General

Re: Thoughts on Gender?

Lady Saiga — Wed, 08 May 2013 15:46:19 GMT

Agreed, on all counts. All I'm saying is that the trend as to what is, or is not, socially acceptable has been fairly closely linked to economics all along.

Re: Thoughts on Gender?

Clayton — Wed, 08 May 2013 15:40:39 GMT

such a civilization would probably evolve a perception of a fairly small degree of gender difference, which is not to say none at all.

I'm more concerned about the range of possible forms of self-expression... I think it matters less what is "normal" as to what is "allowed". This is why I specifically call out enforced monogamy... if it's true that women hate polygamy so much, there's no need to ban it. And if you're banning it, then aren't you restricting people's free choice? The same goes for any kind of family arrangement from the two dads, to two moms, to whatever. Also, I think that we need to distinguish between prohibition and censure... what use is it to be free to express one's alternative sexuality and be a tax slave? If State-protected expression of popularly frowned-upon lifestyles comes at the cost of a big State (and heavy taxes), perhaps we're all better off going back to what we had before... widespread disapproval of certain lifestyles but without active prohibition of them or general enslavement of all of us to the State. In summary, it seems to me that expecting/requiring that people equally approve of all lifestyle choices is actually a kind of "public opinion communism"... instead, we should want to see people free to be bigots (in terms of personal opinions, not actual aggression) if they choose to be, as well as free from prohibition should they choose to live an alternative lifestyle, even if they must do so "quietly" so as not to arouse general disapproval from their neighbors.

Clayton -

Re: Thoughts on Gender?

Lady Saiga — Wed, 08 May 2013 15:28:41 GMT

The government part of that theory was suggested to me by my reading on prehistoric communities in the Near East. There was a brief period of sedentism in the Paleolithic that corresponded with a temporary warming trend. See the Natufian culture. No crops were domesticated at the time, but “wild farming” was practiced alongside hunting and gathering. In this society we see a greater disparity in consumption patterns between individuals--in grave goods, especially trade items, you can see differences between those of higher social rank vs. lower rank. This is more pronounced than was previously common among the nomadic cultures of the region.

In a sedentary society the trade can be controlled by a few much more readily. It’s the early Neolithic (farming) societies that evolved big government-look at Mesopotamia and its food distribution system, which is totally impossible in a hunting-gathering community-government, like everything else, must depend on the economy for its nature as well as its size.

That’s not to say that a voluntaryist community or more egalitarian gender roles are impossible in a farming culture, only that without a fair amount of conscious self-organization, it’s a lot likelier to go the way it has historically.

This may suggest that the kind of voluntaryist civilization we posit here on this site could be made more (or less) possible through certain kinds of economies. Also that such a civilization would probably evolve a perception of a fairly small degree of gender difference, which is not to say none at all.

Re: Thoughts on Gender?

Lady Saiga — Wed, 08 May 2013 14:36:11 GMT

To be more specific, it’s not that factory jobs are harder or more dangerous for children than farming jobs. It’s that suddenly there’s an opportunity for them NOT to work in that kind of society, so the laws and fashions follow the practicalities.

I would argue that the style of government alters due to the same forces. The economy dictates the method by which the few can control the many, and thus changes perceptions about what KIND of government there should be as well. Everything hinges on economy.

Re: Thoughts on Gender?

Lady Saiga — Wed, 08 May 2013 14:29:43 GMT

I think it’s the practicalities that drive the fashions, and government comes in after the fact and takes advantage taxwise.

The more technology one needs (or thinks one needs) at home, the more a two-income family becomes necessary, and the more fashionable it is for the woman to work. The couple with two BMW’s and two Ph.D’s is trendier than the one without. That trendy couple doesn’t have the time to have kids, who wouldn’t contribute anything to their family’s income; or if anything they just have one or two, and they take advantage of nontraditional childcare options if possible.

Before the BMW was possible, the whole scenario was a lot different. Roles, I firmly believe, change with the economy.

I’ve seen this with my own life choices as much as I have seen it in what I read of history.

Don’t forget what period of time child labor laws became fashionable. Just about at the same time as the jobs became doable by women, who didn’t then need as many kids! All these economic factors lead to the changing roles of women in society.

Re: Thoughts on Gender?

Clayton — Wed, 08 May 2013 14:07:56 GMT

@Saiga: What do you think of the idea that TPTB have promoted the "dual-income household" merely as a way to spread the tax burden? I'm not saying "women shouldn't work" or anything like that, of course, but I'm actually quite skeptical of the idea that the shift that has occurred in the make-up of the workforce since the 1950's or so is actually reflective merely of natural change as a result of technology.

Clayton -

Re: Thoughts on Gender?

Lady Saiga — Wed, 08 May 2013 14:03:19 GMT

I see gender roles as being largely dependent on a society's economic base, and therefore at least in a large part they are "nurture", not "nature".

It all has to do with the birth rate and labor needs of the society.

In hunter-gatherer economies, especially in the post-ice age climate that does not favor mass animal migration, populations are most prosperous when they stay mobile. The amount of labor required to meet the calorie needs of the tribe is less than under other economic systems. Thus, birth rate can and SHOULD be maintained at a lower rate. Women breast feed longer in order to postpone repeat pregnancies. They are tied up with the care of small children to a far lesser extent, and in the spare time they can contribute a great deal to the tribe’s caloric intake. In fact the kinds of tasks that women can take on while watching their children (usually trapping and gathering) take in a larger percentage of the food than the hunters’ efforts do. As a result, women are a) perceived as more than sexual objects AND b) actually more profitable to the tribe than men. Their roles and treatment historically have been reflective of this status.

In farming economies a major shift takes place. It takes more labor and requires more children to provide that labor, to meet the family’s caloric needs. That means women are less suited to the work and less available to help with it. They spend their time having children as fast as possible as long as their fertile period lasts, and their time is almost wholly taken up with childcare. The result of this is they pull in far less money or product than their male counterparts and their roles are highly related to their usefulness specifically as sexual and childcare beings. This has what we call a detrimental effect on the perception of women in those societies, leads to a lessening of their legal rights and a whole lot of assumptions becoming commonplace regarding the work capacity of women outside of that sexual role.

Technology changes this again, and as women are less motivated to have large families AND more productive at work, their roles and the perception of their capabilities become much more equal to those of men.

We are in an upswing of womens’ roles in our civilization purely because of the high technology and service based economies in the areas of the world where this is occurring.

All in all this leads me to believe that many or most, if not all, of the “traits” that we assign to one gender or the other are the result of nurture.

Re: Thoughts on Gender?

Clayton — Wed, 08 May 2013 13:33:18 GMT

@Aristophanes: What eugenics? It is non-dysgenics. Enforced monogamy is dysgenic interference into the natural order. Of course, so is enforced polygamy (as they have in arranged-marriage, polygamous societies such as Muslim society and FLDS). True "women's rights" doesn't exist today... a woman in the West (or East) is not permitted to choose to marry a married man. And the problems for women in the Middle East are well documented.

Clayton -

Re: Thoughts on Gender?

Aristophanes — Wed, 08 May 2013 07:08:29 GMT

From feminism to eugenics...

Tell us, Clayton, about all the men you judge.

Re: Thoughts on Gender?

Clayton — Wed, 08 May 2013 06:43:29 GMT

+1 Caley... legally-enforced monogamy is the original communism, IMO. Many men who should never have been able to find a mate, do, and in the process prevent mating between a much better* man and the woman they tied up.

Clayton -

*you can throw a fit about the word "better" all you like but there is no question that some men are better in every sense of the word, than others

Re: Thoughts on Gender?

Andrew Cain — Wed, 08 May 2013 05:23:19 GMT

" Patriarchy is not men being in charge due to greater strength. It's a conspiracy by men that are powerless with women, to create fictions and social sentiments that give them that power by mind control rather than personal physical might or instinctual desire induction. "

So you believe that patriarchical societies are "mind controlled" into existence? What are some examples of this "mind control"?

Re: Thoughts on Gender?

Caley McKibbin — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 02:43:59 GMT

I think gender roles are almost entirely the product of nurture, but by "nurture" I'm talking about millennia of enforced cultural norms. From my own research, I've concluded that humans in their "natural" state are essentially the same as bonobos when it comes to sexual behavior (at least).

My conclusion is that "culture" in general is a product of the unique instrument/weakness of humans, behavioural manipulation by ideological propaganda, and that product is almost entirely based on reproductive motive. Patriarchy is not men being in charge due to greater strength. It's a conspiracy by men that are powerless with women, to create fictions and social sentiments that give them that power by mind control rather than personal physical might or instinctual desire induction. Wherein, naturally gifted people are manipulated into self-sacrifice (like the state conjures soldiers and taxpayers) and everyone is manipulated into attacking each other for dogmatically incorrect behaviours. "Men" dominated traditional marriage because it is a social scheme invented by "men" and there are certain sympathies among "men", not because all men are individually dominant. The purpose of making up your own game with your own rules is to win.

My bias/insight is being the opposite of fantastically unattractive. A token example: I get hit on by girls 12-15 in pairs/groups... through my 20's. They seem to have little awareness of how the world works. It made me realize the true nature of age of consent laws: the men that get picked last don't want leftovers. I see a lot of men ridiculing feminist types as masculine, ugly, etc. I don't see any knights of truth drawing attention to the obvious fact that society has a profound negative impact on the most attractive men so that the least attractive can get their fair share. Marriage, age limits, ban of sperm/egg sales... you name it. If it pertains to copulation or reproduction, it is an attack on competition. It's simply a matter of cutting through the BS (and being me helps) to see it. After all, the root purpose of ideology is to substitute default behaviour with self-benefitting behaviour. Where there is an imperative there is a special interest.

I'll be back later to blast "traditional values" some more.

Re: Thoughts on Gender?

Autolykos — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:19:04 GMT

Neodoxy:
Does anyone here have thoughts on gender roles and identity?

Yeah blah blah "I support people to live how they want libertarianism", but what do you think the reality of gender roles in terms of nuture/nature and their positive/negative aspects in society are?

This is something that I've been thinking about lately, and it's something that's helped me realize exactly how radical my own position really is on social matters like this.

Thoughts?

I think gender roles are almost entirely the product of nurture, but by "nurture" I'm talking about millennia of enforced cultural norms. From my own research, I've concluded that humans in their "natural" state are essentially the same as bonobos when it comes to sexual behavior (at least).

Re: Thoughts on Gender Roles?

Caley McKibbin — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 00:52:22 GMT

Also about attractiveness ratings: when you rate images you are normalizing the data from your previous experience to determine how to allocate ratings to the images in the test set. The "raw data" is already normalized in any such test. The variation between different test groups is a product of that haphazard process as much as anything. So, if you have men rate women and women rate men, there should be no difference based on the assumptions that average is attractive and men deviate more from average.

Re: Thoughts on Gender Roles?

Clayton — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:49:37 GMT

Sheesh. First, someone give a scientific explanation for why women go to the bathroom in groups[1], then we can talk about such absurdities as coed public restrooms.

Clayton -

[1] Hint: The answer is already known, you can probably find it with some Googling.