/hell/ - internet death cult

> In the past, we lived in an enchanted world

I think almost everything is probably downstream of this. Gender nihilism, as you put it, is less of a cause and more of a symptom.
The funny thing is that, from what I can tell, the world is still quite mysterious. Its merely the hubris of our age that allows us to think we have it all down pat with our little rules and simulations and figures. The easiest way to sum it all up for me is "the map is not the territory." I think gender has a high level of overlap with everyone's subjectivity, and as the tide flows from the real to the virtual, human manufactured reality and back we see what you are referring to, which is basically that everyone is far too caught up in their own heads, to the point of being wound so tight they unravel. I can speak to personal experience with this, and the slight beginnings of a recovery.
I think it comes down to something akin to the virtual fostering a sense of solipsism. I certainly see a lot of thinkers floating about telling people that they are in fact not concious beings at all, but mere relfections of reflections. Attempting to convince yourself that you are an illusory existence seems to me to be, well, impossible.

Hopefully we will see some re enchantment as time goes on, I certainly hope it can start happening within my own lifetime. Anyway this is just my little ramble on it, so don't pay it much mind.

This Nietzschean gender nonconformism seems tragically futile. No matter how hard you push back against society, you simply get stuck in the mud. At the same time, the attempt to create new identities, new pronouns, new styles threatens to create arbitrariness and confusion. Not that I want to put down people who do it. It needs rethinking maybe? I would like it to be more spiritually connected in a way.

>>5471
I feel like although people say that science and rationality have destroyed what we call religion and magic but ultimately, the ironic outcome of this techno-scientific development is a renewed need for the idea of God. There is something that feels divine about the new technology or there are opportunities for re enchantment but I remain skeptical.

>>5472
lmfao get confused by new styles godtard

>>5473
Rude

>>5470
Once you accept gender is artificial then individualism kicks in and boom "I can be anything I wanna be, even if I have to make it up." Its really as simple as that. Disenchantment only really matters here because of how it gave rise to a Protestant individualism stripped of its religious content. Instead of a freedom to interpret scripture for one's self, which still tied you to a shared tradition, we now have the freedom to invent our own truths, our own genders, our own paths in life. The result is extreme subjectivism and relativism and the gradual loss of a shared moral horizon. This is probably where the confusion comes from and probably explains the conflict and hatred you see online. Not only can we not agree on anything, we no longer have a shared tradition to act as a glue. We don't argue over scripture like Reformation-era scriptures, we just argue and we have no way of resolving our disagreements.

Gender nonconformists aren't Nietzscheans usually. Most genuinely think that the existence of trans or non-binary or bigendered people is a hard fact of nature. They just believe alienating forces (religion is their main target) forced it underground for most of human history. Even Judith Butler, once nothing but Nietzsche in drag, now thinks trans people have always existed, which contradicts everything she wrote in Gender Trouble 30 years ago. I'd also question how nonconformist they are. Yes, they do upset some people and make reactionaries writhe, but the theme of the authentic individual tearing off the shackles of religion and tradition to find personal freedom goes all the way back to the French and American revolutions. Its a well established and state-backed dogma now. When you think about it, gender nonconformists are just Protestants, except they don't believe in God.

This whole thread feels like bait and doesn't warrant any more discussion.

>>5475
To wit, it was copy+pasted from lainchan as well. It's utterly dull regardless and frankly deserves /superhell/.

>>5475
>>5476
why let it continiue. sure the topic is strange. doesnt seem to have gone south yet.

>>5476
thread?

>>5477
The whole reason it's in /hell/ is because it doesn't conform to the standards of comfiness. The opening post specifically is a bad take on gender rooted in a prettied up version of a racist, post-enlightenment view of certain "primitive" groups that is flat-out untrue. It also begs the question of why do we need yet another "status quo bad" thread in /hell/ when we already have several others here on a pretty tenuous grace given by the rules.
>>5478
It was removed by jannies because of a trans discussion within the thread to my recollection, but I do recall seeing the exact same thread down to the image on lainchan a while back.

>>5470
> want to understand what gender nonconformity is
It's the rejection of rules inherited from ones gender, a contrary move by definition, since it must establish itself as nonconforming to the established idea of gender norms.

I don't know about former humans living in an enchanted world, as I've not been alive back then and history is prone to distortions through those who write it and those who preserver it and pass it on. While some things might have been easier, the downsides usually get less time in the spotlight.

In terms of why it is such a big topic nowadays, I'd say the advancements in medicine and changing social structures in the west are the biggest contributors. The decline in religious devotion has been going on since the 1700s, so I wouldn't place too much weight on it regarding this development.

>>5479
>is a bad take on gender rooted in a prettied up version of a racist, post-enlightenment view of certain "primitive" groups that is flat-out untrue.
I'm not sure that's clear from the post. Why do you think it's a bad take? what makes it racist?

>>5480
I do think they are connected. In the past, religion grounded debates about gender where it clearly doesn't today, at least for the majority of people who are gender nonconforming. Instead, the debate revolves around competing interpretations of nature and appeals to science. The kind of individualism you see among gender nonconforming people has Christian roots. I'm not sure its right to say religious devotion has declined but it has changed in some fundamental ways.

>>5481
>The kind of individualism you see among gender nonconforming people has Christian roots.
Can you give more details on that? What are the parallels and how does one cause the other? Seems like a far fetch to me.

>>5482
Protestant theology was highly individualistic. Martin Luther argued that an individual could interpret the Bible and have access to God without having to defer to the Pope. Faith became a deep inner conviction, something you find through your own engagement with scripture. You find your own path to truth. Martin Luther believed people had to act according to their own conscience. John Locke today is considered the father of liberalism. He argued that an individual has a God given right to their own body and the right to do whatever they want with it, as long as they don't harm others. His argument for this was almost entirely Biblical. The result was a human-centered theology where you experience God through your inner consciousness and should be free from coercion. Now, you can see how modern individualism shares many features that go back to these Christian roots. This includes the idea of an individual journey, an absolute right to your own body, and that you can find truth through an inner personal journey and don't have to defer to others. Now I'm not saying modern gender nonconforming people are crypto-Christians because there are other influences.

>>5483
I get that christian theology and philosophy have been a huge influence on modern day thoughts, but these ideas date back to ancient Greece, maybe even before that. There was this punk who lived in a barrel and masturbated in public. Individualism is probably as old as time, but it needs a certain level of technology and experience to not lead to personal ruin.

The problem with it is, that other people will have to take burden, if it fails to support you. It's also a path, that does not allow other value systems to be applied in synchronicity, as that easily leads to exploitation of the population, following different schools of thought.

>>5484
Individuality isn't something inherent in nature. Its an idea, or a set of ideas, that have a history and emerged in the Western tradition at a specific point in time. Ancient Greek philosophers, including Diogenes, never promoted anything like modern individualism. For one thing, Greek philosophers had no concept of an inner self that could access truth or that a person was autonomous from the society that person is raised in.

>The problem with it is, that other people will have to take burden, if it fails to support you
Yeah. There is also a clash between the demand for individual freedom and the demand for positive socio-economic rights. Individualism makes social inequality worse. And if everyone can live their own life according to their own values, then a shared form of life is also undermined. Part of the reason there's so much hate and vitriol online is because of the conflicting lifestyle options and extreme individualism.

>want to understand what gender nonconformity is
I'm non-binary quantum non-conformist. I think people came up with term 'queer', alongside other genders.
>is a about cultural traditions.
In polynesia as well as other cultures, there were 3rd genders, or dominant matriarchy, depends on a particular culture reference pointer in time. If you look at cell culture, they tend to prolifirate, culture of slugs and many other living beings change gender.

>Men and women (and sometimes extra genders) had different spaces, tools, everyday tasks, and this was deeply connected to spiritual beliefs. As the world has become more secular, these beliefs that grounded gender roles have died away. We no longer live in a gendered world where we have a clear purpose and direction.
>So is gender non-conformity really about starving off nihilism? In the absence of traditional gender roles and spiritual beliefs, people try to invent their own gender identity to starve of feelings of meaninglessness?

Your PoV on gender is a functional, utilitarian, economic. A bit western (might be evevn based on some central European philosophers of 18-19 centuries)? Oriental people views differ.

Very traditional french & euro aristocracts, kings, viceroys, rulers weared wigs, makeup. (just like today NA)

gender non-conformity != is not nihilism. It defines new, better meanings.

>>5476
their /hum/anity is a bit of ramen content farm, isn't it? Just like 4chan & some other chans & Fediverse.


>>5479
many chans became full of 'trad' jorpetersonian threads, I wnder why, hmmmm… must be some forced prop agenda… no, this can't be true

>>5484
he wasn't a punk, but recognized philosopher till this day, studied in academia, an Slavoj Chomsky (or Eric Hyde) of his time. Greece was an capital of western (european) civilization back then, just like US today. Athens was NYC of it's time.

>Part of the reason there's so much hate and vitriol online is because of the conflicting lifestyle options and extreme individualism.
not really. We, fans of russo-jewish philosopher Ayn Rand, do not fought each other.

>>5470
>In the past, we lived in an enchanted world that was gendered.
No, not really. We didn't live in an "enchanted world that was gendered." We lived in a grisly and dangerous world where we fought to live each day. Cultures arose and fell amongst us, but the degree of genderedness, what those genders were, and how they came about (both in myth and reality) varied a lot between societies. This is still seen in the few hunter-gatherer, pastoralist, and agriculturalist communities still around today that haven't been overtaken by imperial religions, which is clearly the kind of thing you're referencing.
>Being a woman wasn’t about personal identity, it reflected a cosmic and order. Men and women (and sometimes extra genders) had different spaces, tools, everyday tasks, and this was deeply connected to spiritual beliefs.
Again, sometimes, but not always. Yes, gender as personal identity is (to the best of our knowledge) a mostly modern phenomenon with limited historical attestation, but this doesn't suddenly mean it's a reflection of some sublime cosmic order. There are a lot of other sources and not all cultures necessarily explained that source in ways you might like. Of course, this is only when it's true that Homo Sapiens society is as gendered as you imply here, which it often isn't and wasn't, such as how women and men both historically participated in hunting together in H-G societies despite popular conceptions otherwise.
>As the world has become more secular, these beliefs that grounded gender roles have died away. We no longer live in a gendered world where we have a clear purpose and direction.
I think this is more a result than a cause, though it certainly plays into a feedback loop to some degree. The bigger issue is most certainly the lost of community in the face of urbanization, industrialization, specialization, and deindustrialization, inevitabilities of capitalism's development.
>In the absence of traditional gender roles and spiritual beliefs, people try to invent their own gender identity to starve of feelings of meaninglessness?
I think there's a nugget of truth here, but crucially the issue is not so much about the absence of roles but the existing roles being constricting and inflexible. There's certainly a phenomenon of genders existing that essentially fetishize things to easily affix one's identity to, but this is a pretty rare phenomenon and mostly existent only amongst highly alienated youth.
>>5481
>I'm not sure that's clear from the post. Why do you think it's a bad take? what makes it racist?
To be more clear, it is not racist per se, but rather it is clearly fetishization of attributes from non-Western cultures grounded in racist European perceptions of other cultures that arose during the Enlightenment and later. It is a bad take because that grounding is one of some pretty big falsehoods.
>>5486
>he wasn't a punk, but recognized philosopher till this day
The Sinopian Diogenes wasn't even a unique figure or the first of his kind, he was one of a broad school of people who did and believed similar things, the Cynics.

>>5488
When Weber said that we once lived in an enchanted world he was not describing the material conditions of existence but describing in a very general way the worldview of people the time. But the world doesn't seem to be as disenchanted as people like Weber and his followers tell us. If we look at 'developed' 'industrial' secular cultures (whatever you want to call them), you realize people do see themselves as part of a bigger picture dominated by institutions that transcend their everyday lives e.g. markets, cooperations, nation-states etc.

Now, I do think its true that in certain communities (past and present), people saw themselves as part of a larger cosmic order and that this order explained their social roles. But this was not limited to gender roles.

>it is clearly fetishization of attributes from non-Western cultures grounded in racist European perceptions of other cultures
I don't see any references to other cultures in the OP.

>>5486
This whole post feels like bad faith posturing. But:
>In polynesia as well as other cultures, there were 3rd genders, or dominant matriarchy, depends on a particular culture reference pointer in time
Yes its true that other cultures don't have the same model of gender as we do, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the idea of gender nonconformity except maybe demonstrating that the rigid two gender model isn't descriptively accurate.

I don't like where this thread is going. I'll say it again. It doesn't merit further discussion.

>>5486
>Very traditional french & euro aristocracts, kings, viceroys, rulers weared wigs, makeup. (just like today NA)
that was not a gender statement lol but it's true that in nobility after the 16th century there were cases like this. you could have mentioned that many italian sons of nobles were bisexual and very andro looking, but that was persecuted and virtually made fun of by every other european nobility. psychologically it was often a mark of a well developed individuality coming from a wealthy background (renaissance italy was the start of the individual will instead of the collective will in europe) and it's no wonder that nietzsche, yuko mishima, tesla, jung, goethe etc. were all pretty much on the grey area. today gender noncomformists also often come from wealthy families or more liberal views, but now it's heavily "pauperized" and it often turns into a means to have power over others (socialism as a remnant of protestantism) and a quick way to feel better with oneself by not dealing with one own's nature and going immediately on the opposite to feel better.I hope the meaning of individuality gets through even though i don't even know what today it means for people.

jung wrote that he didn't believe in AGP or stuff like that and thought that it was a sign of someone struggling in his renewal process (that's what i mean with individuality). Kinda like a spiral process or eternal mithosis and creation (dividing from the collective and then dividing again and then…) If you see his work on alchemy you will also start to make connections on androginy in cultures and why virtually every culture research union between the two. Nick land also made some very schizo but smart observations on the correlation between postmodernity, computers, death of god and values, gender noncomformity that all ties to extreme decentralization (reflected in computers and the internet a.k.a. collective unconscious) of everything and destruction of the institutionalized Logos in a post christian society (if you wondered why many people in computers are not gender traditional). Either way it's definitely a thing of our age and our age will never understand it, just like a real artist does not understand his art or where it comes from, and is also afraid to find out because "he will lose it".

>>5490
>Nick Land
>Jung
>Yukio Mishima
This really is lainchan spam. Shoo!

>>5489
>When Weber said that we once lived in an enchanted world he was not describing the material conditions of existence but describing in a very general way the worldview of people the time.
Yes, and that's precisely what I'm criticizing here, this nonsense idea that people in the past somehow saw themselves as intrinsically and instrumentally a part of some religious superstructure. It's just not accurate and is overly romantic.
>I don't see any references to other cultures in the OP.
Where have we gotten most of our knowledge on hunter-gatherers, pastoralists, and agriculturalists from? Well, I'll go ahead and tell you now that it wasn't Europe as by the time science as we know it came around we'd already choked out pretty much all our domestic "primitives," and by the time anthropology finally stopped being a racist pseudoscience we were already highly urbanized and were even cusping on deindustrialization in much of the west.

>>5496
>this nonsense idea that people in the past somehow saw themselves as intrinsically and instrumentally a part of some religious superstructure
Medieval Christians had a very different worldview to their secular descendants. They certainly did see themselves as a part of a greater cosmic-moral order and you can see that in their literature.

People who live in homeless camps in American cities are for all practical purposes, hunter gatherers. They form quasi-nomadic communities and forage for resources. Can they give us an insight into how people lived in the Neolithic era? No, and neither can bushmen in Africa or Andaman Islanders. These people are very much part of the present and not living fossils as Westerners like to believe. You won't find the truth of gender relations or primitive communism or whatever by looking at modern day foraging communities.

>>5497
>Medieval Christians had a very different worldview to their secular descendants.
Yes, I made a minor issue in my wording. I should have said " this nonsense idea that people in the past somehow intrinsically and instrumentally saw themselves as a part of some religious superstructure." Some people did, even some cultures did so more largely than others, but let's also quit pretending that the religious writings from the period are necessarily reflective of how most people engaged with the faith, that isn't even true of today when literacy is near universal in the west.
>People who live in homeless camps in American cities are for all practical purposes, hunter gatherers. They form quasi-nomadic communities and forage for resources.
Either bait or just incredibly dull. No, they do not form cohesive societies and do not exist in traditional economic modes of production or even do much hunting or gathering of wild food resources among many other things.
>Can they give us an insight into how people lived in the Neolithic era? No, and neither can bushmen in Africa or Andaman Islanders. These people are very much part of the present and not living fossils as Westerners like to believe. You won't find the truth of gender relations or primitive communism or whatever by looking at modern day foraging communities.
Deeply unserious attempt at debunking me. Less strawmen next time.

lol this thread started about "gender" and now you dumb rolls are arguing about if homeless people are hunter-gatherers

>>5490
You might be right about elitism, even if looking for nonconformity (already a vague idea) in the 16th century is a stretch. But what makes someone gender nonconforming? Nonconforming to what? To whose standards? Queer culture is embraced by an elite in Western societies. That same establishment is hostile to the gender and sexual behaviors of hillbillies, Mormon and Jewish sects, Muslim immigrant women, polygamy in Africa etc. So is being trans or non-binary really an absolute nonconformity?

>>5498
>but let's also quit pretending that the religious writings from the period are necessarily reflective of how most people engaged with the faith, that isn't even true of today when literacy is near universal in the west.
Faith, prayer, magic etc. were important to the lives of ordinary people and not just symbolic activities. Aquinas wasn't read by every medieval peasant, but his ideas set the table. There is a tendency among a certain ideological group to explain people's behavior by appealing to socio-economic factors, which are supposedly more 'real' than religious beliefs.

>No, they do not form cohesive societies and do not exist in traditional economic modes of production or even do much hunting or gathering of wild food resources among many other things.
The problem here are the markings you are using. What makes something a cohesive society? What is a traditional mode of economic production, opposed to any other economic mode? What makes a wild resource different from any other kind of resource? I'm not interested in literally finding the answer to these questions, only pointing out how they seem thrown up to justify a line in the sand between groups of people that share things in common (foraging strategies). The idea of 'hunter gatherer' is shaky.

>>5499
This thread needs to be moved to /superhell/

>>5500
>Faith, prayer, magic etc. were important to the lives of ordinary people and not just symbolic activities. Aquinas wasn't read by every medieval peasant, but his ideas set the table. There is a tendency among a certain ideological group to explain people's behavior by appealing to socio-economic factors, which are supposedly more 'real' than religious beliefs.
Another strawman. Please be serious.
>The problem here are the markings you are using. What makes something a cohesive society? What is a traditional mode of economic production, opposed to any other economic mode? What makes a wild resource different from any other kind of resource? I'm not interested in literally finding the answer to these questions, only pointing out how they seem thrown up to justify a line in the sand between groups of people that share things in common (foraging strategies). The idea of 'hunter gatherer' is shaky.
It's not. You're very obviously making up controversy to intentionally obfuscate how utterly asinine your points are. I didn't throw things out there just to arbitrarily draw a line in the sand, I rather specifically referenced things that any sensible person who isn't arguing in the absolute worst faith would recognize to be true of hunter-gatherers. Don't just take my word for it, though:

>hunter-gatherer, any person who depends primarily on wild foods for subsistence.
Encyclopedia Brittanica

>Hunter-gatherer culture is a type of subsistence lifestyle that relies on hunting and fishing animals and foraging for wild vegetation and other nutrients like honey, for food.
National Geographic

>The hunter-gatherer way of life is of major interest to anthropologists because dependence on wild food resources was the way humans acquired food for the vast stretch of human history.
Yale University

It's pretty clear that it's not the idea of hunter-gatherers that is shaky; it's your intentional obfuscation of anything remotely pertinent to the discussion as soon as your arguments are criticized that is shaky.
>This thread needs to be moved to /superhell/
It should never have been made and you absolutely shouldn't have posted if you weren't planning on anything other than an echo chamber anyways.

>>5498
Are you suggesting that the distinction between individuals and groups disproves the existence of social constructs that entirely exist between individuals?

>>5504
You're not being very clear. It does seem like you are denying that people in the past overwhelmingly held beliefs we'd today call religious. If you are saying that, then that's just denying history. Its stuff nobody disputes. If you are trying to say that not all people were primarily motivated by religion, you end up underrating just how important spiritual beliefs and religious institutions were as motivating factors for medieval Christians.

The concept of hunter gatherer has been controversial. Some anthropologists say the concept is valid, some argue 'forager' better describes peoples who live subsistence lifestyles, and some argue the concept of 'hunter gatherer' is limited or should be phased out entirely.
see
https://www.academia.edu/61494454/Art_Science_or_Politics_The_Crisis_in_Hunter_Gatherer_Studies
https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28290/chapter/214480068

There already have been studies looking at how different groups from the stereotypical bushman 'hunter gatherer' to dumpster divers, homeless people, roving laborers, the urban poor etc. share comparable foraging and gathering strategies despite major contextual differences between them. If you insist on taking things like 'use of wild resources' or 'cohesive communities' as essential to a prototypical hunter gatherer lifestyle, you wind up missing these nuances and how they challenge the popular concept of a hunter gatherer. Questioning these interpretive strategies isn't asinine.
see
https://www.berghahnbooks.com/title/RakowskiHunters
Aparna Rao's books Other Nomads and The Concept of the Peripatetics.
The book Lilies of the Field Marginal People Who Live In The Moment by Day et al.

Your claim that in hunter and gatherer societies, women and men participated in hunting together is an oversimplification too.
see
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513824000497

>>5505
No, you pulled that idea from thin air.
>>5506
>You're not being very clear. It does seem like you are denying that people in the past overwhelmingly held beliefs we'd today call religious.
I've been exceedingly clear that my stance is you're being overly romantic of historic religiosity, and it is clear that this is yet another strawman as I never so much as sneezed at the idea that historic people weren't religious and in fact said the opposite already. Please be serious for once.
>The concept of hunter gatherer has been controversial. Some anthropologists say the concept is valid, some argue 'forager' better describes peoples who live subsistence lifestyles, and some argue the concept of 'hunter gatherer' is limited or should be phased out entirely.
These studies detail a specific view on hunter-gatherers that does not deny their existence but rather says that it isn't reasonable to use knowledge of modern hunter-gatherers to talk about how early hunter-gatherers may have been. It relies nigh solely on an appeal to purity fallacy as an approach, however, which is perhaps a large part of why it's a minority view. Ah, and hey, appeal to purity steeps your arguments too. Unsurprising. Also, it's worth noting that "forager" is nigh interchangeable with hunter-gatherer as the term "forage" again still refers to wild food resources. Please argue with a modicum of good faith next time instead of intentionally misrepresenting something as being more controversial than it is.
>There already have been studies looking at how different groups from the stereotypical bushman 'hunter gatherer' to dumpster divers, homeless people, roving laborers, the urban poor etc. share comparable foraging and gathering strategies despite major contextual differences between them. If you insist on taking things like 'use of wild resources' or 'cohesive communities' as essential to a prototypical hunter gatherer lifestyle, you wind up missing these nuances and how they challenge the popular concept of a hunter gatherer. Questioning these interpretive strategies isn't asinine.
Again, utterly stupid argument. I never said a comparison couldn't be made, I said it was the mark of a dullard to suddenly pretend that homeless people are not meaningfully distinguished from the San people or something of that nature, which is an asinine point you only brought out to obfuscate the argument.
>Your claim that in hunter and gatherer societies, women and men participated in hunting together is an oversimplification too.
Read the study you posted. Of course, that's probably a big ask as it is neither free access nor available via sci-hub. It's not an oversimplification, it directly addresses the problem of whether or not labor is as gendered as you pretend. It's not, even if it certainly is still gendered. The study attacks two things:
1. Issues of reproducibility and inclusion in the study it responds to. To this end, they particularly note that the primary issues are lack of transparency in what they meant by certain exclusionary criteria and a lack of establishing a minimum threshold for a society to be considered as having women as hunters. Of course, ironically, they reinforce through this that gender roles are flexible in these societies such that, even if women are not typically hunters, they often fill the role in societies for several reasons.
2. The idea that men and women in hunter-gatherer-forager-subsistence-lifestyler societies (or whatever name is politically correct enough for you to not obfuscate the argument further) had no gender division of labor, which I never posited despite your attempts to attribute it to me.
As the study you posted yourself says, the division of labor exists in these societies but tends to be flexible and overstated.
>We agree that, historically, hunting and men's labor have been over-emphasized in research among forager populations. For instance, see (Bliege Bird and Codding, 2021) for a discussion of gender bias in historical datasets such as the Ethnographic Atlas.
Again, please be serious, or at least try to get back on the thread topic instead of bullshitting.

>>5507
Sigh… for all of your insults, you haven't made an effort to just read. Nor is it clear I've ever been romantic about historic religiosity (whatever you mean by that. Its not very clear even who you are addressing).

>These studies detail a specific view on hunter-gatherers that does not deny their existence but rather says that it isn't reasonable to use knowledge of modern hunter-gatherers to talk about how early hunter-gatherers may have been.
Okay, let's just look at the abstract of one of the sources I posted.
>The term 'hunter-gatherer' is argued to have acquired its archaeological and anthropological meaning only in the last 250 years…
>It is proposed that the category has outgrown its initial purpose and may now have only limited use
And this comes from an essay in the Oxford handbook on hunter gatherers. Point being, there are anthropologists who consider the 'hunter-gatherer' label to be obscurantist and flawed way of describing human societies while others defend it or look for a more helpful alternative.

>I never said a comparison couldn't be made, I said it was the mark of a dullard to suddenly pretend that homeless people are not meaningfully distinguished from the San people or something of that nature,
I didn't deny that homeless people in America aren't different from, say, San people. What I pointed out, is that the concept of hunter gatherer is complicated by the fact there are other groups who live subsistence lifestyles based on foraging for resources. Yet, for some reason, the term 'hunter gatherer' is never applied to them in the popular consciousness. One study I posted there, does describe how poverty stricken people in Poland developed hunting and gathering skills and there are a slew of other ethnographic that look at foraging among itinerant populations in cities etc. If anyone's strawmanning here, its you.

>it directly addresses the problem of whether or not labor is as gendered as you pretend
I have no idea when I made a claim about labor being heavily gendered. Unless you're confusing me with some other sushi, I have no idea what you're talking about.

>had no gender division of labor, which I never posited despite your attempts to attribute it to me.
Sushi, I'm pretty sure you said in here >>5488
>Of course, this is only when it's true that Homo Sapiens society is as gendered as you imply here, which it often isn't and wasn't, such as how women and men both historically participated in hunting together in H-G societies despite popular conceptions otherwise.
I never said you denied a gendered division of labor. You made a claim here about the gendered nature of hunts, implying men and women participated together, which is, like I said, an oversimplification. Some women take part in some hunts.. the gender divide in these populations is also hotly debated and by no means settled.

I put my response to OP before ITT and have nothing to add. There's no real debate here. Only one sushi here flinging insults, obvious low blows, and calling people dullards through incessant strawmanning and an inability to read.

>>5506
>>5507

You two have had enough time to prove your worth (or lack thereof). This conversation has already steered far off course. The thread was only kept alive because it was relatively civil and did not only bring personal attacks and dog barking. If this does not continue, the thread will be permanently locked. I will not be moving you to /superhell/.

>>5500
While your last blast of questions might be valid research questions, they are off-topic here. Community cohesion is already pretty well defined; traditional economic mode might easily refer to the rest of the society in the given area. That's a straw-man.

>>5504
Your citations are utter crap here.

Now, for opinion time:
While the means of livelihood of the urban outcasts (I have not found a better name) might be partially similar to hunter-gatherers in the sense that they are not cultivating material nor utilizing the traditional labor-, material- or product-trade, trying to somehow assert that the two groups are the same is ignorant of the underlying society that the former is built upon. The using natural resources distinction is made on purpose, specifically to create a distinction between natural foraging and activities such as dumpster diving (no matter whether as necessity or ideological choice) that utilize the waste and political mode of the underlying society.

>>5508
>I put my response to OP before ITT and have nothing to add.
There is nothing to say to this. It is precisely the problem that you have nothing to add but feel the need to be a contrarian.
>>5509
>The thread was only kept alive because it was relatively civil and did not only bring personal attacks and dog barking.
Except it wasn't. The third post in the thread is someone calling someone else a retard and the fourth calls the OP a baiter.
>If this does not continue, the thread will be permanently locked. I will not be moving you to /superhell/.
I was under the impression that all threads in /superhell/ were to be locked, hence part of why I desired it be there as I do not think there is anything beneficial to come of this thread as a lainchan copypasta.
>Your citations are utter crap here.
In that they are unreliable or that they do not properly link to their source? The former is false while the latter is admittedly true.

>>5470
The tribe I'm from as an American Indian historically had boys and girls learning a lot of the same skills and had several professions that were mixed-sex. Men and women did mostly work separate jobs, but that separation is a little different to what you see in Christianized society. There was more fluidity to gender roles, but not a whole lot of it. Gender roles were based on a strict, sex-determined binary with socially sanctioned exception given based on certain conditions, but that was usually the desires of a child's parents than on anything religious. Although, there were tribes where that kind of thing was based on religious experience.

I think this kind of points at what is a bit of a misconception on your end about how gender was thought of historically. To the best of my knowledge, actual 3rd genders aren't really a thing as you suggest, but rather gender and sex were intrinsically linked if not seen as the same and were absolutely grounded in a normative binary. What gender you were was principally about filling a social role more than anything. It's like a bunch of ritual and tradition meant for that is given a spiritual ground after the fact but that spiritual ground in turn influences how the tradition evolves. I do think that common religion and spirituality is important, but I think the tradition and culture is much more so. It's also kind of impossible at this point in globalization to somehow fix the matter in that respect. I think we have to buckle down an embrace the sort of "melting pot" idea of America in a respectful way that also builds trust and community to see any kind of upturn in this "gender nihilism" thing.

>>5488
>To be more clear, it is not racist per se, but rather it is clearly fetishization of attributes from non-Western cultures grounded in racist European perceptions of other cultures that arose during the Enlightenment and later. It is a bad take because that grounding is one of some pretty big falsehoods.
I think you're being a little too on guard here. The noble savage myth is definitely a big problem in white society, but I think it's pretty clear that the OP is talking about the past in general than about just non-white cultures even if they are influenced by their perceptions of them.
>>5509
>You two have had enough time to prove your worth (or lack thereof). This conversation has already steered far off course. The thread was only kept alive because it was relatively civil and did not only bring personal attacks and dog barking. If this does not continue, the thread will be permanently locked. I will not be moving you to /superhell/.
Yes, it was a very bad back and forth they had, but I do think they are right to point out that the thread was kind of hostile from the start and, if it's true that it came from lainchan, then it came from a hostile place to begin with as well. Also, presuming you're a moderator, this response kind of only contributes to the air of hostility in the thread.

>>5509
>You two have had enough time to prove your worth (or lack thereof).
If this is how mods treat people no wonder sushi has become such an uncomfy place these days.
>>5511
People need to stop being paranoid and read bad intent into things. Many people ITT have been guilty of that. So what if it came from lainchan or somewhere else? Is there III intent in the post? No. Doesn’t seem like it.

Sushi is becoming too uncomfy these days.

>>5507
You're saying that since a society with a religious superstructure contains people whose participation varies, the society in fact does not have a religious superstructure as some people wouldn't perceive themselves as part of one.

The concept of gender roles beyond pure biological processes was always just a social construction. Awareness of this lead to different interpretations of these same roles or adding new roles as a reaction to these established ideas trying to shape them to their own desires instead of trying to outright destroy the concepts, but these too were just social constructs. These sort of things don't really matter. It can from an evolutionary perspective make sense why different forms of gender presentation arose in order to find a potential mate but these visual signals stopped being reliable indicators of anything if they ever were due to how someone dresses on an ordinary basis has no meaning to your personal relationship with that person. Traditions are fine if they are done more in spirit of fun and bring people together not divide them apart or oppress their ability to have a sense of self beyond generic labelling and stereotypes which does no one a favor. People should be able to choose if they want to participate and in what they want to participate in,