Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 650240" data-attributes="member: 8461">The insults were uncalled for and unwarranted. That said, let's look at the points you made.I'm a rebel. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />No one is saying people don't care about their own kids more than others. However, thats not relevent, because its not what you said. You said: The situation in question is that of men oppressing women do to a need to try and control their "superior" form of reproduction. Notice that you said "their children" not "all children" or "the children". You weren't referring to the children of others. Hence, my disbelief on that statement remains.I'm not debating whether these things are cause and effect. I'm saying that a society's simply being matriarchal/matrilineal is not an indicator that that society is doomed. No one is saying anyone can't comprehend anything. There weren't as many matriarchal/matrilineal societies throughout history as there were patriarchal/patrilineal ones anyway, and considering that quite a few societies get wiped out on the road to modernism (that is, the current period), there's nothing substantial to say that having women in charge of a society means that society will inevitably come crumbling down.Not when you look at it in the larger frame of context. It isn't a coincidence, it makes sense for other reasons. Matriarchal/matrilineal societies have nothing inherently unstable, its just that the few known ones were wiped out for reasons unrelated to sex or gender.I am indeed! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Yes, hence why not only matriarchal/matrilineal ones crumble as history progresses. Ones ruled by men do too.Agreed, but again, that's not what you were saying earlier.True, but this doesn't necessarily assume a man won't be as certain that a child is his also, at least not to the point where its good enough for him. We live in a patrilineal society now, but the majority of men are damn sure their kids are theirs.I disagree. There is no "extreme uncertainty" in men knowing if their children are theirs. Its generally taken as a given unless evidence is brought forward to the contrary. As I said, in our patrilineal society, there is no widespread uncertainty on the part of fathers that their children are theirs.There is no biological factor in men being unsure that their children are theirs, just that men desire to father as many children as possible. And even that is still being debated by anthropologists.I don't see the conflict in the two statements. Sex is not synonomous with gender, but rather sex is only one of myriad things that designate and define one's gender.We do. It is not distinguished solely by gender, as I said earlier.Your logic is faulty. Assuming that because there are a lot of women, yet oppression of women remains, ergo they must accept and be partially to blame for the oppression, is untrue. That's like saying that, because African slaves were more numerous than white people on plantations, but never rebelled, they were to blame for being slaves on those plantations. It just isn't true, and the reasoning is extremely draconian. You're blaming the victims for being victims.Ah, the international feminist plot to claim victimhood so they can gain unfair compensation right?Seriously though, that arguement is something of a joke. Women aren't given the same advantages as men in this society. While maybe "oppression" isn't the right term, its still true they're disadvantaged.I don't flame people. I have before, and the resulting flame wars were embarrassing to both myself and other people. Hence, I just don't do it anymore. Sadly, I'm afraid I missed your point, what was it again?This isn't just heterosexual politics, its sexual politics period. As for what those examples have to do with the debate, they're examples that sex alone does not determine gender.Yes. They might hold, for example, that religious prostitutes have what they do sanctioned by their deity, and are thus more pure (something that could be easily proven in a campaign by such temple prostitutes being able to use Remove Disease to make sure they're not diseased), whereas secular prostitutes are seen as dirty. Or perhaps secular prostitutes aren't seen as holy, which temple prostitutes are, and hence the godless whores are less worthy of respect, since they serve no higher power. There are myriad reasons, most of them focusing on the religious aspect. Religion has always played a part in politics, even sexual politics.Of course, we're starting to get seriously outside the boundaries of the debate here. This helping tleilaxu?</blockquote>

Verification