Thai Military Dictatorship introduces oppressive patriarchal norms to children

I do not want to live in a "socialist" arrangement where being dysfunctional is the ideal.

Who are you to decide what is functional and non-functional?

The market and the state :^)

Communism is a worker's movement.

You don't speak for the workers.

- V. I. Lenin, marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/lfafar/third.htm

I am a worker of workers.

Yes, but you only speak for yourself.

But who will speak for the automated society of technology?

Robot rights now.

FTFY

FTFY

...

I speak for those that will let me.

...

And ya'll niggas talking about gender norms.

This.
You guys are obsessing over peripheral.

While I hate idpol as much as the next brocialist OP's pics do seem kinda fucked up.

Unless Thailand doesn't have the internet, do these propagandists really think if you stick women at home all day they're going to spend that time doing housework?

Technically, their access to the Internet actually is heavily restricted. There are propaganda posters in Bangkok "warning" people that liking the wrong stuff on Facebook can land them in prison.

Perfect

You realize the people in Thailand speak thai not english right? This is either aimed at English speakers or is a language learning book for school children.

Sure, I'm vaguely aware that inferior languages exist, but that's beside the point. It's still a pretty shitty message to be giving to kids.

Yeah, this is some really horrible stuff.

So why didn't you make a thread about it? Or hell, just post further readings on the topic here, let's make this a thread about the Thai Junta in general.

It's extremely counter-productive and reddit-tier to complain about a radical topic just because it's not the specific one you care about the most.

meanwhile in reality stagnating wages have forced women into the work place to the detriment of wages for all, destruction of family and ultimately resentment between the sexes.

I would expect a racist to distract from the fight for gender equality.

...

so what, we can't talk about issues that are also important? You realize that patriarchal norms are a direct product of capitalism which means that it's a problem field revolutionary leftists have to tackle?
If you guys are so concerned about the situation of labor in Thailand then make a thread about it instead of complaining here. But tbh you aren't really concerned about Thai workers, you're just butthurt thar there's a thread about women's issues on the front page and you can't cope with it unless you shitpost. Like, in every fucking thread there's one self righteous smart aleck who thinks he's fighting idpol by shitting up threads where people want to discuss these issues in.

Well that's retarded, but you can't do much about it fam. Also I suspect you made this thread thinking we are liberals/sjws or something.

1. If that's true, dismantling capitalism would fix the problem, so it makes more sense to focus on that.
2. Gender roles are older than history and are probably why we are here instead of neanderthals. That doesn't mean they are good, but you should be smart enough that I wouldn't need to qualify the previous statement.

It isn't IdPol to be worried about this. The images in OP are IdPol.

You can work against more than one issue at a time, one of the largest flaws on the early US commies was their hesitance to touch upon the subject of race, which alienated a large part of the proletariat.

Now I think I know what you mean, but you should also definitely expect to have to explain yourself. Since you are defending an institution that has very much left women with the short end of the stick.

true, but we can't just ignore those problems like you guys want to.
no, they aren't. At least not the modern ones. capitalist patriarchy is qualitatively different from premodern forms of patriarchy, as the patriarchy is now an instrument of capital value production.

mediationsjournal.org/articles/patriarchy-and-commodity-society

and this. We can't forget that women make up about 60% of the working class.

Well you're wrong. This is what I was talking about. Stating facts is not the same as defending something. If you think "the present is a product of the past" is a defense of what happened in the past, that's on you. I was just pointing out that your post was erroneous on two counts.
wew

Gender roles are different because they are part of the superstructure, and the structure is different. You're speaking of detail, not the core of the matter.
Spooky. It's well established that gender roles are biologically rooted to a certain degree in our and many other primate species. I'd love to see that go away, but evolution takes time and requires a change in the conditions surrounding a species.

This is a very bad idea for reasons that should be obvious.

lmao alright

So tell me why is it that in countries with a more equal superstructure, there is a greater discrepancy in which careers men and women enter?

But you know, focusing on things like gender norms, instead of the millions of things that enforce that backwards thinking in general, isn't.
wew

tbh you're just throwing around words that sound marxish without understanding the underlying concept. Otherwise you wouldn't think of gender as rooted in our anatomy. Some serious idealism you've got there.
And to answer you're question: It doesn't really matter. The sexual division of labor is ubiquitous in capitalism. If a country appears to have a "more equal superstructure" (lmao) this doesn't mean that the sexual division of labor has been or is to be superseded, it just means that the productive forces have developed to a point where the sexual division of labor can be taken to the next level. The same thing causing women to stay at home in Pakistan causes the discrepancy in the West, in academia for example where there are almost no women in STEM.

Marx talks unironically about the patriarchy, he must be a SJW libruhl class traitor then.

Shit. Forgot to add
>attacking the suprerstructure instead of the structure

nice strawman.

Go study some fucking biology m8. There are all kinds of biological differences between men and women aside from fulfilling different reproductive roles. Also, just because Marx said something doesn't make it right.

Fun fact, women in STEM peaked in the nineties, just before feminists started telling girls how STEM is full of big meanie boys who will bully them. If you actually knew anything about STEM (especially the S and T parts) you would know that women have worked in those fields since their inception. Also, explain why proportionally there are so many more women in biology than science in general.

Whatever mate, who cares

Am I in bizzaro-Holla Forums? Someone made a thread about gender norms and some redditor fuck comes in screaming about how we aren't talking about something else.

ah yesh but do i really know myshelf and so on

what the fuck why hasn't this thread been deleted? It's not even bait, it's plain Holla Forums false flagging

women are more interested in reproduction and bearing a child, it's only natural they would study biology rather than anything more abstract or productive

Off yourself

I can't believe it's 2016 and these oppressive SEXIST sinners are able to get away with this. This kind if shit is exactly why we need Bernie Sanders elected. He would never ever allow these woman hater scumbags to ever be in power over even the smallest organization.

Go home Holla Forums. You should know that the feminazis support Shillary, while a lot of people on Holla Forums support Bernie precisely because he _doesn't_ constantly preach about bullshit like that.

Why are these in English? Are these simple sentences to learn for an ESL class?

Hi Holla Forums, why did you create another MUH FAMILY VALUES thread when there's already a perfectly good one over here?
Is it because the responses made you uncomfortable? Do you need a safe space?

Reddit is elsewhere

Cause only racists use the term nigga. Fuck off with that idpol bullshit.

It was clearly sarcasm.

And how do you know that? It could be so ledditer that just wandered in. Better safe then sorry.

Because I don't have autism.

Come on this obviously a false flag. Why does it have so many replies?

newfags

Get the fuck out

To be fair I'd say Arabic is inferior to most languages, certainly English, it lacks the letter and sound "p" substituting f in its place, it's written from right to left and it looks like Klingon or chicken scratches, it's hard to read in standard form and even harder to read in cursive.

Reading some of the comments in this thread: has it come to this, comrades? I too am anti-idpol, I too question lots of the claims made by first-world "feminists" about patriarchy, and I too find class to be at the root of all of this. But surely reading that text book makes you feel uncomfortable? Pride in being male comes from "being able to do hard work"? Pride in being female comes from being the one who looks after "tidiness in the house"? These are ridiculous, reactionary ideas, that could exist in an oppressive class society.

And these posters are right:
>>674977
But as says, this is still an issue that can be discussed. This is still a pretty gross display of oppressive ideas, aimed at both boys and girls, of course - capitalism shits on us both. Notice the OP mentioned nothing about women in particular.

Anti-idpol ideas have become almost a focus of this board. Being obsessed over combating idpol is just as distracting from the struggle for socialism as being obsessed over combating any other ill of society.

There is nothing idpol about acknowledging that these textbooks are planting massively reactionary and oppressive ideas in the heads of children. I worry that what should be a healthy opposition to idpol has become an inability to notice that material, economic exploitation does have manifestations in the superstructure, in ideas and in culture.

*ideas, that could only exist in an oppressive class society

Why did you bump this thread you little shit.

There is literally nothing wrong with these. The female one is somewhat questionable, though.

Support the redshirts
Smash yellowshirts in the face!

Absolutely nothing wrong with this.

Lenin was not perfect. Stalin corrected many of his liberal idealist errors.

Gulag.

Arabic is also a hell of a lot older than modern English, to be fair. The contemporary equivalent is squiggle babble too.

And it's not like merit has to do with the proliferation of a language, else we'd be using an artificial one.

They're planting spooks, just like every culture does.

Why do leftist ideals are always next to faggotry and social degeneracy?

...

whoops forgot to remove shitpost flag

Because the historically the right doesn't accept trans, gays, feminism

This will change, already trump has supported having trans in women's bathrooms

Once social stigma for being these things dies down they'll take over the right, like Milo Yiannopolis and Caitlyn Jenner

This will be the most disgusting shit in the history of mankind

Socially conservative left>socially liberal left>socially conservative right>socially liberal right

Oh boy. Do you hear that Holla Forums? You can go live in thailand. They have strong military right wingyness and all the traps you desire so much.

Holla Forums is tsun tsun for black dick, not spicy thai dick.

No, you're a scruffy NEET on an imageboard

A maoist that's a conservative instead of a sjw on the Internet. I don't believe it for a minute.

We don't care for the right's views on economics, why should we waste our time on their equally useless social values?

Dont forget the fact that they banned Tropico 5 for hitting too close to home

Who cares. Tropico 5 is like Civilization V. It's a dumbed down version of the series to appeal to a wider audience.

i found T5 to be more confusing.

I was just shitposting fam. Censorship pisses me off and puts me in a shitposting mood. Especially censorship of satire. I've never played Tropico 5, but I've heard people say that about it.

Are you denying the fact that for most of history women did not have rights of property or basic independence?

How is, in any way or form, addressing racism, in a age of quite real Jim Crow apartheid I might add, "compromising theory"?
This is the fucking retarded mess we get when Holla Forums gets their ideology from memes rather than reading Marxist theory.

Maybe you should read Engles?

Rights are a spook. Power doesn't only come from the law, although women have always had laws favoring them too. You're also making the assumption that freedom/independence/self-determination or some similar value is the only thing that matters, which is Eurocentric as fuck. The other poster claimed women got the short end of the stick. That's absurdly simplistic. Both men and women had different benefits and drawbacks under any system with gender roles. Your biggest problem here is a lack of empathy, a failure to imagine that not everyone wants the same things you do. Some people are fine with less control if it means they have less responsibility. If you want to argue that the system hurts someone, then you have to conclude that it hurts everyone by restricting people to their prescribed gender roles rather than assuming whatever role works best for them. You are saying a person demanded to take on responsibility has it much better than a person demanded not to, as if somehow the former is purely empowerment. Spooky as fuck.

Your picture proves my point because that guy is literally spouting the ebin "racism = prejudice + power" meme. No, racism is prejudice.

Engels doesn't trump science.

Just like SJWs, you think racism is people being mean and not a structural phenomenon.

Yeah, ok I'm done with this bullshit. You're an idiot. No amount of arguing or reading will fix you.

Why can't you have pride in providing a delicious meal for your family?

Honestly, I don't see what's inherently wrong with any of this stuff, seems like common sense to me, and people would be a lot better off if they followed stuff like "don't mistreat people weaker than you".

Reread the sentence carefully.

And division of labor is important. In the same way we need miners and manufacturers both, we need people who do housework. It shouldn't matter whether a houseworker or cook is whichever gender IMO.

Same guy.

Right, which is why I don't think laws should be designed to trap women in home. You're explicitly arguing that women had more freedom when forced to this, rather than when the legal and normative systems gives them a choice. And you accused me of "spooky"?

Do you also think the proletariat is more "free" when their future is limited to the factory or the poorhouse? I'm growing suspicious as that Holla Forums isn't the board for you.

And this is exactly what I'm saying you tard.

You obviously lack even basic reading comprehension if you think that's what he's saying.

Neither does your completely unscientific idpol opinions, but Engles wrote an entire book fucking said opinions in the ass.

Do you think most women would be physically suitable for being a miner or working in a factory?

They are able to figure that out for themselves.

Besides when the alienation of labor and fruits of labor is a thing of past, the approach of individual person to labor would be a contribution to society, not just do the hours and get paid.

That way no one would sign up for work that is beyond their abilities.

OK fine, I'm having fun so I'll keep doing this.

Nope, I'm saying they didn't have it worse than men. Learn to read instead of projecting strawmen your ideology has taught you to see instead of what's really there. Also, women were not forced to stay at home. There have always been working class women. Feminism is a bourgeois project.

Nope. I think it's important to focus on class, not idpol. Are you false flagging from Holla Forums or someting?

So why are you arguing with me when I say women didn't have it worse than men because of muh patriarchy?

That's pretty much exactly what he's saying. He is even using all the same words except substituting "attitude" for "prejudice".

Engels lived in a different time before a whole lot of discoveries were made about psychology. Climb off his dick.

No. I don't think it would get to that point, though since most women wouldn't want to do tat work. If they want to and can, go for it.
I don't see why not. It worked in WWII. They'd probably prefer other jobs though, which is fine.

What I was getting at was that that poster you replied to read "a woman's job is to cook the family"… "cook the family" because the word "for" got cut off by the cropping. Hence the O_O face.

Not that user, but most men aren't suited, either.

Very good point.

Not arguing with that, in fact, you seem to be one that ignores this considering you disagreed with leftcom by claiming it was "compromising theory" to attempt to reach out to them.

Because you obviously don't grasp that feminism criticizes gender roles, not men? But that these gender roles have still, despite it's negative consequences for men, put them in an position of power?

Okay, I'm going to sum this up for you, since apparently you're suffering from something:
Was that so hard?

You can't talk of biological determinism and then refer to psychology (without mentioning any actual study, theory or even name), make up your mind about what your idpol is grounded in.

I don't think most men wants to work in a mine either fam.

gtfo of my board cunt

I was referring to reaching out to idpolers. Everyone should be welcome to leftism. That's the whole point.

First, the point I was replying to was that women have it worse than men. Second, you are being reductionist in your analysis of gender roles. There are many forms of power, and both genders have had their share throughout history. Third, you are being reductionist in your view of society. Power is not everything. Fourth, I never said nor implied feminism criticizes men. I have been responding to the claim that men had it better with my counterpoint that men merely had it different. You pulled the criticizing men thing out of your ass, providing further support for my hypothesis that you're just replying to strawmen that feminism has taught you.

"Racism is not a question of attitude" i.e. racism is not prejudice.
"it's a question of power." "If a white man wants to lynch me, that's his problem. If he's got the power to lynch me, that's my problem."
"If a white man [is prejudiced], that's is problem. If he's [got power], that's my problem."
"Racism is not a question of attitude; it's a question of power."
He is literally stating that racism is a system where prejudiced people have the power to act on their prejudices. This is what is meant by "racism = prejudice + power". Capitalism's significance had nothing to do with my point.

Ebin buzzword famalam. Acknowledging biology doesn't make me a biological determinist. Take your black and white worldview over to Holla Forums were it belongs.
I refer to psychology as a field of scientific study. I get the impression you're referring to pseudoscientific "schools of thought" here.
I don't have idpol, m80. That's my entire point. Idpol can fuck off. Treat everyone equally. Don't make special accommodations to get the attention of idpolers.

Well if nobody wants to work there I guess we should improve the working conditions and/or our valuation of that labor.

bullshit, watch what they do, not what they say

these gender roles have also put the vast majority of men in the ground, but I guess the apex fallacy is just more convenient for your narrative.

unlike women, men don't have a choice fam

I suppose then that't maoist naruto tard is the "real" version of communism? Not actual theoretical texts like Capital, State and Revolution or Groundrisse?

Pretty sure acid in the face is not a apex fallacy.
It's gender roles and patriarchy, don't you dare move the goalpost.

What is this even supposed to mean?

Stop giving him something that's easier to reply to.

Funny how someone bitching about me being unscientific will then prefer to examine theory instead of observe facts.

Tasty cherry, my nigga. How many women have been forced to fight a war for porky's interests throughout history?

W E W
E W
W E
W E W W E W
E W
W E
W E W
You are so dependent on strawman arguments you throw one up before you even get a response. More points for my hypothesis.

You're talking about how women aren't allowed to work, how they must stay home. But what happens to a woman who tries to work? Oh, she gets to work now, since feminism has triumphed (at least in the west)? Well done! Now what if a man wants to deviate from his gender roles and be a househusband? I'll let you figure the rest out. Surely you're not that dim.

I'm sorry, I've seen to missed them. Maybe they weren't even there in the first place?

I've explicitly said men have negative consequences within the gender relations, and this is a major one of them - but are you denying that when they came home from WW1 and WW2 the women where told to get back to the kitchen?

Well that's actually opening up as a possiblity in the horrible feminazi state of Sweden? So, yay maybe that man ought to read Simone de Beuvoir? You're also forgetting all the sweatshops in India, Bangladesh and China filled with women where their babies lie on the floor next to them and it's older siblings is at the sewing-machine to the right? The nuclear family is nowhere to be seen here, for it's a mere development as a transitional stage within the western welfare states - to refer to it as given is laughably ahistorical.

In either case, you seem to think I'm merely advocating for more some gender-equal capitalist system, which I've never limited myself to. At the end of the day, the capitalist system is designed in a manner which only benefits a small percentage of women that can choose to out-source their biological limitations (childbirth and nursing) to another woman. This is why it's important to distinguish class-blind bourgeois feminism from it's proper Marxist variant.

nice try moving the goalposts, but let us turn back to feminism and its general acceptance of man-hating crones. you can't deny feminist literature.

yes, it's the exact same kind of cherry picking confirmation bias.

in what fucking universe is harming women considered a traditional male gender role?

it means that unlike women, men don't work for muh independence and self-actualization, but basic survival. men simply don't have the option of cashing in on their pussy pass as a back-up plan.

wanna know what feminism is actually about? women get the fruits of men's labor handed to them on a silver platter, but their massive, narcissistic egos can't handle men getting praised for their hard work and success. they're completely fine with men doing all the hard work, but get absolutely assmad over the exclusive validation men get for it. women feel entitled to get everything, including the praise for men's success.

all the while completely ignoring the vast majority of men who failed and/or died trying to make it, because unsuccessful men don't even register as human beings in their minds.

feminists are envious little shits who can't even let (successful) men keep this one good thing as their own. of course men are allowed to keep the part that involves the world trying to break them, women only want the praise :^)

I said this in response to the other poster advising to watch feminists' actions rather than relying on their theories to judge the movement. You are saying "maybe they (feminists' actions) weren't even there in the first place".

Holy shit you are actually equivocating forced combat with housework. And what about the ones who didn't come back? Remember, I'm arguing that women didn't have it worse than men did throughout history.

That's a good thing. What makes you think I'd disagree? Looks like another strawman. How does that change the point, which is that it wasn't an option for men to deviate from gender roles either? The rest of this paragraph is irrelevant to this point.

What either of us advocates for is not the topic of discussion. We're talking about whether or not women have had it worse than men under "patriarchy". Where do you even get this impression? All I've been doing is responding to your points and explaining why I disagree that women have had it worse.

That's easy: feminism. The entire ideology is built around men being predators and women being victims.

the ones that weren't among the countless millions slaughtered on the battlefield. see? you're ignoring the men who didn't make it and going with the apex fallacy as a default.

Hey feminist poster, are you going to respond to anything in this post?
You seem to have ignored it.

I'm not, I'm insinuating you haven't read any of it.

This one apparently? These happens because divorce, infidelity is seen as an attack upon the husbands power.

Like those damn welfare queens stealing from muh job creators?

How do you expect me to argue against this kind of "logic"?

Did women order them to do that?

At this point it's basically too many fucking voices at once.

Are you the user from earlier or a new one? From a quick reading it seems a very long "no u" post.

I'm not going to stay in a discussion where everyone accuse me of "strawmanning", when I criticize you for the very conclusions your points lead to. I'm not going to stay in a debate where the premise is that your opinions are "facts" that need to be "disproven" while my referential to normative structures can handwaved away by "but men work lol". There is no argument going on here, thus there is no discussion to be had.

Read Engles.
It's literally the least controversial assessment of gender roles possible, if you consider his analysis some form of idpol - this is no point in even trying.

I'm insinuating you're full of shit.

yes, acid attacks are definitely every day occurrences and part of normal male behavior.

funny but you yourself confirmed everything I said see
add to that you're butthurt about the surviving men being rewarded with loving, obedient wives because you just can't handle them getting praised.

...

Wew lad, another strawman. My point is that it's erroneous to say women had it worse than men where did "feminism is bad" come from? Stop conflating me with the other guy ITT.

No, porky did. You are putting idpol (i.e. grouping people via their demograpics) before CLASS.

Pretty sure it's 2 of us vs. you.
What is that supposed to mean? There are several different statements made in that post, just like the rest of this conversation.
You are blatantly making up shit I never said. Anyone autismal enough to read our exchange will be able to see that. My point from the beginning was that it's wrong to say women have had it worse than men under "patriarchy."
What are you even basing this on?
Mate. The discussion isn't whether there are normative structures. We were talking about whether or not women have a worse positions as a result. Talk to the other guy about feminism is bad. I've responded to a couple of your points on the matter that were egregiously wrong, but otherwise I really don't care. We're talking about the basic reality of people's lives here.
I disagree.

And here's another strawman. I haven't said shit about is writings other than that they are a product of a bygone era. I don't consider his work idpol so much as I consider it a product of his time and his own limitations as a human being. Analysis didn't stop with Marx and Engels, because the world didn't stop with them.

and the award of most predictable strawman goes to you.

protip: not behaving like a shitcunt doesn't make you an object. it's hilarious how it triggers the shit out of you that women chose to reward the men who fought for them by being good wives. how dare those sinners get praised for putting their asses on the line, amirite?

top kek

I think he drank the linguistic koolaid. He thinks words are reality. He can't make the leap from "surviving men being rewarded with loving, obedient wives" to "surviving men being rewarded with a relationship to a woman who rewards him with love and labor."

I'm fairly convinced he's a she. no man will argue with that kind of female-specific ignorance and solipsism.

I've known plenty of men who do, my father for one.

Have you actually read Engels properly?

This is technically correct, but misleading

For most of history people did not have rights of property or basic independence

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm

Have you been hiding under a rock, white knights do that all the time

Femposter is too dense to understand the implication so I'll spell it out:

Feminism
is
a
bourgeois
project

this. whenever I look at the chicks pulling triple shift in the burger kiosk down the street, all I see is strong, idependent young womyn enjoying their freedom from patriarchal oppression.

This is a class issue. It has nothing to do with sex. Poor men are in the same situation, but they don't have the option to find someone with more money to form a pair bond with.

How is this thread still alive?

...

DAMN SUN

This has to be a bait thread, but I'm happy somewhere in the world isn't going to fucking shit.

you're saying that like it contradicts my point, but it really doesn't. I was agreeing with the bourgeois origin of feminism, confirming that it shits on working class men and women alike. the goal of feminism is to usurp the power of men at the top, they could care less about anyone of lower status regardless of sex.

yeah surprised it hasn't been censored by feminists.

God bless the motherfucking internet.

Holla Forums-Holla Forums lurker here, what exactly is wrong with this? Hell what is wrong with gender roles in general?

Biologically men and women are naturally drawn these behaviors outlined in the schoolbook by some respect, so you could say it's helping the kids to go with what they already will do. Kinda like teaching them the basics of talking or walking.

As to my knowledge being ladylike or gentlemenlike has little to no effect on the goals your average Holla Forums member would have for the world, such as revolution; however they might wish it to turn out.

Forcing gender roles is a shitty tradition which stops people achieving their goals in favour of some outdated notion that people are to behave IN PRECISELY THIS MANNER AND NONE ELSE. It's spooky as fuck m8

Ok. I was having a hard time parsing what you were going for.

shit/10. Right pic related is a much better example of something similar to what you posted because it actually attempts to make people lucid to the state of society and not just appeal to edgy teenagers on facebook meme pages.

fucking kek'd

Be real nig, the only thing good about military dictatorships is you maybe get assigned a gf, and in the event that she is cute, it's a perfect relationship as long as you're both able to live with enough integrity to some manufactured idea of a person. Maybe their sex ed classes teach men and women how to court eachother or something.
It's at least better than a tfwnogf life, I'd wager.

Nothing is wrong with gender roles per se. The problem is when there are obstacles keeping people from deviating. That's mostly down to social stigma, which comes primarily from a desire to conform.

...

Is it not?

is this satire or are you guys being serious tight now i can't tell

well i guess everyone is equal if they're all dead

I don't even know what to call this level of retardation.