Should Communism Be Declared A Criminal Ideology?

[Animavore]

[Forty Two]

Everyone knows Communism doesn't work.

There are red flags everywhere.

[Animavore]

[Forty Two]

Communism is Irish.jpg (13.92 KiB) Viewed 1122 times

[Animavore]

[Forty Two]

[laklak]

I'm going to steal that one.

[Hermit]

I like the traditional sex roles. My wife stays home with the kids. I am the dad who goes to work...

In my house, I cook, clean the house, do the washing walk the dogs, put the trash out and so on. Mrs Rum goes out to work

Much the same for me, Rum, now that I'm retired. I clean the floors, wash the dishes, hang out the clothes, and do some shopping and cooking, while Bron heads out to do her tutoring...

Rum and Jim, you two wilfully and pathetically ignore nature. Will nobody think of the hormones? The physical strength of men? The fact that chaos is female and order is male?

I said nothing about nature, or hormones, or physical strength. My job takes zero physical strength, incidentally, and there is absolutely no reason women would not be able to do my job (and they are just as able). I just said what I prefer.

Not in this thread, but in your previous account as Coito ergo sum you had plenty to say about the different capabilities, the different ways women act and think and so on, based on biological and evolutionary grounds. In one of the threads you started, you began with: "I think there is some truth to what Hitchens has argued, both biologically and culturally. Women do not have as much of a biological or evolutionary need to be funny..." In another you went even further. You began a reply to Maiforpeace with: "Well, your species..." The latter example may have been you attempting to be funny, but I am sure that if anyone who could be bothered to do a bit of searching, they'd find plenty more comments of the former type authored by you among the other 30 threads you started with the word "women" in the title and elsewhere.

Plenty to say about different capabilities, different ways men and women act and think? What of it? What does that have to do with the exchange you just responded to. I like the traditional sex roles.
...
So make a point.

The point I made is simple, and if you think you can make it go away by playing dumb, you will be disappointed. Recapping: First, read the bits I coloured red. Now, to clarify, in case you really are as dense as you pretend to be just now, yes, you like the traditional sex roles, but you also justify them on the basis of biological and evolutionary - that is to say natural - differences between women and men. You have done so on numerous occasions in numerous ways unless you now also deny having posted as Coito ergo sum. I picked just one example, and I repeat: if anyone who could be bothered to do a bit of searching, they'd find plenty more.

[Forty Two]

The point you made is irrelevant. I have never suggested or implied, ever, that the differences between men and women mean that men can't stay at home and take care of houses and kids, or women can't go to work full time. I have no problem acknowledging inherent biological differences between males and females in sexually dimorphic species like humans. There are such differences. Only a complete and utter idiot would attempt to claim otherwise.

I do not justify - now - or ever - justify "sex roles" based on biological or evolutionary basis - although, again, only a complete idiot - or an intellectually dishonest fuckwit - would make the claim that there are no biological and evolutionary differences between males and females. Those differences do lead to differences in morphology as well as cognition. The data pointing to the biological basis of sex-based cognitive differences are legion. One would really have to reject the overwhelming scientific consensus on the matter in order to dispute that.

Nevertheless, none of that means that what Rum and JimC do is wrong, or that it is unnatural. None of that has fuck-all to do with "hormones" and "nature" and JimC and Rum rejecting same. The biological differences between men and women do not mean that men and women today cannot both take care of children and houses today, and the biological differences do not restrict women from engaging in white collar (and most blue collar) jobs pretty much to the same extent as men.

So, to recap: Please, by all means, please show me where I justify my preference for traditional sex roles (or the notion that it's wrong in any way not to follow traditional sex roles) ,based on biology or evolution. Go ahead. Try it. When you can't, I'll expect an apology.

What is it that bothers you about biology and evolution anyway? Are you upset by the fact that there are two main sexes in humans, like other animals? Are you upset that there are morphological and cognitive differences between the sexes? What's the problem with that? Does the existence of such differences, to you, mean that men can't cook and women can't do accounting? What the fuck are you even on about?

[Forty Two]

[Forty Two]

[Hermit]

I do not justify - now - or ever - justify "sex roles" based on biological or evolutionary basis...

Replace "sex" with "social", thanks, and yes, you have. Repeatedly.

...only a complete idiot - or an intellectually dishonest fuckwit - would make the claim that there are no biological and evolutionary differences between males and females.

I totally agree with you here.

What is it that bothers you about biology and evolution anyway?

Attempts to apply biological and evolutionary facts to the 21st century environment as if we lived in the 19th century.

[JimC]

42's particular choice of male/female roles in his life is as valid as any other arrangement. The issue is when a particular social arrangement is seen as the desirable (or even only) norm, and that alternatives, if not viewed as heretical, are at least viewed as eccentric and second-rate. The example in one of Rum's earlier posts, of how traditional children's books typically showed only one family arrangement is an example of how socialisation acted (at least in the past) to maintain social norms.

The zeitgeist has certainly moved on - frequently, modern children's books tend to show a wide range of possible family arrangements and lifestyles. Another interesting example is to be found in SF, particularly the military/space opera genre I tend to like. First, there was a jump to have strong female characters and leaders of space navies. David Weber is a good example of this. However, none of Weber's books ever have gay characters. More recent contributors have a fair proportion of gay roles as well.

I don't even view it as a choice of "male female roles."

You say "the issue is when a particular social arrangement as seen as the desirable (or even only) norm..." Seen by whom? Surely, everyone sees that differently, or at least there are a wide variety of opinions on it. Some see it as the desirable norm. That's not "an issue." That's their opinion. It's not an "issue" for a plurality to have that opinion. It's not an "issue" for a majority to have that opinion. As long as it's not by force of law, everyone can still do as they please.

Further, the fact that there is such a thing as "culture" means that there are, in fact, cultural norms. a cultural norm is the prevailing view of the people in that culture - what most people do. The Dutch drown their French fries in mayonnaise - they love that shit - it's part of their culture. Is that an "issue?" Should something be done about it? Wait...maybe that wasn't a great example....

If my view is "just as valid", then wouldn't 200 million people sharing my view be "just as valid?" Isn't that how cultures are formed?

You've missed the point, as usual. In the past in western society, and to a (diminishing) degree now, social norms such as heterosexuality, male/female marriage with clearly defined roles etc. were strongly reinforced, sometimes by law, sometimes via powerful traditions and socialisation. The many people who were not suited to such norms had miserable lives, either as outcasts (or even prisoners) if they rejected the roles, or deeply unhappy if they pretended to conform.

In the current ferment of social change, people who want those traditional roles seem to me to be deeply afraid that they will no longer be comfortable in the position of having their preference as the locked-in standard. They need to be re-assured that no one is going to forbid them to have lives like an 50's American family soap, if that is what floats their boat...

But they need to understand that others in the community (and their children, for that matter) will have a much wider range of ways to live available to them, and that the pressure to automatically conform to past roles is thankfully fading away...

[Forty Two]

I do not justify - now - or ever - justify "sex roles" based on biological or evolutionary basis...

Replace "sex" with "social", thanks, and yes, you have. Repeatedly.

Nope. And, again, what the fuck are you on about?

There's nothing to "justify." People behave the way they behave. Someone is justified in behaving in whatever sex or social role they want. I don't justify any role via biology or evolution.

...only a complete idiot - or an intellectually dishonest fuckwit - would make the claim that there are no biological and evolutionary differences between males and females.

I totally agree with you here.

Good, so, again, what are you on about? What point are you making?

What is it that bothers you about biology and evolution anyway?

Attempts to apply biological and evolutionary facts to the 21st century environment as if we lived in the 19th century.

What is blinding you to the fact that you are making absolutely no sense?

You sound triggered by something.

[Forty Two]

42's particular choice of male/female roles in his life is as valid as any other arrangement. The issue is when a particular social arrangement is seen as the desirable (or even only) norm, and that alternatives, if not viewed as heretical, are at least viewed as eccentric and second-rate. The example in one of Rum's earlier posts, of how traditional children's books typically showed only one family arrangement is an example of how socialisation acted (at least in the past) to maintain social norms.

The zeitgeist has certainly moved on - frequently, modern children's books tend to show a wide range of possible family arrangements and lifestyles. Another interesting example is to be found in SF, particularly the military/space opera genre I tend to like. First, there was a jump to have strong female characters and leaders of space navies. David Weber is a good example of this. However, none of Weber's books ever have gay characters. More recent contributors have a fair proportion of gay roles as well.

I don't even view it as a choice of "male female roles."

You say "the issue is when a particular social arrangement as seen as the desirable (or even only) norm..." Seen by whom? Surely, everyone sees that differently, or at least there are a wide variety of opinions on it. Some see it as the desirable norm. That's not "an issue." That's their opinion. It's not an "issue" for a plurality to have that opinion. It's not an "issue" for a majority to have that opinion. As long as it's not by force of law, everyone can still do as they please.

Further, the fact that there is such a thing as "culture" means that there are, in fact, cultural norms. a cultural norm is the prevailing view of the people in that culture - what most people do. The Dutch drown their French fries in mayonnaise - they love that shit - it's part of their culture. Is that an "issue?" Should something be done about it? Wait...maybe that wasn't a great example....

If my view is "just as valid", then wouldn't 200 million people sharing my view be "just as valid?" Isn't that how cultures are formed?

You've missed the point, as usual. In the past in western society, and to a (diminishing) degree now, social norms such as heterosexuality, male/female marriage with clearly defined roles etc. were strongly reinforced, sometimes by law, sometimes via powerful traditions and socialisation. The many people who were not suited to such norms had miserable lives, either as outcasts (or even prisoners) if they rejected the roles, or deeply unhappy if they pretended to conform.

In the current ferment of social change, people who want those traditional roles seem to me to be deeply afraid that they will no longer be comfortable in the position of having their preference as the locked-in standard. They need to be re-assured that no one is going to forbid them to have lives like an 50's American family soap, if that is what floats their boat...

But they need to understand that others in the community (and their children, for that matter) will have a much wider range of ways to live available to them, and that the pressure to automatically conform to past roles is thankfully fading away...

I happen to think it's hunky dory - just fine and dandy. I don't care who you live with, who cleans up, who cooks, and who goes to work. I've never said otherwise. What I was objecting to was the sarcastic comment made that somehow I think that anyone who doesn't have a home/work life split like I do is somehow challenging the nature, biology, evolution and hormones. Nothing I've said here or anywhere else would suggest that I think that.One, nobody needs to understand anything. People can do as they please. That's what liberty entails. If you want to do the cleaning and cooking and childcare and your wife wants to do something else, that's fine. But "they" don't need to think it's o.k.

It's probably the topic that sets certain people of certain mindsets (not you) off.

I agree, in the past, western society was more defined in roles (both culturally, and legally). Removing the legal barriers is a good thing. Decriminalizing homosexuality was great. People can marry who they want, and structure their home life how they want. Sounds great to me. But I guess somehow I'm the bad guy on this. I probably secretly think that the only natural way to exist is for women to stay home barefoot and pregnant, and men to go off and work taditional jobs, and when they come home the wife should wait on them hand-and-foot. Anything else is contrary to nature.