Europa Universalis IV – How we changed the world
- Thread starter Regina
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
Men and women have profound and innate differences in their capabilities and desires. Besides the obvious differences in physical strength, etc., hormones for instance make men more aggressive and women more prone to compromise. Meanwhile, while men and women have equal average intelligence, men have far more IQ variance, so there are more male geniuses and imbeciles, and the sexes also perform differently on different subtests. Finally, differences in breeding patterns (procreation is MUCH more of an investment for the woman, and one man can impregnate multiple women) also contribute to behavioral differences.
So masculinity and femininity aren't mere "social constructs" and the result of societal training, as a Cultural Marxist would say. They are terms which refer to clusters of behaviors and attributes which we developed over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution as hunter-gatherers, and which are very much present in more sophisticated civilizations.
For instance, hierarchy, authority, and conflict are part of the masculine sphere, whereas equality, consensus, and accommodation are inherently feminine. Because men have much more IQ variance and one man can impregnate multiple women, men are much more hierarchical and less egalitarian than women. In the natural state, a man is worth what he produces for the tribe, whereas women are, in a sense, all equally valuable because their reproductive potential is limited. Now, all sophisticated civilizations invent monogamy as a necessary measure to keep less valuable men in line and productive, but the remnants of the old mentality are still there, and men are still very hierarchical by nature. The lowest-status members of society like criminals and permanent homeless are virtually all men because men are inclined to protect women and look down upon men who aren't self-sufficient. Think of "women and children first," conscription, the numerous historical programs to take care of women, and so on. Now, the leaders of society have historically been men as well, and it is again because of these factors. Men are more aggressive/competitive, and geniuses (like idiots) are overwhelmingly male, so men are naturally going to be more inclined to rise to the top. As a consequence of all this, we can safely say that hierarchical leadership is an inherently masculine thing. Warfare falls under the same category, both because the people sent to die in wars have always been and will always be men (both because of physical strength and the fact that they are seen as more disposable than women), and because military tactics/strategy relies very heavily on visual-spatial intelligence, which men tend to have more of.
So what is the feminine sphere? It's mostly about the home, but in a broader sense involves civil and voluntary society in general. Because of their biological indispensability and narrower intellectual bell curve, women are more empathetic and compassionate. They are egalitarian by nature (especially with each other) and prefer consensus-based decision-making. They also have greater verbal intelligence and often can read the complexities of social situations much more quickly and effectively than men. Historically, women played the extremely vital role of running the home and raising the children, but even beyond this, middle- and upper- class women have traditionally played a distinctly feminine role in keeping society afloat. Charities, churches, and voluntary societies have always depended primarily on female labor. Men have always turned to their wives for advice and perspective (and more importantly, a kind and sympathetic ear to come home to after being yelled at all day). Finally, women are by far superior as hostesses and general arbiters of social gatherings.
So, in a nutshell, a woman who is a great hostess and household administrator, who creates a soothing home environment, who routinely offers her husband sound advice and perspective on social situations, who spearheads charity and volunteering missions, and who effectively raises a large number of children, is a woman of great feminine achievement. Meanwhile, if a woman achieves great things as a ruler or general (and to a lesser extent, as a CEO/lawyer/scientist/etc.), she is excelling in the masculine sphere. Now, I definitely think that can be an impressive feat (I'm a huge Margaret Thatcher fano), but to imply as though "Great" or "Strong" women are the ones whose achievements are masculine in nature is an insult to the many millions of great wives and mothers who do amazing things for society behind the scenes every day and always have. The simple fact of the matter is that women tend to like and excel at different things than men, and denying this or attributing everything to "cultural training" is lunacy.
As to whether being a doctor or truck driver is "empowering," I'd say yes and no. On one hand, technology has allowed women to be economically competitive with men where they couldn't before, and this has increased their power in certain respects. To put it bluntly, it has given them a masculine sort of power. But this trend is eventually going to lead to women losing a lot of their social privileges and leverage (their "feminine power", i.e. the power that makes men go jump in the trenches for them without hesitation) as men start to give up on chivalry and everyone becomes more androgynous. To my mind, this will just result in women becoming less happy because it will entail them drifting away from their natural predispositions (and if you look at statistical data on female depression rates, it seems the process has already started happening).
Since you have written such an excellent reply to me and explained all your viewpoints so eloquently, I will try to do the same even though I very much disagree with you.
I had never heard of the term “cultural marxism” before, but if that means pretty much the opposite of you are saying, then you could say that I am one.
So, many of your arguments are based on the fact that women and men are biologically different. I won't deny that, and the history of the relationship between them is very much shaped by the fact that women can give birth, whilst men can't. Men are stronger than women. I don't disagree there.
I do think that femininity and masculinity are social constructs, especially the part that says leadership is a typically masculine trait, and that leadership is necessarily a masculine sphere.
In our society, children learn from a very early age what roles they are born into. Boys' heroes are brave and active, girls' heroes are pretty and love their men. But girls usually perform better than boys in school, and in recent years more and more women are achieving leadership positions both in government and the workplace. The biological differences do exist, but they are negligible in the world you and I inhabit. I'd argue that social mores and expectations play a much larges role in shaping the roles of women in society. When women are given the same opportunities as men, without stigmas or social expectations, they can excel in the same fields as men. Their role in raising children doesn't have to be a problem, as many modern states have generous maternity (and paternity) leave and kindergartens to off-set that disadvantage.
If the lines between men and women become blurred because of these things, as you suggest, I welcome that. Some traditions aren't worth holding on to.
The idea that bread-winning=a male sphere and keeping a home=a female sphere is a social construct that exists because we allow it to. In recent years there has been an increase in the number of stay-at-home dads, and women (although they still earn less than men on average) have become economically independent from men. This is only a good thing, and I question the link between this development and a rise in depression for women, which I have heard nothing about. If women are more depressed than women it could just as likely be because of social stigmas and inequality (perhaps the stress of keeping a job and a home at the same time, because they are expected to).
If a woman's role is to be a dutiful wife who supports her husband when he needs it, then her role is second to his. As a man, I have no trouble seeing why that is degrading. In a modern society, a wife should be equal to her husband. A woman should also be able to never marry, perhaps sleep with a bunch of different men without being ostracized. Sadly, that's not the case yet.
While single, promiscuous men are “players” and probably pretty cool and suave guys. Is that fair?
Why can't we just say is a great hostess and household administrator, who creates a soothing home environment, who routinely offers her husband sound advice and perspective on social situations, who spearheads charity and volunteering missions, and who effectively raises a large number of children, is a woman of great achievement and leave it at that?
There is no reason why we can't say exactly the same about the women listed in this thread. We know so little about the vast majority of the women that shaped history exactly because men and women were unequal for so long. They still are, and that is why we still need a women's day.
To disregard the achievements of the women in this thread is wrong; the fact that there are so many rulers here only shows how neglected women are in history; living in the shadow of men for so long
Just in summary and to satisfy the tl;dr crowd; I think the biological differences between the sexes are too small to make a large difference, and that masculine and feminine roles are shaped by society.
Unfortunately none of us have any sources to back up our claims. If you'd like to continue this debate, I'd be happy to look for relevant studies and see you refute my points if you can.
Although maybe in a different arena so we don't ruin this thread with politics.
EDIT: Looks like I forgot what you said about not wanting a debate. Me neither, but if you are the kind of person who always needs to have the last word. Well. :happy:
Last edited:
.png){kind=avatar}
That's because the devs are thankfully somewhat less leftist than these PR people.
I must be quite naive for not realizing the communist background of "International Womens' Day" until yesterday. The date is of course RUSSIAN REVOLUTION DAY (ok, at least it's only the February Revolution day, but still, really?).
Civilization is a social construct.
Last edited:
That is because the demonstrations on March 8th was a spark that had a role in causing the February revolution, which, if you know anything about revolutions, came before the October revolution (the Marxist one) and lead to the creation of a short-lived republic. Correlation does not equal causation.
That is because the demonstrations on March 8th was a spark that had a role in causing the February revolution, which, if you know anything about revolutions, came before the October revolution (the Marxist one) and lead to the creation of a short-lived republic. Correlation does not equal causation.
The fixing of the date on March 8th is based on commemoration of the February Revolution.
I see you're right, I apologize. It's possible to be a feminist and not a leftie, though.
And maybe the lefties even have a few good points?
Men and women have profound and innate differences in their capabilities and desires. Besides the obvious differences in physical strength, etc., hormones for instance make men more aggressive and women more prone to compromise. Meanwhile, while men and women have equal average intelligence, men have far more IQ variance, so there are more male geniuses and imbeciles, and the sexes also perform differently on different subtests. Finally, differences in breeding patterns (procreation is MUCH more of an investment for the woman, and one man can impregnate multiple women) also contribute to behavioral differences.
So masculinity and femininity aren't mere "social constructs" and the result of societal training, as a Cultural Marxist would say. They are terms which refer to clusters of behaviors and attributes which we developed over hundreds of thousands of years of evolution as hunter-gatherers, and which are very much present in more sophisticated civilizations.
For instance, hierarchy, authority, and conflict are part of the masculine sphere, whereas equality, consensus, and accommodation are inherently feminine. Because men have much more IQ variance and one man can impregnate multiple women, men are much more hierarchical and less egalitarian than women. In the natural state, a man is worth what he produces for the tribe, whereas women are, in a sense, all equally valuable because their reproductive potential is limited. Now, all sophisticated civilizations invent monogamy as a necessary measure to keep less valuable men in line and productive, but the remnants of the old mentality are still there, and men are still very hierarchical by nature. The lowest-status members of society like criminals and permanent homeless are virtually all men because men are inclined to protect women and look down upon men who aren't self-sufficient. Think of "women and children first," conscription, the numerous historical programs to take care of women, and so on. Now, the leaders of society have historically been men as well, and it is again because of these factors. Men are more aggressive/competitive, and geniuses (like idiots) are overwhelmingly male, so men are naturally going to be more inclined to rise to the top. As a consequence of all this, we can safely say that hierarchical leadership is an inherently masculine thing. Warfare falls under the same category, both because the people sent to die in wars have always been and will always be men (both because of physical strength and the fact that they are seen as more disposable than women), and because military tactics/strategy relies very heavily on visual-spatial intelligence, which men tend to have more of.
So what is the feminine sphere? It's mostly about the home, but in a broader sense involves civil and voluntary society in general. Because of their biological indispensability and narrower intellectual bell curve, women are more empathetic and compassionate. They are egalitarian by nature (especially with each other) and prefer consensus-based decision-making. They also have greater verbal intelligence and often can read the complexities of social situations much more quickly and effectively than men. Historically, women played the extremely vital role of running the home and raising the children, but even beyond this, middle- and upper- class women have traditionally played a distinctly feminine role in keeping society afloat. Charities, churches, and voluntary societies have always depended primarily on female labor. Men have always turned to their wives for advice and perspective (and more importantly, a kind and sympathetic ear to come home to after being yelled at all day). Finally, women are by far superior as hostesses and general arbiters of social gatherings.
So, in a nutshell, a woman who is a great hostess and household administrator, who creates a soothing home environment, who routinely offers her husband sound advice and perspective on social situations, who spearheads charity and volunteering missions, and who effectively raises a large number of children, is a woman of great feminine achievement. Meanwhile, if a woman achieves great things as a ruler or general (and to a lesser extent, as a CEO/lawyer/scientist/etc.), she is excelling in the masculine sphere. Now, I definitely think that can be an impressive feat (I'm a huge Margaret Thatcher fan
As to whether being a doctor or truck driver is "empowering," I'd say yes and no. On one hand, technology has allowed women to be economically competitive with men where they couldn't before, and this has increased their power in certain respects. To put it bluntly, it has given them a masculine sort of power. But this trend is eventually going to lead to women losing a lot of their social privileges and leverage (their "feminine power", i.e. the power that makes men go jump in the trenches for them without hesitation) as men start to give up on chivalry and everyone becomes more androgynous. To my mind, this will just result in women becoming less happy because it will entail them drifting away from their natural predispositions (and if you look at statistical data on female depression rates, it seems the process has already started happening).
Wow, it's almost as if you believe that you're smart for reiterating such age-old gender "truisms". I'm glad you have found a reconcile hyper-traditional thinking with current events, but we've seen all the stuff you're parroting a great many times before. As such, I'm afraid you're not going to persuade anyone with your theory, and all that your post will achieve in this thread is preaching to the small choir of individuals who already share your retrogressive (IMO) ideas.
Just because a fact has been known for a long time does not make it untrue.
Roflmao. This thread started out fine like all others celebrating the achievements of famous women and remembering them both the good and the bad things some of them did much like the men of their time.
Then for some reason crazy reactionaries decided this was the thread to storm and come up with conspiracies of "cultural marxism" (whatever that means) being imposed on us (by our ironically heavily capitalistic society...which makes no sense). And how women are actually equal, happy and free when they go back to the kitchens and lose all their rights.
To this I can only see one thing...I pity you people, seriously. I cannot imagine how miserable it is must be to think like that, to be so horribly limited that you can actually believe that nonsense.
Then for some reason crazy reactionaries decided this was the thread to storm and come up with conspiracies of "cultural marxism" (whatever that means) being imposed on us (by our ironically heavily capitalistic society...which makes no sense). And how women are actually equal, happy and free when they go back to the kitchens and lose all their rights.
To this I can only see one thing...I pity you people, seriously. I cannot imagine how miserable it is must be to think like that, to be so horribly limited that you can actually believe that nonsense.
To be honest, there's been some nonsentical posts from both sides. I guess there's just rampant trolling aloof and folks that aren't susicious take it for being too serious starts jumping in.
There's nothing to see here.
The hard right, rather like the hard left, lives in a different world than the rest of us. And both are obsessed with Marx :laugh:
For whatever reason far right posters are generally more obnoxious than far left posters, in my experience.
For whatever reason far right posters are generally more obnoxious than far left posters, in my experience.
Many thanks for the kind words. I don't think we'll be convincing each other of anything any time soon, so why don't we just agree to disagree for now?
But just to clarify for you and the other people ITT who don't know what we're talking about regarding Cultural Marxism--
Cultural Marxism refers to the attempt to bring down capitalism by attacking the social institutions which support it, such as Christianity, gender roles, the traditional family, hierarchy/masculinity, and so on. It originated with what is known as the Frankfurt School--a group of German leftist academicians who decided that economic Marxism was untenable and pushed for a more indirect route. They fled Germany during the Nazi period and came to the US, where they very successfully began infiltrating the humanities and soft sciences and started winning thousands of journalists and politicians to their cause. They agitate very heavily for the blank slate theory of human nature (the "standard social science model"), and militantly censor any intellectual who criticizes this idea with various slurs. Among our generation, they are represented by SJW types and the Privilege Police.
So this isn't a "precious bodily fluids" right-wing conspiracy thing, it really exists and is an influential movement.
Well yes, but it's probably not a good idea to mention that when you're arguing against their ideas or people will have a heart attack :rofl:.
Did you notice that you just recited some of the major reasons for sorrow in this world? In this context, cultural Marxist seem more like heroes of their time to me.
They reason why i get an ill feeling when hearing this phrase nowadays, is because it is mainly used in articles like these:
http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41737/
To quote the introduction:
We have a nice, not insulting, term for people who think like this in German: "Ewiggestrige"
Analogously translated it means "People, who live yesterday and always will". I guess you could call them "Die hards" in English.
And, sorry, but your use of terms like "infiltrating" and "Privilege Police" in this context makes you look like a showpiece for this particular mindset.
Well, I obviously disagree with just about everything you said, but debating the issue isn't going to budge either of us.
The point is that Cultural Marxism is a genuine and powerful movement which is very out in the open about its intentions. Nobody is theorizing about a conspiracy, we're just pointing out what is being said and documenting its intellectual history. As such, people should stop referring to any mention of Cultural Marxism as a "conspiracy theory".
Although I do think his "facts" are untrue, that has nothing to do with my post. My post was a response to the preachy (to the point of seeming self-congratulatory) nature of his lecturing, pointing out that he's not adding anything new to the discussion by parroting his reactionary status quo BS.
That's not true, Habermas wasn't Jewish afaik and he was probably the most important representative of the Frankfurter Schule, together with Adorno (a Christian) and Horkheimer (who had jewish Ancestors). He even went much further than them in some areas.
Anyway, most of the German Jews saw themselves just as German as Hans Müller next door. It was more like the Nazis and other nationalistic racists before them decided they weren't German anymore.
Or don't sound Max, Theodor and Jürgen pretty German to you? :rofl:
Last edited:
Well, you made it sound pretty conspirational imho. When i hear a sentence like this
... i can't help myself thinking about James Bond or the Illuminati.
Maybe i just don't get it due to cultural differences, probably something like the usage of the term "liberal" as an insult by conservatives in the US, which i just can't put my mind around either.
Anyway, i'm coming over to undermine your school system as a teacher next year if everything works out as planned
Last edited:
I disagree with Prodicus that there is a unified movement seeking to undermine social institutions. I have to say I think the institutions mentioned need underminding, or at the very least some critical re-evaluating.
I agree that we're not getting anywhere with this debate, though. It's obvious that we come from different cultures just judging from the avatars and usernames many of the people disagreeing with him are European. So am I. Things are very different on each side of the pond. From the description of what the cultural marxists are trying to undermine, you could argue that they've already won in my country and Sweden.
I agree that we're not getting anywhere with this debate, though. It's obvious that we come from different cultures just judging from the avatars and usernames many of the people disagreeing with him are European. So am I. Things are very different on each side of the pond. From the description of what the cultural marxists are trying to undermine, you could argue that they've already won in my country and Sweden.
- Status