split the effort between the two equally when this just isn't as efficient as adhering to a more patriarchal model.

[Rojava Free State]

If I had to get my parents permission to marry, my dad would say yes and my mom would say no.

I would also say "no", if my underage kid would want to marry. (this time hypothetically, I don't have kids)

ps. The fact that you were shocked that I'm a woman, was most amusing thing what has happened to me during last few days

I mean I'm not underage tho. I'm saying even now in my 20s, if I said "mom I'm getting married," she would say "no."

[New haven america]

I like how he ignored my point that human's natural state is existing in egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribe and communes.
Which it is, concrete gender roles really only start popping up once a civilization starts getting to about the size of a small city.

1. It should be obvious why this isn't viable past a certain stage of development. If we're hunter gatherers, everyone needs to be involved to survive because it is just that difficult. 2. But if we control our food supply via farming/trade, we clearly need one to take on work/business in general and the other to do childcare or to attend to the home. 3. We're not able to effectively do both at the same time. 4. And today's situation are both sexes trying to split the effort between the two equally when this just isn't as efficient as adhering to a more 5. patriarchal model.

1. Hello goal post, I see you've been moved recently, funny that?
2. Except we really don't, especially not in the cyber age with drones, advanced farming technology, state of the art hospitals, etc...
3. We're not able to effectively have the nuclear model you want with how the economy is atm. Maybe you should focus on making like easier economically if you want the nuclear model so badly.
4. We get it, you think equality is bad and that it's possible for someone to fap themselves white. Hint: No one cares.
5. The patriarchal model can get raw dogged without lube and deepthroat an 8-incher for all I care.

[Purple Rats]

We're not able to effectively do both at the same time. And today's situation are both sexes trying to split the effort between the two equally when this just isn't as efficient as adhering to a more patriarchal model.

And equality between all genders is not as efficient because.... ?

Also in your "men are bosses and woman are baby machines" mentality, what do couples of same sex, but who still have children do? Gays call babysitter and go to work both, lesbians stay at home and don't work?

[New haven america]

We're not able to effectively do both at the same time. And today's situation are both sexes trying to split the effort between the two equally when this just isn't as efficient as adhering to a more patriarchal model.

And equality between all genders is not as efficient because.... ?

Also in your "men are bosses and woman are baby machines" mentality, what do couples of same sex, but who still have children do? Gays call babysitter and go to work both, lesbians stay at home and don't work?

Following the old Patriarchal model Sai wants there would be no such thing as same sex couples.

The most likely outcome would be either death, life imprisonment, or sent to mental facilities.

[Purple Rats]

I mean I'm not underage tho. I'm saying even now in my 20s, if I said "mom I'm getting married," she would say "no."

Ah, alright. I thought you spoke about past...

Well, my parents would probably now be really confused, as I don't have partner and they are not someone who would support loveless marriage. Specially my mom, as her first marriage was kind of parents pressure. And it failed, so she had to be single mother with three kids for some years, before she met my dad.

Otherwise, if I would have someone, they would wish me good luck. But I'm probably older than you, so...

[Purple Rats]

Following the old Patriarchal model Sai wants there would be no such thing as same sex couples.

The most likely outcome would be either death, life imprisonment, or sent to mental facilities.

Ah, shit yea I forgot, two men loving each other is totally not masculine, as men should be like aggressive dogs and fight each other to death.

[New haven america]

Following the old Patriarchal model Sai wants there would be no such thing as same sex couples.

The most likely outcome would be either death, life imprisonment, or sent to mental facilities.

Ah, shit yea I forgot, two men loving each other is totally not masculine, as men should be like aggressive dogs and fight each other to death.

I mean, that's how the Romans viewed it.

For as much as they were obsessed with men and the masculine form, they really hated people that wanted to fuck men.

[Saiwania]

In our country, age of consent is 14!! FUCKING 14!! That is... way too low. I do understand that lot of people are having sex on that age already, but still, 20 year old and 14 year old?

There is nothing inherently wrong with a lower age of consent, provided there is a qualifier in place to separate kids from adults.

For example in a lot of countries, if you're an adult, such people are usually limited to only other adults, those who're 18+ as well. With the expectation being that adults are more mature and wise enough to really verify other people's age if they want to get involved with them. If you're a teenager however, no one will bat an eye about their having sex with peers in their age group. A 14 year old can consent with a 15 year old as one example, but not with someone 18 or older in certain places. And it'd go the other way where an 18+ can consent with a 27 year old but can't with someone who's still a minor in status.

[Purple Rats]

In our country, age of consent is 14!! FUCKING 14!! That is... way too low. I do understand that lot of people are having sex on that age already, but still, 20 year old and 14 year old?

There is nothing inherently wrong with a lower age of consent, provided there is a qualifier in place to separate kids from adults.

For example in a lot of countries, if you're an adult, such people are usually limited to only other adults, those who're 18+ as well. With the expectation being that adults are more mature and wise enough to really verify other people's age if they want to get involved with them. If you're a teenager however, no one will bat an eye about their having sex with peers in their age group. A 14 year old can consent with a 15 year old as one example, but not with someone 18 or older in certain places. And it'd go the other way where an 18+ can consent with a 27 year old but can't with someone who's still a minor in status.

14 ja 15 is alright, but that was not what I meant. In our country its legal for grown ups to have sexual intercourse with 14 year old, and I think it shouldn't.

[Othelos]

I like how he ignored my point that human's natural state is existing in egalitarian hunter-gatherer tribe and communes.
Which it is, concrete gender roles really only start popping up once a civilization starts getting to about the size of a small city.

It should be obvious why this isn't viable past a certain stage of development. If we're hunter gatherers, everyone needs to be involved to survive because it is just that difficult. But if we control our food supply via farming/trade, we clearly need one to take on work/business in general and the other to do childcare or to attend to the home. We're not able to effectively do both at the same time. And today's situation are both sexes trying to split the effort between the two equally when this just isn't as efficient as adhering to a more patriarchal model.

Why not a matriarchal model? Women of course have to give birth, but men could take care of the children and take care of the home. Women can certainly work just as well in the office or use machinery. So what's stopping women from looking after the "larger world" while men look after the "smaller world"?

[Saiwania]

Why not a matriarchal model? Women of course have to give birth, but men could take care of the children and take care of the home. Women can certainly work just as well in the office or use machinery. So what's stopping women from looking after the "larger world" while men look after the "smaller world"?

Well for one, because men are usually stronger than women physically speaking, all else being equal. And our species survives better if the women are protected more so than the men, whom are more expendable. Most societies the world over and throughout history, have been patriarchal to some extent. With matriarchies being rare to nonexistent. That tells me anyways, that patriarchy is just far more practical as a system, love it or hate it.

[Purple Rats]

Why not a matriarchal model? Women of course have to give birth, but men could take care of the children and take care of the home. Women can certainly work just as well in the office or use machinery. So what's stopping women from looking after the "larger world" while men look after the "smaller world"?

Well for one, because men are usually stronger than women physically speaking, all else being equal. And our species survives better if the women are protected more so than the men, whom are more expendable. Most societies the world over and throughout history, have been patriarchal to some extent. With matriarchies being rare to nonexistent. That tells me anyways, that patriarchy is just far more practical as a system, love it or hate it.

Even in your theory, if they work in office, then it does not matter who works and who stays at home. And just because most societies are patriarchal does not mean it should be like that. It is like that only so men could be in power, not because it would be anyway useful.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why not a matriarchal model? Women of course have to give birth, but men could take care of the children and take care of the home. Women can certainly work just as well in the office or use machinery. So what's stopping women from looking after the "larger world" while men look after the "smaller world"?

Well for one, because men are usually stronger than women physically speaking, all else being equal. And our species survives better if the women are protected more so than the men, whom are more expendable. Most societies the world over and throughout history, have been patriarchal to some extent. With matriarchies being rare to nonexistent. That tells me anyways, that patriarchy is just far more practical as a system, love it or hate it.

We're in no danger of facing an existential threat to the species that warrants this discussion. You may as well be saying "Well for our survival as a species we need a strict military dictatorship, food rationing, and to all go live in an underground bunker.".

Sure, that's plausible in some scenarios and worth discussing in those eventualities.


But right now there's 7 billion of us and it doesn't look like we'll need a serious look at reproductive capacity maximization. If you want me to admit that when we approach tens of thousands of humans left alive because everyone else is dead somehow that traditional gender dynamics of women being breeding mares and men being sacrificial drones become a viable thing to consider and discuss, fine, i'll admit that.

Why would we do it otherwise? Why does modern civilization need apocalyptic solutions?

Moreover traditional gender norms spread because of that reproductive capacity maximization providing soldiers, manpower is no longer a consideration in war compared to technological edge, and we get more of an edge in warfare by having twice the manpower pool for scientists and engineers than we do by breeding more soldiers to use inferior weaponry. The historical trend existed for a reason and replicated well under those conditions, but no longer replicates well because we moved from "Spam humans" to "Technological superiority" as the primary means of war. When spam humans was the norm, trad gender roles did it well and replicated well for that reason.

But again, there's no reason to continue that trend.

Similarly, high infant mortality rates due to lack of medicine and a lack of a social safety net historically made traditional roles more reasonable. Women had to get pregnant constantly to have surviving offspring who could care for them and their husbands when they were too old to work. Medical technology and social technology like state pensions removed that need.

We don't need trad roles anymore. The crisis has past.

It's as bizarre as you suggesting we keep social distancing in place once Covid ends. Why? What's the point?

[Othelos]

Why not a matriarchal model? Women of course have to give birth, but men could take care of the children and take care of the home. Women can certainly work just as well in the office or use machinery. So what's stopping women from looking after the "larger world" while men look after the "smaller world"?

Well for one, because men are usually stronger than women physically speaking, all else being equal.

Can you think of any jobs where a man's strength exceeding a woman's is actually a requirement to do the job? Jobs with weapons don't count, because anyone can kill or exert power with a gun.

And our species survives better if the women are protected more so than the men, whom are more expendable. Most societies the world over and throughout history, have been patriarchal to some extent. With matriarchies being rare to nonexistent. That tells me anyways, that patriarchy is just far more practical as a system, love it or hate it.

This is a highly reductionist, western point of view. there are multiple examples throughout history of matriarchal societies.

In regards to drawing the conclusion that it's a more "practical" system, it's more likely to do with the fact that women have been dominated historically by men physically and through institutions that re-assert their power, such as religion. For example, Christian and Muslim societies have historically been very oppressive towards women. This has no indication of "practicality", but rather simply oppression that grows and reinforces itself.

Anyway, women are plenty able to exert power. If women collectively threatened to never give birth, they would hold society by the throat.

[Saiwania]

Women aren't uniformly sold on the merits of Feminism either. I'd say that a lot of women went along with or approved of Patriarchy which is why it prevailed for so long and arguably still does to the present in various forms. Plenty of women don't want women to have the real power over society so to speak, or want to keep the privileges that come with being the fairer sex.

[Ostroeuropa]

Women aren't uniformly sold on the merits of Feminism either. I'd say that a lot of women went along with or approved of Patriarchy which is why it prevailed for so long and arguably still does to the present in various forms. Plenty of women don't want women to have the real power over society so to speak.

Women dislike feminism because they want equality and recognize feminism is not equality. I agree women upheld traditional gender roles and were instrumental in keeping them in place, shaping them, and adapting them throughout the ages, and that the common feminist dodge used to blame men for mens issues ignores this.

[Purple Rats]

This is a highly reductionist, western point of view. there are multiple examples throughout history of matriarchal societies.

"Anne Helene Gjelstad describes the women on the Estonian islands Kihnu and Manija as "the last matriarchal society in Europe" because "the older women here take care of almost everything on land as their husbands travel the seas" " Whaaaaaaaaat? I never knew our small islands ended up in Matriarchal wikipedia page. That is so cool.

But yeah, Gjelstad is right, these women on these islands are unbelievable.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well for one, because men are usually stronger than women physically speaking, all else being equal.

Can you think of any jobs where a man's strength exceeding a woman's is actually a requirement to do the job? Jobs with weapons don't count, because anyone can kill or exert power with a gun.

And our species survives better if the women are protected more so than the men, whom are more expendable. Most societies the world over and throughout history, have been patriarchal to some extent. With matriarchies being rare to nonexistent. That tells me anyways, that patriarchy is just far more practical as a system, love it or hate it.

This is a highly reductionist, western point of view. there are multiple examples throughout history of matriarchal societies.

In regards to drawing the conclusion that it's a more "practical" system, it's more likely to do with the fact that women have been dominated historically by men physically and through institutions that re-assert their power, such as religion. For example, Christian and Muslim societies have historically been very oppressive towards women. This has no indication of "practicality", but rather simply oppression that grows and reinforces itself.

Anyway, women are plenty able to exert power. If women collectively threatened to never give birth, they would hold society by the throat.

Women have not been dominated by men historically. That's a means of demonizing males by removing female agency for current dynamics based on feminist mythology. Women shaped institutions, norms, and culture and asserted their influence on society too. As you note, women are capable of exerting power, and they did so, largely to uphold the norms and sometimes change those norms throughout the ages because they believed in and supported them.

[Othelos]

Women aren't uniformly sold on the merits of Feminism either. I'd say that a lot of women went along with or approved of Patriarchy which is why it prevailed for so long and arguably still does to the present in various forms. Plenty of women don't want women to have the real power over society so to speak.

Women dislike feminism because they want equality and recognize feminism is not equality. I agree women upheld traditional gender roles and were instrumental in keeping them in place, shaping them, and adapting them throughout the ages, and that the common feminist dodge used to blame men for mens issues ignores this.

The source of the inequality isn't the fault of those women. One important point of institutionalized inequality is to keep oppressed people from realizing their status or to justify/legitimize it. Who was running those institutions? Men.

When people become conscious of their status as unequal and the real roots of this cause, they cease to support systems that reinforce it.

[Othelos]

Can you think of any jobs where a man's strength exceeding a woman's is actually a requirement to do the job? Jobs with weapons don't count, because anyone can kill or exert power with a gun.


This is a highly reductionist, western point of view. there are multiple examples throughout history of matriarchal societies.

In regards to drawing the conclusion that it's a more "practical" system, it's more likely to do with the fact that women have been dominated historically by men physically and through institutions that re-assert their power, such as religion. For example, Christian and Muslim societies have historically been very oppressive towards women. This has no indication of "practicality", but rather simply oppression that grows and reinforces itself.

Anyway, women are plenty able to exert power. If women collectively threatened to never give birth, they would hold society by the throat.

Women have not been dominated by men historically. That's a means of demonizing males by removing female agency for current dynamics based on feminist mythology. Women shaped institutions, norms, and culture and asserted their influence on society too. As you note, women are capable of exerting power, and they did so, largely to uphold the norms and sometimes change those norms throughout the ages because they believed in and supported them.

These women were operating in a system dominated by men, so they did not have the influence and power to change the system until men let them do it, starting with suffrage in western societies. The power dynamic was not equal, so presenting women as equal agents of their own oppression is not an accurate point of view.

Yes, women always had some kind of power, however meager. The point is that the balance of power wasn't equal. 2020 with weapons and equal formal rights is not the same as 1500 in a village where the men slice your throat or burn you at the stake if you disagree with them.