Traditional Values, Gender, and Socialism

I am a conservative revolutionary (lower case) insofar as I believe that social and technological progress (including everything from space colonisation to the establishment of a workers' state) should be guided by more traditional values.
For example, I believe in the separation of the legal and religious aspects of marriage to eliminate the issue of "gay marriage", the encouragement of gender differences (though not gender roles, if you understand what I mean), the encouragement of nationalism, and the banning of abortion.

RedSun wrote:I am a conservative revolutionary (lower case) insofar as I believe that social and technological progress (including everything from space colonisation to the establishment of a workers' state) should be guided by more traditional values.
For example, I believe in the separation of the legal and religious aspects of marriage to eliminate the issue of "gay marriage", the encouragement of gender differences (though not gender roles, if you understand what I mean), the encouragement of nationalism, and the banning of abortion.

So basically what you're saying is that you're not going to address the contradiction in terms that you keep using. The other things are for a different thread and I won't derail this one. I'm calling you out for repeating the same exact thing that you said before, sidestepping the legitimate criticism from multiple members. Please address the issue.

Perhaps "conservative revolutionary" is the wrong term. What I am trying to say is that as I see it the course of progress has gotten off track. Traditional values are needed to get civilisation progressing in the right direction. Certainly not all traditional values --reviving feudalism is hardly on my agenda, and the rise of science during the Enlightenment was incredibly valuable to mankind-- but the ones I described are important.
I was operating on a looser definition of the term conservative than the other members. I'm trying to think of a better term now.

RedSun wrote:Perhaps "conservative revolutionary" is the wrong term. What I am trying to say is that as I see it the course of progress has gotten off track. Traditional values are needed to get civilisation progressing in the right direction. Certainly not all traditional values --reviving feudalism is hardly on my agenda, and the rise of science during the Enlightenment was incredibly valuable to mankind-- but the ones I described are important.
I was operating on a looser definition of the term conservative than the other members. I'm trying to think of a better term now.

So why would some traditional values be supported and not others?

Godfaesten wrote:So why would some traditional values be supported and not others?

Well, some of them led to nothing other than subjugation, e.g., the class system, ,,Kinder, Kueche, Kirche", slavery, &c.
Other traditional values, on the other hand, help hold society together. Men and women biologically tend to act differently, and this should be encouraged. I think Fight Club did a wonderful job of showing the emotional turmoil resulting from the modern loss of masculinity. My positions on marriage and abortion are for religious reasons. I think adherence to tradition is also much more closely tied to collectivism, in contrast to the present, decidedly individualistic state of things.

RedSun wrote:Well, some of them led to nothing other than subjugation, e.g., the class system, ,,Kinder, Kueche, Kirche", slavery, &c.
Other traditional values, on the other hand, help hold society together. Men and women biologically tend to act differently, and this should be encouraged. I think Fight Club did a wonderful job of showing the emotional turmoil resulting from the modern loss of masculinity. My positions on marriage and abortion are for religious reasons. I think adherence to tradition is also much more closely tied to collectivism, in contrast to the present, decidedly individualistic state of things.

How do you pick which values are reactionary and unfair? The criteria that you would most likely use would be ideas made from rational argument. Those ideas are affected by material conditions. After a proletarian revolution the material conditions will change dramatically, so, in turn, the ideas of the time will most likely change as well. If you use current criteria (ideas) to determine which are 'bad' and 'good' then why not just go a step further and come up with your own ideas as to how to set society up better than before, even if you use traditional values as a base? Doing so is how you critique current society and move towards a better one, you know this but I thought I should say it anyway.

The main problem that I have with your position on gender roles is that it fits an outdated model of gender. People who are Trans-gender should not feel pressured in any way to act in a manner that does not match their inner gender. The same goes for others in the LGBTX community. If you think that everyone should be able to self-determine their own course in life then social coercion should be the opposite of your goal. If forcing a gender upon someone is not something that you wish to do then why bring up gender roles at all, especially if they're natural? If you want to defend against such coercion then I stand with you. If a man wishes to act as a gentleman in a non-chauvinistic manner, or some other non-'macho' stereotype I fully welcome him to do so. If he however insists on treating women as glass objects then I will think him an idiot.

Red Aegis wrote:People who are Trans-gender should not feel pressured in any way to act in a manner that does not match their inner gender. The same goes for others in the LGBTX community. If you think that everyone should be able to self-determine their own course in life then social coercion should be the opposite of your goal. If forcing a gender upon someone is not something that you wish to do then why bring up gender roles at all, especially if they're natural? If you want to defend against such coercion then I stand with you. If a man wishes to act as a gentleman in a non-chauvinistic manner, or some other non-'macho' stereotype I fully welcome him to do so. If he however insists on treating women as glass objects then I will think him an idiot.

Gender is a biological fact.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Gender is a biological fact.

Gender is a biological fact, that true. Gender is not binary though. That is also true. I also do not appreciate the troll post and weak attempt at flaming.

Red Aegis wrote:Gender is a biological fact, that true. Gender is not binary though. That is also true. I also do not appreciate the troll post and weak attempt at flaming.

Sorry man, but you set yourself up for it.

Gender is binary. There is a male gender, and a female gender when talking about the human specie. I wish to be proven wrong.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Sorry man, but you set yourself up for it.

Gender is binary. There is a male gender, and a female gender when talking about the human specie. I wish to be proven wrong.

http://web.uvic.ca/~ahdevor/HowMany/HowMany.html Boom.

Red Aegis wrote:http://web.uvic.ca/~ahdevor/HowMany/HowMany.html Boom.

Well, thank you for traumatizing me for life with those pictures near the bottom, but the author is not at all being very honest. Gender is based on chromosomes and not what a person "feels".

For example he states

Transsexed - identify themselves and to live as another gender and as another sex.

TRANSGENDERED feel that they do not fit well as either women or men.

I could feel like and identify myself as a panda and go live in the Chinese rain forests living off bamboo but that doesn't make it a reality and quite frankly I probably deserve to be in a padded room.

Prove it.

Red Aegis wrote:why not just go a step further and come up with your own ideas as to how to set society up better than before, even if you use traditional values as a base? Doing so is how you critique current society and move towards a better one, you know this but I thought I should say it anyway.

That is essentially what I'm doing; I apologise if I was unclear. I'm not coming up with my own ideas precisely because conditions change.

The main problem that I have with your position on gender roles is that it fits an outdated model of gender. People who are Trans-gender should not feel pressured in any way to act in a manner that does not match their inner gender. The same goes for others in the LGBTX community. If you think that everyone should be able to self-determine their own course in life then social coercion should be the opposite of your goal. If forcing a gender upon someone is not something that you wish to do then why bring up gender roles at all, especially if they're natural? If you want to defend against such coercion then I stand with you. If a man wishes to act as a gentleman in a non-chauvinistic manner, or some other non-'macho' stereotype I fully welcome him to do so. If he however insists on treating women as glass objects then I will think him an idiot.

How about people who think they're actually bees? Or vampires? Should we allow them to act in a way that matches their inner species? If I wanted everyone to self-determine their own course in life regardless of the impact on others I'd go back and pick up Atlas Shrugged. One has to take the larger society into account sometimes, and while I absolutely don't intend to discriminate against transsexuals (knowing one myself, I get the impression that gender reassignment is actually the best therapy; no, this is not an "I have lots of black friends" argument) I also know that the rest of the population would do well to take some inspiration from the older ways.

Prove what? Should I post a picture of myself to prove I am not a panda?..

A six year old refutes the argument:

RedSun wrote:How about people who think they're actually bees? Or vampires? Should we allow them to act in a way that matches their inner species? If I wanted everyone to self-determine their own course in life regardless of the impact on others I'd go back and pick up Atlas Shrugged. One has to take the larger society into account sometimes, and while I absolutely don't intend to discriminate against transsexuals (knowing one myself, I get the impression that gender reassignment is actually the best therapy; no, this is not an "I have lots of black friends" argument) I also know that the rest of the population would do well to take some inspiration from the older ways.

You're equating private freedoms with economic and political decisions. As for people who identify as 'furries', they should be able to be as strange as they wish as long as it doesn't harm another. I believe that everyone should be able to do what they wish as long as it does not interfere with another's freedoms. This is not to say that I support one trying to gain more wealth over another, as per your Objectivist reference. Such and act would be interfering in the economic freedoms of others and give the perpetrator more power. Having sex dressed as a tiger does no such thing.

Pantheon Rising wrote:Prove what? Should I post a picture of myself to prove I am not a panda?..

A six year old refutes the argument:

I gave you a scholarly article, you gave me a clip from Kindergarten Cop. How cute. Would you like a cookie little boy?

If you wish to have a real discussion don't waste my time with such immature satire of logic.

Red Aegis wrote:You're equating private freedoms with economic and political decisions. As for people who identify as 'furries', they should be able to be as strange as they wish as long as it doesn't harm another. I believe that everyone should be able to do what they wish as long as it does not interfere with another's freedoms. This is not to say that I support one trying to gain more wealth over another, as per your Objectivist reference. Such and act would be interfering in the economic freedoms of others and give the perpetrator more power. Having sex dressed as a tiger does no such thing.

Sexual peculiarities are one thing. A society which accepts self-concepts which are fundamentally detached from reality as alternative lifestyles is another. As transsexuals find out, one's gender is a key part of one's mental health. Gender differences serve a purpose. Gender is binary.

RedSun wrote:Sexual peculiarities are one thing. A society which accepts self-concepts which are fundamentally detached from reality as alternative lifestyles is another. As transsexuals find out, one's gender is a key part of one's mental health. Gender differences serve a purpose. Gender is binary.

Please define these self-concepts so that I may address this.

Red Aegis wrote:I gave you a scholarly article, you gave me a clip from Kindergarten Cop. How cute. Would you like a cookie little boy?

If you wish to have a real discussion don't waste my time with such immature satire of logic.

Scholarly article? The man started defining gender based on how one feels and what one identifies as. A total detachment from all reality.

This should give you basic info on how sex is determined.

http://biology.about.com/od/basicgenetics/p/chromosgender.htm

Simple stuff really. Women have an X chromosome and men have both X and Y. If during fertilization you get an XX match its a female if you get an XY its a male. Males have XY chromosomes and are usually born with a phallus where as females have XX chromosomes and are usually born with a vagina. I thought you enlightenment folks bought into science and reason?

With that said, Kindergarten Cop was a perfectly good movie, and many adults enjoy it. It teaches us a thing or two about science as well.

I'm not entirely sure how you want me to clarify this; I already mentioned people who think they're not human. Shall I link to the tumblr page of the person who has 13 separate personalities, each of which in some way departs from the human norm?

RedSun wrote:I'm not entirely sure how you want me to clarify this; I already mentioned people who think they're not human. Shall I link to the tumblr page of the person who has 13 separate personalities, each of which in some way departs from the human norm?

Such things are rare, are you concerned that they will 'infect' others? If not, and provided that they are not dangerous physically, why do you care what they self-identify as?

Because society puts up with this. Society creates conditions where people whose mental stability is in my opinion an open question can retreat entirely from society into small groups where they will be reassured and told it's just an alternative lifestyle. Because I can't help but see a slippery slope effect happening: hyperfeminism to effeminate men (gay or straight) to androgynes to "nonhumans". We haven't reached the end of history, so what comes next?

RedSun wrote:Because society puts up with this. Society creates conditions where people whose mental stability is in my opinion an open question can retreat entirely from society into small groups where they will be reassured and told it's just an alternative lifestyle. Because I can't help but see a slippery slope effect happening: hyperfeminism to effeminate men (gay or straight) to androgynes to "nonhumans". We haven't reached the end of history, so what comes next?

You still have yet to tell me why you care about any of that.

Pantheon Rising wrote:This should give you basic info on how sex is determined.

You are aware that sex (being biological) and gender (being cultural) are not identical concepts, are you not?

Red Aegis wrote:You still have yet to tell me why you care about any of that.

Because no society which is willing to undermine the most fundamental aspects of its citizens' identity is going to last very long at all. It will come apart at the seams.