Deconstructing gender - for what purpose?

define basis, and explain how it creates roles.

Yes, certain genders are predisposed to certain roles, via genetic function. So? Who cares? WHO CARES???

Srs tho who cares. What does it change? Lots of people are predisposed to lots of things. We don't say "therefore omg you can't do this at all".

No, we treat people as we should: they have autonomy.

Men and women have different psychologies. There are numerous studies that show this but that I even have to tell you this suggests you are not arguing in good faith and instead are trying to get me on a technicality.

Men and women should be encouraged, not deterred, from following their biological programming.

Physically and emotionally. Physically has been tested. Men under 30 have a grip strength 30% less than their fathers. Emotionally would seem self evident with just a cursory glance around the internet or a leftwing/student march.

Do they? How much autonomy is there really if you're a boy who has id drilled into him for 12 years at school that some of his instincts are 'toxic'? This is indoctrination and entirely political. See

Anyone that wants to see society thrive would if they were being honest with themselves.

You've really misunderstood the point of my post haven't you?

They should not be pushed either way. If genetic programming is a thing then it should work itself out of you leave people to choose what they want right?

That's interesting, but I've got a secret for you. They're both wrong, gender is just a spook

And, once again, the "problems" you cite have more to do with neoliberal economic policy than the unraveling of gender roles.

Eh, genders are a spook.

If that's the case, they'll manifest themselves naturally without a need to enforce or preserve them.

We're not the ones advocating 50:50 sex equality, go bother tumblr or something.

You know what has an adverse effect on the heart of society? Private property and the resulting income inequality. Everything else is either directly influenced by it or negligible.

You sound very self-confident. I've read a lot of studies whose conclusions are not as clear-cut; do not assume your pet infographic is the only available source of scientific knowledge.

How can you "deter" someone from following his or her biological "programming" (?) in the first place? Besides, on what grounds should we encourage some set of behavior on the basis of vague scientific claims? Sounds like you're actually the one trying to enforce politically-motivated "model" behaviors.

And, as you claimed earlier, this is understandable seeing how we now live in a post-industrial society in the West.

Sounds like anecdotal evidence you just made up.

I'd just rather not follow them, and I'll do what I want.

I'd settle for this. But throughout school boys are pushed to reject, ignore or change their nature.

Clearly.

How so? You've been making bold claims from the start but never bothered to substantiate them in any way whatsoever.

livescience.com/36066-men-women-personality-differences.html

or

telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/8992639/Men-and-women-have-distinct-personalities.html

Emasculation. Surprisingly few MSM articles on this, but I found a couple.

washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/12/kachel-america-emasculated-war-manhood/

Going back not so long there was a thing called shop class. Surely with the skills it taught and the physicality it built and encouraged are more important today when such skills are in remission in society at large. At least if you value self-sufficiency.

Look at males suicide rates. I'd suspect a part of this is due to the negation of the idea of 'man' from society.

...

To sterilize the stupid and gullible. Duh.

What if trans rights are enforced or preserved though.. then we have issues there.

Yeah their right to exist should be enforced, just like the rights of men and women and faggots like you to exist should be enforced.

I want a world where gender is simply not a thing people have to think about if they don't want to.

That said I agree "emasculation" is a problem.

Trans people will neither need nor require special rights in a post-gender society.

Yeah, that's kind of the point of struggling through life, to make the life of the next generations not as shitty as yours.

Men 50 years ago were "weaker" than men 100 years ago, men 100 years ago were "weaker" than men in the middle ages, and men in the middle ages were "weaker" than cavemen.

If you think men are weak now wait until technology abolishes all labor 100 years into the future.

Maybe in the liberal tendency, but, if you'll remember, feminism started out as a Marxist tendency.

And today the Marxian analysis, as applied by feminists, is helping provide cover for capitalism.

equality does not mean healthiness

Could you put on the Nazi flag so we can't identify you as Holla Forums. Your posts are obvious enough, it's just for expedience sake.

Feminist gender politics used to be oriented on capitalism, but I believe one of the bigger feminist women was a CIA plant to push it to gender oriented. Not entirely sure who, but I know I've read it somewhere.

I have to agree with Holla Forums on this. Modern men need to man up, and women need to stop pretending to be men and go back to where they belong the best

You're thinking of Gloria Steinem

No. Liberal feminists support equity feminism. Modern feminism is 'gender feminism' that seeks to 'counteract historical inequalities based on gender'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Stole_Feminism?

Liberal feminism accepts there are differences between the genders that will manifest in different outcomes. 'gender feminism' contends that men have conspired against women since day zero and seeks to deconstruct the means by which this oppression is enabled (gender). Of the two groups I just described, which would you say is the more dominant strain in the west today?

The current strain is certainly more like the latter of the two described. It simultaneously seeks to deconstruct gender (read, remove toxic masculinity) while making women a protected class.

Muke really fucked up when he let the Fascist harp on about how modern feminism uses Marxist critical theory.

I listened to like ten minutes of that. While your boy may have fucked up, I can respect him for at least agreeing to the thing. Funny how debate outside this place takes such a different track.

You just fucked up though by calling it 'Marxist critical theory.'

...

Yeah, Gloria Steinem

There are multiple feminist tendencies. Liberal feminists, gender feminists, radical feminists et al are not Marxist.

Call it what you will, you had a dozen threads here hating on him for being BTFO.

You said yourself it started out 'as a Marxist tendency'. In what way was it Marxist back then? When did it stop being Marxist?

no one on leftypol gives a shit about muke or ever did

leftypol's user numbers jumped by 100, from 550~650 and the board was flooded with even more shit than usual

come on, even your stormfag brain can probably figure this one out

I've always hated that illiterate British twink, I'm glad he got btfoed and hasn't shown his face since.

It was a theory grounded in historical and dialectical materialism, one that viewed gender roles first and foremost as economic arrangements.

The feminism that came afterwards abandoned historical and dialectical materialism for a sort of gender-based liberal idealism, and thus abandoned Marxism entirely.

That Washington Times article. Lel

Why id never…

Bruh read Lacan

Porky backed women's studies departments did that, then it was parroted by ignorant children of petite-bourgeoisie suburbanite white flight partents.

Also yes the economic materialism is foremost, but you butthurt broke dick man children on leftpol act like the fucking superstructue (culture: like a culture of racism, homophobia and hatred of women) doesn't exist.

It's right on your fucking chart, it MAINTAINS the fucking mean of production and economic conditions.

Another lovely addition to my "Leftypol rebukes SJWs and then parrots all their talking points" thread collection.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Damn, time to update my resume.

When have you not agreed with Holla Forums, NEETsoc?

[citation needed]

It doesn't help to bring about socialism, so why the fuck are you posting about it on a socialist politics board? It has nothing to do with socialism. Go and argue with the SJWs on reddit.

for a group that likes to complain abt Rated PG Parental Guidances you sure act like you could use some. get ahold of yourselves bros.

Oh deary me.

Transhumanist post gender society woild prolly make socialism easier, as there wont be gender fighting.

What gender roles are you talking about? They vary dramatically time period to time period, culture to culture

He's probably referring to general tendency of the two biological sexes to lean towards certain jobs and personality types. Not shit like the color pink being for girls or that men have short hair.

Gender role by definition is "accepted" gender behaviours. Which has nothing to do with biology and is purely sociological. There are some natural behavioural differences but the differences are pretty minor where there are two mostly overlapping bell curves for each sex. Society places all kinds of arbitrary rules on people that arent natural to their own desires. It's stupid to force equal numbers but its good to let people do the kinds of jobs or roles they want.

What adverse effect?

Something about the grass being greener. Why do soft NEETs that sit at their computers all day and whine about "emasculation" in society today think they'd enjoy what men 100 years ago did to eek out a livelihood?

In what way? You give zero examples to back this up.

Nature and nurture helps us understand human psychology. You're incredibly ignorant if you don't know this.

Holla Forums isn't one person. Yes, there are some people who are vulgar economic reductionists, but that's certainly not all of us.

To a certain extent, yes.

Another lovely addition to my "Holla Forums doesn't understand theory" post collection.

it's a great distraction from class struggle, esp. in the United States where the middle class is shrinking.

I've said this in every thread about this I was here for. Good luck enforcing your traditional behavioural rules based on gender during communism.

True. Yet many here seem keen to downplay the role of nature. One of these natural difference is physical strength. Men generate more testosterone which leads to more muscle growth. Men are naturally stronger. So if you consider strength to be an important function in aspects of society then it makes sense to encourage men to reach their potential.

Emasculation. Schools medicate boys who act too much like boys. The rates of Ritalin prescription are much higher for boys than girls. Even teaching styles have changed to favour girls over boys. All thios shit stems from the idea of an inherent sexism and a need to do something to correct it. This itself stems from focusing solely on the nurture part of nature/nurture.

They would not need enforced as they are natural. Simply not repressing them would suffice. By all means a woman can try join the USMC (or commie equilivant) but she'd have to meet the same standards in all testing as her male counterparts. You also wouldn't have state sponsored drives to get 'women into whatever'. Cause the unstated clause is always 'at the expense of the others'. Under a system of full meritocracy the gender differences would be clearer.

Yeah sure whatever, but when people don't act in accordance to your rules, whatcha gonna do? Because they won't just act "naturally" because you want them to. How do you plan to make sure only your lame vision is followed?

They can do what they like. The state should fuck off with its social engineering though.

Then we don't have traditional gender roles.

I'm not saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Equality feminism saw to it that women had all the same rights as men. Some decided this wasn't enough and have focused their efforts on changing men ie. deconstructing gender. This is what I've got the problem with.

Well I've got a problem with that. I also think men should be allowed to do whatever they want.

I'm not saying men should be forced to get swell and learn to fix their car. I'm saying the demonisation of behaviours natural to both sexes, in the name of deconstructing gender, is destructive to society at large.

Demonisation of any behavior (non-harmful to bystanders), in the name of any ideology, is destructive to society at large, yes.

weeeeew

She's a qt. But you picked a bad example to try make a point out of right there.

I don't think you really know what my point was

A short clip, a meme arrow and a made up word? What was I meant to take from that that I didn't? Was it merely a spookpost?

So, you want to do exactly what you blame muh librulz for: promote a certain type of behavior according to the individual's sex.

You have as much of a hard-on for social engineering as radfems, you just won't admit it.

The point he made was that "natural" behaviors can be exhibited by both sexes, hence the clip of buff qt.

Sure, your pic demonstrates that men are still on average stronger than women when both are at their peak, but that's sort of irrelevant to what user was saying.

I see it more as acknowledging innate differences instead of trying to override them.

I'm not attempting to make the case for enforcing gender roles. I am arguing (badly) that they are based on biological realities and attempts to diminish the natural differences are destructive.

image sauce?

Yes they are based on biology, but what is "natural" will change if the environment changes. If we all started breeding with women that demonstrated near-equal or equal strength and did that long enough, people 100s of years into the future will be like you and consider buff women "natural." This is why it's inherently spooky, because it's not static or some universal "law" that must be followed at all times. People and times change, and pretty soon, who knows, maybe it won't be so destructive if we adapt to it.

You're playing with words so as to avoid admitting the obvious: you're an hypocrite.

Yes, you are.

So WHAT? Why should an individual be expected to conform to certain roles on the ground that the group to which they belong has a higher tendency of exhibiting them? You're conflating "is" and "ought".

How so? Please provide some serious examples.

...

dsdsds