Three boyfriends die protecting girlfriends during "Dark Knight" shooting

[Teacher]

I'm wondering how neoclassical economics explains this. I'm guessing the marginal utility of dying outweighed the opportunity cost of survivor guilt? Or something.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/aurora-shooting-boyfriends-died-protecting-girlfriends_n_1695290.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

[The Jay]

They were good people that loved their partners. They will be remembered. People are more selfless than it seems most of the time.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Thread moved to Non-Political

[Rafiq]

I'm wondering how neoclassical economics explains this. I'm guessing the marginal utility of dying outweighed the opportunity cost of survivor guilt? Or something.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/aurora-shooting-boyfriends-died-protecting-girlfriends_n_1695290.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

:rolleyes:

What exactly are you trying to imply? The same could be said except, replace Neoclassical economics with Marxian economics. We aren't hippies, or spiritualists, but strict materialists. I'd explain this by pointing out that the capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois family structure with it coerces males to "protect" their mates, i.e. their girlfriends.

[#FF0000]

idk man i'd like to think i'd do this for my gf/friend/family.

[Agent Ducky]

I hate how some people are trying to make this into a gender issue. This one guy posted a picture about it and said "See, girls, not all guys are the same"
Which implies that we think all guys are the same, but that wasn't the problem.
He also said "How many girls would die to save their boyfriends?"
Seriously? Take a tragedy and turn it into a way to call women selfish?
I called him out on it and he said something vague about "male expendability" which he wouldn't explain to me. Is anyone else familiar with that concept?

[eric922]

I really don't think this is something that can be explained by economics. Neoclassical or otherwise. I'm not sure why you would try.

[Igor]

people don't really act rationally when shit like this happens so any attempts to rationalize it doesn't have much point in it. you just do things, driven by your basic instincts. is this kind of behaviour encouraged by patriarchal attitudes? perhaps. did it have any kind of effect in this case? we don't know, we never will, nor does it really interest me personally. what they did was bold and selfless and i'd like to think it's what i'd do myself too. but it's not like i'd make rational, well-thought decisions if i were suddenly shot at so there's pretty much only one way to ever know, meaning i don't even want to find out.

[Revolution starts with U]

:rolleyes:

What exactly are you trying to imply? The same could be said except, replace Neoclassical economics with Marxian economics. We aren't hippies, or spiritualists, but strict materialists. I'd explain this by pointing out that the capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois family structure with it coerces males to "protect" their mates, i.e. their girlfriends.

Could the same thing be said? When would a Marxist say "the marginal utility of.. outweighs...?" Do Marxists even do that whole "marginal utility" thing?

[Stand Your Ground]

Why would anyone try to bash or discredit or fuck with their reasoning of why they did it? Who gives a shit? I'd say that's pretty damn brave of them. Not everyone has the same amount of guts or bravery to do things that some other people do. Self preservation is a very common trait, most would duck and look for cover for themselves rather than take a bullet for someone.

[Tim Finnegan]

:rolleyes:

What exactly are you trying to imply? The same could be said except, replace Neoclassical economics with Marxian economics. We aren't hippies, or spiritualists, but strict materialists. I'd explain this by pointing out that the capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois family structure with it coerces males to "protect" their mates, i.e. their girlfriends.
I really do hate you.

[bcbm]

I'd explain this by pointing out that the capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois family structure with it coerces males to "protect" their mates, i.e. their girlfriends.

actually i think this sort of 'instinct' to protect those close to you probably goes back much, much further to our days as hominids recently come down from the tress and entering the dangerous savannah where male members of the group were probably positioned on the outside of the group for defense. although women likely had a large share in the defense of proto-human bands, judging from the lack of dimorphism when compared to our ape relatives with similar dilemmas.

[Kenco Smooth]

actually i think this sort of 'instinct' to protect those close to you probably goes back much, much further to our days as hominids recently come down from the tress and entering the dangerous savannah where male members of the group were probably positioned on the outside of the group for defense. although women likely had a large share in the defense of proto-human bands, judging from the lack of dimorphism when compared to our ape relatives with similar dilemmas.

But don't you know that that argument is idealist so Rafiq doesn't have to engage with it? :rolleyes:

Our lack of sexual size dimorphism is probably more to do with the lower levels of male competition over single females for reproduction. Same reason human's have relatively small testes compared to apes. But otherwise I'm in agreement. The evolution of the romantic emotions most likely occurred as it led to this sort of behaviour which is of evolutionary use.

[bcbm]

Our lack of sexual size dimorphism is probably more to do with the lower levels of male competition over single females for reproduction. Same reason human's have relatively small testes compared to apes. But otherwise I'm in agreement. The evolution of the romantic emotions most likely occurred as it led to this sort of behaviour which is of evolutionary use.

in band societies though people dont really do the 'single partner' thing which is why i suggest this is more a 'protect your group' instinct. lacking such groups today that instinct probably just transfers to those we are especially close to. agreed that the dimorphism has multiple causes. i think being able to defend the group is one aspect and our group sexual behavior another

[Yuppie Grinder]

:rolleyes:

What exactly are you trying to imply? The same could be said except, replace Neoclassical economics with Marxian economics. We aren't hippies, or spiritualists, but strict materialists. I'd explain this by pointing out that the capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois family structure with it coerces males to "protect" their mates, i.e. their girlfriends.

It's admirable that three young men died protecting the people they loved. There's nothing wrong with celebrating that sort of bravery.
It's like you see every conversation as an opportunity to point fingers and accuse others of being not as legit a Marxist as you.

[cynicles]

I hate how some people are trying to make this into a gender issue. This one guy posted a picture about it and said "See, girls, not all guys are the same"
Which implies that we think all guys are the same, but that wasn't the problem.
He also said "How many girls would die to save their boyfriends?"
Seriously? Take a tragedy and turn it into a way to call women selfish?
I called him out on it and he said something vague about "male expendability" which he wouldn't explain to me. Is anyone else familiar with that concept?

I do, it more widely known as general chauvinism.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I hate how some people are trying to make this into a gender issue. This one guy posted a picture about it and said "See, girls, not all guys are the same"
Which implies that we think all guys are the same, but that wasn't the problem.
He also said "How many girls would die to save their boyfriends?"
Seriously? Take a tragedy and turn it into a way to call women selfish?
I called him out on it and he said something vague about "male expendability" which he wouldn't explain to me. Is anyone else familiar with that concept?

It's an obscure term for what's more commonly known as middle class, heteronormative white boys convincing themselves they're oppressed.

[Rafiq]

I really do hate you.


But don't you know that that argument is idealist so Rafiq doesn't have to engage with it? :rolleyes:




It's like you see every conversation as an opportunity to point fingers and accuse others of being not as legit a Marxist as you.

All three of you, do me a favor, and go fuck yourselves long and hard, yeah? I mean, it's like you only take a quick glance at each and every one of my posts and blow them out of proportion. I don't know, is this a form of projection?

[Rafiq]

idk man i'd like to think i'd do this for my gf/friend/family.

In many other societies with different family structures, or , in previous existing societies, the way in which you define "your family" and the way in which you perceive and interact with them would lead you to quite a different conclusion, should you have been born in any one of those societies.


I really don't think this is something that can be explained by economics. Neoclassical or otherwise. I'm not sure why you would try.

Well, what do you mean by "economics". Do you mean by uncle Joe saying "Ma'an, dur economy iz gettn worse' !", or do you mean the basis of all social existence, of the production and reproduction of life, i.e. The mode of production? Indeed, it very well could be.


Could the same thing be said? When would a Marxist say "the marginal utility of.. outweighs...?" Do Marxists even do that whole "marginal utility" thing?

No, we don't adhere to the theory of marginal utility, though we ascribe to the Theory of Value in it's place.


Why would anyone try to bash or discredit or fuck with their reasoning of why they did it? Who gives a shit? I'd say that's pretty damn brave of them. Not everyone has the same amount of guts or bravery to do things that some other people do. Self preservation is a very common trait, most would duck and look for cover for themselves rather than take a bullet for someone.

Ha, just wait one second. No, no, just wait one fucking second. Did I fucking criticize them for doing what they did? Huh? Did I? Did I make any moral criticism whatsoever? Did I, you piece of shit? Did I assert that the boy's shouldn't have protected their girlfriends? Was there any hint, any sign, any qualitive features in my post, that would let one come to the conclusion that I was criticizing them? That I said "hur, twas a bad thing dey did"? No? Then shut the fuck up.


actually i think this sort of 'instinct' to protect those close to you probably goes back much, much further to our days as hominids recently come down from the tress and entering the dangerous savannah where male members of the group were probably positioned on the outside of the group for defense. although women likely had a large share in the defense of proto-human bands, judging from the lack of dimorphism when compared to our ape relatives with similar dilemmas.

Oh, wow, an actual argument, for the first time in this thread! A decent one at that! (No, I'm not being sarcastic).

Of course, there does exist an instinct to protect those close to us. That is unquestionable. But the ways in which we classify who exists close to us, and who is not, the means in which we articulate those we are supposed to protect and those we aren't, are different in accordance with different existing societies. That was my point.


Our lack of sexual size dimorphism is probably more to do with the lower levels of male competition over single females for reproduction. Same reason human's have relatively small testes compared to apes. But otherwise I'm in agreement. The evolution of the romantic emotions most likely occurred as it led to this sort of behaviour which is of evolutionary use.

What? What exactly does this have to do with anything? Did I say the males were fighting over which females to protect, or something?


It's admirable that three young men died protecting the people they loved. There's nothing wrong with celebrating that sort of bravery.


Yeah, celebrate it all you want (though you can count me out). Just don't fucking celebrate it for the wrong reasons. Don't make this some kind of bullshit argument, that, "Yeah man, see, where 'all brothas and sisters, you nasty vulgar materialists can never explain why! It's spritiual stufff maan! We r naturally gud peeople! Capitaliszts aren't people! Dey aren't human!"

Because, of all things, that's an Idealist conviction. The boyfriends protecting their partners is in no way a signification that we're all communal, or altruistic, etc. That's bullshit mutualism, they same type of bullshit mutualism that was destroyed theoretically more than a hundred years ago. Say whatever bullshit you'd like about this occurance, though don't try and make it an argument against capitalism. That's called analyzing structures and behavior constrained and inherent to the capitalist mode of production, and utilizing those distinctive behavioral traits against the same system in which they are a product. It very much so reminds me of "Constitutionalists" who want to protect the same "Republic" in which ours was a product of, i.e. Using distinctively qualitative traits inherent to X (ego) and exemplifying them, or, blowing them out of proportion, if you will, to make an argument against X.

[Rafiq]

I hate how some people are trying to make this into a gender issue. This one guy posted a picture about it and said "See, girls, not all guys are the same"
Which implies that we think all guys are the same, but that wasn't the problem.
He also said "How many girls would die to save their boyfriends?"
Seriously? Take a tragedy and turn it into a way to call women selfish?
I called him out on it and he said something vague about "male expendability" which he wouldn't explain to me. Is anyone else familiar with that concept?

The problem here, though, precisely requires us to divulge into making a gender analysis. Now, firstly, the part about this being a tragedy, and therefore sacred, etc. I don't buy. Whatever tragedy comes about, there is nothing wrong with an analysis, even if that analysis may conflict with existing romanticist conceptions of such an event.

That isn't to say his was correct. The first part, of course, "See, not all guys are the same" is of course nothing short of excusing the guys that you'd percieve to be assholes. A proper response would be "So? What, is this a green light to stick my head up my ass, or something, in my perception of X gender".

The second part, "How many girlfriends would die protecting their boyfriends" is where the gender issue comes in. Now, before I start, I'd like to say that yes I recognize that many females would die protecting their mates. But the reason it's so uncommon is of issue. In patriarchal modes of organization, women, in terms of defending themselves, are expected to do so as much as children are. Women are signified that they must be weak, that a boyfriend must "protect" them, and therefore, you don't see as much women actually trying to bother getting stronger, instead, you find them starving themselves to satisfy the desires of the same men who "protect" them. Of course this isn't a biological issue, so we already know that this is an problem of social construction. In a post gender society, this obviously wouldn't be the same. Take a homosexual couple, and take a man in such a couple protecting his mate. It is then that we can draw a conclusion of admirably, because such a protection didn't exist because "You're weak, you need protection", but real self sacrifice, of which you deprived of allowing your partner to do the same, not because "it's his place in society", but because you perceive his (or her) existence more important. A lot of the conclusions from this event could be perceived as sexist, like, "SEE BOYS, THOSE ARE REAL MEN!".

As for the last part, Male expendability, it's a concept that rhetorically states, somewhere along the lines of "Women are more precious than men, men are easily replaced and therefore not as of value". Just a bunch of nonsense.

[The Jay]

:rolleyes:

What exactly are you trying to imply? The same could be said except, replace Neoclassical economics with Marxian economics. We aren't hippies, or spiritualists, but strict materialists. I'd explain this by pointing out that the capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois family structure with it coerces males to "protect" their mates, i.e. their girlfriends.


The reason that everyone is attacking you is because the above statement, whether you meant it or not, is dismissing - partially or totally - the sacrifices of people who held the safety of others over their own. The above statement implies that the fact that some of those behaviors are upheld by society means that they aren't actually brave. You are ignoring the human element in your statement.

[Agent Ducky]

Well, the correct analysis of that situation is kind of a given. Society tells women they're weak, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Thank you for the bit on male expendability.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I wonder what Rafiq is like at parties.
WHAT PURPOSE DOES BEER PONG AND DANCE MUSIC PLAY IN THE SCHEME OF CLASS WARFARE????????

[Os Cangaceiros]

regarding "male expendibility": I half-agree that such a thing may exist. Have you ever heard someone say "they killed everyone, even women and children", or some statement along those lines? It's something I've never really got...I mean, I get the children part, they haven't had as much time to experience life and such, but how does having testicles make one more prepared for being shot in the head? Hmmm.

[Stand Your Ground]

Ha, just wait one second. No, no, just wait one fucking second. Did I fucking criticize them for doing what they did? Huh? Did I? Did I make any moral criticism whatsoever? Did I, you piece of shit? Did I assert that the boy's shouldn't have protected their girlfriends? Was there any hint, any sign, any qualitive features in my post, that would let one come to the conclusion that I was criticizing them? That I said "hur, twas a bad thing dey did"? No? Then shut the fuck up.
Oh dear, someone's got their knickers in a bunch. :rolleyes: Did I say you did? Did I specifically target you? No I did not, so shut the fuck up.

[Agent Ducky]

I wonder what Rafiq is like at parties.
WHAT PURPOSE DOES BEER PONG AND DANCE MUSIC PLAY IN THE SCHEME OF CLASS WARFARE????????
Then if someone looks at him weird he calls them an idealist, childish piece of shit and very nearly starts a brawl.

[freeeveryone!]

regarding "male expendibility": I half-agree that such a thing may exist. Have you ever heard someone say "they killed everyone, even women and children", or some statement along those lines? It's something I've never really got...I mean, I get the children part, they haven't had as much time to experience life and such, but how does having testicles make one more prepared for being shot in the head? Hmmm.I'm going to have to give you a warning for presenting reality in a non-biased way as opposed to molding it to the standards of leftist conduct.

[#FF0000]

regarding "male expendibility": I half-agree that such a thing may exist. Have you ever heard someone say "they killed everyone, even women and children", or some statement along those lines? It's something I've never really got...I mean, I get the children part, they haven't had as much time to experience life and such, but how does having testicles make one more prepared for being shot in the head? Hmmm.

It sorta has connotations that men are meant for fighting and all that and are capable of defending themselves while women are helpless, you know? I don't think it's about "MEN ARE EXPENDABLE BLUGBDBOGBI" and more about "men are powerful and women are not".

[Rafiq]

I'm going to have to give you a warning for presenting reality in a non-biased way as opposed to molding it to the standards of leftist conduct.

Just shut up.

[La Guaneña]

regarding "male expendibility": I half-agree that such a thing may exist. Have you ever heard someone say "they killed everyone, even women and children", or some statement along those lines? It's something I've never really got...I mean, I get the children part, they haven't had as much time to experience life and such, but how does having testicles make one more prepared for being shot in the head? Hmmm.

First of all, our patriarchal society has almost always priorized men as combatants, since females are seen as weak. So in many cases the killing of the men is "normal", as they are combatants.

And even when the men are part of a civilian population, they are seen as capable of defending themselves, or potential combatants, while women can't, needing men to protect them, being put in the same scale of consideration as vulnerable children.

Either way, the logic comes from sexist thinking that puts females as being fully dependent on males, putting them on a situation of inferiority, and not the opposite.

[Capitalist Octopus]

This is a hilarious thread lmao. You guys sound like a bunch of elementary school children bickering hahaha, I love it :thumbup1:

[citizen of industry]

regarding "male expendibility": I half-agree that such a thing may exist. Have you ever heard someone say "they killed everyone, even women and children", or some statement along those lines? It's something I've never really got...I mean, I get the children part, they haven't had as much time to experience life and such, but how does having testicles make one more prepared for being shot in the head? Hmmm.

That's an interesting point. The whole strategy of the second world war was killing everyone and destroying everything, e.g; atomic bombs. No consideration whatsoever to age or gender. Though a soldier in that war might have hesitated to shoot a baby or a woman in the head. Because bombing is impersonal, I guess. But they would have probably hesitated to shoot an old man or a male civilian as well. So its more of a soldier vs. civilian distinction. The Soviets had a lot of women combatants, as did the Vietnamese. Neither the German or the American soldiers had any qualms about killing them.

[bcbm]

That's an interesting point. The whole strategy of the second world war was killing everyone and destroying everything, e.g; atomic bombs. No consideration whatsoever to age or gender. Though a soldier in that war might have hesitated to shoot a baby or a woman in the head. Because bombing is impersonal, I guess. But they would have probably hesitated to shoot an old man or a male civilian as well. So its more of a soldier vs. civilian distinction.

in world war ii and earlier only about 15 to 20 percent of soldiers fired their weapons at enemy soldiers in view, even if their own lives were in danger.

[Leo]

The same could be said except, replace Neoclassical economics with Marxian economics. We aren't hippies, or spiritualists, but strict materialists. I'd explain this by pointing out that the capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois family structure with it coerces males to "protect" their mates, i.e. their girlfriends.Strict materialists? Not exactly the best term. Ever heard of vulgar materialism?

Because, by describing a man protecting a woman in the face of danger as ultimately patriarchal, you've just equated someone taking a bullet for his girlfriend with someone beating his girlfriend.

Besides, this approach is quite unscientific. Males, genetically, are hard-wired to protect their mates in the face of physical danger - this genetic trait predates patriarchy by tens of thousands of years. The reason for this is pregnancy, where first of all the female is vulnerable and not as able to protect herself as the physically stronger, hunter male. Secondly and more importantly, the female is more important to the society than the male, mainly she is carrying its future in her womb but also because she takes care of gathering, which provides food more stably compared to the unpredictable nature of hunting.

Now, it might be that humanity isn't target of as much physical danger proportionally as it was in the days of primitive communism, or that women aren't always pregnant now with different methods of birth control and all so that physically they can be stronger. But an evolutionary characteristic which has a history of tens, even hundreds of thousands of years isn't going to disappear as a result of five thousand years of the civilization of class society, nor will it disappear as a result of five thousand years of communism.

If we want to make a cold materialist analysis of what these three boyfriends did, we have to say that they did what their genes, what their evolutionary characteristics told them to do, for the survival of the pack. The other option would also be to follow an evolutionary trait, albeit one which is in this case contradictory one to the survival of the pack - the survival of the individual.

This would likely manifest itself as them guarding themselves with their girlfriends' bodies rather than guarding their girlfriends with their own bodies.

[Kenco Smooth]

If we want to make a cold materialist analysis of what these three boyfriends did, we have to say that they did what their genes, what their evolutionary characteristics told them to do


Even then there's not some hidden off evolutionary homunculus whispering instructions to people. Those beneficial habits are encouraged through things like emotions and I think it's worth always keeping in mind that as far back as the causal train goes people who sacrifice themselves in such circumstances often do it, at least in art, out of deep feelings of love. There's nothing anti-scientific to that claim and I think it is important to remember that for all the talk of why they do this, that ultimately they were willing to give their own lives for the people they cared for, a braver act than most here will have ever undertaken and one that's deserving of respect in itself. Nothing wrong with explaining it like you did, some people just rush to explain that sacrifice away is the issue.

[Leo]

Even then there's not some hidden off evolutionary homunculus whispering instructions to people. Those beneficial habits are encouraged through things like emotions and I think it's worth always keeping in mind that as far back as the causal train goes people who sacrifice themselves in such circumstances often do it, at least in art, out of deep feelings of love. There's nothing anti-scientific to that claim

No, but where do these deep feelings of love come from, god?

[Kenco Smooth]

No, but where do these deep feelings of love come from, god?

Oh no you were completely right on the evolutionary explanation. It just seemed like many of the explanations in the thread missed the immediate cause of these actions.

[Tim Finnegan]

No, but where do these deep feelings of love come from, god?
Evolutionary impulses are necessarily mediated by culture and psychology, so it is not possible to say that these impulses unambiguously "come from" evolution any more than they "come from" culture. These are all abstractions from the concrete subject, which is in it itself an irreducible totality. This evolutionary reductionism is just a bad materialist reprieve of the "human nature" hypothesis, the same old conviction that there exists some pre-historical core to the subject, the logic proffered in its defence simply shifted from a spiritual to a genetic level. It is, not to put too fine a point of it, bollocks.

[brigadista]

people can be considerate of pregnant women but always puzzled me how when a woman is struggling with shopping, a baby buggy and a disgruntled toddler - no help to be seen....

:D:D

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

people can be considerate of pregnant women but always puzzled me how when a woman is struggling with shopping, a baby buggy and a disgruntled toddler - no help to be seen....

:D:D

People get understandably defensive when they're with their children, particularly if they're out alone. So offering to help someone with their kids in that situation might result in an unfavorable reaction, which is probably enough to put most people off from doing it.

[Leo]

Evolutionary impulses are necessarily mediated by culture and psychology, so it is not possible to say that these impulses unambiguously "come from" evolution any more than they "come from" culture. These are all abstractions from the concrete subject, which is in it itself an irreducible totality. This evolutionary reductionism is just a bad materialist reprieve of the "human nature" hypothesis, the same old conviction that there exists some pre-historical core to the subject, the logic proffered in its defence simply shifted from a spiritual to a genetic level. It is, not to put too fine a point of it, bollocks.

This is a foolish objection. Certainly, the concept love has different cultural and social meanings in different historical periods, however it wasn't love the concept which pushed these lads to guard their girlfriends with their bodies. They didn't plan this, they didn't calculate its consequences, they didn't even think about it. A person can't jump in front of a bullet to save someone after thinking - if he does, who that person wants to save will be likely dead long before he can even act. Social dynamics and who they've immensely contributed us to be in our actions before which we have the chance to think about, calculate the consequences of, plan ahead and discuss. However if you fail to see the direct evolutionary impulse in instinctive momentary acts like this, you are basically denying evolution because you are saying that humans are qualitatively different from other mammals physiologically and have no direct instinctive behavior.

[Tim Finnegan]

You think that culture exists only at the level of explicit conciousness? That psychology has no effect on our snap decisions? It's well-established, and I mean entirely beyond the point of debate, that both culture and individual psychology play major roles in pre-concious activity, and while they certainly develop in the terms laid out by biology, there is no deterministic relationship between them.

Even your account of this event as genetically-dictated assumes a certain enculturation, namely, the perception of their girlfriend as a permanent and exclusive mate, and therefore the non-universal practice of permanent heterosexual monogamy. The actions your attribute to the cold scheming of the genome simply do not make sense outside of their social and cultural contexts.

[Leo]

You think that culture exists only at the level of explicit conciousness? That psychology has no effect on our snap decisions?Oh, of course. The point you are missing is that human psychology itself is entirely determined by evolution and socio-culture.


It's well-established, and I mean entirely beyond the point of debate, that both culture and individual psychology play major roles in pre-concious activityYes, but in our practical habits, not in our instinctive acts. What I've learned in life and always have done, I keep doing it without being conscious. Yet one can't learn to jump in front of a bullet, because one tends to be able to do it only once.

If you are willing to claim anything beyond this is cultural, you end up attributing positive and negative qualities to different cultures, consequentially to different ethnic groups, nationalities, races. That's not a good road.


and while they certainly develop in the terms laid out by biology, there is no deterministic relationship between them.Determinism is a tricky subject, because often its understood or presented in too crude a way.

Now we have the genetics. They evolve, but they do so very slowly. Culture, or psychology do not and can not determine anything regarding the genes (well, I suppose they can now with genetic modification but anyway). We know how fast socio-cultures, or the social conditions have proven to be able to change compared to the nature of the genes. Certainly, it is impossible for the genes to direct these changes. They give an outline, and a vague one at best. How? Psychology. Genes have a very big part in how human psychology was shaped. Even a lot of things we think we do consciously, we do because our genes tell us to. So our physiology partially determines our psychology. Yet it is not the only determining factor. Our socio-culture also greatly determines our psychology. The tricky part stems from the fact that this effect is instantaneous, and the social dynamics that shape our psychology are vastly variable. This results in a situation where our socio-culture can also be effected and to an extent determined by our psychology, in other words an interaction.


Even your account of this event as genetically-dictated assumes a certain enculturation, namely, the perception of their girlfriend as a permanent and exclusive mate, and therefore the non-universal practice of permanent heterosexual monogamy.Yes, in this case, in the terms of the pretext they do. It is unlikely that they would have done this for someone else who wasn't their girlfriend. They might have, of course, we don't know. However this is simply a factor in determining which of the two conflicting evolutionary impulses is going to win out in a situation like this, the survival of the pack or the survival of the individual.


The actions your attribute to the cold scheming of the genome simply do not make sense outside of their social and cultural contexts. The problem with this claim is that you see at the skeleton of this issue an explicitly human one. I don't. Pretext is always a factor, but what happened at the basis of it is between choosing the best strategy for survival, the pack or the individual. It is possible to see both strategies in effect in most mammals when it comes to their young, partially determined by the pretext although not entirely.

Now, of course because I am a human being, because I've always lived under and was very much shaped by social conditions, because I have a human psychology, this act means more to me than a fox dying to protect her young from a wolf. The fact that I can analyze the dynamics involved matters as little as the fact that I how insignificant the world is in the vastness of the cosmos effects my will to fight for the cause of the working class. Its a matter of perspective.

[bcbm]

Even your account of this event as genetically-dictated assumes a certain enculturation, namely, the perception of their girlfriend as a permanent and exclusive mate, and therefore the non-universal practice of permanent heterosexual monogamy. The actions your attribute to the cold scheming of the genome simply do not make sense outside of their social and cultural contexts.

i dont think it is too far fetched to assume that at some basic level we view some people who are close to us- girlfriends, immediate family perhaps, some friends- as members of our 'band' and when confronted with this sort of situation there is an impulse to defend them. i dont think anything in that depends on monogamy. when this behavior became an evolutionary advantage it is unlikely we bonded monogamously and the role of 'defender' was very much about the group as a whole and not specific individuals within it. and probably involved men and women

[Ele'ill]

I'm drunk and didn't read this thread but maybe some of the defenders in these types of situations know, and their current partners know, that they're in a dead end relationship about to break up or recently broken up and these actions of defense are because they still love the person who is going to be killed and they don't want to see that person splattered on the floor with sucking chest wounds. Maybe it has less to do, in these situations where these types of defenses occur, with knighting for unconditional love and more to do with the chance/immediate opportunity to intervene and stop killings.


Cliff notes- You know someone and you're chillin, someone else who you don't know comes up and points a gun at your friend or partner. You stop them from pulling the trigger.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

That is just terrible, I feel so bad for each one of those girls. :crying:

[Per Levy]

You know someone and you're chillin, someone else who you don't know comes up and points a gun at your friend or partner. You stop them from pulling the trigger.

depends on how far away the someone with the gun is and how fast that person pulls the trigger, otherwise say goodbye to your friend and yourself, i guess.

on the thread, its kinda depressing, 3 people sacrificed themselfs for their loved ones and the thread is all about patriachry, genetic hardwiring and what not.

[Beeth]

It is my understanding that whenever we do something instinctively, whenever we are faced with situations where we have no time to think, then evolutionary traits take over. Fear, the desire to protect loved ones etc. belong to this category, which is why they cannot be analyzed in terms of this or that theory.

[brigadista]

People get understandably defensive when they're with their children, particularly if they're out alone. So offering to help someone with their kids in that situation might result in an unfavorable reaction, which is probably enough to put most people off from doing it.

my point was the contradiction regarding people being "protective" towards pregnant women but not wanting to know when a woman actually has children and can often be seen as a "problem" when on her own in the situation with kids- heard some terrible comments on the bus...

[Rafiq]

Strict materialists? Not exactly the best term. Ever heard of vulgar materialism?

Vulgar materialism? You mean the term coined by those who vulgarized Marxism?


Because, by describing a man protecting a woman in the face of danger as ultimately patriarchal, you've just equated someone taking a bullet for his girlfriend with someone beating his girlfriend.


Well, by attributing me with making any sort of description regarding a "man protecting a women", you've proven that the contents of this thread are largely unknown to you. I've said countless times that never would I attribute a moral criticism toward the men, I've just stated that the occurance isn't an argument for communism, and certainly isn't an argument that humans are naturally altruistic and brutally empathetic. I said, on the contrary, the Bourgeois family structure coerces men to perceive themselves as "protectors" and women, are supposed to grow up as defenseless and helpless. Was the act itself a moral criticism? No. But this nonsense which amounts to nothing more as "TAKE THAT YOU COLD HEARTED MATERIALISTS, REAL HUMAN LUUVVV RAIGHT HERE!" is blatantly anti Marxist and wreaks of reactionary spiritualism. There exists no "human nature" external from according capitalist modes of production (Well, few exceptions, minor ones at that). There is not this "natural human kindness" that encompasses the capitalist mode of production. In other words, the capitalist mode of production does not repress our human nature, it adjusts and shapes it in accordance. Idealists would argue that the capitalist mode of production is a reflection of our "human nature", and in the same way, Idealists of other currents would argue that it suppresses it. Either way, this universal conception of human nature is undoubtedly Idealist.


Besides, this approach is quite unscientific. Males, genetically, are hard-wired to protect their mates in the face of physical danger - this genetic trait predates patriarchy by tens of thousands of years. The reason for this is pregnancy, where first of all the female is vulnerable and not as able to protect herself as the physically stronger, hunter male. Secondly and more importantly, the female is more important to the society than the male, mainly she is carrying its future in her womb but also because she takes care of gathering, which provides food more stably compared to the unpredictable nature of hunting.

Ever heard of Scientific sexism? If we suppose your correct, then it still doesn't do you any justice, i.e. It still doesn't negate the fact that this was a social construction in the process of human social organization, the social reproduction of life, if you will. Indeed, I find it hard to believe that males are "hard wired" to protect anyone. You can, historically, point out that males most of the time demonstrated this behavior, but it can be argued that this stemmed from different modes of organization. I mean, this thread alone contained discussion regarding the protection of females on behalf of males. Say what you will, Females are more than capable, genetically, to protect themselves when they aren't in a state of pregnancy. Unless of course, you'd wish to deny the fact that gender roles aren't artificial constructions, be those constructions intentional or otherwise results of material conditions.


Now, it might be that humanity isn't target of as much physical danger proportionally as it was in the days of primitive communism, or that women aren't always pregnant now with different methods of birth control and all so that physically they can be stronger. But an evolutionary characteristic which has a history of tens, even hundreds of thousands of years isn't going to disappear as a result of five thousand years of the civilization of class society, nor will it disappear as a result of five thousand years of communism.

While I do agree such a role wouldn't change overnight, the structure of the family changed radically, if we compare Feudalism to Capitalism. I'm sure, had you lived during Feudalism, you'd say the exact same thing. Of course there are genetic traits which influence the ways in which we behave and organize. But for the most part, our modes of organization, the family, no exception, are largely defined by material conditions, in accordance with different existing modes of production.


If we want to make a cold materialist analysis of what these three boyfriends did, we have to say that they did what their genes, what their evolutionary characteristics told them to do, for the survival of the pack. The other option would also be to follow an evolutionary trait, albeit one which is in this case contradictory one to the survival of the pack - the survival of the individual.

This would likely manifest itself as them guarding themselves with their girlfriends' bodies rather than guarding their girlfriends with their own bodies.



I wouldn't at all define that as a "cold materialist analysis". Indeed, gene enthusiasts who attribute all manifestations of human behavior, including the existence of capitalism, to our genes are a part of an obscure current of Idealist thought. You should know that Materialism isn't a metaphysical proclamation, because it's common sense that everything is made of matter, to anyone who isn't a spiritualist (as I've said several times).

Indeed, I don't think our "genes" tell us to do anything, but rather, that they are a part of us, not some conscious being commanding us by whispering in our ears. Of course this is blatantly obvious to anyone, but it's important to really, brutally recognize it.

[Rafiq]

Even then there's not some hidden off evolutionary homunculus whispering instructions to people. Those beneficial habits are encouraged through things like emotions and I think it's worth always keeping in mind that as far back as the causal train goes people who sacrifice themselves in such circumstances often do it, at least in art, out of deep feelings of love. There's nothing anti-scientific to that claim and I think it is important to remember that for all the talk of why they do this, that ultimately they were willing to give their own lives for the people they cared for, a braver act than most here will have ever undertaken and one that's deserving of respect in itself. Nothing wrong with explaining it like you did, some people just rush to explain that sacrifice away is the issue.

Whoa, hold up. A hidden off evolutionary homunculus isn't a signification of "hard materialism", but on the contrary, with too much emphasis, a form of Idealist. These "feelings" you speak of, I would say, surpass these evolutionary traits. It's these feelings which are shaped and defined by according modes of organization, in the reproduction of human life.

[Rafiq]

i dont think it is too far fetched to assume that at some basic level we view some people who are close to us- girlfriends, immediate family perhaps, some friends- as members of our 'band' and when confronted with this sort of situation there is an impulse to defend them. i dont think anything in that depends on monogamy. when this behavior became an evolutionary advantage it is unlikely we bonded monogamously and the role of 'defender' was very much about the group as a whole and not specific individuals within it. and probably involved men and women

Here, you're getting closer to my point. We do, on an evolutionary state, have an intrinsic desire to defend those close to us. How we perceive who is close to us and who isn't, as I've said, is something of artificial construction, i.e. Devoid of any inherent biological tendencies, relatively speaking.

[Leo]

Vulgar materialism? You mean the term coined by those who vulgarized Marxism?

Like Lenin? If you say so.


Well, by attributing me with making any sort of description regarding a "man protecting a women", you've proven that the contents of this thread are largely unknown to you. I've said countless times that never would I attribute a moral criticism toward the men, I've just stated that the occurance isn't an argument for communism, and certainly isn't an argument that humans are naturally altruistic and brutally empathetic.

You said more than that. What you said was this: "I'd explain this by pointing out that the capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois family structure with it coerces males to "protect" their mates, i.e. their girlfriends."


I said, on the contrary, the Bourgeois family structure coerces men to perceive themselves as "protectors" and women, are supposed to grow up as defenseless and helpless.

And I said when you make this description the basis of your understanding of patriarchy, you basically equate a man taking a bullet for his girlfriend to a man beating his girlfriend up, because bourgeois family structure not only creates a perception of women as weak and helpless, it also constantly physically attacks, molests, harasses etc. women. The family structure doesn't care about keeping women safe, or protecting them.


There exists no "human nature" external from according capitalist modes of production

And this is where you deny evolution and genetics. I'm afraid this idea is rather outdated, like by three hundred years.


There is not this "natural human kindness" that encompasses the capitalist mode of production.

There are genes and hormones. In that sense, there is natural human kindness, as much as natural human viciousness.


In other words, the capitalist mode of production does not repress our human nature, it adjusts and shapes it in accordance.

In which case, there is little to no chance for the revolution to prevail.

The capitalist mode of production certainly effects human nature, but what it does is rather play with what there is, play up what it likes and play down what it doesn't like.


Ever heard of Scientific sexism?

This is pseudo-radicalism. You are denying material reality, the fact that women give birth and its consequences because they don't fit you politically correct world-view.


If we suppose your correct, then it still doesn't do you any justice, i.e. It still doesn't negate the fact that this was a social construction in the process of human social organization, the social reproduction of life, if you will.

I'm not denying that there is a social aspect involved to all this, what I am saying is that at the basis of this behavior is evolution.


Indeed, I find it hard to believe that males are "hard wired" to protect anyone.

Nevertheless, they are.


You can, historically, point out that males most of the time demonstrated this behavior, but it can be argued that this stemmed from different modes of organization.

We are talking about something that predates human history ie the history of human civilization.


I mean, this thread alone contained discussion regarding the protection of females on behalf of males. Say what you will, Females are more than capable, genetically, to protect themselves when they aren't in a state of pregnancy.

I'm not denying it. You don't seem to be putting enough, any in fact, thought to just how important that "when they aren't in a state of pregnancy" is in evolutionary terms.

Evolution wise, what was to be shaped about human beings was shaped in tens of thousands of years when humans didn't have birth control. This meant that women were pregnant most of time, from adolescence to menopause - if they lived that long, that is.

Otherwise, yes, they are nearly as capable genetically of protected themselves as men, and these three girls were as capable as guarding their boyfriends with their bodies rather than the other way around.

I'm saying that there is a reason it happened like this.


Unless of course, you'd wish to deny the fact that gender roles aren't artificial constructions, be those constructions intentional or otherwise results of material conditions.

I don't know, do you consider pregnancy to be a gender role?


While I do agree such a role wouldn't change overnight, the structure of the family changed radically, if we compare Feudalism to Capitalism. I'm sure, had you lived during Feudalism, you'd say the exact same thing. Of course there are genetic traits which influence the ways in which we behave and organize. But for the most part, our modes of organization, the family, no exception, are largely defined by material conditions, in accordance with different existing modes of production.

This is true enough. However family is a social institution, not an evolutionary trait.


I wouldn't at all define that as a "cold materialist analysis". Indeed, gene enthusiasts who attribute all manifestations of human behavior, including the existence of capitalism, to our genes are a part of an obscure current of Idealist thought.

For someone who claims other haven't read the thread, you certainly presume too much without reading yourself.

I am not explaining everything with genes. I'm explaining impulsive, spontaneous and sudden behavior, such as, say, jumping in front of a bullet to be based on genetics.


Indeed, I don't think our "genes" tell us to do anything, but rather, that they are a part of us, not some conscious being commanding us by whispering in our ears. Of course this is blatantly obvious to anyone, but it's important to really, brutally recognize it.

Bravo, you've figured it out, yes it is a metaphor.

[Capitalist Octopus]

All three of you, do me a favor, and go fuck yourselves long and hard, yeah? I mean, it's like you only take a quick glance at each and every one of my posts and blow them out of proportion. I don't know, is this a form of projection?

You mad brah?

[Rafiq]

Like Lenin? If you say so.

Lenin's conception of Vulgar materialism amounted to Engel's conception of Mechanical materialism. It has absolutely nothing to do with retaining a strict materialist understanding of both human and natural history alike. "Loose' materialism is nothing more than crypto-dualism.


You said more than that. What you said was this: "I'd explain this by pointing out that the capitalist mode of production, and the bourgeois family structure with it coerces males to "protect" their mates, i.e. their girlfriends."


...And? How exactly is that a criticism of their actions? You may call it cynical, but it's by no means a moral criticism.


And I said when you make this description the basis of your understanding of patriarchy, you basically equate a man taking a bullet for his girlfriend to a man beating his girlfriend up, because bourgeois family structure not only creates a perception of women as weak and helpless, it also constantly physically attacks, molests, harasses etc. women. The family structure doesn't care about keeping women safe, or protecting them.

What kind of disgusting, twisted logic is this? Can you even articulate how unreasonable this bit is?

Congratulations, you've announced that I oppose the Bourgeois family structure. I actually seek the destruction of the capitalist mode of production, yet, as it just so happens, I refuse to make a moral criticism of Windex, which is manufactured in accordance with capitalist social relations. The point I'm trying to get at is the act itself ("windex") isn't to be opposed, though it's important that we should as Marxists understanding the complexity behind the attack. Is this a call to morally criticize such an action, or, for one, refuse to take a bullet for your own mates? Of course not. We should merely analyze the systemic origins of such behavior, of such actions, and why they exist. No, you can't equate the actions of those men as acts of rape and violence against women, however, you can come to the conclusion that the same family construct which is partially, if not wholly responsible for our perception of rape, the rhetorical nature of both rape and violence against women, also possesses features which force us to perceive women as helpless (and in turn, women choose not to learn how to defend themselves, etc.) and in turn, coerces men to protect women, as they view it's their responsibility to protect their weaker sexual counterparts. I mean, at best, I could describe your response as nothing short of being morally appalled by the fact that romanticism is trash.


And this is where you deny evolution and genetics. I'm afraid this idea is rather outdated, like by three hundred years.



There exists no "human nature" external from according capitalist modes of production (Well, few exceptions, minor ones at that)


I would call you pathetic, but considering so many users do the same thing, It's not even worth my breath. I've also pointed out severla times that we do possess instristic biological and genetic behavioral tendancies, and that material conditions around us, the same ones that shaped those tendencies (See, Darwinist conception of natural history, which is, according to Marx, a materialist conception of natural history) shape and dominate the ways in which we utilize those behavioral patterns. We shed tears, when we're sad, but what triggers our sadness? We are sexually aroused when we find someone sexually attractive, but what systemic conditions allow us to understand and articulate what is attractive, what is beauty, and what isn't? etc. etc. etc. I really hope you can, now, understand where I'm getting at and address and react to my arguments properly.


There are genes and hormones. In that sense, there is natural human kindness, as much as natural human viciousness.


Again, the ways in which "Natural kindness" are utilized is of social construction. Humans have a tendency to be kind. But to who? For what? In the case of kindness, how do we even determine and define such a thing?


In which case, there is little to no chance for the revolution to prevail.


Christ, you've disappointed me. I took you for a Marxist, Leo, a distinguished one at that. I mean, it was Marx himself who, for the first time, denounced this conception of Communism as an Ideal abstraction in which we utilize to combat the offspring of "vile" capitalism. It was Marx who for the first time, pointed out that Communism and the revolutionary proletariat existed as part of the seeds of capitalism's own destruction. What do you think he meant by systemic contradictions (excluding Crises theory)? Class contradiction exists completely constrained by the capitalist mode of production. The revolutionary bourgeoisie was a result of Feudalism, and so on. I'm not trying to sound paternalistic at all, I realize you're more experienced than I am, older, etc. But I really think you need to re read on Historical Materialism. Capitalism shapes our human nature, but like all class societies, it's this same nature, this same tendency, which breeds class warfare, which breeds a revolutionary class. Why is communism significant? Because for the first time (excluding Slavery), the proletarian class exists to abolish itself, rather than to exemplify itself. What do you think Marx's criticism of capitalism was? A moral one? Ludicrous. Marx pointed out that capitalism cannot sustain itself indefinitely, and that, just as their exists dialectical contradictions within Bourgeois rationality (see; Kant), there exists such contradictions within the capitalist mode of production, i.e. Capitalism carries the seeds of it's own destruction.


The capitalist mode of production certainly effects human nature, but what it does is rather play with what there is, play up what it likes and play down what it doesn't like.


No, it utilizes every aspect of our intrinsic behavioral tendencies to it's favor. When we're kind, it's charity, etc.


This is pseudo-radicalism. You are denying material reality, the fact that women give birth and its consequences because they don't fit you politically correct world-view.


I understand that women in a state of pregnancy affect the ways in which humans interact with their females, completely. The problem here is this defense of the Bourgeois family structure and catagorization of it as some kind of reflection of this. In some societies, women who aren't pregnant were warriors, who didn't need men to defend them when they weren't in a state of pregnancy. It depends on the social structure, the mode of production, if you will. Apologia for the Bourgeois family structure via "science" is indeed scientific sexism. The Bourgeois family structure, the roles of women in modern society are indeed relatively new. And not only that, Feminism disregarded, it's Idealist and antiMarxist. Capitalist relations are not a product of "human nature".


I'm not denying that there is a social aspect involved to all this, what I am saying is that at the basis of this behavior is evolution.


If you mean that on an evolutionary scale, our behavior in itself (reaction to certain "things") is genetic, that's blatantly obvious to any materialist. The point though, is that the ways in which such behavior is expressed exists in accordance with material conditions and is of social construction.


Nevertheless, they are.


Good job? What do you mean by this? That Men are hard wired to protect women, are any other particular group? That's a load of nonsense. Are you? Am I? Personally?


We are talking about something that predates human history ie the history of human civilization.


How do you even record that? (Not asking in an offensive matter, or an argumentative manner, just asking). That was one of the questions a Biologist asked me years back when I told him how humans, before class society, were classless. How can you know?


I'm not denying it. You don't seem to be putting enough, any in fact, thought to just how important that "when they aren't in a state of pregnancy" is in evolutionary terms.

Evolution wise, what was to be shaped about human beings was shaped in tens of thousands of years when humans didn't have birth control. This meant that women were pregnant most of time, from adolescence to menopause - if they lived that long, that is.


Again you're misunderstanding what I mean by "shape". Evolution shaped how we appear, behavioral traits, etc. over the course of millions or hundreds of thousands of years. No one is denying that the existence of something like Anger solely a product of capitalism and is not intrinsic to a human being. It is, but again, what triggers our anger, the ways in which it's expressed, is of social construction and exists in accordance with material conditions, and is shaped by material conditions. "Men protecting women" isn't a qualitative feature of a human being. It is of social construction. But let me ask you a question. Do Homosexuals exist? Are homosexuals incapable of having mates, considering that they are not of the opposite sex? Would a gay person jump to the nearest women to protect her? Many pseudo scientists argued that Homosexuality doesn't exist. It was bullshit. You could try to argue that in the same way you're arguing that men are hard wired to protect women, that they're hard wired to be sexually aroused by women as well, and that all men are heterosexuals.


Otherwise, yes, they are nearly as capable genetically of protected themselves as men, and these three girls were as capable as guarding their boyfriends with their bodies rather than the other way around.


I'm saying that there is a reason it happened like this.



Well, that seems to be why we're arguing. You attribute it to "human nature' whilst I attribute it to the Bourgeois family structure (which utilizes human tendencies like "protecting those close to you" and adjusts it accordingly). I think that's quite obvious to anyone reading this thread.


I don't know, do you consider pregnancy to be a gender role?


No. I hold, like any Marxist or perhaps even Anarchist, that biological sex doesn't equate to gender. No, pregnancy isn't a gender role, though it is shaped and characterized by gender roles accordingly (As in, Women who are pregnant are perceived differently).


This is true enough. However family is a social institution, not an evolutionary trait.


But the ways in which Men "protected" women differed in according family structures. In Feudalism, in some parts of the world, protecting women meant locking them away in your home. In some, women weren't really protected at all when they weren't pregnant. Hell, were men not protected when they were wounded or crippled, at times?


For someone who claims other haven't read the thread, you certainly presume too much without reading yourself.

I am not explaining everything with genes. I'm explaining impulsive, spontaneous and sudden behavior, such as, say, jumping in front of a bullet to be based on genetics.


That's arguably attributed to the unconscious mind, which exists in accordance with different material conditions or dominant ideology (Bourgeois ruling class ,Bourgeois ruling Ideas). See that FreudoMarxist shit.



Bravo, you've figured it out, yes it is a metaphor.

I know it was a metaphor, but an emphasis on it is necessary, if you can articulate where I'm getting at. I'd call that metaphor a Freudian slip, if anything.

[Rafiq]

I apologize if my post was of shit quality. You see, I'm away from home currently and on a bit of a rush, traveling constantly, and what not. Rest assured, I'll be back on this forum as I always was when I'm out of this insufferable shithole (less than a week).

[Leo]

Lenin's conception of Vulgar materialism amounted to Engel's conception of Mechanical materialism. It has absolutely nothing to do with retaining a strict materialist understanding of both human and natural history alike.No, neither does what you are doing though.


...And? How exactly is that a criticism of their actions? You may call it cynical, but it's by no means a moral criticism. I am not saying it is a criticism of their actions, I am not even saying its cynical. I'm saying its wrong. You are confusing evolutionary impulses with patriarchy.


What kind of disgusting, twisted logic is this? Can you even articulate how unreasonable this bit is?

Congratulations, you've announced that I oppose the Bourgeois family structure.Rather that you don't understand what it is.


Is this a call to morally criticize such an action, or, for one, refuse to take a bullet for your own mates? Of course not. We should merely analyze the systemic origins of such behavior, of such actions, and why they exist.Which is what I am doing, except I am not attributing a type of action which precedes what you identify it by tens of thousands of years.

I am not saying what you're saying is horrible or inhuman. I'm saying what you're saying, from a materialist standpoint, is wrong.


No, you can't equate the actions of those men as acts of rape and violence against womenGood that you think so, I wasn't sure if you did.


however, you can come to the conclusion that the same family construct which is partially, if not wholly responsible for our perception of rapeThe perception of some, perhaps, but not all. If one is opposed to rape because it taints the woman and prevents her from having a good marriage, then I'd say this perception of rape is patriarchal. If one is opposed to rape because it is a particularly brutal expression of the patriarchal system, then I wouldn't say so.


the rhetorical nature of both rape and violence against women, also possesses features which force us to perceive women as helpless (and in turn, women choose not to learn how to defend themselves, etc.) and in turn, coerces men to protect women, as they view it's their responsibility to protect their weaker sexual counterparts.Does it? Not nearly as much as you'd think, given the fact that the most common form of rape happens within the family itself, with the husband exercising his "rights" with a woman who doesn't want him to. I have to admit I haven't heard any stories of heroic men saving women from being raped either, although I've heard quite often how effective a tiny pepper spay carried in a purse can be. Rapists tend to pick places and times where none other than the woman they are to rape can interfere. Then there is also the fact that men get raped as well, much more commonly than you might think. Then there is also the fact that other means than physical force are used, such as date rape drugs.


I would call you pathetic, but considering so many users do the same thing, It's not even worth my breath.As easy as it is to throw insults behind a computer screen, you might actually be the first to throw that particular one. In any case, call me what you'd like, I don't care. I even find your attempts to bully me with you keyboard rather amusing.


I've also pointed out severla times that we do possess instristic biological and genetic behavioral tendancies, and that material conditions around us, the same ones that shaped those tendencies (See, Darwinist conception of natural history, which is, according to Marx, a materialist conception of natural history) shape and dominate the ways in which we utilize those behavioral patterns.What you are missing is the fact that there is a difference between how the material conditions in nature shape our evolutionary traits, and how the social material conditions shape our personalities.


Again you're misunderstanding what I mean by "shape". Evolution shaped how we appear, behavioral traits, etc. over the course of millions or hundreds of thousands of years. No one is denying that the existence of something like Anger solely a product of capitalism and is not intrinsic to a human being. It is, but again, what triggers our anger, the ways in which it's expressed, is of social construction and exists in accordance with material conditions, and is shaped by material conditions.
We shed tears, when we're sad, but what triggers our sadness? We are sexually aroused when we find someone sexually attractive, but what systemic conditions allow us to understand and articulate what is attractive, what is beauty, and what isn't? etc. etc. etc. I really hope you can, now, understand where I'm getting at and address and react to my arguments properly. Yet it is not that simple. The point you are making seems to be that our biological qualities mean that we shed tears when we are said, but what triggers the sadness depends on social conditions. It is not as mechanical as that. Indeed, some of what triggers the sadness does depend on our social conditions, while some do not. An example? Losing a child, or losing a mother. Not only in humans but in an overwhelming majority of mammals this creates sadness and even tears. You can't separate psychology from human evolution, just as you can't separate it from the social conditions. This is what complicates matters.


Again, the ways in which "Natural kindness" are utilized is of social construction. Humans have a tendency to be kind. But to who? For what? In the case of kindness, how do we even determine and define such a thing?If you want to go back to the basics, fine. Kindness, like every other concept, is a word which we use to describe a certain phenomenon. Like all concepts, it isn't exact or eternal. How we define kindness certainly changes, and yes that depends on the social conditions. How we apply the phenomenon changes depends on the social conditions as well, but to a lesser extent. The phenomenon itself doesn't change. Humans have a tendency to be kind. To who? Their young, to start, like all mammals.


I mean, it was Marx himself who, for the first time, denounced this conception of Communism as an Ideal abstraction in which we utilize to combat the offspring of "vile" capitalism. It was Marx who for the first time, pointed out that Communism and the revolutionary proletariat existed as part of the seeds of capitalism's own destruction. What do you think he meant by systemic contradictions (excluding Crises theory)? Class contradiction exists completely constrained by the capitalist mode of production. The revolutionary bourgeoisie was a result of Feudalism, and so on. I'm not trying to sound paternalistic at all, I realize you're more experienced than I am, older, etc. But I really think you need to re read on Historical Materialism. Capitalism shapes our human nature, but like all class societies, it's this same nature, this same tendency, which breeds class warfare, which breeds a revolutionary class. Why is communism significant? Because for the first time (excluding Slavery), the proletarian class exists to abolish itself, rather than to exemplify itself. What do you think Marx's criticism of capitalism was? A moral one? Ludicrous. Marx pointed out that capitalism cannot sustain itself indefinitely, and that, just as their exists dialectical contradictions within Bourgeois rationality (see; Kant), there exists such contradictions within the capitalist mode of production, i.e. Capitalism carries the seeds of it's own destruction. Again, you presume too much. My point had nothing to do with morals or ideals. You said: "In other words, the capitalist mode of production does not repress our human nature, it adjusts and shapes it in accordance." In response I said: "In which case, there is little to no chance for the revolution to prevail. The capitalist mode of production certainly effects human nature, but what it does is rather play with what there is, play up what it likes and play down what it doesn't like."

I'm not sure where the you got that point about morals and communism as an abstract idea from. I'm assuming this is because you haven't caught the implication of your own comment. If capitalism can shape human nature entirely, there is no material possibility to break free of its ideological grip. It means that capitalism has managed to destroy all the chances of us developing class consciousness because it managed to prevent the conflict between its ideology and the reality of our lives simply by completely adjusting our reality to the conditions we live under. Because what allows that conflict to take place is our human nature, that we have needs, physical needs such as eating and drinking, keeping warm, fucking and that we have emotional needs such as loving, being loved, trusting, being trusted and so on. In other words, if you initial comment was true, we wouldn't be here arguing this.


No, it utilizes every aspect of our intrinsic behavioral tendencies to it's favor. When we're kind, it's charity, etc. This is again too simplistic, there is kindness and there is kindness. Capitalism tends to play up the sort of kindness which can be described as charity, and play down the kindness which can be described as solidarity. Explaining something or giving it a pretext is not the same with adjusting and shaping though.


I understand that women in a state of pregnancy affect the ways in which humans interact with their females, completely.Determines rather, in primitive communism.


The problem here is this defense of the Bourgeois family structure and catagorization of it as some kind of reflection of this.This is not what I'm doing, it doesn't even make any sense. You seem to be mistaking the pretext for a social relationship with its actual basis. Ideologically, of course protection was one of the covers of patriarchy, however its real basis was, has always been, and still is property; its real implication, not that women were weak and had to be protected which was nothing more than a justification, but that women were the property of men and had to stay in the household along his other belongings which, in turn excluded her from social life, which was exclusive to men.


In some societies, women who aren't pregnant were warriors, who didn't need men to defend them when they weren't in a state of pregnancy.Very true, but not in primitive communism. That sort of thing emerged later, following the beginning of patriarchy. You may find it hard to believe, but women in primitive societies, yes those who were pregnant all the time and who needed protection, actually were politically as well as socially as powerful as, perhaps even more powerful than then in the society. The rise of patriarchy meant for women to lose this power, but they, rightfully, didn't want to let go of it, at least not without a fight of sorts. Such societies were among the forms of women's resistance to early patriarchy.


Apologia for the Bourgeois family structure via "science" is indeed scientific sexism.Saying that women are weaker than men when they are pregnant and men developed an evolutionary urge to defend them, even at the cost of their lives is not an apologia for the bourgeois family structure, because it has nothing to do with the bourgeois family structure. The fact that pregnant women are weaker than men had an indirect effect on it, yes, because it made men better at agricultural work than pregnant women since men were fit due to constantly hunting, while pregnant women weren't. Yet an accident of history is involved here since it was women, not men who invented agriculture in the first place. Family, bourgeois or more archaic, means that a woman is his husband's property. For a large part of the history of patriarchy, this gave the husband the legal right to do as he pleased with women, including beating her, whipping her and if necessary even killing her. Engels describes family as the first form of a class relationship. Patriarchy is an institution. This means it is more than the relationship or the division of labor between men and women.


If you mean that on an evolutionary scale, our behavior in itself (reaction to certain "things") is genetic, that's blatantly obvious to any materialist. The point though, is that the ways in which such behavior is expressed exists in accordance with material conditions and is of social construction. Again, you are oversimplifying. There are different kinds of behaviors. Impulsive behavior, that is sudden acts we don't think about before doing are different from planned actions, which in turn is different from behavioral habits. All our behavior is genetic, however some are more genetic than others or, if you will, more "animal" than "human".


What do you mean by this? That Men are hard wired to protect women, are any other particular group? That's a load of nonsense. Are you? Am I? Personally? I am not just saying that men are hard wired to protect, so are women. Women are hard wired to protect their young, men are hard wired to protect their pack. Just because we are hard wired to do something, though doesn't mean we will do it in every situation. We are also hard wired to protect ourselves, which may very well come into conflict with other evolutionary instincts.


How do you even record that? (Not asking in an offensive matter, or an argumentative manner, just asking). That was one of the questions a Biologist asked me years back when I told him how humans, before class society, were classless. How can you know? There is a science called anthropology which does extensive research on the subject. Engels' famous work The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, based on the studies of the American anthropologist Lewis Morgan and Marx's own notes about it is a rather famous marxist classic.


"Men protecting women" isn't a qualitative feature of a human being. It is of social construction.I don't believe I've explained this in such a simplistic manner. The survival of the pack is a qualitative feature of a human being.


But let me ask you a question. Do Homosexuals exist?Obviously, and not just among human beings.

I think is answer enough to the rest of your questions and comments on this subject.


Well, that seems to be why we're arguing. You attribute it to "human nature' whilst I attribute it to the Bourgeois family structure (which utilizes human tendencies like "protecting those close to you" and adjusts it accordingly). I think that's quite obvious to anyone reading this thread. The problem is that you are oversimplifying it. The point is not one of protecting those close to you, it is of the survival of the pack.

The implication of what you are saying is that the bourgeois family structure has reached such a level of mind control that it is capable of completely controlling our instinctive behavior, that it rules supreme not only in the consciousness of humanity but also in its subconsciousness and id.


No. I hold, like any Marxist or perhaps even Anarchist, that biological sex doesn't equate to gender. No, pregnancy isn't a gender role, though it is shaped and characterized by gender roles accordingly (As in, Women who are pregnant are perceived differently). Perhaps, in order to avoid this semantic debate, it would be better to clarify these terms and use the terms social gender, sexual orientation and biological sex.


But the ways in which Men "protected" women differed in according family structures. In Feudalism, in some parts of the world, protecting women meant locking them away in your home. In some, women weren't really protected at all when they weren't pregnant. Hell, were men not protected when they were wounded or crippled, at times? I don't think patriarchy has a good record when it comes to protecting women.


That's arguably attributed to the unconscious mind, which exists in accordance with different material conditions or dominant ideology (Bourgeois ruling class ,Bourgeois ruling Ideas). See that FreudoMarxist shit. No, its attributed to the id, not the subconscious. I know my Freud.

[Rafiq]

No, neither does what you are doing though.

Elaborate.


I am not saying it is a criticism of their actions, I am not even saying its cynical. I'm saying its wrong. You are confusing evolutionary impulses with patriarchy.

Rather that you don't understand what it is.


Forgive me, I must have misunderstood you. Again, I've said that such an analysis is nothing short of Idealist. I said before that in such a situation, the humans involved would have behaved in a different manner, had this occurred in, say Feudalism. This concept of an eternal human nature that stretches so far as to constitute gender relations as evolutionary impulses is nothing short of anti scientific and is on par with the nonsense that attributes capitalism as the greatest manifestation of human nature. How can these supposed evolutionary impulses be recorded? Through analyzing not the human brain, but human history. And to interperate history devoid of a materialist analysis would certainly draw someone to that conclusion.


Which is what I am doing, except I am not attributing a type of action which precedes what you identify it by tens of thousands of years.


Even if what you say is true (It's existed for thousands of years), that still doesn't excuse such an action from being of artificial construction, rather than some kind of obscure intrinsic human nature.


I am not saying what you're saying is horrible or inhuman. I'm saying what you're saying, from a materialist standpoint, is wrong.


But why?


The perception of some, perhaps, but not all. If one is opposed to rape because it taints the woman and prevents her from having a good marriage, then I'd say this perception of rape is patriarchal. If one is opposed to rape because it is a particularly brutal expression of the patriarchal system, then I wouldn't say so.


You're right, yes, but what I was getting at is not how we percieve an act of rape, but the mechanisms which drive a man to rape in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I am fully aware that yes, to many the cause of rape is blatantly obvious, and is indeed not at all a product of the capitalist mode of production. But exclusively in patriarchal modes of organization, or exclusively in the Bourgeois family structure, a lot of the time, for example, women are raped because they're "whores" and they "probably enjoy it anyway", etc. etc.

In the middle east, in many places, raping a women who isn't a virgin isn't nearly as comparable as raping someone who is.


Does it? Not nearly as much as you'd think, given the fact that the most common form of rape happens within the family itself, with the husband exercising his "rights" with a woman who doesn't want him to. I have to admit I haven't heard any stories of heroic men saving women from being raped either, although I've heard quite often how effective a tiny pepper spay carried in a purse can be. Rapists tend to pick places and times where none other than the woman they are to rape can interfere. Then there is also the fact that men get raped as well, much more commonly than you might think. Then there is also the fact that other means than physical force are used, such as date rape drugs.


"the same family construct which is partially, if not wholly responsible for our perception of rape, the rhetorical nature of both rape and violence against women, also possesses features which force us to perceive women as helpless (and in turn, women choose not to learn how to defend themselves, etc.) and in turn, coerces men to protect women, as they view it's their responsibility to protect their weaker sexual counterparts. "

I understand the manner in which I typed this was a bit confusing, so I altered it a bit to make it more legible. My point was that the Bourgeois family structure shapes the rhetorical nature of how men rape, the rapes themselves. It also shapes this conception of women as helpless, and in turn men need to "protect" them. So the same Bourgeois family structure which is responsible for rape in capitalist society (patriarchy in a different form, make what you will of it), is also responsible for our perception of women as helpless.


As easy as it is to throw insults behind a computer screen, you might actually be the first to throw that particular one. In any case, call me what you'd like, I don't care. I even find your attempts to bully me with you keyboard rather amusing.


It just infuriates me when users intentionally remove components of my arguments when quoting them to make a more sounding argument.


What you are missing is the fact that there is a difference between how the material conditions in nature shape our evolutionary traits, and how the social material conditions shape our personalities.


No, what we're debating about is quite simple: What constitutes as our evolutionary traits, rather than behavioral tendencies shaped by the capitalist mode of production, etc.? Substitute protecting women with "existing as evil or greedy, etc." as a human nature and you could make the same argument.


Yet it is not that simple. The point you are making seems to be that our biological qualities mean that we shed tears when we are said, but what triggers the sadness depends on social conditions. It is not as mechanical as that. Indeed, some of what triggers the sadness does depend on our social conditions, while some do not. An example? Losing a child, or losing a mother. Not only in humans but in an overwhelming majority of mammals this creates sadness and even tears. You can't separate psychology from human evolution, just as you can't separate it from the social conditions. This is what complicates matters.

In some societies, parents were more than happy to sacrifice their children to whatever bizarre deities they worshiped. I'm going to need a better example. No one is denying that said relations exist (between a child and it's parents) but what is being denied is the attribution to such a relation to genetics. They have existed for a long time, but it has little to do with a hard wiring.


If you want to go back to the basics, fine. Kindness, like every other concept, is a word which we use to describe a certain phenomenon. Like all concepts, it isn't exact or eternal. How we define kindness certainly changes, and yes that depends on the social conditions. How we apply the phenomenon changes depends on the social conditions as well, but to a lesser extent. The phenomenon itself doesn't change. Humans have a tendency to be kind. To who? Their young, to start, like all mammals.

But how do they express that kindness? We define kindness as a positive expression of social interaction, but how is that interpreted? How is that expressed? What is a "positive expression"? I know these are questions you pointed out are serious. Yes, the phenomenon doesn't change, and it would be ridiculous to assert otherwise.


Again, you presume too much. My point had nothing to do with morals or ideals. You said: "In other words, the capitalist mode of production does not repress our human nature, it adjusts and shapes it in accordance." In response I said: "In which case, there is little to no chance for the revolution to prevail. The capitalist mode of production certainly effects human nature, but what it does is rather play with what there is, play up what it likes and play down what it doesn't like."

I'm not sure where the you got that point about morals and communism as an abstract idea from. I'm assuming this is because you haven't caught the implication of your own comment. If capitalism can shape human nature entirely, there is no material possibility to break free of its ideological grip. It means that capitalism has managed to destroy all the chances of us developing class consciousness because it managed to prevent the conflict between its ideology and the reality of our lives simply by completely adjusting our reality to the conditions we live under.

I'm drawing this very conclusion by analyzing your perception of the capitalist mode of production and the ways in which it influences those whose relations are a component of it. You tried to discredit my point by stating that if capitalism truly shaped our human nature, and that our nature adjusted to it, then there is little to no hope for revolution. This alone relies on several pressuposions. One, that a revolution is something that exists external from the capitalist mode of production, that communism does as well. In other words, that Communism is an abstract, external Ideal in which we use to combat "vile capitalism". What you are confusing capitalism with is the Ideological mystification of the Bourgeois class, not the capitalist mode of production, of which proletarians are a component of just as much as the Bourgeois class is. Capitalism shapes our human nature, and exists in totality, but systemically is "flawed", or carries the seeds of it's own destruction, and breeds two diametrically opposed classes in which one requires the other to exist, of which the other struggles for the destruction of the former. If anything, Communism, revolution and class struggle do nothing but prove my point: They are just as much offspring of the capitalist mode of production and it's influences as Bourgeois ideological mystification is. Capitalism is not some abstract monster which influences us, it is a process which amounts to nothing more than the complex relationship between several classes, and their relations to the means of production, the process in which such production is for filled, etc.etc. etc. We fight against the process of capitalism because capitalism is incapable of sustaining class collaboration indefinitely, it is systemically bound to destroy itself, be that destruction a product of class struggle, or of internal systemic contradictions (Crises). The Bourgeois class is a product of the ways in which Feudalism shaped our human nature accordingly, just as much the Proletarian class is to Capitalism. This human nature can be defined as the "ideas" of the ruling class, or, to put it in a better way, the modes of organization which furtherly serve their class interests. But since the bourgeois class relies on the existence of a class whose interests is diametrically opposed to theirs, capitalism cannot exist indefinitely, not just because it's systemic contradictions (Market contradictions) devoid of class struggle in the purest form (But not devoid of class struggle itself). The mistake is to think that capitalism is some conscious being, capitalism is an accident, a mistake (Just as our existence as humans is). It's existence is by no means proof of it's capability to sustain itself indefinitely. I said your conception of communism is an abstract Ideal because you have this notion that capitalism is capable of sustaining itself indefinitely, that as a system it influences classes for it's own benefit on a macro scale.

Your problem is you assumed I meant that the ideological mystification of the bourgeois class is capable of "shaping our human nature" indefinitely. Nonsense. This mystification is a product of something larger. It's no wonder why Althussier pointed out that the problem of contemporary Marxists was that they greatly underestimated Marx and what he really meant.


Because what allows that conflict to take place is our human nature, that we have needs, physical needs such as eating and drinking, keeping warm, fucking and that we have emotional needs such as loving, being loved, trusting, being trusted and so on. In other words, if you initial comment was true, we wouldn't be here arguing this.

Survival instincts exist as a form of human nature, but how do we know what really is capable of for filling those? When I say human nature, I didn't mean survival instincts. I meant basic behavioral tendencies and modes of organization. Take power "corrupting". This as a phenomena is exclusive only to capitalism, as, no matter how "honest" and benevolent X "political faction" is, should it exist within the constraint of the capitalist mode of production in power, it in the end would serve capital. This is why social democratic parties in Europe adopted Neoliberal policies (If we can assume their intentions were "honest" to begin with). What systemic and social mechanisms force proletarians to realize that their class interest, to emancipate from themselves, so, as you said, they could assure their survival and process of life in order to struggle? It isn't a human nature, because, really, class struggle doesn't exist by default. It is capitalism systemic contradictions, that the interests of the Bourgeoisie are opposed to that of the proletariat. That is. It's this diametrically opposed friction between classes, this struggle, which defines human history.


This is again too simplistic, there is kindness and there is kindness. Capitalism tends to play up the sort of kindness which can be described as charity, and play down the kindness which can be described as solidarity. Explaining something or giving it a pretext is not the same with adjusting and shaping though.

Solidarity isn't an instristic biological tendancy, and if you mean what I think you mean, then, Solidarity can take the form of charity or "Left" Liberal "progressive" campaigns, etc.

Revolutionary solidarity is a product of proletarian class consciousness, which is an inevitability in all existing forms of the capitalist mode of production.


Determines rather, in primitive communism.


Determines what? Yes, it determines that they are weak and that in most cases men would protect them (Or women who aren't pregnant, mind you). It doesn't determine every possible outcome, but features that are present within this outcome.


This is not what I'm doing, it doesn't even make any sense. You seem to be mistaking the pretext for a social relationship with its actual basis. Ideologically, of course protection was one of the covers of patriarchy, however its real basis was, has always been, and still is property; its real implication, not that women were weak and had to be protected which was nothing more than a justification, but that women were the property of men and had to stay in the household along his other belongings which, in turn excluded her from social life, which was exclusive to men.


While you are undoubtly correct in many respects, the dynamics of patriarchy cannot are much more... Complex. For one, throughout the entire history of patriarchy, even in the most horrendous and gruesome forms of it's existence, men still sacraficed their own lives to save the lives of their women. How can this phenomena be explained, if not for the fact that women are coerced into helplessness and lack the social mechanisms to learn to defend themselves? You pointed out that during the rise of patriarchy, women didn't go down without a fight. Surly, socially, they don't possess characteristics that would allow them to resist oppression in the same ways they did previously in history.


Very true, but not in primitive communism. That sort of thing emerged later, following the beginning of patriarchy. You may find it hard to believe, but women in primitive societies, yes those who were pregnant all the time and who needed protection, actually were politically as well as socially as powerful as, perhaps even more powerful than then in the society. The rise of patriarchy meant for women to lose this power, but they, rightfully, didn't want to let go of it, at least not without a fight of sorts. Such societies were among the forms of women's resistance to early patriarchy.

Can you provide any evidence that would support the claim that in "primitive communism" women were pregnant all the time? And if this was true, how then, as you said, were they capable of resisting oppression around the rise of patriarchy?


Saying that women are weaker than men when they are pregnant and men developed an evolutionary urge to defend them, even at the cost of their lives is not an apologia for the bourgeois family structure, because it has nothing to do with the bourgeois family structure. The fact that pregnant women are weaker than men had an indirect effect on it, yes, because it made men better at agricultural work than pregnant women since men were fit due to constantly hunting, while pregnant women weren't. Yet an accident of history is involved here since it was women, not men who invented agriculture in the first place. Family, bourgeois or more archaic, means that a woman is his husband's property. For a large part of the history of patriarchy, this gave the husband the legal right to do as he pleased with women, including beating her, whipping her and if necessary even killing her. Engels describes family as the first form of a class relationship. Patriarchy is an institution. This means it is more than the relationship or the division of labor between men and women.

No, it isn't apologia for the bourgeois family structure, but in this specific context, attributing the actions of those men to, as you put it this "evolutionary urge to defend pregnant women" (which I doubt even exists) certainly is. In other words, substituting characteristics unique to the Bourgeois family structure as simply "Human" characteristics alleviate any serious conception of the bourgeois family structure to exist. It is undoubtedly Idealist and on par with the universalist nonsense spewed by bourgeois-liberals about how capitalism is an expression of humanities intristic nature, and furtherly substantiate such an assertion with pseudosceince.


Again, you are oversimplifying. There are different kinds of behaviors. Impulsive behavior, that is sudden acts we don't think about before doing are different from planned actions, which in turn is different from behavioral habits. All our behavior is genetic, however some are more genetic than others or, if you will, more "animal" than "human".

That's nonsense. All of our behavior most certainty isn't genetic. Anyway, you've pointed out that there are different types of behavior. My point still stands.


I am not just saying that men are hard wired to protect, so are women. Women are hard wired to protect their young, men are hard wired to protect their pack. Just because we are hard wired to do something, though doesn't mean we will do it in every situation. We are also hard wired to protect ourselves, which may very well come into conflict with other evolutionary instincts.

Am I hard wired to protect anyone? Is there any real evidence that can draw us to that conclusion, aside from the fact that it is of common occurance in history, or, at the least, occurs in every civilization (excluding child sacrifice)?
How can we record this as intrinsic to our very selves, from birth?


There is a science called anthropology which does extensive research on the subject. Engels' famous work The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, based on the studies of the American anthropologist Lewis Morgan and Marx's own notes about it is a rather famous marxist classic.

I know very well what anthropology is, mind you, and you still didn't answer the questions. From what mode of analysis can someone draw to the conclusion that humans behaved in X precise way, thousands and thousands years ago? How can anyone be sure "primitive communism" existed? Is it not just a conclusion we can infer based on our experience with humans, and not an objective fact? I mean, even with that at hand, how the hell can you record something so prescise, that women were always pregnant?


I don't believe I've explained this in such a simplistic manner. The survival of the pack is a qualitative feature of a human being.


"The pack" is of social construction. Humans don't have an intrinsic biological tendency to defend their families, that's nonsense.


Obviously, and not just among human beings.

I think is answer enough to the rest of your questions and comments on this subject.


Ludicrous. It was a rhetorical question. Did you really just completely evade my arguments without even trying to be clever about it? You said men have an intrinsic biological tendency to defend women, and this is an evolutionary trait which developed over the course of years due to the supposed necessity of men protecting women in a state of pregnancy. How then, do you explain homosexuality? The same conclusions can be drawn to, we can use this pseudoscience to say that all men have an intrinsic biological tendency to be sexually attracted to females, using recorded historical data, we can furhterly explain this phenomena by saying that over the course of years, of men fucking, they developed an intrinsic biological behavioral tendency to be physically attracted to women. Unless of course we adhere to the notion that all men are bisexual, which isn't as ridiculous (though it's somewhat problematic).


The problem is that you are oversimplifying it. The point is not one of protecting those close to you, it is of the survival of the pack.


What the hell is the pack?


The implication of what you are saying is that the bourgeois family structure has reached such a level of mind control that it is capable of completely controlling our instinctive behavior, that it rules supreme not only in the consciousness of humanity but also in its subconsciousness and id.


Here we go. This is really wonderful.

Of course it has! What do you think the point of materialism was? Do you know anything about commodity fetishism, etc. ? But even then, this pressuposes that it is a form of "mind control", which in turn pressuposes that there exists a blank state of the mind, untainted by the mode of production or material conditions. It isn't a form of mind control, because there isn't a "mind" (as in, an untainted blank state) to control. Humans were not mentally defiled by capitalism, they adjusted to it.


Marx:
In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.

The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.



Perhaps, in order to avoid this semantic debate, it would be better to clarify these terms and use the terms social gender, sexual orientation and biological sex.


Would a person of homosexual orientation defend, immediately, a women with his life because as a man, supposedly, he has an intrinsic tendency to protect women, i.e. It's his "human nature"?


I don't think patriarchy has a good record when it comes to protecting women.


But it does in the case of men sacrificing themselves for the lives of women.


No, its attributed to the id, not the subconscious. I know my Freud.

The Id exists when we are born. It is a spontaneous expression of the most elementary forms of behavior, etc.

Protecting women isn't among those behaviors.