>John Green >writing cheapest form of empathy (sick people) to get 14 years old girls from Goodreads.com to cry over his crap. >literally made young girls cry so he'd have cash to buy back the girlfriend who left him for being "passive and weak"
Also where the hell is the harem of the average man? One in five men have 4 in five women. All the rest just complains on the internet and plays videogame. Why is there this prejudice that all men have personal harems? Only the worst kind has.
I am done with this talk. Unless these people want to talk about the psychological effects of having had multiple partners or STDs I am not interested.
No. The family originates in a time where physical strenght was the only feat that mattered. Women lack physical power and threfore required protection. In return they gave support. As raw power became less important women's deal got worse until fairly recently.
The function of marriage in primitive society is not to "oppress" women but to stabilize society by regulating their circulation. It's kind of like property law. If we live in a group where everyone's running around taking each other's valuables (food, tools etc.) and we create a system to regulate that, the purpose isn't to oppress the objects but to create a stable situation conducive to the survival and prosperity of our society.
This. Could't have said it any better, Anon. I can't stand it when idiots like John Green compare something as serious as human sexuality and intimacy to completely unrelated subjects, such as "eating cereal".
>>7694532 'sexual intimacy' has become a purely mechanical process completely divorced from biological reproduction and accompaning notions like family love, fidelity, hetero/homosexuality etc. you'll always be unhappy if you stick to a romanticized ideal associated to sex as a mode of offspring production
One thing that should be noted is that very primitive societies didn't understand sexual reproduction. There was no biological father. The father was the husband of the mother and that was only when they had marriage at all. In some societies there was no such family bonds, there was only the tribe and fatherhood was unknown. So sexual promiscuity was widespread and no one thought to reign it in.
Was monogamous marriage the first form of class oppression? Absolutely not. The first form of class oppression was almost certainly the strong over the weak or maybe the smart over the dumb. Monogamous marriage developed long after complex tribal and religious systems in most societies.
Was it create to oppress women? Most often it was preceded by polygamous marriage where a man could take many wives so that seems farfetched to me. It was created in different time periods, in different parts of the world, for only speculated reasons. There were biological and cultural forces pushing humanity toward the modern familial structure.
Nobody's necessarily right. If they were, we'd have solved it by now.
There are earlier socialists who would disagree with Engels view however. Fourier's Hierarchies of Cuckoldry makes the opposite argument: that women created marriage for their own benefit.
Another, later, counterpoint is Vilar's Manipulated Man. She suggests horrendous things like people might like children and women don't want men to muscle in on their good time. Beauvoir also suggests that women should not be given the choice of staying home to have kids because too many of them would cop out and do that, but Beauvoir's views on children are sort of pedo, so I'd recommend Vilar's ideology over hers.
Engels view of things was taken to extremes in some communes which tried to break down the "selfish" ideas of family units, and there's quite a few documentaries about how that wound up in sex abuse too, so I guess we're all fucked any ways (Meine Keine Familie I think is the latest documentary from the Friedrichshof commune)
the point is to destroy any and all feeling that is not class identity/revolutionary conscious it doesn't really matter if it's right or not the point is to destroy any filial bonds (and of course cultural, religious, romantic etc) because it gets in the way of ideology funny how communists call capitalism alienating but want to transform everyone into worker bees that live and breathe ideology
Why are people under the mistaken impression that women being held to a higher standard of sexual self control is derived from arbitrary social mores?
Historically, sex has always been far riskier for women than it is for men. The fact that a significant amount of bodily fluid is being left inside you greatly increases the chances of disease transmission, and the risk of pregnancy is obviously astronomically high. Until very recently sex outside of marriage was downright reckless for a woman. Even carrying a child to term was dangerous let alone having to provide for it once it's born.
Chastity has been considered a virtue throughout human history for very practical reasons. It kept people alive and it minimized the number of ill-cared for children. How this isn't immediately obvious to every fedora tipper who thinks "slut shaming" comes from nowhere boggles the fucking mind.
>>7694524 >reduced to breeding stock They are breeding stock in either case, and in polygamy they share the "best" males so the ugliest have better prospects and the most attractive have more than one option.
And of course most women would like nothing more than to fuck all the time so it's really a win for them.
Why do you think the feminazi ultraprogessives push so hard for free sex and polymorphism?
Besides which, /Origin of the Family/ is based on Marx's notes concerning Morgan's much larger work on that very subject with the addition of some original material by Engels to supplement the argument. Marx and Engels take an interest in Morgan because he basically makes the same argument they do regarding modes and means of production as the conditioning elements in social organization.
The thrust of the argument is that the form of marriage is plastic to the means of production and the way they are held as 'property'. The conclusion is that marriage as it stood then and perhaps monogamy itself would lose their primacy in the face of technological development and social change.
Please don't project post-Marxist gender theory onto 19th and early 20th century Marxism. Context matters.
I don't doubt it, they lead more dangerous lives and are more likely to be distant from adequate treatment or have other factors compromise their immune system.
It's not really relevant to my point though. How a man does or doesn't cope with an infection doesn't change the fact that a woman is more likely to get one in the first place given the disproportionate transfer of bodily fluids during heterosexual intercourse. A male also cannot get pregnant.
>>7695258 >Engels doesn't say that, m8. Thus when monogamous marriage first makes its appearance in history, it is not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period. In an old unpublished manuscript, written by Marx and myself in 1846, I find the words: “The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation of children.” And today I can add: The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male. Monogamous marriage was a great historical step forward; nevertheless, together with slavery and private wealth, it opens the period that has lasted until today in which every step forward is also relatively a step backward, in which prosperity and development for some is won through the misery and frustration of others. It is the cellular form of civilized society, in which the nature of the oppositions and contradictions fully active in that society can be already studied.
men die younger NOW that women don't have a 50% chance of dying in childbirth...people used to have big families because if u don't like ur wife u can't divorce her but every time u knock her up there's a good chance she might die
>>7695275 no, their immune system doesn't cope as well with these things because they have testosterone in greater doses. it's not being far from medical treatment, it's just being more susceptible. you sound afraid of bodily fluids, but that's about as scientific as being afraid of germs these days. men are more likely to get an infection also. it's a survival mechanism because males are thoroughly expendable to nature once they deposit bodily fluids, while women have bodily fluids which are hostile to infection and natural bacterial cultures which fend off more serious infections better than men's fluids.
>>7695295 >their immune system doesn't cope as well with these things because they have testosterone in greater doses
I'm sorry, but you've misinterpreted a study at some point.
There is evidence that abnormally high testosterone has a negative effect on the immune system. Key word: abnormally. Healthy men with normal hormone levels do not have a weaker immune system than their female counterparts.
>>7695284 The language I object to is 'created', which implies something conspiratorial. Too much weight cannot be lent to the subjective factors without distorting the whole idea of historical materialism. That marriage is a form of the division of labor, and that division of labor implies certain forms of property and unequal partnership is indisputable. I apologize for not being more clear on that point.
>>7695310 Most studies show women's susceptibility to some viral diseases is increased when they have naturally higher testosterone (i.e. til adulthood, ~25, after which they even out if they don't have a hormonal problem) but men work with that handicap all their life and in response to more infections than women. Abnormally elevated *oestrogen* from birth control makes women more susceptible to HIV infection, to similar rates to men, but naturally male are more susceptible to more infectious agents than females are. Once their balls drop that is, since there's a protective effect of less testosterone in childhood for males, along with the elevated risk for females of having closer ranges of the hormone for the same age groups.
>>7695334 >theyre just saying its an irrelevant attitude now since we no longer have the major health concerns
I've never heard them specify as much, and frankly it would go a long way on that side of the argument for them to concede that they're trying to rapidly change social pressures than have existed, with good reason, for thousands of years.
As it stands it just consistently sounds like petulant whining from teens and 20-somethings who are utterly convinced they are among the first to figure out that some of our values aren't as relevant as they once were.
A quick google returns studies which note a correlation between abnormally high testosterone and immune deficiency only. None even claim that testosterone itself has any affect on the immune system. Producing more of it could merely be a natural response to said deficiency.
Could you please provide a link to one which actually concludes testosterone in any amount has a negative effect on the immune system? And y'know, have it be the actual study, not the study as interpreted by Gawker.
>>7694404 Engel's argument on early-man's sex relations is pretty much destroyed by Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex. Engel oversimplifies the relationship between man and women as a class relation. Man is physically stronger than women and doesn't have to carry a child around for nine months, because of this man was able to turn females into their property. Thus Engel's argument ends with modern machinery(which almost completely equalizes the 'strength' of the sexes) will lead to equality between man and women. Of course this emancipation can only occur when a Socialist state controls production and can naturally dissolve the social power of man over women.
But Simone de Beauvoir points out that, while capitalism reinforced sexist attitudes, the relationship between the sexes has reached the point where the 'second place nature' of women has become a thing onto itself.
>>7695375 Here's one from a few years ago. http://www.pnas.org/content/111/2/869.abstract There's a whole lot of shit being done on this right now, including revising the 1918 zomg men die twice as often as female studies to more accurate and less scary numbers, but it's a long noted trend. Women fire up their immune system higher than men in response to most infections, which is probably why oestrogen has such a negative effect with a retrovirus like HIV and why autoimmune problems occur more in females, while immunity problems happen more for males.
>>7694404 Check how many top banking houses, top politicians, old money and people that keep power for long practice monogamous marriage. You can do whatever you want though, dont forget to watch some tv.
>>7694453 It hasn't really been getting worse though. Instead of strength the benefits now are primarily financial security, and children (plus being able to not work and stay at home to raise them, which is hard work but every single woman I've talked to says they'd stay home if they could/only work because they need to/married someone whose job could support them both for this reason), not to mention status. Although with alimony and child support and 80% of cases where children go primarily to the mother in case of divorce, the long term gain of marriage (for both men and women) is beginning to decline, where it's more beneficial for men to not marry and more beneficial to women to marry then divorce which is supported by women initiating divorce 2/3 times.
>>7695242 Men die more because: 1) they are the majority of those who suffer heart disease 2) 80% of suicides in pretty much every country is men, making it the biggest cause of death for men age 25-35 3) 90% of work place deaths are men, and the most dangerous jobs are primarily held by men 4) men are the majority (80ish percent) of homicide victims 5) 75+ percent of the homeless population are men and nearly all on the street (instead of shelters) are men which exposes them to harsh temperatures, no insurance, starvation, malnutrition, and a host of other ills
Parasites and infections are the least of the problems and I doubt it had any significant impact.
>>7695458 Testosterone plays a large role in 1), which is the lead cause of death world wide (ischaemic heart disease which is partially culture bound but still affects males with far greater incidence).
The rest are social variables not biological (though some people try to argue that testosterone plays a part in suicide completion, and accidental death, that's neither here nor there).
When you reduce social variables, not just in terms of violence and poverty, but also exposure to infection, such as more men will be exposed to antibiotic resistant TB, men still die more often and younger.
It sucks, but testosterone makes you more likely to die, even if society sorts its shit out and women keep taking synthetic hormones which help them to fill out stroke and cancer deaths.
>>7695579 >history never had an epidemic >antibiotics have always existed and will always work >death rates for this year only count >ignore any study on infection and inflammation in the lead cause of death world wide for this year too tho You know the reason why we found this shit was causative was because men kept dying more, right? It's kind of hilarious that you think we looked into why men were dying more not just now, but throughout history, and think we found the wrong reasons. But do tell what you think accounts for the disparity.
>>7695458 Granted that these are true, articles 2-5 are economically and mentally subjective, while parasites and infections are an objective aspect of human health, to avoid a parasite or infection in your lifetime would be a true accomplishment.
Wait what? That is really, really retarded. Monogamy in a male dominated society (every society in history until recently pretty much) directly gives females a heightened status, both de jure and de facto.
With Christianity (and Islam possibly) especially since getting a divorce was a pain in the ass.
But i think this thread should be moved to /his/
Can someone shed light on Engel's reasoning, since i can't think of any logical way to come to the conclusion that being the 34th concubine is somehow less oppressive than being the only wife
>>7696537 the first guy >>7695207 says that women are more likely to pick up infections; the second guy >>7695242 says men's risk of infection is higher. i think both of them are talking about who has higher infection risk, if i'm reading the chain right.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.