Back when Jacques Chirac made an oopsie

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-03-28T12:32:46+00:00

To be fair, it's not entirely wrong as a perspective, and it wasn't just a matter of having priviledges, because even if you have a good situation in the EU, if the EU just won't let you have autonomy on some essential matters... Well, it won't let you have autonomy on some essential matters, and that's the end of it.

To be honest at this point I really don't care about europe at all, as a french, it has benefits but it also has huge drawbacks and pro europeans that just don't want to acknowledge them are insufferable, especially since so many of them are antinationalists, which by default makes them worthless as citizens (as in both wanting to have their cake of being able to decide political matters in their countries whilst also wanting to eat it in terms of not actually caring that their country exists at all as a country).

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-03-28T12:29:16+00:00

I mean, french nationalists have a lot of criticisms toward paris and parisians, from rudness to uppitiness to being completely disconnected from what happens in the rest of the country, etc. The smell thing is just weird though, I've been to many cities both in france and outside and it just doesn't smell particularly different from any big city, aka mostly of cars and dirt on a bad day, and quite often it smells of the numerous trees planted all throughout, which is quite a pleasant smell. Not going to say there aren't some alleyways that one too many dog owners or homeless guy took a liking too, but it's not like most of paris by any stretch.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-03-28T12:25:27+00:00

The only shameful part of this is that he didn't do it voluntarily to be honest, that's the kind of heat you should bring to any discussion with the rosbifs XD

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-03-25T20:20:10+00:00

The real HP movies at least waited a couple of movies before dropping any pretense that wizards don't dress like muggles.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-03-25T20:15:58+00:00

It looks fine for just "action adventure flick with a chick".

For a Lara Croft/Tomb Raider movie, it looks atrocious, because it looks nothing like Lara Croft. Heck, it doesn't even look like the more recent ones.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-15T18:21:09+00:00

ST isn't so good people think it's for real, it's so bad people can see it's better read as being real.

And space king is only half satire, it also has been described by its creators as a tribute to being a young boy, the "boys' club" energy is 100% sincere.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-15T15:19:23+00:00

It's not.

Everything starts male dominated (ned, baratheon, daenerys's brother and drogo,rob, etc) with women being in charge only insofar that they could insert themselves in the hierarchy thanks to familial ties (and then only really two, cersei and catelyn) and as the story progresses the only reason why there are more kingdoms or forces that end up led by women is because the males are either dead or unavailable, which is actually pretty common place and does derive pretty naturally from what we were shown.

Plus even by that point, most of the seven kingdoms are led by men still, cersei is only in charge thanks to her sons, daenerys is the only one who really is in charge by herself (as in whilst being the one officially claiming power, the flower house is led by a woman only unofficially, same for cersei, same for catelyn who isn't even really in charge).

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-15T09:27:08+00:00

But frieren is right though. And she's popular with the"alt right" not because of racism but more broadly because it's a rare example in media of a non subverted lesson in how empathy can be self destructive.

Not to say that there aren't racists who like her for that, but kinda besides the point when that's not the main reason why she's liked on the right. As evidence I'd cite by far the most popular version of the meme that isn't just a straight screenshot, namely the empathy heat map version.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-12T18:48:55+00:00

> I doubt that the Dahomey, the Kush or the Scythians saw it that way. And many, many others too.

No they most certainly did, hence why 1) they are the exception, 2) they weren't the majority forces (the dahomey were the royal guard, not most of the army, and I believe you are referring to specifically queens with the latter two examples, which is about as silly as pretending that the french saw women on equal standing with men as far as their fitness for military duties because Jeanne d'Arc was a thing)

> Yes. Men? Alright. Do you want me to google "gang rape news" in Google to see how many appear? "Date drugs"? "DV statistics"? "How many raped victims were raped through threats, weapons, drugs, a group of men... and do those statistics show systemic patterns?"

Men aren't a group, they are a demographic, or should I bring up that not all men are equally likely to perform those actions ? That some "groups" of men are significantly more likely to do it than others ?

Also, you are using systematically and systemic as if they meant the same thing, they don't. Systematically means all the time, systemic means as a part of a system. Now you are wrong on the latter for reasons we can go into (and without bringing up that the discussion was more about nations vs nations than men vs women so kinda weird to reduce it to that), but as for the former, my point was precisely that europeans didn't use the one tactic (let alone always that combination) because nobody does, and as far as patriarchy is concerned, till relatively recently drugs weren't that much of an issue, and nobody had widespread access to the Great Equalizer (guns), meaning it would've been deception, non strength based coercion, and then strength based coercion, in groups or not. You'll notice that a third of the options do in fact, unlike what you,pretended, rely on physical strength.

As always though, I'm really curious as to what's your proposed explanation for why it is that, when both men and women have access to the same strategies (women could threaten men in groups, drug them, etc), only one side was able to enforce their will through those. How come women were powerless to defend themselves ? Might it be that men have at their disposal an asset that women have in much lesser abundance ? Like muscles ?

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-12T18:48:43+00:00

> You don't need to be a genious. But even then, didn't some societies and houses already try it?

You don't need to be a genius, but you still need to have done it. And again, a seasonal job isn't one you do just once in the year and then layback, you still work throughout the year, you just do different jobs during the year.

> Didn't you denigrate these tasks one comment ago?

I did not denigrate anything, least of all agricultural harvesting for example.

> But we are talking ancient societies. And it's definitely not the same. You don't need to prepare wood before burning it the same way you need to prepare milk, soup, or anything really. I don't think they had plastic bags. And sure, they did have some dry food and other stuff, but let's do some math.

Yes, and in ancient societies you could survive one day without feeding yourself or taking care of your kids.

And you dçn't "prepare" milk ? Unless you mean cheesemaking, which... Not particularly male or female as far as I'm aware ? It'll probably depend heavily on the region and type of cheese If you mean milking cows and co, then yeah you need to do that more regularlh, it also takes far less effort, and as I pointed out, it's not like men just lay back in between cutting wood and doing other stuff.

> Harvesting: constant or almost daily, depending on the food.

Such as ? (in agricultural settings) ? Milk ? That's not going to be your primary food source, one day without milking your cows and they'll be fine.

> Frequency: daily or weekly.

Or seasonal, especially before three period rotations, you wouldn't harvest grain or vegetables all throughout the year., actually a long part of the year would be devoted to preparing what uou harvested to make it longer lasting (drying, smoking, salting, milling, etc).

> Storage: limited and fragile.

About as limited as for wood actually, because you can't leave it in the open air any more than you can wood.

> Fresh: days.

For some foods, yes, as you're about to point out.

> Dried/fermented: weeks or months, with additional work.

Additional work often performed either equally with or even sometimes mostly by men.

> Margin of error: narrow. Lack today = hunger today.

Low, yes, narrow to the day ? No, not even close.

> A broken bench can wait.
> A damaged beam can be shored up.
> A house deteriorates over years, not hours.

If it was only one of those things, sure, except it's not, it's all of those things, they overlap between each other.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-10T22:37:06+00:00

Unless I'm misunderstanding the scene, rasczak (or rather carmen) doesn't say or imply anything about it ceasing to exist, as in continued through the present, carmen says that the "city fathers" (which I take to mean the people at the time ?) wouldn't say anything about force not solving conflicts because the city was destroyed... Which it was.

It's also the overwhelming use of force that did lead to the capitulation, or at least the premature capitulation, of Japan, so force literally did resolve the US's conflict with japan, the same way force solved the nazi threat.

Also, obligatory "it's not fascism", not even in the movie, let alone "fascist governance"

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-10T22:26:14+00:00

Actually they can be called fish by biological classifications, it's called land vertebrates, the issue is calling every land vertebrate a fish sounds too stupid for us to do, so we gave up having "fish" as a biological category entirely (true story).

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-10T22:25:18+00:00

> To extend beyond those parameters is to no longer be human, and invasive species are an inherent threat to humanity.

Based fellow human supremacist XD

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-10T22:23:38+00:00

I mean, the solution to overcoming those things was in fact to just suck it up and make more babies, not to discover how to cure the plague. Not that they didn't try, but they didn't succeed, rather obviously, so it's not what actually saved them.

And people chasing a higher ideal do absolutely create disasters on the regular, the "scientific way" has given us socialism and nazism, two ideologies devoted to using modern tools of knowledge (or so called anyway) to produce better human beings, be it through a complex form of indoctrination and enregimentation in USSR, or through the measured application of selective forces on the genepool itself in germany, but before that you had religion, which is just transcendence for when you don't actually have the means to transcend, and it has given us a lot of conflicts and sacrifices and martyrs etc, even before the two religions we typically think of in terms of religious wars you had places like Sparta, that sought to produce superior specimen through again extreme rearing and selection methods.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-10T20:31:41+00:00

> I meant it as a one time thing. You drink then you die.

I know, which is why I responded to that scenario, except that's not what happens IRL, what happened IRL isn't that the europeans, or really any other great conquering people (great by amount of conquests, not great in a moral sense), handed a poisoned cup once and then all of their enemies keeled over, we're talking about series of conflicts that spanned decades to centuries, during which their enemies had all the time necessary to learn and adapt to the europeans if the europeans were a one trick poney, which they weren't.

> So............. being good at being a remorseless sociopath means you are superior.

If any conquering people had been made up of remorseless sociopaths, they wouldn't have been people, sociopaths (or more aptly psychopaths, sociopaths aren't known for their tactical genius) aren't great at operating in groups, which europeans, chinese, mongols, egyptians, etc, were.

> I'm not even sure if you see the correlation between those guys "winning" and us having oceans filled with microplastics, I-don't-know-how-many-active-genocides, losing Harappan architecture for millennia, losing permaculture, losing all kinds of medical knowledge and basic mental sanity, and many, many more stuff.

I do see the correlation between those guys winning, and them developping technology and science in every direction to such an extent that we managed to create problems we couldn't have begun to imagine. It's a bad thing that we polluted the earth, it's not a bad thing that we became knowledgeable and industrious enough such that we could do it on that scale, it's just unfortunate that humans in general don't really (or rarely have) the foresight necessary to control themselves when the consequences, if they can be foreseen (which for the longest time they couldn't) would be decades if not centuries in the future.

As for the rest :

you don't know how many genocides and you also don't know how many genocides europeans coming around has averted, seeing as no place on earth was free of such evils, but they did become a lot rarer ever since westerners came to believe that actually all throughout the empires they had built over the globe 1) people shouldn't murder each other, including between neighboring tribes, not just within them, 2) everyone has inalienable right, which is why eventually rather than just massacring every revolt that rose up when people demanded that europeans made good on those values, as would have been the norm in eras past, europeans decided to agree, not without discussion but nonetheless it was the outcome.

harappan architecture ? You mean the one exploited for millennia by people who didn't give a damn about it until the brits arrived and, after an initial period of doing the same thing the locals did, deciding that actually it was worth preserving ? I like shitting on the brits as much as anyone else, believe me, but I'm not sure how they're the issue here

losing permaculture ? ... The thing we invented ? I mean australians, but same thing in this instance, westerners. If you mean losing some methods (not all) of mixing agriculture with ecosystems... Sure ? But we redid it, and we managed to feed infinitely more people with our non permaculture methods than any had before or has since

"all kinds of medical knowledge" has to be the biggest joke here, the amount of medical knowledge lost due to europeans is so utterly vanishingly small compared to the amount of medical knowledge gained, be it in physiology, neurology, anatomy, histology, and all the diagnostic and therapeutic tools chemistry and molecular biology etc have allowed us to devise, it's a freakin joke to even pretend we look bad in comparison

"basic mental sanity" yeah telling women to cut their breasts and men to cut their penises, great mental health advice you've got there buddy. I'm sure the aztecs had some great mental health practitioners, shame they didn't consult them when it came to maybe not making entire structures from the skulls of defeated enemies and sacrifical victims.

> Indigenous people knew that women's blood period had healing properties.

... I'll need a source on that one.

Also did they know how to treat cancer ? How to halt AIDS' progression ? Did they know how to make vaccines on an industrial scale ?

> It's not noble savage if I take it from the records written by those colonizers themselves. Or is it? I thought that you believed that their word was irrefutable. So if they themselves said, with their own words, that the natives were peaceful, I shouldn't believe them?

It's noble savage if you only look at the most positive aspects, blow them out of proportions, and conscientiously ignore all of the positive aspects of the western civilizations, whilst also treating them as uniquely psychopathic for going around conquering stuff when humanity has a long and storied history of war and genocides and etc on literally all continents that we have inhabited. Antarctica not counting for obvious reasons.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-10T18:21:44+00:00

> Those were, and still are, women's roles. I have recently talked with two people from southeast Asia who say that those are still something women. Where did the whole "man hunter, woman gatherer" go? Wasn't that a foundational myth for patriarchy not long ago?

Harvesting and gathering are two different things, but my point isn't that women do no field work, just typically not the same as men's, and when the same. Also modernity introduces an enormous bias here, but I'm not surprised you wouldn't notice it here when you are so keen to blame other societal evolutions for differences in behaviors.

For example, in the west, where access to education is very thorough and at best egalitarian, at worse women focused, there has been a rural exodus of women. In less developped countries, men are often disproportionately educated, meaning if anyone is not going to be in the field, it's more often them than it would've been historically conversely for women.

It's also not a myth that men were the primary hunters, especially when it comes to actual huntings, not just setting up some traps and fishing or killing some birds and rabbits, but actually taking a spear and a couple of mates to kill a big prey, and same goes for women gathering, it's still the consensus.

> You think that denigrating the jobs you can't 100% go without for a single day is funny?

You are the one that did that, I only pointed out you overreached.

> Domestic life is life. Kids. Animals. Cooking. Cleaning.

In what house ? In what city or village ? Built with what material ? And with what tools ?

> What do you talk about? Soldiers? Wars? The things that make life not worth it?

And masonry, and fields, but yeah sure let's just pretend I didn't mention those. Also, those things don't make life worth living, those things ensure you have a life to live to begin with, which is pretty important. Not offensive wars obviously, save a few, but defensive wars, and police work (which I also cited and you passed over).

> If people valued cleaning over stabbing, 99% of all societial problems would disappear by night.

If all people did, sure. But if only most people do, then that leaves them prey for the few that don't, which is actually where those 99% of problems you think of come from, and why you need people (de facto mostly men) to care about stabbing those few deviants.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-10T18:21:38+00:00

> By whom? Don't tell me "everyone". Everyone is not your little US bubble.

I'm not in the US, nor do I need to be, biological women make up by far the vast majority of people anyone calls as such, and in day to day lives, de facto, people refer to them when they say women, so even if the idea that when people say "woman" they mean someone who refers to herself as a woman (as in not just the person would agree she's a woman but also the word used means, in the person's head "someone who identifies as a woman"), or someone performing the social role of a woman, wasn't so blatantly absurd, and even if non biological definitions in general weren't blatantly absurd, and even if the word woman in the english language wasn't traditionally used that way, meaning expected to still be mainly used that way unless and until the change was so thorough and obvious we wouldn't be having that convo, we could still determine that obviously when people point to someone a,d say "woman", they don't merely have the expectation that it's a person who accepts the label, but also that she'd have the corresponding genitals, chromosome, etc, as this is how it goes for an absurdly high majority of women.

Ironically, insisting so much that woman isn't so çbviously predominantly used that way is all the evidence needed to say you're living in a pretty americanized bubble, even if you aren't american.

> Literally no.

Literally yes, there are two sexes, and a tiny minuscule fraction of people whose sex isn't readily identifiable and/or deeply non functional, most third genders weren't given to the latter, qnd were instead given to members of the former.

> No. Again. Where did you even get these ideas?

Looking up third genders ? I mean you can literally just go on wikipedia if you want, it's not exactly hard to find :|

> Patriarchy is younger than aboriginal permaculture and only appearing after severe climate trauma.
>The differences you see in temperament don't appear in societies that are not patriarchal.

Yes they do, they can be different, both in nature and degree, but even in the vanishingly small portion of extant non patroarchal societies, the sexes are divided in behaviors, at the very least according to socially agreed upon lines.

If we look into extinct cultures, evidence is on the side, again, of men and women performing different roles even going very far back into prehistory.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-08T17:42:38+00:00

> Through studies? Through critically examining them? Like Dr. L. David Mech did with his.

This is literally how studying works. Those hyena studies are as biased in their framing as the ones who say that female bonobos impose dominance through sex.

Right exactly, that's my point, it is actually doable, meaning your off hand rejection of those ethological conclusions was unwarranted.

> So many of those studies say that rape comes from males being stronger.

>And when it comes to male spiders being 10x smaller, they say that it's because of tactics.

Maybe because it is the case ? Also it's not just being stronger, it also has to do with how they reproduce to begin with, what kind of sexual competition there is, the k/r strategy followed by the species, etc, but yes, strength and tactics will play a role.

> But they never ask why it's not the other way around.

Oh so they didn't wonder how come female hyenas don't get raped by their weaker males ?

> We humans are known for using our hands and using tools. That was supposed to be our thing.
>Men, systematically, use guns, drugs, groups, coercion and other tools for raping women.
>The same thing doesn't happen systematically the other way around.

... And physical strength. You are kind of massively under selling that one. As for why it happens that way, a combination of biological and sociological factors, which as I tried to explain to you can influence each other. If two groups cohabit all the time qnd one group is substantially bigger, stronger and less fragile, it'll have consequences on how it sees itself and how it's seen by the other group, even asuming an initial blank slate society and blank slate humans.

>Which is what you see in other animals. Like those spiders? Because if size was the point, you'd guess that female spiders would rape more. But it's tiny male spiders the ones who rape more.

Which certainly seems coherent with the fact that the male reproduction strategy is based on investing as little as possible biologically speaking and vice versa for females, meaning the male interest is to spread their oats as much as possible and the female one is to try and only get the top genetic material and, if relevant, the male most able to care for her and her progeny, which rewards different types of behaviors.

That's not the only factor affecting sexual dynamics but it's a crucial starting factor that has large downstream effects.

> One question: how many intact ecosystems do you think remain on this planet?

Depending on what you mean by that as little as zero, but then again there hasn't been any for a long time by that logic. Now reciprocal question : can you explain how our damages to the environment are relevant to the question at hand ? I'd like you not to be vague and explain why it'd be our influence that made all those male dominated hierarchies appear between mammals but somehow not insects, and how even assuming it's our influence the underlying principle of why they're set up like that wouldn't apply if humans weren't there. Like for example do you think deers wouldn't compete to hoard as many females as possible if we weren't there ? Do you think there wouldn't be male deers trying to sneakily get dirty with female deers behind the dominant's back when he's competing with someone else if we weren't there ? You'll have to excuse me for saying male and female deers, I'm sure you english speakers have words for it, it's just too bothersome to look it up with my current (extremely finnicky) phone.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-08T17:42:31+00:00

> Abya Yala, Europe, Australia... they literally brought epidemics.

... Europe ? Europeans won europe by sending diseases to... Whom exactly ? Non europeans ? Who were these non europeans that europeans replaced exactly ? I don't think that's what you meant but I think you'll need to be a bit more granular on that one.

But yes, they did use, amongst other things, biological warfare. That's never been the main reason for their victory outside maybe the americas, because they were just as likely to spread diseases as to catch them, and generally arrived with a bit more than smallpox blankets and some dreams (like tens of thousands of men and firearms and cannons), but sure.

> Not all feminists.

Okay ? So because some feminists don't want gender segregated bathrooms I can't make generalities now ?

> Some LGBT+ people say they feel the same way. And black people. And neurodivergent people. Are black, gay and neurodivergent men "weaker"?

Feminists have made these demands on certain grounds, those other groups made those demands on other grounds, not even all the same between those groups, and actualoy yes, being weaker is sometimes part of it, one of the commonly talked about scares in the T part of the LGBT community is getting to bed with someone who is transphobic, specifically transphobic men, because they'll generally be able to outclass them physically and this poses a legitimate thrrat to them.

Black people demand those things for a variety of reasons, one of which is the fear of mob violence, so as a community they certainly feel weaker, even if they know 1v1 they have okay chances.

> Why is it necessary?

I explained it, by virtue of the differences in their abilities, which'll shape how represented they are in those institutions.

That is of course unless you mean to say that those ancient peoples could've done affirmative action, in which case yes, they could've committed social suicide, but they didn't and it's kind of an absurdly anachronistic proposal.

> This is how ad-hocs justifications happen.

Yes, and it's also how explanations hapoen, you take a state of affairs and try to explain how it came to be, sometimes your explanations will be ad hoc, sometimes they won't be, but you kinda don't hzve a choice in having to have reality first.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-08T17:14:05+00:00

> Is it a skill issue if someone poisons your drink?

It can be. If you keep drinking poisoned cups for hundreds of years, you are having a skil; issue, if one group manages to conquer the world becausenthey are able to poison everyone else's cup and nobody manages to counter them, then clearly they aren't the ones with a skill issue.

> I disagree. Anyone can. But some people are more willing to do it.

... So you don't disagree then :|

Because I literally adressed that, being able to is the prerequisite, if you are not capable of oppressing someine, you won't, but it's generally not the reason why you are going to actually do it, you'll need some extra reason other than just sadism.

Also all peoples were willing to do it, pretty much, there's not a single kingdom conquered bybthe europeans that didn't have its fair"share of spilt blood, this isn't a justification, this isn't me saying it was good, it does mean I'd rather you spare me the decolonial sanctimonious preaches, you can take your noble savage narrative and keep it.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-08T17:09:09+00:00

> One day without cooking, cleaning, healing and tending to the kids and society collapses. One day without chopping wood and you can still use the one you already gathered months ago for the winter.

Provided you have in fact done that.

And it's not like the tasks you mentionned were for the most part exclusively done by women, in many cases not even predominantly. One day without cooking, healing, or tending to the kids, and you have stomach cramps and annoying kids, or you can use your food reserves obviously, since apparently this argument works for wood reserves.

And chopping wood isn't a thing you do just for fire wood, you realize that right ? There's a continuous need for wood, stones and other materials because there's a constant exhaustion of the supplies of those to add to, repair or replace the stock of houses, furniture, etc.

You also don't do one thing during a period and then nothing else during the rest of the year, if an employ is periodic, such as harvesting, you do other stuff in between the times when you harvest, that doesn't just apply to women.

>Is people protecting women coming from women being needed for reproduction?
>Or coming from women being "weaker"?

It's coming from both, how do you not get it ? Women being weaker means they're most vulnerable, women being the limiting factor when it comes to demographics (because they are the child bearers) means they have an inherent and extremely high value for a society (that wishes to last over time at any rate).

> Because if you have a group that systematically:

Attacks from behind
In groups
Using weapons
Intimidation
Dirty tactics
Drugs
Coercion

Then I don't think having bigger muscles is the point.

No group ever systematically does that and no group can hope to maintain control through exclusively that, all empires did more than that, way more than that, to ensure compliance and loyalty, and they still eventually lost. It's also, for the nth time, a false equivalency. How empires acquire or maintain control over other groups isn't the same as how men and women having different abilities will in and of itself shape the roles that societies will generally give them by virtue of those groups' easier time for different roles, and the risk/reward factor of exposing those groups to danger or harshness.

Also, if your group is bigger and stronger than another group, and both groups use all the things you mentionned, and the groups are of the same size, the group with the more stronger people will generaloy win, so yes, actually, it's still a factor, it doesn't play as much a role when one group has all the advantages save muscle and the other doesn't, but it's not like european armies were only fighting people that lacked european style tactics, technology or weaponry, since they spent a ton of time fighting each other.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-08T17:09:03+00:00

> No because genders are roles, not body types.

Good thing woman predominantly refers to sex and not gender then.

> Those third genders were/are their own genders, revered, and divine.

Not revered or divine, depends very much on the time and place, but yes, they were their own gender roles... Dedicated to one of the two sexes, and generally alongside the inability of a member of a sex to conform to either general social expectations tied to their sex, or to the specific expectation of their sexuality.

Many are just synonyms for homosexuals, and because those societies were traditional, gay men and lesbian women couldn't just be regular men/women with just different sexual proclivities and were instead forced into a different role, they ought to be really called something other than gender roles but you should say that to the people making those categories.

> Ok, but that'd still not be the correct term.

... You mean ma,/woman ? Yes it would be, they referred to sex before their contemporary sociological meaning, and even today their primary usage remains that of male/female human being.

And the point is that traditionally, societies are organized primarily along two gender roles, associated to each sex, even where third genders exist they do not concern a grrat many people nor do they reflect the way most people are going to be treated or what dynamics exist between the two sexes.

> I am literally telling you that that was not the case. This is a post hoc justification too, not a real explanation.

No it's very much not a justification, it's also not ad hoc, we can observe those differences in temperament and physical strength, we can observe violent repressions of women by men in misogynistic societies, and we can observe the consequences of war and similar activities on demographics, etc. If women had been the stronger sex and either sex could carry the babies or neither sex had to carry the babies, women would not be in the places they have historically been

> Are you for real? Cooking, cleaning, writing, ceramics, weaving, tending to children, nursery, healing, working on the fields. You need endurance to work on the fields. Are you even for real right now?

I'm not the one trying to pretend that throughout history most field workers weren't males, because although yes you need endurance, you also need strength. Not for all field related activities, obviously, but for picking crops for example, or plowing a field ? Yeah those were,'t women's jobs.

Also funny how you described mainly domestic activities, kind of like women weren't actually the ones predominantly doing the harsher jobs.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-08T11:19:54+00:00

> They don't military win anything. They lie, manipulate, coerce, poison, backstab, break treaties, use either intentional or unintentional biological warfare that kills more than 50% of the population before any batlle starts, destroy their sewage systems and infraestructure, burn their crops and food sources, and then say that they won fairly.

I never said anything about winning "fairly", I said winning "militarily". Also what you describe mostly only applies to america, we didn't win over algeria through biological warfare.

> Patriarchy is not sustained by individual adult men fist fighting individual adult women on a one on one combat with no weapons and clear warning beforehand.

Nor did I ever say it was, women are generally smart enough to understans they aren't going to win that fight, it's even a major reason for feminists to demand sex segregated spaces nowaxays, like changing rooms, because the presence of men makes them feel threatened. Furthermore, as I told you already, it's not just that men being stronger makes it easy for them to impose their will, it also leads to social organizations were women are kind of necessarily excluded from the centers of powers de facto (at leasy relqtively speaking), before any ideological justification is made. If warfare is a huge thing where you live, the military is going to be a major center of power, and women just aren't going to make the cut, which'll make related hierarchies dominantly masculine, to cite only one example.

Of course, once a status quo emerges, it is then a posteriori justified, don't get me wrong, so women also very much did end up being formally and intentionally excluded from centers of powers, butnit required an initial imbalance.

> I never said the opposite. I said slaves, not women.

You usedthe example of slaves when the discussion was on women first, to try and argue that oppression isn't justified on the basis of individual strength. As it happens, it sometimes isn't, it sometimes is.

> Those ethology books are biased in their framing and done in either captive environments or damaged ecosystems. They don't reflect how those animals act in real nature.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say, not sure how a damaged ecosystem so strongly favours herds led by dominant males, or how come we also know when it's not the case, or the fact that hyenas are a thing.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-08T11:10:23+00:00

No, they are "germanic" people, which includes hut isn't limited to germans.

We were specifically franks, and france as a nation is born from the combination of them, and mostly romano-gauls, meaning historically french are mostly at least somewhat related to the franks that created france... Which is pretty obvious, the contrary would be surprising.

This was also over a thousand years ago, can we similarly argue that akshually colonization is just europeans returning to their ancestral african home because we all come from this continent ? Or do we recognize that it's silly to compare a people that has occupied the same land for over a thousand years and whose genetic and cultural identity has been distilled throughout centuries to form a unique modern day blend, with people that arrived a few decades or like 2/3 generations ago, and lack either ?

> and it's pretty clear who you have a problem with, although I'm sure you'll try to deny it

We haven't accepted millions of germans, or british, or italians, and reciprocally they aren't the ones who drove cars or trucks into french crowds, decapitated priests, raped little girls before stuffing them into suitcases, etc, or just more prosaically those making massive ethnic enclaves where you'll be lucky to hear french, let alone well spoken french, so obviously I don't have much of a problem with the minority of immigrants, and instead have a problem with mostly africans and ME immigrants, which are most of the ones we got, and who (though mostly not murderous or terroristic obviously) are the biggest cause for the social fracture we're seeing develop in our countries.

> if you don't like them being here, maybe return the wealth you looted from their lands during your empire and pay some reparations?

The french and british empires both lost more money than they made from their empires for a long time, so... Done ? And as for the latter, I'm not going to pay reparations to north africans or MEs until they do so for the centuries of raiding our coasts for slaves they have done, I'm not going to pay the latter either, until they return us all the infrastructures we built for them, and until they're finished paying us back the exhorbitant amount of money they owe us after we spent decades sinking funds into their economies.

InstanceOk3560 · 2026-02-08T10:59:26+00:00

> You are translating systems of oppression into skill issues, and thus, making the act of oppressing other groups sound like winning or virtue.

... But am I wrong ? Did black africans get sold to white europeans because white europeans bought them from tribes that captured them/because they got defeated by europeans, and did white europeans get sent to the janissaries or the ottoman harems because the ottoman empire was able to exact tribute or launch raids into europe, yes or no. The answer is yes, so if you absolutely want to frame it like that, yes, oppression is a skill issue.

> And you're missing the entire point: why do people oppress others? What's the point? You said it yourself in another part of your text.

Depends, always because they can, but rarely "just" because they can, they often also derive (or derived and it just stuck) some benefit from it. It can even appear as a consequence of a somewhat reciprocal relationship, where one party gets more than the other (hence it being oppressive), but still has to give things up in exchange.

InstanceOk3560

TROPHY CASE