It stems from a history of when that was expected. It makes sense for society to be somewhat over compensate afterwards.

Me personally, not that Im implying i have a life or anything, I'd let her choose what she wants.

Well, look at it this way: in the olden days, men were often expected to be able to do a lot of things -- not cooking and cleaning, but basic car repair, carpentry, plumbing, wiring, etc. Not up to professional level, but a basic competency. Sort of like how women were expected to be cooks but not pro chefs.

But I can't say I ever felt very open to the idea of learning carpentry because "you're supposed to". I'd rather take it easy! So I guess I would give a woman the same slack as I give myself in those terms.

That being said, it is definitely true that cleaning up after yourself and to a lesser extent being able to cook is a really good skill to have and is much more of an "everyday" thing than blue collar man skills.

I like cooking, but fuck cleaning

>>2520
Cleaning is nice if you're feeling down about yourself. "I cleaned up, I did something good today!" Maybe this post belongs in /so/.

>>2521
I'd clean my room but I fear that the spiders that have undoubtedly made homes in the various nooks and crannies wouldn't like that. I mess with them and they'll mess with me

>>2521

Really?
Every time I finish cleaning my room, I'm thinking: What a waste of time, I could be playing a game or practicing my japanese instead of cleaning something that will get dirty again in 2 days...

My father is the one who's been cooking at home lately but my mother is still a better cook than he is. I'm the one who keeps the house clean because I'm obsessed with cleanliness.

Mentalities evolved. A woman can't ask me to repair her car (I don't know a thing about cars) and I can't ask her to make me diner. It's sad really. I'm better at cooking that repairing cars.

>>2525
At least you have skills. I can think of absolutely nothing I can do that is remotely close to a useful skill

>>2528
cooking isnt hard... I'm not even interested in it, but considering i have to eat every day I just learnt to do it naturally

What's insulting is men acting like women should be their servants.

I find it sort of funny how sexism directed towards males, saying they are brutish knuckleheads fit only for manly jobs like mechanic or builder don't offend them at all, but women might get offended if you say they are airheads fit only for sewing and cooking.

Because thanks to liberalism, society abandoned the traditional gender roles. Because of the fear of traditional values, liberals and feminists alike have imposed this debate-stopping sentence. The sentence being "you are sexist if you support the traditional gender roles." It is a sentence very similar to this one. (see picture)

The more society has strayed from traditional marriage, gender roles and the like, the more fertility rates drop, divorce rates go up, women become bitches and whores, etc. I'm sure you're all familiar with the ongoing trend.

>>2565
I would rather call those people progressives. Liberals are much different.

>>2567
Makes sense.

Liberals are republicans; progressives are democrats.

If you don't agree with any of their liberal/progressive attitudes, they call you a fascist, a sexist, a racist or any combination of the three.

>>2565
While I do believe in gender equality in the sense that men and women should have the same rights, when a society chooses to reject the traditional gender roles that have been working for us for millions of years, it runs into some problems. I'm pretty sure there's evidence out there that suggests breaking out of these basic roles has a negative impact on the whole. For example, I read a study once about how women in relationships with stay-at-home men are more likely to cheat on or leave them, because they feel the man isn't living up to his duties - even if they don't consciously realize it. Can't remember where I saw it, but it does make sense, doesn't it?

But that's all 3D pig disgusting anyway, so who cares?

>>2577
That's what I really hate about gender roles. Women hate it when men expect them to do "womanly" things like cooking and cleaning, but if a man doesn't bring in a lot of money or know how to repair a car then he's worthless

>>2565
>fertility rates drop
But that sounds good: overpopulation is one of our main problems; resources are limited; one of the trivial errors on marxism was the belief that production could be increased idefinitely to satisfy the needs of the masses, blaming poverty esclusively on the extreme inequity of our exchange system based on money...

Anyway: as a tsundere lover, I never actually liked traditional/submissive women. The problem, of course, is that tsundere or whatever X-dere, the condition of women as desirable partners for the so called men (not us, the outcast, but those who belong to the polis, work and contribute to it) is what keeps them somehow tied to men's will and fate. Feminists failed from the very begining, since they didn't actually vindicate their female condition, but just demanded for themselves the possibility of being men surrogates: i.e. to do just everything already made by men, exactly in the same way (or worst), contributing with that to the same social path (built by men, dominated by men); otherwise, demands regarding birth control (contraception, abortion), were more like mere benefits/asistance in their old condition, rather than an emancipation from it. So their fight was futile and counterproductive for everybody; their work was unrequired, since we were already too many men in all fields; they just lost their previous niche in society, finding themselves now lost (and/ or deluded in the belief they're better, now)...

So, and since I don't believe in the authenticity of any romatic/human 3D-real relationship, if women really want to be free from men they should somehow separate from them/us entirely (probably like gay communitites, but much more radically): they should build their own society and find their own ways trough the world. Thinking a bit like in sci-fi, if eugenics and in vitro techniques develop goodly enough, there could come the moment when men don't actually need women for anything, with gyneoids, fembots, dutchwives and anyother robots/machines/virtual characters taking their places...

TL;DR
Abolition of so-called love, as we know it, could provide an opportunity, for the very first time, for both women's true emancipation and men's social revolution.

>>2580
The most radical feminists have suggested something close to what you're talking about. That quote about "a woman needing a man like a fish needs a bicycle" for example, from Andrea Dworkin (who incidentally did have a husband, albeit a gay one.)

The difference is that those women think men will always be hopelessly dependent on them, which is something we ourselves disprove.

>>2581
>The difference is that those women think men will always be hopelessly dependent on them, which is something we ourselves disprove.
>women think men will always be hopelessly dependent on them

Now I know why they think you're a pervert or a homosexual for not showing interest in women. They still think they have control over men, thus they brand those who are not interested in them as 'perverts' or as 'homosexuals', just to pressure men into liking women (since most men, usually normalfags, dislike being called such 'negative' terms such as 'pervert', 'homosexual', 'gay', etc just to try to prove that they're somehow 'macho' and 'masculine'.) giving them the impression that they have power over men that they can force their opinion on his judgment.

>>2580
I don't even know why they or anyone in their senses would want to integrate to and work for such a horrendous society as ours (wich I strive to retreat from).

>>2582
Is not a "pervert" someone overly interested in women/sex? or am I mistaken?

>>2585
no you're right

>>2580
Fertility rate drops beyond its ability to reverse and western civilization as we know it comes to and end. But that'll happen in 50 years so it's safe to say most of us won't be alive to see it.

Let me just interject here for a moment.

You consider family with your own referential, that is, your idea of what a family should or shouldn't be. For instance, the traditional Western/Christian model of a family: a man and a woman with two children that live under the same home. The man works day-over while the woman takes care of the household and the children. "The Simpsons" family. We've kept this traditional view for centuries, it's only obvious that would be afraid of sudden change. Now if you looked at the referential of what a family should be for someone in some African/Sub-Saharan/Asian countries it could be polygyny. A family consisting of one man, many women and many children living in different homes. They are still family. In short, what a family is or is not, isn't set in stone.

What I'm trying to say here is: you need to have an open mind. What if this was a needed step in our society? You say women want to be men, but what if there was no man or women but simply a human who has the required skills to do a certain task?
This is all very new to us. The emancipation of woman has probably less than 50 years. Traditional gender roles are quickly changing to become less contrasted. Remember, the best cooks in the world are men, not women. Certain jobs that only women did, now men can do too.

I say let them. Let them be bitches and whores, smoke, drink. Let them be fat, be unattractive, violent or uneducated. After all, men were or did all of this since the dawn of time. Women have to learn for themselves until they learn that women are simply not men. This change is needed. The fertility rate dropping is a cause of this. If you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs, the most advanced societies are almost on the tip of the pyramid, meaning self-actualization needs. The problem is, not all societies are at this level. Most African societies are still struggling to have any food, how do you want them to have spiritual needs? They can't. They still will breed like rats, something we did centuries before, because that's the only way to survive.

I hope I wasn't too much off topic here, you know how it is.

>>2594
>>For instance, the traditional Western/Christian model of a family: a man and a woman with two children that live under the same home.
>>We've kept this traditional view for centuries, it's only obvious that would be afraid of sudden change

I'm sorry but you're wrong

1. That only came into effect in the post-WW2 era in White America, before then people still lived in whatever family arrangements their ethnicity still did (assuming they were "white"). Even past the 1950s in urban areas like NYC or Chicago they kept their earlier family relations (E.g. Irish and Italians) - so the sociology of that era exxagerated the nuclear family too much/ignored extended family

2. Black America STILL has the premise of aunts/uncles ("Aintie" or "Unc"), grandparents, cousins and brothers (often not blood related -
'play cousins' or 'play brothers' etc) in their family structure, something that comes from slavery era partially.

3. AFAIK hispanic have a similar family structure, or at least it's more 'tight-knit' (read. restrictive and mosy) in the individual members lives - e.g. mothers complaining and harassing their sons who went to college or their families bitching about them moving away from their annoying families

(im black btw)

EDIT 4: even the original english/british americans had different family structures depending on whether the US was agricultural or not. That really changed with industrialization.

>>2556
>>
I find it sort of funny how sexism directed towards males, saying they are brutish knuckleheads fit only for manly jobs like mechanic or builder don't offend them at all

....

I...don't remember guys taking that stereotype in pride of being stupid and violent and ONLY FIT TO DO MANUAL LABOR (note the last part, e.g. the 'we can only do manual labor aspect' - ghryyp muthafuckas being proud of being violent is well....ghetto muthafuckas and I can understand that.

>>2565
>> Because of the fear of traditional values, liberals and feminists alike have imposed this debate-stopping sentence. The sentence being "you are sexist if you support the traditional gender roles." It is a sentence very similar to this one. (see picture)

It's not a "fear" of "Traditional roles" it is a HATRED of being CONSTRAINED by those gender roles. How would you feel if you had to do all sorts of masculine/violent/whatever bullshit because "that's what men do", or some other bullshit gender garbage. My mother's boyfriend justified folding money in a certain way because "man do that", among other things that have no sense of logic I can detect.

Imagine the same thing, or some ghetto niggaz shooting up in da hood because it's "manly". See my analogy? Or that "men can't cry or be emotional". The fact that we watch moe anime probably is "unmanly" to some people....

Even now I see people on forums, in barbershops, on books, etc writing all sorts of garbage on what it is to "be a man" and what it is to be "manly". Thst sort of Testerone Poisioning pisses me off and that is part of why I think I identify as 'genderqueer' now....

>>The more society has strayed from traditional marriage, gender roles and the like, the more fertility rates drop, divorce rates go up, women become bitches and whores, etc. I'm sure you're all familiar with the ongoing trend.

Divorce rates go up because people don't stay in unhappy and shitty marriages just because they're crushed by social convention saying 'don't get divorced'. OR for females, they don't stay in abusive relationships due to they not being able to make any money. Or for males, because they got the girl pregnant and got a shotgun wedding.

Fertility rates went down because contraception was easier and more available and people didnt have to fucking smuggle it in from France unlike in the 1920s or whatnot (in the USA)

>>2577
>>when a society chooses to reject the traditional gender roles that have been working for us for millions of years

Protip: They haven't been doing that for millions of years. In the Phillipines women have historically done more shit and had a different role then men. Same for some of the Basques in Spain/France

>>I'm pretty sure there's evidence out there that suggests breaking out of these basic roles has a negative impact on the whole.

That's more of "society in anomie from rapid changes" which isnt new (see: industrialization in Germany, and for a more extreme version - Japan given their culture and feudalistic system - what became Germany was more industrialized early and the transition wasnt as abrupt).

>>2578
Not all 3DPD are that way. Shit, relatively few are that way. Mainstream media poisons those sorts of things/brings up things that are...inaccurate like that. Or I managed to avoid those rich white bitches thank god......

>>2580
>>Feminists failed from the very begining, since they didn't actually vindicate their female condition, but just demanded for themselves the possibility of being men surrogates: i.e. to do just everything already made by men, exactly in the same way (or worst), contributing with that to the same social path (built by men, dominated by men)

"third rate" feminism actually critiques that aspect of women having to "Act like man" to get up in "a man's world". Feminism is self-criticizing and in evolution so to say.....which is a good thing as it points out faggotry like what some of you guys mention comes out of some feminazis.

>>2581
>>2582
What sorts of cunts have you been talking to. This reminds me of stuff posted on former /r9k/....

Though the "insulting someone's masculinity" seems like something that applies to just a few people. It's funny as some 3DPDs bitch about those guido jackass jersey shore-esque people, bitches have different attrractions...

>>2596

>ghryyp muthafuckas being proud of being violent is well....ghetto muthafuckas and I can understand that.

I...what?

>>2595
I said "for instance" and I also said "what a family is or is not, isn't set in stone". The points you brought up are of course valid. The patriarchal family came about fairly recently but that wasn't my point. My point was that family structure evolves. We might not even have parents and siblings, in the sense we understand it now, in the far out future. You could be born because you were planned to be born by some computer, you then grow up learning from your peers and not from your parents. This could be a possibility.

Feminism has achieved important goals but in my opinion it would be counter-productive to now demand higher statuses and privileges for women than for men. Which is what feminazis are asking.

>>2596
Now we got a lot of things mixed up. This isn't good.

>>2596
>It's not a "fear" of "Traditional roles" it is a HATRED of being CONSTRAINED by those gender roles.

In order for society to work, certain aspects of it must be constrained to work in a certain way. When we fail to understand this, our societies fall apart completely and utterly as it is evident by the western world today. It is slowly dying.

The Chinese for example have a very strong sense of who does what in society, which is why Chinese culture has lasted so long. Same thing with Indian culture. And of course that relatively new one on the block, Islamic culture. It has clearly defined rules as well, which is why it will ultimately be the new ruler of the world. It's because they have clearly defined roles in society which they follow.

Social structures come and go. What we take for granted today was for from a reality yesterday and will be from tomorrow. Just compare 20th century homophobia to ancient Greece's manlovery.

The worst modern feminism has to offer is when it goes full retard on equality. Read that New York's fire department seemed sexist due to almost having no women at all working in it. A campaign was made to make more women want to become firefighters. Problem was that almost none of them could pass the physical exams. Breaking down doors, carrying heavy bodies etc.
Obviously the problem was that the test was sexist so they lowered the requirements for women to pass. Problem solved.

Anything less than that is not worth raging over. Just take it easy and let it slide.

Can someone lock this thread? We let the normals from /r9k/ back in again.
>>2595
>>2596

>>2596
>the most radical feminists

i.e. not "most women". I'm willing to give way on the points about changing societal norms not necessarily being a bad thing, I'm just not sure we're going about it the right way. But history will know for sure.

I don't even know why I'm thinking about this, not like it makes a fucking difference to me.

>>2596
>Imagine the same thing, or some ghetto niggaz shooting up in da hood because it's "manly". See my analogy? Or that "men can't cry or be emotional". The fact that we watch moe anime probably is "unmanly" to some people....

Definitely. I would wager that we NEET/hikki/otaku sorts of people would be judged as profoundly unmanly in basically every way.

I can't judge anyone else's situation but I think it would be self-defeating for me to stress traditional gender roles when I wouldn't even want to live up to mine, much less be able to.

>>2604

Oh look, it's another one of those cases where someone defines 'normalfag' as a person who voices an opinion outside of his comfort zone. I mean come on, >>2596 went as far as to say he identifies himself as genderqueer. How is anything he said something you'd consider to be a 'normalfag' opinion?

>>2608

Thirded. While ultimately I think it's fair to say women suffer more from these kinds of expectations there are many men out there who have to face a similar fate and of all people we should be able to understand this concept very easily.

One thing that really makes me want to punch someone in the face is something like this:

>>2603

>A campaign was made to make more women want to become firefighters. Problem was that almost none of them could pass the physical exams. Breaking down doors, carrying heavy bodies etc.
Obviously the problem was that the test was sexist so they lowered the requirements for women to pass. Problem solved.

You have to fucking face it because at this point in time it's pretty much impossible to overcome it: on average men are stronger - and thus more effective at task that require use of said strenght - than women. There is no way around it, really.
One thing feminists love to talk about is how there isn't enough space for women in politics. I heard it way to many times but there are some who are so retarded that they suggested (and actually wholeheartedly believe it to be the right solution) that the parliament (and other legislative organs of this sort) should be composed of 50% men and 50% women. WHAT. THE. FUCK. How is it 'fair'? Women are allowed to candidate on the same basis as men are. Why should we make room for them just because most of them fail to be elected? Where is the logic in that?

And to answer OP's question:

>Why is it sexist and insulting for women to cook/clean?

While I don't think it's sexist to say something of the sort (or expect a woman to posses such skills) it feels wrong to hear men complaining about women who can't/aren't willing to (well, the latter is somewhat more complicated) do so. Especially so if they don't fit the 'traditional gender role' in the slightest (i.e. as Harakon already mentioned they don't know anything about mechanics, carpentry and stuff like that).

Oh, and one more thing:

>>2594
Who is the author of those pics? I have one of them saved (as you can see) and I can tell from the art style that it's the same person. Is there more of them? Back in the day stuff like that made me rage but since I gave up on 3D pigs I actually find those sort of pics/comics endlessly amusing.

>>2610
Tineye is your friend.
http://bob-rz.deviantart.com/

>Sexist?
I was never called one myself, but I don't seem to mind. Same goes for accusations of 'racist' or 'fascist'.

>How did it ever come to this?
The American equivalent of the Chinese Cultural Revolution- look at all the pot smoking, draft-dodging hippies back in the day and look at them now. They are basically the American equivalent of the Red Guards. They're the baby boomer generation, and in the future, it'll be hard for you to get a job because of them. An entire generation and subsequent generations were ruined simply because of their 'rebellion'. And the damage they've caused would last for generations, just like the trillion-dollar debt that we have right now.

>Why is it sexist and insulting for women to cook/clean?
Because they are raised like that. They've never used to cooking and cleaning, so what can you do? It can't be helped. They want to be male surrogates, but oddly enough, they say that women can be better at anything a man could do, even cooking and cleaning. I certainly don't mind cooking, as I enjoy it. Though I also clean myself afterwards, mostly because I don't want to eat out of a foul plate and utensils, or whatever.

>Why are all men who ask this viewed as being sexist disgusting pigs?
Cooking and cleaning are done by men as well. The best cooks in the world are men, and in any restaurant you go to, the chefs overwhelmingly are all male. Those who actually cook for a living are usually all male as well. Though it's usually when women project own insecurities on others, usually out of how they are being raised. Women in the US feel entitled to everything because that's how they were raised. They want to be like princesses, and yet they also want to do the same things men could do even though

>What is it exactly that is wrong with this?
Whether it is sexist/insulting for women to cook and clean? Or whether men who ask this are being viewed as sexist disgusting pigs? I still don't understand.

>Is a women not being able to take care of herself, starving in a dirty home something to be proud of now?
Most certainly not, though the liberals and their ilk don't think so. Just look at the 'female role models' that women have today- ranging from porn stars to decrepit celebrities (who are still porn stars without the nudity). Entirely different than the female role models that females had 50 years ago.

Bear in mind, I was raised in a rather traditional immigrant family. There weren't exactly strict roles in the family, but father was the breadwinner and mother used to be a teacher but stayed at home to raise my sister and me. A lot of what Americans think what's 'normal' I find to be odd, such as premarital sex or constant divorce/cheating with children. Most people these days think about 'me me me' and not about others. It's what makes other human beings sickening. Without a common mortar to 'solidify' people together into one cause, then what is the point of cooperation between humans, what exactly is the point of society and civilization? I'm sure that there are those of who place more importance on individuality and whatnot, but what is the point of society without some form of substance? And I'd have to agree with >>2599.
Just look at how westerners are worried about Muslims dominating their countries in the future. The growth of Muslims in these countries is not because of conversion to Islam, but because of a high birthrate and a strong sense of clearly defined roles (despite all the honor killings and stuff like that; but honor killings are not restricted to Muslims and Hindus). I wouldn't say the same for East Asians and South Asians, since historically, their culture places an emphasis on high birthrates to continue the family line, but in recent years the birthrate has dropped amongst the more well-to-do Asians, though generally, there is still a sense of moral conservativism.

>>2610
>How is anything he said something you'd consider to be a 'normalfag' opinion?

Probably the way he says "ghetto muthafuckas" and calls women bitches.

>>2597
I meant ghetto but I fucked up the typo. I meant I understand the "man identifying and liking being violent brutes" mentality, but have not seen the males identifying with "only good for manual labor" before.

>>2598
Okay

>>2599
>>When we fail to understand this, our societies fall apart completely and utterly as it is evident by the western world today.

>>The Chinese for example have a very strong sense of who does what in society, which is why Chinese culture has lasted so long.

>>Same thing with Indian culture.

You mean the same way relatively-constrained and oppressive India got ran over by the Mughals, THEN by the British, who were more dynamic and not constrained by those idiotic rules? Their oppressive caste system did not save them for colonialism, some hindus have suggested if not for the caste system India wouldn't have been as fully conquered as it has been

Or how the Confucian-influenced China constantly was conquered by 'barbarians' from the north or west because their constrained, 'managed' society was constantly kicked in because they did not improve believing themselves to be the center of the universe.

Or how chinese society did not expand as much as it could have because one of their emperors refused to send more ships out to explore and colonize?

Their restrictive societies were part of why they got steamrolled by European (and other Asian) powers who were not as stupidly constrained by tradition.

Also chinese culture is not static and not uniformly hierachical - Daoism and some of the follwoers of Lao Tzu could be considered anarchists in modern day with anti-government and anti-social oppression mentalities.

Chinese culture also has a nasty habit of assimilating 'foreign' cultures on their borders into the Han majority. However, even that has limits as Southern china is less sinicized.

>>And of course that relatively new one on the block, Islamic culture. It has clearly defined rules as well, which is why it will ultimately be the new ruler of the world.
>>It's because they have clearly defined roles in society which they follow.

You know for that time period Mohammed's stuff was pretty damn revolutionary, so nope. Not to mention how at that time Islam was the religion of traders and more cosmopolitan people in cities, as well as scientists - many of which loved finding loopholes in the 'constraints' of Islam (esp. traders)

Sorry, but just because a society has 'constraints' doesnt mean its better. Actually that has been proven to be the opposite, see the above examples.

>>2612
>>An entire generation and subsequent generations were ruined simply because of their 'rebellion'.

I really doubt continuing a repressive, authoritarian, sexist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic society a la that generated by ex-WW2 veterans during the 1950s USA is better. And I'd say I'd rather live in this society than that society for the simple reason that I'm less likely to get fucking lynched unlike my ancestors.

>>And the damage they've caused would last for generations, just like the trillion-dollar debt that we have right now.

That has nothing to do with the boomers trying to rebel against the oppressive system that was dealt to them, and everything o do with those same boomers selling out and becoming what they wanted to get rid of.....

>>2612
>>Most people these days think about 'me me me' and not about others.

I think that comes out of being screwed over by family and society in general....

>>2615
So rendering ebonic words in eye-dialect is normalfag now?

>>2621
>So rendering ebonic words in eye-dialect is normalfag now?

I don't know but it makes you look like an idiot, unless you were doing so jokingly

Come to what.
Cooking is wonderful and should be enjoyed by all. Cleaning sucks.
What.
What.
That's silly.

>>2621
>I really doubt continuing a repressive, authoritarian, sexist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic society a la that generated by ex-WW2 veterans during the 1950s USA is better.

I don't care; I hardly care less even if I was subject to such 'discrimination' that people keep crying about. The world needs a little authoritarian values to keep people in line, and call me a fascist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic all you want, but it's how I see the world. I doubt removing ALL 'repressive' restraints would solve our problems. Now I hope that I'm not implying that you think that all conservative societies are like that. The western world actually does need more of the so-called 'traditional family' values even to the detriment of 'freedoms' that shouldn't even exist. I hope you think that the free love movement and spreading HIV to every single person you meet counts as 'love'. Certainly no need for you to go autistic battle mode over this, no? but even if everyone has ALL possible freedoms, are we truly free? I certainly do not believe so.

>And I'd say I'd rather live in this society than that society for the simple reason that I'm less likely to get fucking lynched unlike my ancestors.

I doubt that you're likely to get lynched in that era either unless if you did something wrong. Maybe that's why you don't like the rule of law?

>That has nothing to do with the boomers trying to rebel against the oppressive system that was dealt to them, and everything o do with those same boomers selling out and becoming what they wanted to get rid of.....

So are you ever content with your status in life or are you continue going to fight 'the man'? If you keep continuing to fight what you perceive as an injustice, you're just a rebel without a cause. Just like the millions of progressives out there. If there is no government, what are you going to fight against next? Anarchy? I certainly doubt that free individuality actually contributes to a stronger civilization.

>I think that comes out of being screwed over by family and society in general....

No, I think that's your egotism speaking for you. Usually families and societies think the best for you well except when it comes to a family of liberal progressives who make horrible, horrible parents. Do all families and societies screw over all people? I hardly think so.

>So rendering ebonic words in eye-dialect is normalfag now?

Is that sarcasm? Or is that how you actually speak? Because I actually doubt the veracity of your words now.

>You mean the same way relatively-constrained and oppressive India got ran over by the Mughals, THEN by the British, who were more dynamic and not constrained by those idiotic rules? Their oppressive caste system did not save them for colonialism, some hindus have suggested if not for the caste system India wouldn't have been as fully conquered as it has been

And yet India still remained quite the same even to this day.

>Or how the Confucian-influenced China constantly was conquered by 'barbarians' from the north or west because their constrained, 'managed' society was constantly kicked in because they did not improve believing themselves to be the center of the universe.

Now the trouble with that was the nomads had superior military power but lacked in numbers.

>Or how chinese society did not expand as much as it could have because one of their emperors refused to send more ships out to explore and colonize?

That was open to debate as the Chinese had no need to expand and colonize. Their economy was in perfect shape (in their opinion). It may have been to their detriment, but at the time, the officials simply rejected the idea of colonization as they are simply better with the status quo.

>Their restrictive societies were part of why they got steamrolled by European (and other Asian) powers who were not as stupidly constrained by tradition.

Wrong. Most Chinese during the era had no need for Western manufactured goods at the time. Most of them didn't need anything. They could give all they want to western traders looking for porcelain, but the Chinese had nothing to ask in return besides what, weapons? gold? silver? The Chinese had all they ever needed.

>Also chinese culture is not static and not uniformly hierachical - Daoism and some of the follwoers of Lao Tzu could be considered anarchists in modern day with anti-government and anti-social oppression mentalities.

Not quite. Daoism did not interfere in politics as anarchism did. It simply implied a non-existence of any government and was more so 'mystical' than an actual political philosophy. Proponents of Taoism simply had not much interest in government; they had never sought to dismantle it. And there were variants of Daoism that were quite different than the Daoism that you have heard about. Much of the elements of Chinese folk religion have already been absorbed as 'Daoism' throughout the centuries as it does not qualify as being an anarchic political philosophy. It is more so religious than political. It didn't seek to destroy orderly aspects of life, as it was more concerned with the natural world and its state. You never see Taoists revolting and fighting against 'the man' as in Western anarchism. Most of the time, they had an 'it can't be helped' mentality and sought to live their life even if they faced difficulties. And there was somewhat of a general consensus between philosophies in China, and to this day, there have always been Chinese who identify themselves as Daoist, Buddhist and Confucian. And most still do. One could switch between several philosophies in their lifetime. A Confucian scholar could embrace Buddhism and eventually retire as a Daoist hermit.

>Chinese culture also has a nasty habit of assimilating 'foreign' cultures on their borders into the Han majority. However, even that has limits as Southern china is less sinicized.

That is open debate. Some even say that Northern China is less sinicized, but that all amounts to personal opinion and hearsay. Northerners call Southerners less Chinese, and Southerners call Northerners less Chinese. And there are those Chinese amongst them who don't care whether they are more Chinese or not than other Han Chinese. Most of the 'Han' ethnic group isn't really an ethnic group at all. Just people who identify themselves as 'residents of X, people of Y, ancestors came from Z' prior to the 20th century, maybe even to this day. And most just call themselves 'Chinese' simply because of the country where they or their ancestors came from, other than nationalists.

tl dr

>>I don't care;

Well I do fucking care about being subject to authoritarian bullshit. I've experienced enough of that garbage in my life and won't let that return. And I have enough knowledge and people I knew who wouldn't dare want that to return, 1950s-era USA Society

>>I hardly care less even if I was subject to such 'discrimination' that people keep crying about.

Have fun saying that when you can't get a job/rise up/have a harder time in life because you don't live up to "traditional gender role" bullshit that white america had during that time era. Especially as things like caring about your house's decoration might have made you seem gay in some social circles.

>>The world needs a little authoritarian values to keep people in line

Yeah, they tried that in Francoist Spain, Nazi Germany, Fascist, Italy, the FORMER [Stalinist] Soviet Union, and Showa era Japan. Look where it got them. It lead their countries into ruin, destruction, resulted in the deaths of millions of people and caused humongous suffering.

>>and call me a fascist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic all you want, but it's how I see the world.

Sure I will. I'll flat-out call you an authoritarian who wants to force your rules and hierachy down other peoples' throats.

>>Now I hope that I'm not implying that you think that all conservative societies are like that.

Any society that hangs on to tradition out of fear of veneration of "the old ways" is stupid, backwards and ineffectual. Neo-Luddites I call tem.

>>The western world actually does need more of the so-called 'traditional family' values even to the detriment of 'freedoms' that shouldn't even exist.

You mean the "tiger mom" bullshit that Amy Chua wrote about?

You mean being forced to act a certain way in front of your parents or risk being ATTACKED and HIT! Fuck that shit, you may be a masochist all you want, but I suffered under bullshit "Family values" like getting hit, not being allowed to wander around places, getting threatened, etc etc. You can eat and enjoy your oppressive shit all you want.

You mean forced to snivel and lie to people in their face in order to be socially acceptable? You may enjoy that 'polite lie' bullshit but I will not abide by it. Enjoy your byzantine social structure.

>>Certainly no need for you to go autistic battle mode over this, no?

Given you said you don't care about being called a regressive authoritarian, lol yes there is a need given you typed some bullshit that the only people who got lynched did "Something wrong"

>>I doubt that you're likely to get lynched in that era either unless if you did something wrong. Maybe that's why you don't like the rule of law?

Then I will flat out tell you that you are full of shit, and have not experienced the pre-civil rights southern USA. My grandparents did, and STILL remember that era. My older aunts and uncles who live there or north in Chicago still remember it. My grandmother still has issues over what the whites did to her friends and whatnot? You can go on and wax bullshit all you want but I Won't let it fly without any opposition.

Getting lynched for whistling at a white girl? Whites who decided to go and harass black people to maintain their white priviledge? KEep on pretending "oh those KKK members were perfectly legal".

Not to mention lynching ain't got nothing to do with "rule of law" lynching by its' sheer definition is EXTRAJUDICIAL.

>>So are you ever content with your status in life or are you continue going to fight 'the man'?

Given I at least keep some sort of contact with activist groups and am trying to learn information off the internet for variou reasons, yes I say I am not content with "my status in life"

>>If you keep continuing to fight what you perceive as an injustice, you're just a rebel without a cause. Just like the millions of progressives out there.

You mean the same way you and your reactionary allies want to rehoist a shitty society?

>>If there is no government, what are you going to fight against next? Anarchy?
To achieve an equal and better world, naturally. You have to maintain whatever world you built.

It's the right of the individual not to be oppressed by garbage gender/sexual roles or scripts or any such thing that restricts them. Have fun being a robot.

>>Is that sarcasm? Or is that how you actually speak? Because I actually doubt the veracity of your words now.
>>Implying ebonics has jack shit to deal with the 'veracity' of words.

>>And yet India still remained quite the same even to this day.

I wonder what the partition of India and the independencce of Bangaledesh has to do with that? OR the rise of Sikhism? Or the fact that Hinduism stopped being so violent? OR the rise and exportion of Buddhism?

>>Wrong. Most Chinese during the era had no need for Western manufactured goods at the time.

That's not my point. My point is that those societies were technologically inferior and got steamrolled by it because they stupidly stuck to tradition

>>but the Chinese had nothing to ask in return besides what, weapons? gold? silver? The Chinese had all they ever needed.

...Opium =P

>>. Most of the time, they had an 'it can't be helped' mentality and sought to live their life even if they faced difficulties.

There was also a "screw society I wll do my own thing alone" mentality that is strongly embedded in Taoism.

>>You never see Taoists revolting and fighting against 'the man' as in Western anarchism.

I seem to remember reading of Taoists revolting against the central government in Romance of the Three Kinggdoms, and i know this seems lazy but...

>>Taoism, which developed in Ancient China, has been embraced by some anarchists as a source of anarchistic attitudes. The Taoist sage Lao Zi (Lao Tzu) developed a philosophy of "non-rule" in the Tao Te Ching and many Taoists in response lived an anarchist lifestyle. In 300 CE, Bao Jingyan explicitly argued that there should be neither lords nor subjects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism

Thank you for explaining the Han situation. Can you go into detail please regarding how the Han identify themselves as or why they do?

>>2634
Please excuse my lack of taking it easy. Authoritarianism sets me off.

>>No, I think that's your egotism speaking for you.

More accurately my personal experience and backlash. Not to mention seeing how other peoples' families act.

>>Usually families and societies think the best for you well except when it comes to a family of liberal progressives who make horrible, horrible parents.

Then you haven't dealt with shitty parents who love beating their children with switches/belts/whatever and threatening them with physical attacks.

>>2632
>India...China...Islamic
>Usually families and societies think the best for you
lol wut

Anyway: where you live? honestly...

Asuming you're here for being at least an otaku: do you really want/praise a society wich would rock you to death for your hobbies/aesthetical preferences, and push its so called progress forcing slave-labour on you, in miserable conditions, getting no more than under breadline incomes and thus having absolutely no chance to ever get access to the technological/informatic society's lifestyle we profit from at this very moment we're posting in here?

Maybe some people don't care living under some sort of repression, as long as they belong to the rulling elite or their own asses don't get fucked by it... and all this late discussion is way derailed from the original subject, even for a bitches and whores phenomenological sociological analitical something attempt.

>>2634
>Yeah, they tried that in Francoist Spain, Nazi Germany, Fascist, Italy, the FORMER [Stalinist] Soviet Union, and Showa era Japan. Look where it got them. It lead their countries into ruin, destruction, resulted in the deaths of millions of people and caused humongous suffering.

Hello, I come from a country which was a former totalitarian regime and let me tell you one thing. Life back then was much better. The streets were safe, you didn't have to lock your door even. There were no druggies and homeless people on the streets, people had jobs and generally got along well.

When the communist state resigned in 1989 because of Soviet politburo decision, all hell broke loose. Rampant violence, murder, drug abuse, poverty which took 10 years to settle down. I still remember this.

When first election was held in 1990, guess which party won? It was communist party, but because of U.N., western liberals and progressives demanding a none authoritarian approach, the Party had its hands tied and could not solve ANYTHING.

So before speaking against authoritarianism, please pull head out of ass. Lack of authoritarian hand in society is why all normalfags are so annoying now.

>>2648
>>So before speaking against authoritarianism, please pull head out of ass

Given I have grandparents who grew up in an authoritarian, or at least oppressive society (pre-civil rights rural Southern USA) I could say the same.

That, and I regularly correspond with a Latvian who has a similar experience as mine with the former USSR, not some satellite state that had significant leeway in what to do. And unlike me, his grandparents are dead (two of them from WW2) or, in the case of his surviving grandmother, her mind was fractured from spending time in a concentration camp (im assuming Soviet GULAG as the Nazis didnt do that shit to Balts.) Go tell him and the population of the Baltic states that 'it really was much better when they were illegally annexed into a tolitarian state'

And yes I already know there are people who look on the old days of WARPAC with nostalgia. There's a german term for that called 'Ostalgia'. Of course the crime rate would be down when the system went around arresting people for no good reason and chucking them into the GULAG or whatnot. Why do you think West German police are reluctant to use East Germans in crowd control, it's not just due to 'hurr we won' mentality - its because East Germans were more violently trained and they're afraid that those police would snap back into that training.

Face it - the citizens of those countries would have rather have had their countries degrade as they did, rather than be part of an empire that they had no affinity for and a LOT of bad blood with. Part of that is due to drinking game type shit that the US and USSR did with their military budget, I know that as well - and that strain hurt the Soviet citizens badly. But that wasnt the only reason.

If they didnt want to leave the Soviet Union and its puppet states their governments wouldn't have declared independence, or in cases shot their government as in the case of Romania.

>>Lack of authoritarian hand in society is why all normalfags are so annoying now.

It's funny as I could say the opposite with normalfags intruding into other peoples' spaces, trying to force child porn laws down peoples' throats, trying to ban lolicon, trying to force a surveillance state, and trying to suppress autonomous nations - and fun fact the United States is doing all that shit right now, and the last one is being done by individual state governments due to reactionaries - Tennessee and Arizona come to mind right now.

Also some western 'liberals' can be horrible hypocrites, e.g. gun control in the USA and trying to ban 'violent games'. Not to mention the lolicon and "sex predator" BS.

>>2651
>and trying to suppress autonomous nations

Suppress in what way? Suppress their independence? Why give separatists freedom and collapse entire federal state? A vacuum of power is worse than authoritarianism. Societies are built and maintained by a web of power. This power comes from a hierarchy. Throughout human history, these hierarchies develop states. It is proven that once a hierarchy is weakened, the state collapses and creates a vacuum of power. An area where rule of law is absent. This vacuum of power leads to total social collapse in 90% of cases.

>>2655
Separatists were never mentioned, you're just bringing up some nonsense that is easier to attack than what the person who disagreed with you said.

That being said, 10/10. Good work, troll.

>>2661
Hifive! My first successful trolling. Oh yeah who's bad?