1) Warmongering, finding violence cool, hawkery, militarism
It is a scope insensitivity issue. War was not so costly in human lives and suffering when it was about a tribe raiding another with arrows and bows. Having the same hawkish, yee-haw, let’s kick some butt instincts in an age of world wars and nukes is incredibly dangerous.
When people still fought with arrows and swords genocide was extremely common. The Mongol invasion of China for instance halved the population.
The modern world is less violent than at any other time in history, although I admit that there is the potential for things to go very bad very quickly.
2) Tribalism, us vs. them
I think women do this too.
3) Setting up gendered standards, “a real man should so-and-so”, often combined with sexism and homophobia largely in order to set up a contrast (“You hit like a girl! That is totally gay!”)
But there is a gender-reversed version of this too (“you’re reading mech eng? Dyke!”)
4) Sexism and homophobia getting detached from serving as a contrast and becoming a problem on its own
Obvious enough. The core problem is a miscalibrated scope like expecting all men to be tough instead of a subset only
Fair enough, expecting all men to be tough isn’t helpful because different people are different.
5) A dislike of softness and coddling leading to the opposing of compassionate social policies, being a proud self made hard worker, not wanting to pay taxes to pay welfare lazy people
If capitalism is masculine and redistribution polices are feminine and pacifist then explain why every famous communist I can think of is male, and most of them killed a lot of people.
I’m not saying that this means that basic income is wrong, or will involve killing people (this time it will be different!), just that this is at best a massive oversimplification.
While I agree that men’s instincts are not adapted to the modern world and are not designed so that everyone can live in harmony, nor are women’s instincts. Broadly I quite like your idea of tribes, but the justifications for why this is necessary seem a little dubious.
explain why every famous communist I can think of is male, and most of them killed a lot of people
Because the only communists famous enough for you to think of them (as famous communists) are famous for being in charge of big important countries, and people in charge of big important countries tend to be male and often kill a lot of people.
(Famous communists who so far as I know didn’t kill a lot of people by any reasonable definition include, e.g., Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Plus any number of people who lived in the Soviet bloc and were probably communists but are famous for other things; the USSR produced a lot of people who were famous as chess players, scientists, musicians, etc., but those aren’t so relevant here.)
Because the only communists famous enough for you to think of them (as famous communists) are famous for being in charge of big important countries, and people in charge of big important countries tend to be male and often kill a lot of people.
This certainly explains the maleness, and admittedly I don’t know what the gender ratio of communist theorists is like. Nevertheless, communist countries have been responsible for a disproportionate number of massacres.
To be fair, I seem to remember that women are more left-wing on average, but the effect size is pretty small. Equally, ‘angry young men’ are often very socialist because they want to ‘fight the power’.
And yes, I’m clearly not saying all communists are killers, that would be crazy. And if you are communist because you live in the Soviet bloc, then that’s due to completely different causal factors.
If capitalism is masculine and redistribution polices are feminine and pacifist then explain why every famous communist I can think of is male, and most of them killed a lot of people.
To be fair, Rosa Luxemburg is a super-famous communist.
When people still fought with arrows and swords genocide was extremely common. The Mongol invasion of China for instance halved the population. The modern world is less violent than at any other time in history, although I admit that there is the potential for things to go very bad very quickly.
I think women do this too.
But there is a gender-reversed version of this too (“you’re reading mech eng? Dyke!”)
Fair enough, expecting all men to be tough isn’t helpful because different people are different.
If capitalism is masculine and redistribution polices are feminine and pacifist then explain why every famous communist I can think of is male, and most of them killed a lot of people.
I’m not saying that this means that basic income is wrong, or will involve killing people (this time it will be different!), just that this is at best a massive oversimplification.
While I agree that men’s instincts are not adapted to the modern world and are not designed so that everyone can live in harmony, nor are women’s instincts. Broadly I quite like your idea of tribes, but the justifications for why this is necessary seem a little dubious.
Because the only communists famous enough for you to think of them (as famous communists) are famous for being in charge of big important countries, and people in charge of big important countries tend to be male and often kill a lot of people.
(Famous communists who so far as I know didn’t kill a lot of people by any reasonable definition include, e.g., Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Plus any number of people who lived in the Soviet bloc and were probably communists but are famous for other things; the USSR produced a lot of people who were famous as chess players, scientists, musicians, etc., but those aren’t so relevant here.)
[EDITED to fix garbled sentence structure.]
This certainly explains the maleness, and admittedly I don’t know what the gender ratio of communist theorists is like. Nevertheless, communist countries have been responsible for a disproportionate number of massacres.
To be fair, I seem to remember that women are more left-wing on average, but the effect size is pretty small. Equally, ‘angry young men’ are often very socialist because they want to ‘fight the power’.
And yes, I’m clearly not saying all communists are killers, that would be crazy. And if you are communist because you live in the Soviet bloc, then that’s due to completely different causal factors.
Stalin isn’t exactly famous for his redistribution policies.
Didn’t he kill thousands of Kulaks while trying to redistribute their wealth? And had the wealth already been redistributed by Lenin?
No, he killed hundreds of thousands of Kulaks while trying to eliminate political opposition.
To be fair, Rosa Luxemburg is a super-famous communist.
I wouldn’t say super-famous exactly.