Women

What position would woman have in a communist / anarchist society?

How can we deal with the fact that when the same rules are applied, women enjoy vastly more favorable outcomes all across the spectrum (criminal trials, divorces, child custody, education / professional cases, …) ?

What's your opinion on hypergamy?

For the record I live in the former Eastern Bloc and during the Russian rule marriages were I'd say moderately successful (say grandparents, parents), but that might be because because before 1945 we still had a practically feudal society and traditionalism was still going strong afterwards.

Other urls found in this thread:

businessinsider.com.au/the-death-penalty-has-a-gender-gap-2015-4
youtube.com/watch?v=W3h6Q_7y0LU
rarehistoricalphotos.com/french-female-collaborator-punished-head-shaved-publicly-mark-1944/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
youtube.com/watch?v=4Q-bB-qywJ0
proutglobe.org/2012/10/is-human-nature-competitive-or-cooperative/
dailymotion.com/video/x222wl0_do-communists-have-better-sex_shortfilms
zmescience.com/research/how-scientists-tught-monkeys-the-concept-of-money-not-long-after-the-first-prostitute-monkey-appeared/
archive.is/BV281
archive.is/2jjuI
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

my gf

Same as men, duh.

...

I sense autistic >tfw no gf naziposter false flagging.

whatever they want it to be

Women shouldn't exist in a communist/anarchist society and neither should men. Man and woman are gender roles and inherently hierarchical and repressive.

Males and females should be equal to and capable of everything the opposite sex is.

can we address


then?

We already said equality

gender isn't really a thing anyway tbh

so equality of rules that means better outcomes for women or equality of outcomes meaning stricter rules for women?

women get convicted less for the same crimes
get custody and child support 90% of the time
have an easier time advancing in academical and professional environments
have a smaller income yet spend much more (of their partners')
and on and on

on a strict, principle level, i agree and i want to be equal, but experience shows that this is not the case

i thought this was well known, or do i have to start dumping proof of this?

these arent equality of rules


and this is really up to the individuals but most of us don't believe in money anyway

I never said things were equal, they should be equal.

Human

Utilize transhumanist technology to turn all men into women, eliminate menstruation and enjoy communism

Yeah I'll take wage slavery.

businessinsider.com.au/the-death-penalty-has-a-gender-gap-2015-4

There is no law stating that women should get custody or not be judged as strictly, yet the outcome supports that.

There are laws in certain countries for gender quotas in the case of the workplace or scholarships, usually neutral on paper but exclusively pro female in practice.


Also, an interesting dilemma came to mind:

Our recently established communist country comes under attack by outside nazi aggressors.

Who should be conscripted into the army to defend against them?

1) Let's say people are equal, so 50% - 50% right?

2) Well maybe men are better suited for combat roles, so our army should comprise primarily of them, right?

3) What do we do with the fact that conquerors often tend to eliminate the male population while leaving the female population relatively untouched (maybe raped, enslaved in some cases). Wouldn't this make women in our armies less inclined to fight?

What I'm trying to illustrate that there are innate differences between genders which might come into play in a non post scarcity scenario.

I think this is gonna kill me totally but cant resist posting

youtube.com/watch?v=W3h6Q_7y0LU

Sure but informally the system enforces that, it's not forced equality of opportunity to make things more equal

hence the rules should be changed


I would rather have a professional army made up of people who want to join male or female but let's go with this for now

I don't know, perhaps, it depends how it would be worked out. I'd rather conscript people with military/police training first if it came to that, and if someone will not be able to really contribute (eg disabled) you should discount them. However I don't see why after that it shouldn't be 50/50, fine.

Depends, I don't see strength as the only variable, maybe men will be better at carrying the LMG but women have made perfectly good soldiers throughout history, it was conjecture that female soviet snipers were better than the men but certainly they weren't appreciably worse, and they made good pilots too. I think we should put people in whatever role they'd be best at, even some women bodybuilders would be better at toting around a rocket launcher than the average man.

Come on. Do you think the soviet women thought that way? They hated the nazis as much as anyone. They fought for their country just like everyone else. This point really seems to stem from kind of deep psuedo-darwinist resentment

Everyone should contribute in the best way they're able, men and women. I don't see why there needs to be some systemic policy.

In my opinion, the system enforcing is / is stemming from the biological imperative rather than the cold-hearted porky calculation.


i agree. the question is, to what?


I agree that in the non-emergency case some loss of efficiency is acceptable for the better good of equality.
On a sidenote, usually it is mothers that care for their young children more while fathers keep going to work (sidenote of a sidenote, hence the reason I spent very little time with my father becoming quite alienated). Do you agree with this or should this be 50/50 as well? How can things be steered in this direction (50/50).


This sounds quite blank-slatist. Though I dont have hard research at hand (and it may be excellent to publish such research in this day and age), but I'm pretty sure that men make better soldiers, and still soldiering is in large part physically stressful.

In case they don't, for the sake of argument, let's say that there is a genetic component for a talent in a certain difficult, unpleasant task.
Group A is better suited than B. How do we divide labor?


This is entirely conjecture, so feel free to correct me, but:

rarehistoricalphotos.com/french-female-collaborator-punished-head-shaved-publicly-mark-1944/

Do you think male collaborators got away with a shave? I would say more likely they got imprisoned or executed.

On the other hand, you are probably right about the women hating the nazis, I was only hinting at a minimal difference here which may become more pronounced in other situations.


Interesting point. How is the limit to ability found?

Thank you for your time educating me, friend.

This thread is going places I can tell

I'm going to spam it with radical feminism.

The cliché that when women are liberated men will be liberated too shamelessly slides over the raw reality of male domination — as if this were an arrangement in fact arranged by nobody, which suits nobody, which works to nobody’s advantage. In fact, the very opposite is true. The domination of men over women is to the advantage of men; the liberation of women will be at the expense of male muh privilege. Perhaps afterwards, in some happy sense, men will be liberated too — liberated from the tiresome obligation to be ‘masculine.’ But allowing oppressors to lay down their psychological burdens is quite another, secondary sense of liberation. The first priority is to liberate the oppressed. Never before in history have the claims of oppressed and oppressors turned out to be, on inspection, quite harmonious. It will not be true this time either

I agree in that I want to be equal, but you have to expand on this:


how is this a thing in the west?

All women are at the same level of liberal bougie income, you see. Harpies, the lot of them.

just ignore the shitposter

Nothing you've ever posted has contributed to this board more than I have.

sorry you feel that way

Sorry you post here to start supposed discussion but never start any so you just waste your time.

ew

This. In future world with communism masculine role must be eliminated. Because traditional masculine role require to be a militaristic and agressive pig thanks to testosterone. It a consequence of sexual selection. So, if we want to create a egalitarian society, we need to destroy any kind of aggression.

(how) can this be done?

It very easy, user. Do you ever heard about CAIS?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

We should knock-out (destroy) the gene, which produce androgen receptor (AR) protein using a CRISPR-cas9 system. Besides of this we can delete amygdala using different method of microsurgery and stimulate orbitofrontal cortex. Finaly we need to alter regulation complex of genes to increase level of oxytocin in brain. And in the output we have a world full of pretty girls with full egalitarism, like in typical CGDCT anime.

Is this anfem posting with the wrong flag or something much creepier?

Return to Holla Forums green faggot.

burgerfat male here. I think we could expect gradual changes that appear without changing the mode of production and more cultural change going from capitalism to socialism to communism. If some sort of state capitalism is prevailing, easily expect actual maternity leave for women, all sorts of time-off accommodations for child-raising (as in for young families, no matter the sex), subsidization of feminine hygiene products. That's all pretty basic stuff and should go hand in hand with free education, contraception (this matter concerns both sexes clearly). When it comes to how womens' relations with other people instead of objects, that's where it's gonna get really tricky and interesting, no one can tell specifics of what might happen.

I'm hoping we can have real communes/collective living situations, so I would expect, to be vague, a sort of de-emphasis of sex-specific traits real or perceived.


change the mode of production, change how people interact on a day to day basis, eliminate exchange and wage labor, have collective life, self-reconditioning. i think the aggression can be channeled into productive activity too at least something not-antisocial. i just don't think that aggression can be outright suppressed, i think aggression is a manifestation of something more general which can also look like bombast or intense emotion. however leninhat is right, bad behavior needs to be policed rigorously by the community.

I guess this could work in a post scarcity world (I have a hunch that testosterone has a part in technological advancement, when that is not needed anymore I guess it could be abandoned).

Are there any studies which study a female only community? All of these positive traits seem like conjecture with no basis to me.

When I finished reading the origin of family, when it was dealing with the primite societies living in groups, then there was no room for agresssion in that group. Everything belonged to everyone and to survive, one had to work with others.

Sure incidents like one getting angry with the other and maybe throwing few punches because they pissed the other one off.

But nothing on the scale of "I need to be aggressive to protect that which is MINE."
That kind of aggression requires thinking ahead.

Sudden outbursts are harmless.

When the reasoning is combined with the aggression, then there is potential for true malice.

You know damn well what private property is and how is its existence enforced. That is the particular kind of aggressive behaviour that I am talking about.

It also is used when coercion and force and violence is much cheaper (requires less effort) than outright direct control of the private property.

How would one person harvest a field of wheat? One person with a gun, owning slaves can have the field harvested much faster, just by claiming the private ownership of that particular piece of land.


In the environment where "My CNC milling machine is your CNC milling machine", what sense would there be for private property.

People would very quickly adapt. The doubts that you have are the exact arguments that proponents of private property use to justify it.

Useful links:
youtube.com/watch?v=4Q-bB-qywJ0

Of course baboons are dumb monkeys, so half of the males had to die off for this change to occur, but once that happened, the ratio of males to females went back to 1:1.

Humans are obviously smarter and can do such change without half of male population dying. Who would disagree? Pic very much related.

proutglobe.org/2012/10/is-human-nature-competitive-or-cooperative/

Whatever position they'd like to perform in. The absence of idpol means people will be defined by what they do rather than what they are.

Give everyone equal opportunities and completely overhaul the "justice" system so that it is about rehabilitation rather than punishment.

In the long run we'll all be overseen by impartial AIs and have AI waifus anyway, so it's not like gender bullshit matters that much. Live and let live until we reach that point.

I don't know much about baboons, but I have studied bonobos a bit.
Along with chimpanzees, they are our closest relatives (they diverged after humans diverged from their common ancestor).

Since chimpanzees live in harsher environments, mothers need help in caring for their young so they basically sell sex for resources, and adjust themselves to the hierarchy the males create among themselves (there have been examples of females opposing the alpha male, but it's not common).

Bonobos live in more forgiving environments, so females can care for their young on their own. They use sex to diffuse tensions within the group. Here, the females form the hierarchy, while and the males' hierarchy is based upon their female relatives. So while managing to diffuse most aggression, they also have a hierarchy which is mostly set in stone. Have no doubt, chimpanzees are brutal savages compared to them, but their society is not an end to strive towards either.

What I'm trying to argue here basically is that aggression is not a unique trait of an advanced post-tribal society, it is indeed seen in surviving primitive societies and our closest relatives as well.

Matriarchy in nature causes less aggression, but does not remove hierarchy altogether.

I used to be a great admirer of primitive peoples, but reality does not support this picture. See pic related.

What I was arguing that it is not necessarily the fault of the justice system, but it is embedded in our biology to favor females over males, since they are more important from a reproductive standpoint.

youtube.com/watch?v=W3h6Q_7y0LU

...

in a communist society: whatever position the commissar gives her.

in an anarchist society what ever postion she can attain with her skills,

what if I choose not to consent to this?

I'll take capitalism over that shit.

Wouldn't hypergamy be reduced in a cash-free society? However this means the criteria for "top 20%" would change for men.

They'd have to find new ways to set themselves apart.

If however this society includes any kind of rank or new social hierarchy people will just gravitate to eating up the scraps of these giants.

If however all being equal, women would just seek out mates based on esthetics, personality, and capability- thus removing various forms of wealth from the equation.

That said hypergamy is a terrible explanation for the obvious- people growing bored and moving on when the novelty wears off and their hormones aren't giving them the same jolt as they realize the person they love was more an ideal in their head than the person they're with.

Servants

As my property

Sexual dimorphism renders communism unattainable, as men will always compete for women

...

...

Only in Capitalism.

dailymotion.com/video/x222wl0_do-communists-have-better-sex_shortfilms

Whatever works for them. Preferably they'd want to do different positions at different times.

Competition for mates isn't the same as capitalist competition.

zmescience.com/research/how-scientists-tught-monkeys-the-concept-of-money-not-long-after-the-first-prostitute-monkey-appeared/

As soon as scientists taught monkeys to use currency, they noticed the unanticipated result of monkey prostitution.

sucking my DICK

I like the cut of your jib mister

Can we get a nazbol flag on here?

Ok this actually really appeals to me for some reason. Probably because I'm trans MtF and have a hard time understanding how any guys don't want to be girls.

I feel bad for you. I love being a man. I wouldn't give it up for anything.If it's an advanced future with lots of cybernetics and generic engineering, I'm going to want some kind of super dick not a vagina. I don't want to have lesbian sex that's just the worst. The Whole thing sounds like a dystopian nightmare to me and has no basis in reality. Women aren't about harmony and peace. Lesbians have some of the highest domestic abuse rates and gay men have some of the lowest.

We can't really fix that yet. When we have better genetic engineering and AI we will probably be able to.

I love how often people just conveniently forget that more than half of the domestic violence cases are women as the assailants.

archive.is/BV281

archive.is/2jjuI

This is just evidence that the male patriarchy exists. They manufacture evidence to paint women as abusers.

...

What other lies can we invent?

Nice parody attempt. I recall a story of a crazy lady, she wasn't just abusive to her boyfriend- she brunt his house down, then skipped bail- her family must be so heartbroken over that betrayal having to pay for her stupidity.

hohlodomor never happened

nice russophobia

HOLODOHOAX NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED

Unit 731, Nanjing Massacre, and the Ustasi actions in the Balkans that took 600k lives.

Croatia is a good boy, and has done nothing wrong ever.

I rest my case.