Jump to content
sunmakesmesneeze

women stay in the kitchen

Recommended Posts

Most of the radical fem stuff that gets read in debate indicts "equality" because it doesn't really produce any "equality" at all... this is like identity politics 101.

 

Exactly my point this whole time.

 

Ah. Well like I said, what I say/said is only to the extent of my knowledge. ...and that extent is hitting it in a couple of rounds and my new partner having ran it last year. (And she's never really sat down and explained it out to me... so I only have bits and pieces.) Haha. So I'm not too terribly familiar with it. :rolleyes: But, I'll definitely go check up on that. Thanks, guys. :)

 

Well here you go then...

And for all ya'll that want a good card against fem here ya go.

 

The alt can't solve. Feminism keeps itself from the very equality it is trying to achieve.

Patrick Califia; well known author on the subject of porn and sexuality, he is a transexual and a therapist in private practice; 1997; "Sex changes: transgender politics"

 

This approbation and Raymond's own rhetoric situate her firmly within the ranks of the feminist fundamentalism that has given us, among other travesties, the "feminist" antiporn movement. Raymond is part of a school of feminist thought that rests on the assumption that men and women are radically different creatures. Sometimes this difference is talked about in ways that make it sound as if it is biologically based; sometimes it is attributed to social learning or conditioning that is so intense as to be ineradicable. Either way, men are assumed to be, by their very nature, oppressors, prone to violence, objectification, insensitivity, sexual perversion, and domination. Thus, the interests of men are seen as always being inimical to women. Women are assumed to be, by their very nature, egalitarian, nurturing, creative, spiritually advanced, nonviolent, and motivated more by love and tenderness than by lust or sexual desire. This brand of feminism sees women's struggle for freedom as a desperate battle to separate ourselves from the sphere of male influence and control, and rid ourselves of the toxic aspects of maleness and masculinity. Rather than seeing women's liberation as something that could be achieved by redistribution of the privileges and resources that men currently monopolize, this approach sees women as the nearly-perfect half of the human race who need only escape from male power in order to live in peace, justice, and equality. Reallocating the perks that men reserve for themselves is perhaps seen as undesirable because it would entail women acquiring material things skills, physical attributes, and even behavior patterns that we most often associate with men today. Such an effort would also inevitably require men to change, and under the tenets of feminist fundamentalism and gender essentialism, that is seen as an impossibility. Thus, this movement tends to focus more on the behavior and attitudes of women, especially women who claim to be feminists, than it does on taking action in the real world to secure equal pay for equal work, reproductive rights, daycare, maternity leave, nonsexist representation in the media, equal protection under the law for homosexuals, decriminalization fo prostitution, or any other item that might appear on the agenda of a civil-rights approach to women's liberation. The personal and public lives of women who claim to be feminists are instead examined and policed because if these women fail to excise maleness, they are seen as obstructing the feminist struggle on the only real frontier upon which it can be waged.

 

 

This is the book I'm cutting right now for the queer theory file and as AT: the fem k

 

Use it as you will...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Completely irrelevant, but I'll answer it anyway. Just because the feminist authors didn't talk about transsexuals doesn't mean they don't see them as having the potential to be equal. Did they talk about gays, lesbians, and bisexuals? Did they talk about Blacks? Did they talk about purple monkeys? No. Because none of that is in the spectrum of the issue of males dominating females.

 

I think you need to read up on the issue a little bit more before you can actually say this... There is no longer just male and female in our culture, there is all sorts of gray area.

 

I guess that's just where you and I differ. I advocate and fight for what I believe in during debate rounds, not shit that I think will help me win.

 

That is such bullshit. You really shouldn't be doing policy then, you should be doing pu-fo or something... are you telling me when you hit the agenda politics da saying obama is good you're not going to read cards saying obama bad? You must really suck at debate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NEVER ADVOCATE THAT SOMEONE SHOULD BE DOING PUBLIC FORUM. EVER. FOR ANY REASON. EVER. THAT SHIT IS JUST WRONG AND I COULD NOT BE MORE SERIOUS.

 

people use debate for whatever they want to use it for. i valued trophies, so i won. but other people couldn't give a shit about trophies, they see it as a venue for discussion, or other abstract goals which i never understood. so just because you treat debate like a game doesn't mean she shouldn't be able to. ya skank.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NEVER ADVOCATE THAT SOMEONE SHOULD BE DOING PUBLIC FORUM. EVER. FOR ANY REASON. EVER. THAT SHIT IS JUST WRONG AND I COULD NOT BE MORE SERIOUS.

 

Yeah... sorry about that. I knew that was wrong after I posted it. It was more like a suggestion to end your life... basically.

 

 

Sure that's fine. Whatever. I'm with you I guess then, I want to win. I don't get the other side of things... ya ho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first thing that I would like to say is that everyone in this forum not advocating womyn equality DISGUST ME. This forum was the fucking funniest thing I had read in a while, because it was soooo ridiculous.

 

The first thing I would like to bring up is the issue of whether or not debate should be used to advocate things that we believe are true as opposed to those that win us rounds. Although I am strongly on the side of debate being an activity that should be used to develop our own senses of the world and to have our viewpoints interact with others, it's fine if you do it to win. In fact, one of my best friends on the circuit does it to win. There is just one caveat to that, and that is when you use debate as an "imaginary" world where you don't have to be accountable for what you say, and exploit that to run things you deep down do believe, like womyn oppression good. However, it is still sad to irrationally exclude other types and forms of debate simply because you have the need to feel your's is the best.

 

However, that's not what I want to focus on. The rest of what I would like to focus on is the horrendous appropriation of feminism you all (being all those except msschristinex and a few others) have attempted. Feminism is not a singular school of thought we can just pin down and say "oh, there it is, there's feminism," except for in the very broadest senses, being that to stop sexual exploitation and gender inequalities. There have been multiple waves, different identities attached to it (i.e. black feminism), and different geographical regions (3rd world feminism), among others. This surely takes out you're horribly out of place card sunmakesmesneeze, the califia one, BECAUSE ALL THAT TALKS ABOUT IS FEMINIST "FUNDAMENTALISM" AND "ESSENTIALISATION". This does not have to be what feminism, is, which what I'll get to in a second, but on the contrary absolutely "turns" your entire argument in that YOU are the one in favor of seeing womyn as BIOLOGICALLY inferior to men, or if not, in other ways. For instance, essentializing them as those that should cook. That is exactly what califia criticizes.

Moreover, you're also wrong in saying that "feminism" wants to become the dominant sex or that it wants to have gender equality (msschristinex this is also where you're wrong in that that presumes that we still have gender categories). For instance, one school of feminism realizes that, as Judith Lorber writes:

 

Most people, however, voluntariy go along with their society's prescriptions for those of their gender status because the norms and expectations get built into their sense of worth and identity as a certain kind of human being and becasue they believe their society's way is the antural way. these beliefs emerge from the imagery that pervades the way we think, the way we see and hear and speak, the way we fantasize, and the way we feel. There is no core or bedrock human nature below these endlessly looping processes of the social production of sex and gender, self and other, identity and psyche, each of us is a "complex cultrual construction" (Butler 1990, 36). The paradox of "human nature" is that it is always a manifestation of cultural meanings, social relationships, and power politics - "not biology, but culture, becomes destiny" (Butler 1990, 8).

 

That sets up the alternative of deconstruction that is suggested. This entails confusing and forgetting, questioning, the social constructions of gender. This is made possible by their very own social construction, and literally because of viewers like you (creating this). This can sometimes be advocated in the form of cross dressers or transgenders (also falsifying your arugment that feminism never takes those things into account), or simply questioning the categories of male and female, penis and vagina.

Judith Lorber concludes this,

 

Feminist inquiry has long questioned the conventional categories of social sceince, but much of the current work in feminist sociology has not gone beyond adding the universal category "women" to the universal category "men." Our current debates over the global assumptions of only two categories and the insistence that they must be nuanced to include race and class are steps in the direction that I would like to see feminist research go, but race and class are also global categories (collins 1990 Spelman 1988). Deconstructing sex, sexuality, and gender reveals many possible categories embedded in the social experiences and social practices of what Dorothy Smith calls the "everyday/everynight world" (1990, 31-57). These emergent categories group some poeple together for comparison with other poeple without prior assumptions about who is liek whom. Categories can be broken up and poeple regrouped differently into new categories for comparison. This procss of discovering categories from simiitarieis and differences in poeple's behavior or responses can be more meaningful for feminist research than discovering similitarities and differences between "females" and "males" or "women" and "men" becaue the social construction of the conventional sex and gender categories already assumes differences between them and similarities among them. When we rely only on the conventional categories of sex and gender, we end up finding what we looked for - we see what we believe, whether it is that "females" and "males" are essentially different or that 'women and "men" are essentially the same.

 

Lolz, I guess that this forum does this (confuses gender categories) in that me, a man is advocating and end to womyn oppression and a womyn wants it to continue (you).

 

As for the discussion on whether there should be gender oppression, I cannot believe I am even TALKING ABOUT THIS. Regardless, i believe that msschristinex was right when she said that you can still have your identities as someone that cooks dinner because she's a womyn without having these categories imposed upon EVERYONE. We should, and this subsumes all your arguments, not have gender oppression or roles, because that allows for people to choose what they want to do as opposed to being forced into categories.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is such bullshit. You really shouldn't be doing policy then, you should be doing pu-fo or something... are you telling me when you hit the agenda politics da saying obama is good you're not going to read cards saying obama bad? You must really suck at debate.

 

sad day. Christine is getting picked on on cross-x.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first thing that I would like to say is that everyone in this forum not advocating womyn

 

 

stopped reading there. i'm all for equality and ending oppression but spelling it "womyn" pretty much says "I want to advocate something, but I don't want it to ever become reality". you trivialize the movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first thing that I would like to say is that everyone in this forum not advocating womyn equality DISGUST ME. This forum was the fucking funniest thing I had read in a while, because it was soooo ridiculous.

 

I don't advocate womyn, i dont advocate feminism; i dont advocate patriarchy or oppression. How am I disgusting? Last time I checked the two situations aren't mutually exclusive?

 

What I mean to say is I don't run around with a sign saying LIBERATE DA WOMYNZ. But, that doesn't make me disgusting, and I think that is a ridiculous claim and assumption made upon your part. Plus, I agree with James, you're ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stopped reading there. i'm all for equality and ending oppression but spelling it "womyn" pretty much says "I want to advocate something, but I don't want it to ever become reality". you trivialize the movement.

 

ummm I did the exact same thing! haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first thing that I would like to say is that everyone in this forum not advocating womyn equality DISGUST ME. This forum was the fucking funniest thing I had read in a while, because it was soooo ridiculous.

the first thing i would like to say is how did the sand get inside your vagina? you should get it out.

 

The first thing I would like to bring up is the issue of whether or not debate should be used to advocate things that we believe are true as opposed to those that win us rounds.

how many "first things" are you gonna bring up?

Although I am strongly on the side of debate being an activity that should be used to develop our own senses of the world and to have our viewpoints interact with others, it's fine if you do it to win. In fact, one of my best friends on the circuit does it to win. There is just one caveat to that, and that is when you use debate as an "imaginary" world where you don't have to be accountable for what you say, and exploit that to run things you deep down do believe, like womyn oppression good. However, it is still sad to irrationally exclude other types and forms of debate simply because you have the need to feel your's is the best.

this "imaginary" world gives "real" trophies, and if i just need to "imaginatively" say womEn should be oppressed, that's not excluding other types of debates. when i get the trophy and you're sitting in your little corner of the cafeteria eating vegan crap bitching about being excluded, you aren't excluded from your style of debate: you just got beat. there's a difference.

However, that's not what I want to focus on. The rest of what I would like to focus on is the horrendous appropriation of feminism you all (being all those except msschristinex and a few others) have attempted. Feminism is not a singular school of thought we can just pin down and say "oh, there it is, there's feminism," except for in the very broadest senses, being that to stop sexual exploitation and gender inequalities.

feminism (noun): the belief that women have rights. now there's a tangible school of thought most feminists prescribe to. i mean, show me one that doesn't and we can continue that lil discussion.

There have been multiple waves, different identities attached to it (i.e. black feminism), and different geographical regions (3rd world feminism), among others.

...all of these believing in the school of thought i mentioned earlier, of course....

This surely takes out you're horribly out of place card sunmakesmesneeze, the califia one, BECAUSE ALL THAT TALKS ABOUT IS FEMINIST "FUNDAMENTALISM" AND "ESSENTIALISATION". This does not have to be what feminism, is, which what I'll get to in a second, but on the contrary absolutely "turns" your entire argument in that YOU are the one in favor of seeing womyn as BIOLOGICALLY inferior to men, or if not, in other ways. For instance, essentializing them as those that should cook. That is exactly what califia criticizes.

make me cookies, please

Moreover, you're also wrong in saying that "feminism" wants to become the dominant sex or that it wants to have gender equality (msschristinex this is also where you're wrong in that that presumes that we still have gender categories). For instance, one school of feminism realizes that, as Judith Lorber writes:

 

Most people, however, voluntariy go along with their society's prescriptions for those of their gender status because the norms and expectations get built into their sense of worth and identity as a certain kind of human being and becasue they believe their society's way is the antural way. these beliefs emerge from the imagery that pervades the way we think, the way we see and hear and speak, the way we fantasize, and the way we feel. There is no core or bedrock human nature below these endlessly looping processes of the social production of sex and gender, self and other, identity and psyche, each of us is a "complex cultrual construction" (Butler 1990, 36). The paradox of "human nature" is that it is always a manifestation of cultural meanings, social relationships, and power politics - "not biology, but culture, becomes destiny" (Butler 1990, 8).

 

That sets up the alternative of deconstruction that is suggested. This entails confusing and forgetting, questioning, the social constructions of gender. This is made possible by their very own social construction, and literally because of viewers like you (creating this). This can sometimes be advocated in the form of cross dressers or transgenders (also falsifying your arugment that feminism never takes those things into account), or simply questioning the categories of male and female, penis and vagina.

Judith Lorber concludes this,

 

Feminist inquiry has long questioned the conventional categories of social sceince, but much of the current work in feminist sociology has not gone beyond adding the universal category "women" to the universal category "men." Our current debates over the global assumptions of only two categories and the insistence that they must be nuanced to include race and class are steps in the direction that I would like to see feminist research go, but race and class are also global categories (collins 1990 Spelman 1988). Deconstructing sex, sexuality, and gender reveals many possible categories embedded in the social experiences and social practices of what Dorothy Smith calls the "everyday/everynight world" (1990, 31-57). These emergent categories group some poeple together for comparison with other poeple without prior assumptions about who is liek whom. Categories can be broken up and poeple regrouped differently into new categories for comparison. This procss of discovering categories from simiitarieis and differences in poeple's behavior or responses can be more meaningful for feminist research than discovering similitarities and differences between "females" and "males" or "women" and "men" becaue the social construction of the conventional sex and gender categories already assumes differences between them and similarities among them. When we rely only on the conventional categories of sex and gender, we end up finding what we looked for - we see what we believe, whether it is that "females" and "males" are essentially different or that 'women and "men" are essentially the same.

i bet a woman screwed up those bold words

 

Lolz, I guess that this forum does this (confuses gender categories) in that me, a man is advocating and end to womyn oppression and a womyn wants it to continue (you).

you are no man, there's sand in your vagina and you're overreacting. and you can't spell overreacting without overre.

 

As for the discussion on whether there should be gender oppression, I cannot believe I am even TALKING ABOUT THIS. Regardless, i believe that msschristinex was right when she said that you can still have your identities as someone that cooks dinner because she's a womyn without having these categories imposed upon EVERYONE. We should, and this subsumes all your arguments, not have gender oppression or roles, because that allows for people to choose what they want to do as opposed to being forced into categories.

this is pure, unabridged, lofty bullshit.

 

love,

TheSevvHasNoRespectForThisStupidAssCrapThatPervadesAGameHeEnjoysAndWouldLoveForYouToGoBackToTheHoleFromWhichYouCame

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the first thing i would like to say is how did the sand get inside your vagina? you should get it out.

 

this "imaginary" world gives "real" trophies, and if i just need to "imaginatively" say womEn should be oppressed, that's not excluding other types of debates. when i get the trophy and you're sitting in your little corner of the cafeteria eating vegan crap bitching about being excluded, you aren't excluded from your style of debate: you just got beat. there's a difference.

 

So I'm going to suggest that a good time to get said sand out of your vagina is while you're sitting there eating your vegan crap. I imagine it would be relatively hard to get it out unless you use a douche bag, a creation of MAN. And while you're douching your sand filled vag you should think about the fact that there is no way you could get that sand out without the man that created that douche bag. So maybe instead of being a feminist sand filled vagina you could embrace your douche bag and the misogynistic man that created it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This surely takes out you're horribly out of place card sunmakesmesneeze, the califia one, BECAUSE ALL THAT TALKS ABOUT IS FEMINIST "FUNDAMENTALISM" AND "ESSENTIALISATION". This does not have to be what feminism, is, which what I'll get to in a second, but on the contrary absolutely "turns" your entire argument in that YOU are the one in favor of seeing womyn as BIOLOGICALLY inferior to men, or if not, in other ways. For instance, essentializing them as those that should cook. That is exactly what califia criticizes.

I didn't read the card far past the tag but I'm pretty sure it functions as a solvency turn by saying engaging in essentialism guarantees the failure of general feminist movements. This wouldn't turn the "oppression good" argument at all - in fact the entire argument is "essentialism good" for social functioning.

 

I get the feeling you're going to, in a convoluted and pretentious way, call me sexist for saying this. However, I also feel I would be called sexist if you said the sky is green and I corrected you. As previously stated, removing the sand from your vag would be a great first step towards not coming off as an angry asshole.

 

I also want to note that in no way do I support this argument, which is frankly fucking stupid, both from the perspective of pure argument and that of actually running it in a round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

az: You do realize that just because someone acknowledges difference doesn't mean they believe there must necessarily be a hierarchy? This is the number one mistake made by people arguing against patriarchy/racism/etc.; there actually IS a difference between men and women, blacks and whites, etc. both biologically and culturally. There are certain roles women are biologically expected to fulfill; if I say it's exclusively a woman's job to give birth, does that make me a sexist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
az: You do realize that just because someone acknowledges difference doesn't mean they believe there must necessarily be a hierarchy? This is the number one mistake made by people arguing against patriarchy/racism/etc.; there actually IS a difference between men and women, blacks and whites, etc. both biologically and culturally. There are certain roles women are biologically expected to fulfill; if I say it's exclusively a woman's job to give birth, does that make me a sexist?

 

that's the whole point of this kritik thank you very much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Max (my name's max too): Thanks for responding to my argument substantively. However, I don't think what you're saying is true, necessarily. Lorber criticizes that type of logic that "men" and "women" are the two universal categories" because of biological (I don't know why/how there should be/are cultural ones) , she writes:

 

Neither sex nor gender are pure categories. Combinations of incongruous genes, genitalia, and hormonal input are ignored in sex categorization, just as combinations of incongruous physiology, identity, sexuality, appearance, and bechavior are ingored in the social construction of gender statuses. menstruation, lactation, and gestation do not demarcate women from men. Only some women are pregnant and then only some of the time; some women do not have a uterus or ovaries. Soem women have stopped menstruating temporarily, others have reached menopause, and some have had hysterectomies. Some women breastfeed some of the time but some men lactate (Jaggar 1983, 165fn). Menstruation, lactation, and gestation are individual experiences of womanhood (Levesque-Lopman 1988), but not determinants of the social category "women", or even "female." Similitarly, "men" are not always sperm-producers, and in fact, not all sperm producers are men. A male-to-female transsexual, prior to surgery, can be socially a woman, though still potentially (or actually) capable of permatogenesesis" (Kessler and McKenna [1978] 1985, 2).

 

As such, it does make your statement sexist in that you are naming these two categories that people can be and saying that a "womyn" is someone that gives birth, because that is not true of all womyn and instead excludes some.

Another danger is that essentializing womyn like this allows for a stable conception of the woman which is can thus be made inferior and oppressed. When we give these biological differentiations and make them absolute, we justify construing them into having social consequences. Lorber concludes:

 

Until the eighteenth century, Western philosophers, and scientists thought that there was one sex and that twomen's internal genitalia were the inverse of men's external genitalia: the womb and vagina were the penis and scrotum turned inside out (Laqueur 1990). Current Western thinking sees women and men as so different physically as to sometimes be two species. The bodies, which have been mapped inside and out for hundreds of years, have not changed. What has changed are the justifications for gender inequality. When the social position of all human beings was believed to be set by natural law or was considered God-given, biology was irrelevant; women and men of different classes all had their assigned places. When scientists began to question the divine basis of social order and replaced faith with empirical knowledge, what they saw was that women were very different from men in that they had wombs and menstruated. Such anatomical differences destined the for an entirely different social life from men.

In actuality, the basic bodily material is the same for females and males, and except for procreative hormones and organs, female and male human beings ahve similar bodies (Naftolin and Butz 1981). Furthermore, as has been known since the middle of the nineteenth century, male and female genitalia develop from the same fetal tissue, and so infants can be born with ambiguous genitalia (Money and Ehrhardt 1972). When they are, biology is used quite arbitrarily in sex assignment. Suzzane kessler (1990) interviewed six medial specialists in pediatric intersexuality and found that whether an infant with XY chrosmosomes and anomalous genitalia was categorized as a boy or a girl depended on the size of the penis - if a penis was very small, the child was categorized as a girl, and sex-change surgery was used to make an artificial vagina. In the late nineteenth century, the presence or absence of ovaries was the determining criterion of gender assignment for hermaphrodites because a woman who could not procreate was not a complete woman (Kessler 1990, 20).

Yet in Western societies, we see two discrete sexes and two distinguishable genders because our society is built on two classes of people, "women" and "men." Once the gender cateogry is given, the attributes of the person are also gendered: Whatever a "woman" is has to be 'female"; whatever a "man" is has to be "male." Analyzing the soial proceses that construct the categories we call "female and male," "women and men," and "homosexual and heterosexual" uncovers the ideology and pwer differentials congealed in these categories (Foucault 1978)...I am arguing that bodies differ in many ways physiologically, but they are completely transformed by social practices to fit into the salient categories of a society, the most pervasive of which are "female" and "male" and "women" and "men."

 

Sevvdog, here's that school of thought you wanted.

Need more consult japan: What? How do I trivialize the movement?

Audit: What do you advocate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, lastly, sunmakesmesneeze: No. You aren't advocating what Max said at all. I am pretty sure max doesn't think that womyn should stay at home and cook just because they can give birth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

az - I don't see how that's responsive. Like, I'm not arguing that gender roles don't exist in society; I'm just confused as to how it makes women subservient to men or vice versa. By your logic, a feminine male would be on the same level as a feminine female, which would be underneath the masculine male. For instance, my dad cooks - even if that's a feminine job, what makes this a subservient act? Why isn't it simply linear? I mean, war is considered masculine, and women are exempt from the draft; that means women are considered "better" than men in that their lives are more valuable.

 

In many societies, our own included, women are placed on a pedestal. In Greek culture, Gaia was the ultimate creator. We think of "Mother Earth" as female. In our own culture, men are expected to worship and provide for women; men are antagonized by the media as being dumb, insensitive, selfish and always prowling for ass. They are expected to pay for women on dates, always be the asker (as opposed to the askee) for relationships, dates, etc. There have been entire movements to "domesticate" men (metrosexuality); so what makes you think that women are being discriminated against? What makes you think the hierarchy doesn't work the other way?

 

And as far as biological concerns go, yes, there will always be exceptions, but generally, the development of the male body follows a different pattern than that of the female body. Women, as a whole, have better peripheral vision, whereas men have better tunnel vision; this dates back to evolutionary concerns in which women, who were responsible for giving birth to and nursing a child, needed to check around for predators and to keep track of the young, whereas men, responsible for hunting, needed to see far away in order to track prey. Men can't breastfeed, and though not all women can, biologically, they are inclined to; so considering different biological developments (men, feminine or not, cannot give birth), cultural roles were bound to develop based on what the body is meant to do.

 

So in conclusion; I think the cultural roles are based in biology, and I see no necessary correlation between a role and a hierarchy.

Edited by Max Williger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...