RWDT XX: The System Is Kapp Putsch

[Cekoviu]

according to revisionist patriarchal HIStory, yes

Why do you abuse Latin etymologies so?

Centum languages all deserve relentless abúse tbh.

removing the irony mask for a second: iirc, those gender roles mostly developed in early human society because women were incapacitated much of the time due to constant pregnancy (because of the lack of birth control), which means they couldn't help as much with growing food, going to war with other ethnicities for no reason, etc. cooking would be somewhat easier because it requires less exertion
now we have birth control and medications though, so that doesn't hold up at all for the modern day

I think you're underweighting the role of upper body strength in gender roles. Things like killing bears with a spear, plowing a field, cutting down trees, swinging a battering ram, and laying bricks take more upper body strength than baking and spinning.

That's true to some degree, but those are also things that women are capable of doing with enough experience and willpower. And still, those are not universally required now as they were in the early ages of mankind.

[Diopolis]

Why do you abuse Latin etymologies so?

Centum languages all deserve relentless abúse tbh.

I think you're underweighting the role of upper body strength in gender roles. Things like killing bears with a spear, plowing a field, cutting down trees, swinging a battering ram, and laying bricks take more upper body strength than baking and spinning.

That's true to some degree, but those are also things that women are capable of doing with enough experience and willpower. And still, those are not universally required now as they were in the early ages of mankind.

Inborn temperament and the need for a cultural script do, however, mean that throwing them out for the crime of being inconvenient is a bad idea.

[Cekoviu]

Centum languages all deserve relentless abúse tbh.

That's true to some degree, but those are also things that women are capable of doing with enough experience and willpower. And still, those are not universally required now as they were in the early ages of mankind.

Inborn temperament and the need for a cultural script do, however, mean that throwing them out for the crime of being inconvenient is a bad idea.

Er, yeah. That's why society shouldn't be preventing women from doing manual labor because it's more difficult on average for them.

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

That's true to some degree, but those are also things that women are capable of doing with enough experience and willpower. And still, those are not universally required now as they were in the early ages of mankind.

While true, I think it should be emphasized that it's significantly harder for a woman to gain muscle mass and upper body strength than it is for a man. The female body is designed for storing fat and producing offspring, not hunting or engaging in labour-intensive tasks. It takes at least double the amount of exercise and training for the average woman to reach the same level of strength as her male counterpart. And that's assuming they're young and in the prime of their life.

[Cekoviu]

That's true to some degree, but those are also things that women are capable of doing with enough experience and willpower. And still, those are not universally required now as they were in the early ages of mankind.

While true, I think it should be emphasized that it's significantly harder for a woman to gain muscle mass and upper body strength than it is for a man. The female body is designed for storing fat and producing offspring, not hunting or engaging in labour-intensive tasks. It takes at least double the amount of exercise and training for the average woman to reach the same level of strength as her male counterpart. And that's assuming they're young and in the prime of their life.

Again, something being difficult isn't a good reason to give up on it!

[Imperium Romanum Sanctis]

While true, I think it should be emphasized that it's significantly harder for a woman to gain muscle mass and upper body strength than it is for a man. The female body is designed for storing fat and producing offspring, not hunting or engaging in labour-intensive tasks. It takes at least double the amount of exercise and training for the average woman to reach the same level of strength as her male counterpart. And that's assuming they're young and in the prime of their life.

Again, something being difficult isn't a good reason to give up on it!

No, but it's important to put things into perspective.

There's only ever going to be so many women in labour-intensive professions. The average soldier and construction worker is a man, and this will likely remain true for the foreseeable future.

Gender roles exist for a reason, they aren't wholly arbitrary concepts.

[Diopolis]

Inborn temperament and the need for a cultural script do, however, mean that throwing them out for the crime of being inconvenient is a bad idea.

Er, yeah. That's why society shouldn't be preventing women from doing manual labor because it's more difficult on average for them.

I'm not sure how that follows from my post.

[Kowani]

They’re really not.

Why not?

Can I do the petty “they don’t exist”, or do I actually have to try?

Lèse-Majesté, by the way, is equally shit.
I don’t know if that counts as a whataboutism.

This is an exceedingly modern or even post-modern assessment and one that would have been alien to people throughout much of history because they had a genuine faith and fear of the divine and were not radically removed and alienated from social institutions with the alternative to pursue secular theological abstractions. You'd, of course, have a select few individuals who experienced resentment, alienation, and nihilism but it would have manifested quite differently.

Shrug. And that there was a reason for their beliefs does not actually make those beliefs any more logically justified.

[Fahran]

Can I do the petty “they don’t exist”, or do I actually have to try?

If trying involves maltheism again, I'd rather you take the petty route.

Shrug. And that there was a reason for their beliefs does not actually make those beliefs any more logically justified.

They're logically justified. They're just not rational by the modern standard. :^)

[Hanafuridake]

Why not?

Can I do the petty “they don’t exist”, or do I actually have to try?

You answered on the premise that they do exist though.

[Kowani]

Can I do the petty “they don’t exist”, or do I actually have to try?

If trying involves maltheism again, I'd rather you take the petty route.

I mean, even from a standpoint that involves believing that gods exist, they still aren’t automatically deserving of worship. Such would be a contract, and contracts can only be entered into via conscious admission, not through any intrinsic method.

Shrug. And that there was a reason for their beliefs does not actually make those beliefs any more logically justified.

They're logically justified. They're just not rational by the modern standard. :^)[/quote]
And people used to think Geocentricism was correct, but that didn’t make it any more so because it was logically justified by their time.

[Cekoviu]

Er, yeah. That's why society shouldn't be preventing women from doing manual labor because it's more difficult on average for them.

I'm not sure how that follows from my post.

"throwing them out for the crime of being inconvenient is a bad idea."
you see how this could be applied to the fact that you think women shouldn't do jobs involving manual labor, seemingly just because it's more difficult and inconvenient for women to do so on average?

[Novus America]

Centum languages all deserve relentless abúse tbh.

That's true to some degree, but those are also things that women are capable of doing with enough experience and willpower. And still, those are not universally required now as they were in the early ages of mankind.

Inborn temperament and the need for a cultural script do, however, mean that throwing them out for the crime of being inconvenient is a bad idea.

But the fact women can be very good at other things mean such norms should not be strictly enforced. Ever heard of Admiral Grace Hopper? Really the mother of Navy electronic warfare.
Back in the 50s she was one of the top computer programmers in Silicon Valley.
The computers we are typing this on (a modern “phone” is actually a computer with a phone function) owe a lot to her in the computer languages going on behind the scenes. She was a woman, and was a computer genius.

If we had her barefoot in the kitchen we would be worse off.

Now actually contrary to popular belief about 1/3rd of women in the 50s worked.
Not saying the 50s were great for women always (obviously there was institutional and legal prejudice) but it was not what its rad trad proponents nor its SJW detractors make it out to be.

I am not against gender roles existing in society, on average, in aggregate, at all. I do think mothers should NOT HAVE to work outside jobs to survive while taking care of children. BUT I do not think women should be restricted from working if they want to and if they are able to do the job as well or better than a man.

Many would choose not to work outside jobs in my society. But some would. And that is fine.
Gender roles are just guidelines, not hard and fast rules.

[Hanafuridake]

Blasphemy has usually elicited less than positive responses from deities because it's an aberration from the natural order and deities, by their intrinsic nature, are deserving of veneration and respect.

They’re really not.

Why not?

[South Odreria 2]

They're logically justified. They're just not rational by the modern standard. :^)

And people used to think Geocentricism was correct, but that didn’t make it any more so because it was logically justified by their time.

Geocentrism has been disproved so not sure how that’s relevant.

[Fahran]

I mean, even from a standpoint that involves believing that gods exist, they still aren’t automatically deserving of worship. Such would be a contract, and contracts can only be entered into via conscious admission, not through any intrinsic method.

For me at least, it's more akin to an inheritance. It's just to render what is deserved to those who are deserving is it not. If I would praise my mother for raising me well and express gratitude to her, why should I not then do so to a deity that allegedly crafted me, filled me with the breath of life, imparted me with the gifts which I enjoy, and gave me the right direction? Is such a figure not deserving of much more praise?

And people used to think Geocentricism was correct, but that didn’t make it any more so because it was logically justified by their time.

Except we're discussing social conventions and hierarchies, not hard scientific theories rooted in empirical evidence.

[Hanafuridake]

If trying involves maltheism again, I'd rather you take the petty route.

I mean, even from a standpoint that involves believing that gods exist, they still aren’t automatically deserving of worship. Such would be a contract, and contracts can only be entered into via conscious admission, not through any intrinsic method.

Did... did you just apply social contract theory to gods?

[Novus America]

I mean, even from a standpoint that involves believing that gods exist, they still aren’t automatically deserving of worship. Such would be a contract, and contracts can only be entered into via conscious admission, not through any intrinsic method.

Did... did you just apply social contract theory to gods?

Actually that would be within Judeo-Christian theology. There is the whole Covenant aspect of it.

Other than Calvinist irresistible grace double predestination really Christianity is based on social contract theory.

[Remaris]

I started writing this post in response to the above but ended up going on a bit of a tangent. Still, I think it's a worthwhile contribution to the thread.

Respecting the past and tradition is of course the fundamental characteristic of conservative political thought, but it would be a mistake to think that means preserving some kind of ossified society where nothing ever changes for eternity. The world is a dynamic place, and governments and societies need to be able to change and adapt in response wider changes in geopolitics, technology and scientific understanding amongst other things. Nonetheless, the distinction conservatives make between "organic" and "inorganic" change is a worthwhile one even if it may sometimes be difficult to see the difference. We should assume that traditions, laws and institutions are generally created for a reason and are therefore better left alone unless there is a clear practical reason to do otherwise. Enacting change in response to a particular situation that demands it is what we'd call organic change, as opposed to launching a succession of radical changes aimed purely at achieving a particular ideological goal by reshaping society according to the ideal of the "reformers," which is what the left has historically sought to do and often succeeded in doing. Society and state should be thought of as an organic entity, like a plant requiring occasional pruning to remain healthy. Radicals of various stripes tend to think of the constitution of the state more like a mobile phone- something to be tossed out periodically and replaced with the latest model. Likewise, wider society is continuously being "reinvented" by top-down social engineering.

I think that lèse-majesté, at least in the extreme form that exists in Thailand, can justifiably be considered a tradition that needs altering or eliminating. However, in a more general sense I do not believe that it is healthy for us to keep obsessively "criticising and re-evaluating" existing traditions or institutions. In general the government governs best that governs least, and that means leaving existing laws and processes of government intact as far as possible. Otherwise we end up like France, going through two empires, two kingdoms and five republics all in the space of around 200 years.

“Government governs best that governs least” > literally an abstract “ideological goal” that right wingers trash tradition to reshape society according to

I'm not using the phrase in the way that right-libertarians might to justify their absurd hypercapitalist fantasies. You should try engaging with the core of my argument rather than taking one thing out of context to nitpick about, although that might require more intellectual power than goes into the typical NSG post.

[Diopolis]

I'm not sure how that follows from my post.

"throwing them out for the crime of being inconvenient is a bad idea."
you see how this could be applied to the fact that you think women shouldn't do jobs involving manual labor, seemingly just because it's more difficult and inconvenient for women to do so on average?

Gender roles exist for a reason, and "women shouldn't be construction workers" isn't the crux of them.

[Diopolis]

Inborn temperament and the need for a cultural script do, however, mean that throwing them out for the crime of being inconvenient is a bad idea.

But the fact women can be very good at other things mean such norms should not be strictly enforced. Ever heard of Admiral Grace Hopper? Really the mother of Navy electronic warfare.
Back in the 50s she was one of the top computer programmers in Silicon Valley.
The computers we are typing this on (a modern “phone” is actually a computer with a phone function) owe a lot to her in the computer languages going on behind the scenes. She was a woman, and was a computer genius.

If we had her barefoot in the kitchen we would be worse off.

Now actually contrary to popular belief about 1/3rd of women in the 50s worked.
Not saying the 50s were great for women always (obviously there was institutional and legal prejudice) but it was not what its rad trad proponents nor its SJW detractors make it out to be.

Weren't a very high proportion of those working as seamstresses, childcare workers, domestics, &c?

I am not against gender roles existing in society, on average, in aggregate, at all. I do think mothers should NOT HAVE to work outside jobs to survive while taking care of children. BUT I do not think women should be restricted from working if they want to and if they are able to do the job as well or better than a man.

Many would choose not to work outside jobs in my society. But some would. And that is fine.
Gender roles are just guidelines, not hard and fast rules.

But the thing about guidelines is that they have to be acknowledged as the generally correct way to do things. And that does mean a certain level of judgement against people who don't follow them, or who object to them. Otherwise they don't work as guidelines.

[Novus America]

But the fact women can be very good at other things mean such norms should not be strictly enforced. Ever heard of Admiral Grace Hopper? Really the mother of Navy electronic warfare.
Back in the 50s she was one of the top computer programmers in Silicon Valley.
The computers we are typing this on (a modern “phone” is actually a computer with a phone function) owe a lot to her in the computer languages going on behind the scenes. She was a woman, and was a computer genius.

If we had her barefoot in the kitchen we would be worse off.

Now actually contrary to popular belief about 1/3rd of women in the 50s worked.
Not saying the 50s were great for women always (obviously there was institutional and legal prejudice) but it was not what its rad trad proponents nor its SJW detractors make it out to be.

Weren't a very high proportion of those working as seamstresses, childcare workers, domestics, &c?

I am not against gender roles existing in society, on average, in aggregate, at all. I do think mothers should NOT HAVE to work outside jobs to survive while taking care of children. BUT I do not think women should be restricted from working if they want to and if they are able to do the job as well or better than a man.

Many would choose not to work outside jobs in my society. But some would. And that is fine.
Gender roles are just guidelines, not hard and fast rules.

But the thing about guidelines is that they have to be acknowledged as the generally correct way to do things. And that does mean a certain level of judgement against people who don't follow them, or who object to them. Otherwise they don't work as guidelines.

Sure most worked in more “female” roles, (secretaries, nurses, childcare workers etc.) but not all.
To some degree of course enough people have to agree to the guidelines for them to work, but not all do. Only a majority do really. And again only a majority have to follow them, which they probably will free of coercion.

Also I prefer the carrot to stick as we do not want to dissuade future Grace Hoppers.
Rather than shaming or punishing women who do work full time outside jobs while having children we simply make sure the women who do not want to work full time outside of raising children do not have to.

If you make it where people do not have to work, many, probably most will choose not to work. No coercion or shaming required.

[Kowani]

I mean, even from a standpoint that involves believing that gods exist, they still aren’t automatically deserving of worship. Such would be a contract, and contracts can only be entered into via conscious admission, not through any intrinsic method.

For me at least, it's more akin to an inheritance. It's just to render what is deserved to those who are deserving is it not.

It would be, if they deserved it-

If I would praise my mother for raising me well and express gratitude to her, why should I not then do so to a deity that allegedly crafted me, filled me with the breath of life, imparted me with the gifts which I enjoy, and gave me the right direction? Is such a figure not deserving of much more praise?

Your mother is far more deserving of praise than a deity, for she sacrificed and struggled to raise you, at risk to her own life. This is the US, so it was most likely a financial struggle at times.
Your omnipotent deity did none of the above.

And people used to think Geocentricism was correct, but that didn’t make it any more so because it was logically justified by their time.

Except we're discussing social conventions and hierarchies, not hard scientific theories rooted in empirical evidence.

I should've gone with a more appropriate analogy, but the point stands.

I mean, even from a standpoint that involves believing that gods exist, they still aren’t automatically deserving of worship. Such would be a contract, and contracts can only be entered into via conscious admission, not through any intrinsic method.

Did... did you just apply social contract theory to gods?

The only difference between any god (save maybe a deist one) and a human is the size of the stick.

[Diopolis]

Weren't a very high proportion of those working as seamstresses, childcare workers, domestics, &c?

But the thing about guidelines is that they have to be acknowledged as the generally correct way to do things. And that does mean a certain level of judgement against people who don't follow them, or who object to them. Otherwise they don't work as guidelines.

Sure most worked in more “female” roles, (secretaries, nurses, childcare workers etc.) but not all.
To some degree of course enough people have to agree to the guidelines for them to work, but not all do. Only a majority do really. And again only a majority have to follow them, which they probably will free of coercion.

Also I prefer the carrot to stick as we do not want to dissuade future Grace Hoppers.
Rather than shaming or punishing women who do work full time outside jobs while having children we simply make sure the women who do not want to work full time outside of raising children do not have to.

If you make it where people do not have to work, many, probably most will choose not to work. No coercion or shaming required.

I don't intrinsically disagree with the carrot approach, although I'm probably more radical than you are. I do think that some level of coercion will, however, be required to reset the default to "mothers do not work outside the home".

[Fahran]

Actually that would be within Judeo-Christian theology. There is the whole Covenant aspect of it.

Other than Calvinist irresistible grace double predestination really Christianity is based on social contract theory.

A contract that you don't really have the option to escape in the context of Judaism. In Christianity, original sin seems to give you one of two options.