SSDR wrote:In socialism, everyone has an equal chance in their lives.
Like the naked mole rats, who all have equal opportunity to eat each other's feces.
"Legal entitlements to benefit" doesn't exist in socialism
You will pardon me for being skeptical about what you claim does and doesn't exist in socialism.
because that economically promotes the family institution via inheritance.
Inheritance doesn't require privilege.
"Above" meaning socially, economically, politically, and culturally.
Then men are below women in our culture: they do worse in school, they are ten times as likely to be in jail, they die earlier, they cast fewer votes, they are three times as likely to commit suicide and four times as likely to be murdered, etc., etc.
Men are manipulated to act tough, while women are manipulated to act submissive, and emotional.
It's not manipulation. It's biology. Hormones. DNA. All the same sexual dimorphisms and consequent sex role differences are observed in our closest primate relatives. Socialists have just never come to terms with Darwin.
In lesser advanced economics, women have to rely on male fathers or male husbands due to how the obsolete economics are set up.
It's socialism that is obsolete -- except for socialist naked mole rats happily feeding on each other's feces, of course.
There are not a lot of female politicians.
Or female prison inmates. And for much the same reasons: the difference in value placed on status, dominance, and power vs affiliation, safety, and relationships.
Women in politics wasn't common until the mid 20th century.
And it's because most women know better than to go into electoral politics, which is brutally demanding, dirty and competitive.
Margot Honecker (one of the best people to ever live) is a great example of someone who would go against patriarchy politically.
You mean the Minister of Forcible Communist Indoctrination and Thought Control??
The false definition of slavery that you have shows that your statements are false.
The definition I gave is accurate.
Slavery is when one human is OWNED by another human.
No, that's only chattel slavery. There are also, e.g., penal slavery, military slavery, etc., which do not involve ownership. You are, as usual, just objectively wrong. OBJECTIVELY.
It doesn't have to involve direct force.
Yes, it does.
Religion, family faith, and certain cultural norms existed in the past to prevent the masses from gaining real consciousness (slaves supporting slavery).
That is not slavery.
You are attempting to redefine slavery so that you can teach people that some kinds of slavery are not slavery.
No, you are redefining it so that you can call things slavery that are not slavery.
And here is an example: Human trafficking is a kind of slavery.
No it isn't, unless labor is compelled by force.
Exploitation is a kind of slavery.
No it isn't, unless labor is compelled by force.
Eating another's feces is not an example of socialism.
Yes, it is. Naked mole rats are the only known example of socialist mammals, and they eat each other's feces.
There is a difference between private property, and personal property. You do not know that, so you cannot criticize socialism if you do not know it.
I am aware of the socialist distinction, and why it is a red herring.
And comparing humans to rats is not useful.
In this case, it's very illuminating.
If someone deceived you into supporting slavery, would you support slavery?
That's a tautology.
Each individual is different. You cannot stereotype each sex individually because you do know know every single human.
That's pretty rich coming from a socialist who advocates Procrustean egalitarianism.
You're a Nazi.
You just disqualified yourself from serious discussion.
You're using science to politically go against capitalism and socialism.
Correct.
Mixing emotional terms such as "evil" with non emotional subjects such as science is a Nazi act.
You just confirmed your disqualification from serious discussion. And emotions are also an appropriate object of scientific inquiry.
Different political ideologies have different views on what is evil.
And some are correct, while others are incorrect.
What is your definition of "evil?"
I just gave it: deliberate abrogation of others' rights with intent to inflict injustice, and rationalization of such acts.
You're imposing bullshit Social constructs that were created to control the masses.
In chimpanzee society as in human society? REALLY???
Your impositions cannot work since you support slavery, and others like myself don't.
Your absurd ad hominem accusations disqualify you from serious discussion.
You're a Nazi who supports human trafficking.
You again reconfirm your disqualification from serious discussion.