You're saying natural inequality doesn't equal slavery?
Yes, everything is materially produced. It's only when things have use value that they're not commodities, use value which can be taught in the commune.
Instead, you're limiting our focus to the exchange of reproduction. Exchange value is the definition of commodity fetishism.
Yes, everything is materially produced. It's only when things have use value that they're not commodities, use value which can be taught in the commune.
Instead, you're limiting our focus to the exchange of reproduction. Exchange value is the definition of commodity fetishism.
You're saying natural inequality doesn't equal slavery?
This is not the case with all families. You are using what happens to only SOME families as justification for changing the family unit, when it works out just FINE for many families.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. Your commune scenario would NOT prevent rapes. I don't really understand the "psychos" comment either. Could you please explain?
Again, you're speaking as if this is the case with ALL families, when it isn't.
What if people don't want the family unit to be radically reformed? Most of the time (at least in America) people CHOOSE to marry and have children. They CHOOSE this lifestyle. No one is forced into it.
Now you are talking about loveless relationships. Most of the time, when men and women commit to each other (monogamy), it is because they WANT to be with that person. Are you saying that monogamy is the choice of the woman alone? The man has no say at all?
So you are saying that women can cheat all they want, but if the man does it he should be dumped? But it's okay for the woman? :roll:
I cannot make any sense out of this statement at all. Perhaps there were some typos or something?
Do you realize that men are people too, with feelings and needs and emotions? A lot of times when men (or women) leave a relationship and family behind it is because things just aren't working out for one reason or another.
What do you mean by "natural inequality?" Do you mean because men and women have different physical attributes? Why does it mean that one has to be a "slave?" It does not have to be like that if you find a man who is a genuinely a good person. You cannot just do away with gender differences though. It will ALWAYS come up.
Nothing's forcing people to join the commune. If people successfully maintain traditional families, that's their choice.
Yes, but in your opening post, you say that the traditional family unit doesn't work, and that is not the case. It works and works quite well for a lot of people, so perhaps you should have started out saying that it does not work for YOU.
The commune respects how reproduction takes place within a woman's body, so she should have the primary say.
It takes TWO people to create a child. Without a contribution from the man, you get no babies. Sure, the incubation process occurs in the woman's body. That is NATURE and has nothing to do with societal views on men and women. It's just the way it is, and there are MANY men out there who are totally respectful of the process and their role as a parent.
Men can commit with multiple women if women are willing to commit with him regardless of if he's introduced into the community. Introduction is just an easier way to relate with people, yet still depends on who the man is committed with.
Do you know what the word "commitment" means?
I do realize that men are people too. The point of the commune is to help men instead of humiliating them like modern society does by taxing them to pay for the education, health care, and social work of other men's kids.
This isn't helping men. It's like making them into even more irresponsible babies. Ridiculous.
THey need to have use value (i.e. goods and services), exchange value (traded on the market) and be the result of production.
sex isn't market exchange ...
Look I get it, you read some Marxist jargon on the internet and now you think you're a marxist ... but you obviously have NO IDEA what you are talking about, if you'd like I can point you toward some places you can learn Marxian economics, so you don't look so ignorant in the future.
We were talking about how different people within sexes have different amounts of sexual activity, not differences between sexes.
Besides, lots of equalization has been made in women being employed in traditionally male careers.
Yes, but in your opening post, you say that the traditional family unit doesn't work, and that is not the case. It works and works quite well for a lot of people, so perhaps you should have started out saying that it does not work for YOU.
It takes TWO people to create a child. Without a contribution from the man, you get no babies. Sure, the incubation process occurs in the woman's body. That is NATURE and has nothing to do with societal views on men and women. It's just the way it is, and there are MANY men out there who are totally respectful of the process and their role as a parent.
Do you know what the word "commitment" means?
This isn't helping men. It's like making them into even more irresponsible babies. Ridiculous.
So what if some people have more sex than others? What is the point of this and how does your commune handle this? I am quite SURE there would still be cheating.
I think that when people cheat on one another, it is because they are unhappy in their relationships.
I am of the belief that there are some occupations that women CANNOT do as well as a man, at least generally. Whether or not you like it, there ARE differences between us, and they aren't just mental or intellectual but physical as well.
Embrace the differences. Be PROUD of your femininity, not ashamed.
I guess you're unfamiliar with divorce, wedlock, and child support statistics. This isn't about me. It's about society.
I agree that men are necessary for reproduction, but the point is women aren't obligated to surrender themselves just so men can be relieved.
Yes, I know what commitment means. You don't seem to understand that people can have multiple commitments.
The only irresponsibility taking place today is letting overly aggressive men exploit the less rugged. The commune equalizes that exploitation.
I guess you're unfamiliar with divorce, wedlock, and child support statistics. This isn't about me. It's about society.
I agree that men are necessary for reproduction, but the point is women aren't obligated to surrender themselves just so men can be relieved.
Yes, I know what commitment means. You don't seem to understand that people can have multiple commitments.
The only irresponsibility taking place today is letting overly aggressive men exploit the less rugged. The commune equalizes that exploitation.
If you think most women just subject themselves for men to relieve natures call you clearly have not experienced all women. That's a sad commentary for the description of physical intimacy.
And your solution is to strip men of any and all power and give it all to women? What makes you think only men are to blame for the status quo? I think the reason why things are the way they are is because in our modernized society, such things are viewed as more acceptable. It's not a man versus woman thing IMO.
What in the heck is this? Surrender themselves so men can be relieved. I'm sure that most women "surrender themselves" because they want sex too. LOL!
It's an extremely RARE individual that would accept this type of thing. Most people are looking for a partner who will not be sleeping around with whomever, regardless of the circumstances. There is a human emotion called "jealousy," and it is real and serves a purpose.
How so?
If you think most women just subject themselves for men to relieve natures call you clearly have not experienced all women. That's a sad commentary for the description of physical intimacy.
Nature is the source of power. Either we accept it or it runs us over.
Sounds like you aren't very accepting of the natural differences between men and women.
Yes, women want intimacy, but that includes being remembered, not just intercourse. Maybe you're submissive. Every woman is not.
A woman CHOOSES to submit. Those who don't wish to submit, don't have to. There is absolutely NOTHING that forces a woman to submit to sex unless she is physically held down against her will, unless she is VERY young and coerced (but that is a different topic altogether). What is hard to understand about that?
Jealousy is not something merely felt by the possessive. It's also felt by the excluded, especially those who struggle to attract the many opportunities that are around. I really hate how so many men play video games and watch porn.
And OBVIOUSLY there are things about you and women who have this type of mindset that a LOT of men find unattractive as well. :shrug:
I just explained to you how the less rugged are exploited in paying taxes for health care, education, and social work of aggressive men's children. Please don't make me repeat myself.
That is LIFE. Do I like it when a man goes around, impregnating a bunch of women and creating dependence on the system? Of course not, but this is NOT always the fault of the man. The woman is also an adult and should be able to make intelligent decisions when it comes to men and procreation.
You seem to be of the mindset that neither men NOR women are capable of making intelligent decisions for themselves and need to have this social construct in order to be "saved." It would never work. Human nature will take over eventually, and human beings will NEVER be perfect.
Here's a scenario for you, EcoFem. What if you let your man (the one you are supposed "committed" to), sleep with another lady, and he likes her more than you, what if he falls in LOVE with her and wants to leave you and have a monogamous relationship with this other lady? What would you do in such a case?
If you think women subject themselves in general, then you haven't experienced all women either.
Kick him out of the commune. Women in the commune would respect each other in not undermining each other like that. There's a difference between emotional desire and thoughtful relationships.
Hey, if you love someone, you love someone. It is not a "controllable" response. It is a basic human emotion. Sounds like you want a bunch of loveless relationships based strictly on convenience.
The primary commitment is how a man was introduced into a commune in the first place. That priority comes first.
Damn girl, people have minds of their OWN. People are going to do things that YOU don't like. That's life. Deal with it.
The same would go if another's man slept and fell in love with me. I would remind him of who he's committed to first.
And what if you loved him too and wanted to be with only him and no one else?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?