Pick your flavor of Anarchy.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Solumina

This bothers me, a lot. You can have separate gender rolls that are still equal especially in a hunter-gatherer society as those gender rolls are prescribed mostly by physical ability such as men going after the large game because the women can't carry it back (yes I know there are some women who would be able to but men are stronger on average than women) and women take care of very young children as men can't breast feed. Saying you can't have "separate but equal" is fine as long as you are talking about separate versions of the same thing but that is not the case here. Especially since segregation was very strictly enforced and in most societies (hunter-gatherer or not) there is at least a bit of wiggle room with gender rolls.

Judging based on gender rather than individual ability will always be sexist, no? Whether the woman is strong enough or not, or is discouraged to even train to be able to do so, and encouraged to have a lot of babies and take care of them, all because she was born a she, and likewise in reverse (a man who might otherwise want a more domestic role) that would be inherently sexist.

[the-nihilist]

Sounds like *somebody* has evil spirits trapped in their head! Someone get the chisel and hammer!

[vindicatedxjin]

Looks like somebody needs a huugggggggggggggg!

[Malice In Wonderland]

Looks like somebody needs smotherrrriiiiiingggggggggg

[vindicatedxjin]

Looks like somebody needs butt r@@@@@@@@pe.

[PortraitOfSanity]

You should stay out of the politics forums, you just end up embarrassing yourself.

[vindicatedxjin]

You should have both your legs amputated FOR NO REASON.

[Duane]

Unimatrix should punch you in the Vag, and beat you with her backpack.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by Duane

Unimatrix should punch you in the Vag, and beat you with her backpack.

lulz.

msgtooshort

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Saya

Judging based on gender rather than individual ability will always be sexist, no? Whether the woman is strong enough or not, or is discouraged to even train to be able to do so, and encouraged to have a lot of babies and take care of them, all because she was born a she, and likewise in reverse (a man who might otherwise want a more domestic role) that would be inherently sexist.

As I said in most societies there is wiggle room for gender rolls. I'm having a hard time thinking of a true hunter-gather society where both men and women don't take part in child rearing and hunting (that usually starts up when there are crops and/or animals that must be tended), I'm also having a very hard time thinking of one that wouldn't be happy that a woman wants to bring in more food if she is capable of doing so. You are saying that people can't do different things and have those things be equal by comparing it to segregation where different people were not allowed to use the same version of the same things. I'm saying that having expectations based on your gender doesn't necessarily make you a second class citizen, it can but it doesn't have to.

[homelitexl]

national socilaist best pick of the litter

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Solumina

As I said in most societies there is wiggle room for gender rolls. I'm having a hard time thinking of a true hunter-gather society where both men and women don't take part in child rearing and hunting (that usually starts up when there are crops and/or animals that must be tended), I'm also having a very hard time thinking of one that wouldn't be happy that a woman wants to bring in more food if she is capable of doing so.

In certain societies women aren't allowed to do certain things at all (one thing that comes to mind is that in Australia women are not allowed to touch a didgeridoo) and in many if not most societies there are gender roles with different levels of wiggle room as you suggest, but precious few were egalitarian, while there are some in which women are the hunters, mostly its man the hunter and woman the gatherer. And despite the fact that most hunter gatherers get most of their meals from gathering, it is usually always men who are the authority figures.

You are saying that people can't do different things and have those things be equal by comparing it to segregation where different people were not allowed to use the same version of the same things. I'm saying that having expectations based on your gender doesn't necessarily make you a second class citizen, it can but it doesn't have to.

Only in the sense that if someone chooses what you're going to do for the rest of your life, it might not be necessarily bad, but it still wasn't your choice. And they based this choice on whats between your legs. It does make you a second class citizen in the sense of that you are less than an individual, you are merely a representative of your sex and are being pushed into a gender binary that doesn't really exist. The minute you impose gender roles of course it is sexist and robs that person of their individuality.

That said, there are aboriginal groups that to this day are cool with gender bending, and its too hard to say what was the norm of every group of people before agriculture and civilization began.

[Joker_in_the_Pack]

Originally Posted by Saya

Which ones are we talking about? Quite a few have rigid patriarchy in that while women are important they still might not be seen as completely equal, and most if not all at least have prescribed gender roles, which is sexist in itself (you can't have "separate but equal").

The Bushmen of the Kalahari, for one.

[homelitexl]

national socialist treats everyone equally

[Alan]

Bullshit. If you're gonna troll at least do it properly. Fascism explicitly dictates that people are not equal.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by Alan

Bullshit. If you're gonna troll at least do it properly. Fascism explicitly dictates that people are not equal.

You know perfectly well he doesn't know jack shit about fascism, nor any other form of government for that matter. He just picked fascism because it's the most shocking.

[Razeal18]

Originally Posted by JCC

Well, at least I'm not not a retard.

I have already stated my extream and utter ignorance of the subject matter, so i'll just say that i am not not retarded either

[AshiesHubby]

I love the American capitalist system. I am in strong support of your system and I believe Anarchy is bad, Anarchy=Unpunished murders, ****, all those bad things.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by AshiesHubby

I love the American capitalist system. I am in strong support of your system and I believe Anarchy is bad, Anarchy=Unpunished murders, ****, all those bad things.

You have no idea what anarchy is...

[AshiesHubby]

Doesn't matter, I like democracy and Actual government. I don't consider Anarchy a form of government

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by AshiesHubby

Doesn't matter, I like democracy and Actual government. I don't consider Anarchy a form of government

Like I said, you have no clue what anarchy is.

[AshiesHubby]

And I do not want to, I am very opinionated

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Joker_in_the_Pack

The Bushmen of the Kalahari, for one.

Along with the Penan of Borneo, the Orang Asli tribes of Peninsular Malaysia, the Pygmy tribes in Central Africa, a smattering of Amazonian tribes who's names I forget, a large number of non-farming Papua New Guinean tribes.... pretty much all remaining hunter-gatherer societies that live in tropical areas.

I've got some great material on how awesome hunter-gatherers are and will dig it up some other time. For now I can only recommend the work of Jerome Lewis.

[PortraitOfSanity]

Originally Posted by AshiesHubby

And I do not want to, I am very opinionated

Being opinionated doesn't mean you have to be uninformed...

[homelitexl]

socialism nuff said