Can you be a leftist and be for return of traditional gender roles...

Pretty dumb tbh

...

Maximizeing liberty doesn't mean you can let anyone do what they want. I mean your against property rights because of all the problems it causes and the same should be said of gender roles. Breaking them only superficially give more feedom

there are no differences in birth, it's only until puberty that a distinction between the two sex's actually form, a physical and emotional distinction. If you accept the notion of free-will then you are against the concept of human nature, and that we are somehow dictated by this spooky and static immaterial concept of "human nature."

Hmm I guess it's pure coincidence that men do hard physical jobs while women use their breasts to feed children.

Forgot your flag, retard.

Wew

Women shouldn't be going into "traditional male fields though. They should be at home child rearing and maybe some part time work.

...

are you God, do you have divine right to universally order half the population on what to do?

It doesn't matter if you think this. If you have to enforce this it proves how unnatural it is.

kys

I don't know why you'd want to, gynocentrism is a leftover from Victorian gender roles, not feminism as many would have you believe.

A socialist society also needs to be made by force as capitalism was before it. Just because you need to force doesn't mean it's bad. And most women will go into gender roles naturally. It's just capitalism (forcing working class father's and mothers to work in order just to stay afloat) and feminists who tell girls they need a career to be happy instead of a family, witch in reality is what makes most women happy.

Logic this bad belongs on Freedommain Radio.

...

...

Humans can`t even learn to speak without interactions form the human collective around them.

paraphrased from that video alone, and he's right. Humans selectively picked these traits in females to breed, and these traits were found in the societies that were formed at the time. Who's to say that in 50, 100, 500 years from now that these same traits will be chosen in females and males?

It's important to differentiate between an economic structure that affects the community/nation, and that of an individual basis. See my above post.

If something so simple as speech is a social construct, what makes you think that anything else in human behaviorism beyond the most basic instincts is not due to social conditioning?

Nah, fuck your traditional gender roles, I fucking hate them and anyone who supports them.

...

'no'

Other animals live in completely different material conditions than us

You want a talkative, indecisive, emotional girlfriend? Wtf is wrong with you.

W E W

We are beyond animals, existence of culture, the idea of cultivating our surrounding and dominating them makes us beings that are far superior to beasts. Humanity moved on form our evolutionary psychology thousands of years ago.

shit taste fam

considering that femdom includes rimjobs that's not entirely out of the realm of reason.

Yes. I think that once socialist state would be created, we would see the return for the traditional family, just like we saw happening in Soviet Union.

okay lad, considering humanity is still in its infancy and you want to keep appealing to nature, I'll let you wallow in your own filth. Go look up hume's law fam, it renders your entire argument retarded, but I suppose you would just deny it because >muh tradition

Without state, property, money, wages or hierarchy how do you suppose this to happen?

This right here is the current left's equivalent to creationism on the right.

Again even if that is true, there is no reason to have a state regulate it. The fact that when woman were given freedom to go into fields their IQ caught up to males and there are a lot going into sciences than before proves you wrong.

You can run away from it all you want, but the minute you need a state to regulate human behaviour you're not relying on instincts.

No, it really isn't. If you weren't wrong you wouldn't require a state to regulate it.

...

You can still have traditional family even if women are part of the workforce.

Well, the gender equality paradox is an observable phenomon in the most gender equal countries.

Once the enviromental pressures are removed and the playing field is leveled. you see the nature coming through.

Please go.

sauce

What the fuck does a traditional family mean when all women have full time jobs anyway?

Tradition is for retards

Exactly what it was when during pre-agricultural revolution.

Again: if you require a state to regulate something it's not natural.

I'm curious as to what OP and those that think like them are going to do when technology advances to the point where even child-rearing is made obsolete. Fuck kids and muh family, time for singularity-induced hedonism.

this tbh

Degeneracy is the path of the egoist.

I'm talking about the removal of regulations.

German is absolutely the most beautiful language on this earth.

Yeah nah

egoists please leave

But this thread is my property, my property.

This is a strawman. I never argued for that.

How long have we had gender equality for? 50 years? Female IQ just caught up to make in the last 10 years, this is to soon to be talking about paradox's.

Two things:
1. the family has been a much looser institution before capitalism, because there was no material reason for most people to participate in it other than the ruling classes. At the beginning of the industrial revolution, gender roles and sexual prudence were more harshly enforced on the working class. So capitalism hasn't destroyed the traditional family, it strengthened and entrenched it and then knocked it down again when that started to become inconvenient (men were supposed to go to work all day while women stayed home so the capitalist could enslave the worker solely to their work while paying the women less in case they wanted to work as well, but then that put the male workers at a better position to demand better conditions, as they were the sole breadwinners and therefore needed higher wages to support their families, which is what happened just after WW2, and then neoliberalism tried to destroy that by getting rid of the more expensive male workers and opting for women who'd suffer worse working conditions).
2. Gender roles are inherently tied to control over the MoP. How do you think they arose in the first place? If humans collectively control the MoP democratically, then there's no way for a traditional family where the man is the dominant and the sole breadwinner to exist. Why would the woman just cooperate with a situation where she is submissive and dependent when she can just get a decent job on her own and live her own life however she wants to? Also as dick wolff says the traditional family structure is itself class-based, with the woman doing socially necessary jobs such as cleaning, cooking, taking care of kids etc. without pay.

Also it's just shitty. Why would you want that? Also why would half the population who are women want that?

The First International opposed female employment. They saw them as scabs.

8ch.net/leftypol/res/854842.html#q855372

What. I can't oppose something because I don't want to adhere to it?

that's some spooky shit

yes, you probably arent a social lefitst then, just an economic one
…Spooky…
also citation needed…
that sentece just sounds like regular old reactionaries tbh…

As much as most of Holla Forums hates idpol, most of us advocate for even the most basic form of a female emancipatory movement. The revolution will not succeed without women, and frankly I think it would go against socialist principals. Just my opinion tho.

thx m8

People should be allowed to pick and choose how they want to live their own lives. Unfortunately, this comes off to classcucks as some kind of code word for forcing non-traditional lifestyles, unless they are so miserable that people need to be forced to do the "right" thing, which is probably why they are usually religious.

I get this a lot. I'll say that men and women should be free to choose their own lifestyle, whether it be housewife or husband, working mom or dad, whatever, and then the reactionary goes "WHY DO YOU HATE AND DEMONIZE MOTHERHOOD REEEEEE" like dude I never even said or implied that calm your spooked tits.

Honestly you get plenty of people in the opposite direction as well where wife sharing and having children grow up in state run nurseries is absolutely necessary to achieve communism for some reason and if you disagree you're a filthy reactionary.

I've never understood the appeal of the "traditional wife" stormfags whine about. Nothing would be more boring than a dumb cunt who is only there to give birth and take care of the house. I'll take a woman I can debate with and who can make me laugh over that bullshit.

if you're not a gender abolitionist you could as well be dead or in a gulag.

How exactly would it be possible to return to traditional gender roles and still have a highly advanced society?

Technically, yes. You can seek the establishment of a classless society based on the social ownership of the means of production while promoting so-called "traditional" gender roles to people around you.

You'll note though that you can also technically be a leftist and in favor of banning vaccines on the grounds that they cause autism. Just because some opinion is "not incompatible" with leftism doesn't necessarily mean it's clever, substantiated or even any good whatsoever.

Bullshit. Even implying men and women are irremediably "different", how does that imply that they are "meant" for different things? Your premise is shaky at best and your conclusion is nothing more than a big naturalistic fallacy.

You'll have to provide some source to back that claim, buddy. By the way, you're talking about "staying within" traditional gender roles; this betrays the ahistoricism of your worldview. You assume that "traditional" gender roles are a neat little box with clearly-defined boundaries, while just like any "tradition" it really mutates as much as the "progressive" society traditionalists decry so much.

Yes, capitalism is ultimately responsible for "destroying the family". This is no modern development, though; I'd say the single most vicious blow dealt to the family as a social unit (the "household") goes back to the industrial revolution when men, women and children alike were forced in a situation in which they had no choice but to let themselves be separated and forced into the labor camps known as factories.

You know, maybe family members being literally estranged from each other to the point where fathers that cannot find the time to even be present for work-related reasons is now considered a tired cliché in mainstream films might have more to do with the "destruction of the family" than women playing soccer.

As for feminism, it has "destroyed the family" only insofar as most mainstream feminists are, in substance, pro-capitalist. It is their political and economical illiteracy or simply their bourgeois or petit-bourgeois class interests that played into the hand of capitalism, not their apparent concern for women's rights.

I agree but this in no ways implies the need for traditional gender roles. In fact, I find "traditional gender roles" to be petty, arbitrary, resentful and hypocritical; in short, poisonous.

Here; in order to ward off OP's mind-boggling faggotry, please all have a tomboy.

Technically, yes. You can seek the establishment of a classless society based on the social ownership of the means of production while promoting so-called "traditional" gender roles to people around you.

You'll note though that you can also technically be a leftist and in favor of banning vaccines on the grounds that they cause autism. Just because some opinion is "not incompatible" with leftism doesn't necessarily mean it's clever, substantiated or even any good whatsoever.

Bullshit. Even implying men and women are irremediably "different", how does that imply that they are "meant" for different things? Your premise is shaky at best and your conclusion is nothing more than a big naturalistic fallacy.

You'll have to provide some source to back that claim, buddy. By the way, you're talking about "staying within" traditional gender roles; this betrays the ahistoricism of your worldview. You assume that "traditional" gender roles are a neat little box with clearly-defined boundaries, while just like any "tradition" it really mutates as much as the "progressive" society traditionalists decry so much.

Yes, capitalism is ultimately responsible for "destroying the family". This is no modern development, though; I'd say the single most vicious blow dealt to the family as a social unit (the "household") goes back to the industrial revolution when men, women and children alike were forced in a situation in which they had no choice but to let themselves be separated and forced into the labor camps known as factories.

You know, maybe family members being literally estranged from each other to the point where fathers that cannot find the time to even be present for work-related reasons is now considered a tired cliché in mainstream films might have more to do with the "destruction of the family" than women playing soccer.

As for feminism, it has "destroyed the family" only insofar as most mainstream feminists are, in substance, pro-capitalist. It is their political and economical illiteracy or simply their bourgeois or petit-bourgeois class interests that played into the hand of capitalism, not their apparent concern for women's rights.

I agree but this in no ways implies the need for traditional gender roles. In fact, I find "traditional gender roles" to be petty, arbitrary, resentful and hypocritical; in short, poisonous.

Here; in order to ward off OP's mind-boggling faggotry, please all have a tomboy.

hotweels fix your fucking site…

C
U
C=
K

;^)

I am for people doing what they want with their lives. If that means makes and females tend to behave differently or the same, I don't see a problem. Enforcing any particular gender roles (including a single equivalent one for both sexes) seems pointless and restrictive to me.

No.
People should be allowed to do what they want.
Capitalism destroyed the nuclear family, don't act like feminist critique is somehow as powerful as removing the economic backbone of the nuclear family.

We're going to move forward to a more egalitarian system where people can be in whatever "role" they choose for themselves within their families.

traditional gender roles of what era of human history?

i haven't even read the book and apparently i know more about what he wrote than you.

ps. it's about the "nuclear family" and how it developed from the changes capitalism made on society in terms of gendered labor.

You would be an authoritarian edging on facism if you want to legally control that.

Well im not the only one that thinks this, brilliant.

If there is a biological basis for differences of behaviour between the sexes then you shouldn't need to enforce traditional gender roles, they should happen naturally. That said, I don't see any reason why we should actively encourage men and women to behave identically. I favour a hands-off approach as much as possible, "do what you want, figure it out for yourself" etc.

While I don't deny males and females evolved for different tasks, in a free society one should be able to do what they want and forge their own future, even if it's going against the norm. For whatever reason there are some women who are horrible with children and don't want anything to do with them, I don't think we should force them to be home makers, and same with males on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Try as you might to enforce them the base will have the last laugh :^)

This is why "traditional" marriage is bullshit, it's a pure fabrication. Marriage is a partnership with someone that fulfills emotional and psychological needs, it should not be an economic agreement.

No you cant have that, but what you can have and what you really want even though you think you want "to le save society through the family" is a relationship where you're dominant and the woman is a sub these relationships can exist by choice in a free society.

This.

Marriage was never something sacred or about love anyway. It's been a state-sponsored political power-play tool forever.

Yes
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlist_Party_(1970)

Change marriage to "romantic relationship" and still stands though. I would rather be alone than have a partner who I had nothing to do with besides impregnate, that sounds more like an incubator than a partner. I need someone who makes me laugh and can have heated conversations to be satisfied, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get that from a traditional wife.

Pick one.

This.

What's your argument for this?

No, because the traditional family arrangement was an exploitative feudal contract.

Yes humans are the only species with no mental sexual dimorphism. All the scientific evidence to the contrary is the patriarchy.

Can you be a "leftist" and still deserve the gulag?

This thread.

why

ever hear a nena song?
youtube.com/watch?v=La4Dcd1aUcE

Works pretty well outside Gringolandia

You're both idiots.

Different cultures throughout history have had very different familial structures. The idea that a family is a man, wife, and children is relatively recent. If you want to mimic the kind of society we evolved to live in, you want villages populated by an entire extended family where child raising is a responsibility shared by the parents, grandparents, and other relatives.

Humans obviously have some nature, as evidenced by the fact that you can reliably recognize humans as being different to, say, cats, and relatively reliably predict how those humans are going to think and feel. The fact it's possible to make statements about human physiology and psychology which hold true throughout history prove that humans have some kind of nature. The denial of any kind of human nature is top-tier tumblr bullshit.

>meant for anything
wew.jpg

As long as you support the class struggle as the most important and foremost issue then you are a leftist on my book.

Can you be a leftist and be for return of traditional factory roles? Lets face it workers and bourgeoisie are meant for different things,and it's best for both for the individuals, the economy, and society as a whole to stay within them. Neoliberalism and and globalism has destroyed the workplace and a socialist society needs healthy relationships between people to function.

...

sage

The real 'traditional' family is the extended one, where all blood relatives and their partners, with some friends possibly, live together in micro communities. I would say, that yes this kind of family unit would more compatible with socialism.

Fucking this. Marx head is always based.

There's more of an emphasis on protecting women for a reason. It has something to do with re-population and upper body strength.

And I thought leftcom was the intellectual equivalent of a coathanger abortion.

Oh, but this is just bait…

Wow this thread is filled with redditors

And to think this board shitted heavily on idpol once, i guess the fags from r/fullcommunism really fucked this place for good

How exactly are people posting in this thread pro-idpol in any way whatsoever?

Supporting gays, free love, transgenderism, and other decadent bourgouise tendencies means you're pro idpol

wew

t. KKE

i believe women and men can do whatever they wish if it means going against traditional gender roles then fine do whatever it is you wish i will not stop you

...

But the bourgeoisie are born with natural leadership qualities. They're usually more creative, decisive and hardworking. Why do you think most of the achievements of the modern world are credited to them?

No one's supporting that. But if they're unnatural you shouldn't need a state to restrict them unnaturally. You should simply remove any influences and they'd revert to their "natural" state.

Dear Self Proclaimed Almighty Ones,

Why does every liberal think they are Mr. Knowitall? You are not Mr. Knowitall. Anybody who claims to know anything doesn't know a fucking thing.

Funny how it's the left who proclaim themselves as the humble saviors of humanity who need to learn to humble themselves.

Take your medication and take off your tinfoil hats. The problem is you.

Left vs Right. Black and White thinking is very advanced. You are very very good at critical thinking. You are such an individual!!! Left and Right aren't just two sides of the same dirty coin!!!

Not a good one, no.

Depends on your definition of "good". You can't fight testosterone Laden right wingers as a nu male

Racism is a social construct you retard