Criticisms of Feminism

[Warpspace]

The fuck?

There is no "race", and race certainly isn't the result of biology. The various "races" have stupidly minimal amount of difference to even be labeled a sub-species. They're simply minimal differences resulting from-

1) Slight changes for better adaption to their native environments, typically sunlight levels or diet.

2) "Killing off" other Hominids such as Neandertals (ACTUAL different species with such little genetic difference between us that we could still breed) with mass interbreeding of populations until H. Sapiens assimilated Neandertals into our own.

3) Cultural preference affecting appearance. This is part of the reason why those humans who split for Asia have a somewhat neonatal appearance compared to other humans.

However, note that the differences between the "races" are stupidly small and almost entirely related to appearance and flesh coloration to adapt to the local sunlight levels. Hell, Neandertals differed from humans genetically by a meager .12%. As for any bullshit claims of stupidity associated with any "race" (which are typically made by racist people to begin with) often fail to realize the socioeconomic position of people.

So of fucking course immigrants from another nation forced to live in slums thanks to a very poor income are going to look "dumb" because they grew up poor, lived in a poor area, and got a poor job, meaning their education was also shockingly poor. But race as well is fairly bullshit, as it's nothing more then a classification of appearance that often fails to even realize the diversity of blanket "races" like "blacks", "asians", or "whites".

/rant

tiny insignificant differences are still differences, like it or not. Obviously, I'm not claiming race to be the same as sub-species, we're all the same species. Neither do I agree that "blacks, asians, and whites" are accurate descriptors of race. All I claimed was that race exists.

I apologize, it sounded like you were going down a white nationalism route which is something I like to take a hammer and anvil to.

[Albul]

Are you replying with puppets?

Anyways, you have not answered me...

No, I've been using this nation to post since the start, and what did you ask me?

Here is the thing... Other mammals also live in social groups. Whether it was an evolutionary phenomenon or not, it does not matter. We have reached a point in society in which human gender roles serve as societal ills. Why, other than sexual discrimination, do the Chinese murder female infants? Why do some African tribes mutilate female genitals? Why must Muslim women cover their face upon reaching puberty? Why are women paid less? Why other than social (not evolutionary) reasons must women face these troubles?

No other species of animal has to deal with sexually discriminate infanticide, genital mutilation, wages, and repressive clothing.

The nationalist has not answered my question. I will concede that social roles exist in other species. However, where those roles generally help their societies function and serve an evolutionary purpose, how do human gender roles serve human society nowadays? I understand its purpose in a tribalistic society, where it is best that a women with a bun in the oven doesn't go out to hunt, but how are gender roles relevant now?

tl;dr what have these social roles done for us?

[Constantinopolis]

If gender roles are human social constructs, why does
every
single
mammal species
exhibit
gender roles?
Certainly not because they're biological

You seem to be confusing two different concepts:

A. Males and females engaging in different behaviours of some kind. There is some difference, but it's not specified what the difference is. It could be anything.

B. Males and females engaging in behaviours typical of late Victorian or early 20th century society in the Western world. In this case we're not talking about difference-in-general, we're talking about one very specific set of differences.

When most people say "gender roles", what they have in mind is B.
When you talk about "gender roles" in other mammals, you're talking about A.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Well, nobody exactly is doing any forcing of anything gender related here in the land of the free, so what exactly is your point?

Well, that depends on whether you really care about my use of the word "forcing," specifically, as opposed to a word like "encouraging" or "pressuring" or some similar word which would work equally well.

There are certainly people who believe that women should be home-makers, not workers, that they should value having children above all else, or that they should be meek and polite and act "like a lady."

Which is exactly what is meant by gender roles.

So? Why is that a problem? I believe that my mum staying at home had a positive influence on my siblings and I, even after my father got his hand crushed, but I really don't care what anyone else's family structure is, nor do I feel a desire to impose my ideal structure over anyone else's.

[Albul]

Well, that depends on whether you really care about my use of the word "forcing," specifically, as opposed to a word like "encouraging" or "pressuring" or some similar word which would work equally well.

There are certainly people who believe that women should be home-makers, not workers, that they should value having children above all else, or that they should be meek and polite and act "like a lady."

Which is exactly what is meant by gender roles.

So? Why is that a problem? I believe that my mum staying at home had a positive influence on my siblings and I, even after my father got his hand crushed, but I really don't care what anyone else's family structure is, nor do I feel a desire to impose my ideal structure over anyone else's.

That is the point. The nuclear family, with the father being the breadwinner, is encouraged throughout the nation.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

No, I've been using this nation to post since the start, and what did you ask me?

Here is the thing... Other mammals also live in social groups. Whether it was an evolutionary phenomenon or not, it does not matter. We have reached a point in society in which human gender roles serve as societal ills. Why, other than sexual discrimination, do the Chinese murder female infants? Why do some African tribes mutilate female genitals? Why must Muslim women cover their face upon reaching puberty? Why are women paid less? Why other than social (not evolutionary) reasons must women face these troubles?

No other species of animal has to deal with sexually discriminate infanticide, genital mutilation, wages, and repressive clothing.

The nationalist has not answered my question. I will concede that social roles exist in other species. However, where those roles generally help their societies function and serve an evolutionary purpose, how do human gender roles serve human society nowadays? I understand its purpose in a tribalistic society, where it is best that a women with a bun in the oven doesn't go out to hunt, but how are gender roles relevant now?

tl;dr what have these social roles done for us?

I can't speak for the Africans, Chinese, and Muslims, I can say that yes, gender roles are a bit extreme in some parts of the world, but it's simply a magnification of the biological roles of males and females. You can get rid of the extremist social constructs that you mentioned with Africans, Chinese, and Muslims, but you can't get rid of the underlying biological construct.

[Constantinopolis]

Man, I keep telling you, you're actually agreeing with the arguments made by serious feminists. This is exactly what they say.

Never said I disagreed with them. Just came out wrong because I am very tired right now. I wasn't criticizing feminism as a movement, but feminism as a stereotype, then tried to go into the causes of social stereotypes, but failed epically to do so (which I openly admit), due to really bad wording.

Ok, I see. Don't worry about it - I'm just glad we cleared up the misunderstanding.

But it sounds like you really should be getting some rest. I mean it. I have experience with going without sleep, and it leads to all sorts of health problems. I understand there are some personal issues that are keeping you awake, but... I wish I had some advice, but all I can say is, just take care of yourself.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

So? Why is that a problem? I believe that my mum staying at home had a positive influence on my siblings and I, even after my father got his hand crushed, but I really don't care what anyone else's family structure is, nor do I feel a desire to impose my ideal structure over anyone else's.

That is the point. The nuclear family, with the father being the breadwinner, is encouraged throughout the nation.

It worked for my family, if it doesn't work for yours, you're free to do whatever you like.

[Albul]

tl;dr what have these social roles done for us?

I can't speak for the Africans, Chinese, and Muslims, I can say that yes, gender roles are a bit extreme in some parts of the world, but it's simply a magnification of the biological roles of males and females. You can get rid of the extremist social constructs that you mentioned with Africans, Chinese, and Muslims, but you can't get rid of the underlying biological construct.

What is the underlying biological construct, then?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

We don't have to cover our faces based on anything Islamic, ps, and there are very few places where we have to cover our faces by law. Just clarifying that.

Aw... I wanted to have a nice, clean jab at something Muslim without being branded a closet Templar Knight.

Well, this is close enough. :|

The nationalist has not answered my question. I will concede that social roles exist in other species. However, where those roles generally help their societies function and serve an evolutionary purpose, how do human gender roles serve human society nowadays? I understand its purpose in a tribalistic society, where it is best that a women with a bun in the oven doesn't go out to hunt, but how are gender roles relevant now?

They aren't even "social" roles so much as "this is how we survive."
Uh, that's well and great for like, hyenas, but they are unnecessary in modern humans.

[Tubbsalot]

Well, that depends on whether you really care about my use of the word "forcing," specifically, as opposed to a word like "encouraging" or "pressuring" or some similar word which would work equally well.

There are certainly people who believe that women should be home-makers, not workers, that they should value having children above all else, or that they should be meek and polite and act "like a lady."

Which is exactly what is meant by gender roles.

So? Why is that a problem? I believe that my mum staying at home had a positive influence on my siblings and I, even after my father got his hand crushed, but I really don't care what anyone else's family structure is, nor do I feel a desire to impose my ideal structure over anyone else's.

The problem is that there are a lot of women who don't want to be stay-at-home mums, and men who would be perfectly happy as househusbands, and we shouldn't compel them to act according to their socially-defined gender roles if they don't want to. They should be able to do what they prefer.

A sentiment which I'd think you'd fully agree with, if you don't want to impose your ideal structure on others.

[The New Sea Territory]

What I propose is that you learn what feminism actually is. Because your post was condescending and ignorant, given that feminists DO say that these gender roles harm men as well.

It is you that is looking at this with a narrow view.

[Carpathia and Moldova]

I understand its purpose in a tribalistic society, where it is best that a women with a bun in the oven doesn't go out to hunt, but how are gender roles relevant now?

Actually, we've outgrown the need for gender roles long before we reached the level of tribalism. There's no reason a woman couldn't hunt as well as a man and no reason a man couldn't watch after that bun in the oven, as well as a woman. In fact, in small, tribal societies and especially in pre-tribal societies, the small size of the group forced our species to adapt in a way that both genders could perform equally well at all tasks. This is because in prehistoric times, stuff like hunting was very dangerous and the lack of medicine meant that a lot of injuries ended up being fatal due to infections. It led to situations where, if too many male hunters died, then the tribe would have starved and died, unless the women were able to replace the males who perished and maintain the resource output. It was also because, due to the small size of the groups, all members of the pack/tribe/whatever had to participate in all tasks. Basically, lack of manpower and high mortality rates are what killed gender roles in humans. That's cuz we have no special physical advantages, aside from our brains and adaptability to situations.

A modern day example of this process, can be found in wolves and some other canides. Both males and females participate in hunting, guarding and rearing the pups (in fact, the entire pack participates in all of these activities). The social (pecking) order, isn't that much different, either.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

I can't speak for the Africans, Chinese, and Muslims, I can say that yes, gender roles are a bit extreme in some parts of the world, but it's simply a magnification of the biological roles of males and females. You can get rid of the extremist social constructs that you mentioned with Africans, Chinese, and Muslims, but you can't get rid of the underlying biological construct.

What is the underlying biological construct, then?

He apparently thinks that you can't let people be who they want to be, because people with vaginas have to have x traits and people with penises have to possess z traits, or else reproduction can't happen????
Don't see how me wearing pants and working keeps me from getting pregnant.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

So? Why is that a problem? I believe that my mum staying at home had a positive influence on my siblings and I, even after my father got his hand crushed, but I really don't care what anyone else's family structure is, nor do I feel a desire to impose my ideal structure over anyone else's.

The problem is that there are a lot of women who don't want to be stay-at-home mum, and men who would be perfectly happy as a househusband, and we shouldn't compel them to act according to their socially-defined gender roles if they don't want to. They should be able to do what they prefer.

A sentiment which I'd think you'd fully agree with, if you don't want to impose your ideal structure on others.

And I do agree that they have every right to, even if I myself like the traditional nuclear family.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

What is the underlying biological construct, then?

He apparently thinks that you can't let people be who they want to be, because people with vaginas have to have x traits and people with penises have to possess z traits, or else reproduction can't happen????
Don't see how me wearing pants and working keeps me from getting pregnant.

Eh, you might want to take a good second read about what I wrote, that's not even close mate.

[Tubbsalot]

The problem is that there are a lot of women who don't want to be stay-at-home mum, and men who would be perfectly happy as a househusband, and we shouldn't compel them to act according to their socially-defined gender roles if they don't want to. They should be able to do what they prefer.

A sentiment which I'd think you'd fully agree with, if you don't want to impose your ideal structure on others.

And I do agree that they have every right to, even if I myself like the traditional nuclear family.

So then, you agree that gender roles are crap.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

I understand its purpose in a tribalistic society, where it is best that a women with a bun in the oven doesn't go out to hunt, but how are gender roles relevant now?

Actually, we've outgrown the need for gender roles long before we reached the level of tribalism. There's no reason a woman couldn't hunt as well as a man and no reason a man couldn't watch after that bun in the oven, as well as a woman. In fact, in small, tribal societies and especially in pre-tribal societies, the small size of the group forced our species to adapt in a way that both genders could perform equally well at all tasks. This is because in prehistoric times, stuff like hunting was very dangerous and the lack of medicine meant that a lot of injuries ended up being fatal due to infections. It led to situations where, if too many male hunters died, then the tribe would have starved and died, unless the women were able to replace the males who perished and maintain the resource output. It was also because, due to the small size of the groups, all members of the pack/tribe/whatever had to participate in all tasks. Basically, lack of manpower and high mortality rates are what killed gender roles in humans. That's cuz we have no special physical advantages, aside from our brains and adaptability to situations.

A modern day example of this process, can be found in wolves and some other canides. Both males and females participate in hunting, guarding and rearing the pups (in fact, the entire pack participates in all of these activities). The social (pecking) order, isn't that much different, either.

I don't think men can watch after a fetus, considering we aren't seahorses???? ONce it's fully baked, sure, but the bun in the oven kinda can't leave.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

And I do agree that they have every right to, even if I myself like the traditional nuclear family.

So then, you agree that gender roles are crap.

Yes. But I also know that there's nothing you can do to remove the underlying differences between males and females.

[Keyboard Warriors]

That is the point. The nuclear family, with the father being the breadwinner, is encouraged throughout the nation.

It worked for my family, if it doesn't work for yours, you're free to do whatever you like.

You're playing down the problem so let's go through it again. There is still considerable social pressure on women, most particularly married women, to abandon career goals and instead stay at home or work part-time. Similarly, this affects men by pressuring them not to stay at home and pursue career goals. If you agree that either women or men should be free to stay at home while either opposite should be free to work, or both working if that's their style, then you must surely agree that there's a problem.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

He apparently thinks that you can't let people be who they want to be, because people with vaginas have to have x traits and people with penises have to possess z traits, or else reproduction can't happen????
Don't see how me wearing pants and working keeps me from getting pregnant.

Eh, you might want to take a good second read about what I wrote, that's not even close mate.

You keep arguing for gender roles, so unless you are misusing the phrase "gender roles," yeah that's what you said.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

So then, you agree that gender roles are crap.

Yes. But I also know that there's nothing you can do to remove the underlying differences between males and females.

One person having a uterus and one having testes are not gender roles, those are biological sexes.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What I propose is that you learn what feminism actually is. Because your post was condescending and ignorant, given that feminists DO say that these gender roles harm men as well.

It is you that is looking at this with a narrow view.

^ This.

[Albul]

Actually, we've outgrown the need for gender roles long before we reached the level of tribalism. There's no reason a woman couldn't hunt as well as a man and no reason a man couldn't watch after that bun in the oven, as well as a woman. In fact, in small, tribal societies and especially in pre-tribal societies, the small size of the group forced our species to adapt in a way that both genders could perform equally well at all tasks. This is because in prehistoric times, stuff like hunting was very dangerous and the lack of medicine meant that a lot of injuries ended up being fatal due to infections. It led to situations where, if too many male hunters died, then the tribe would have starved and died, unless the women were able to replace the males who perished and maintain the resource output. It was also because, due to the small size of the groups, all members of the pack/tribe/whatever had to participate in all tasks. Basically, lack of manpower and high mortality rates are what killed gender roles in humans. That's cuz we have no special physical advantages, aside from our brains and adaptability to situations.

A modern day example of this process, can be found in wolves and some other canides. Both males and females participate in hunting, guarding and rearing the pups (in fact, the entire pack participates in all of these activities). The social (pecking) order, isn't that much different, either.

I don't think men can watch after a fetus, considering we aren't seahorses???? ONce it's fully baked, sure, but the bun in the oven kinda can't leave.

Blasted idioms... I can't be fun if y'all are being too literal. What I meant by a bun in the oven is that the woman is pregnant... Women can't really expect to keep the fetus alive with the demanding physical labor needed to hunt.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

It worked for my family, if it doesn't work for yours, you're free to do whatever you like.

You're playing down the problem so let's go through it again. There is still considerable social pressure on women, most particularly married women, to abandon career goals and instead stay at home or work part-time. Similarly, this affects men by pressuring them not to stay at home and pursue career goals. If you agree that either women or men should be free to stay at home while either opposite should be free to work, or both working if that's their style, then you must surely agree that there's a problem.

Everything works except both parents staying at home, that generally ends in poverty.