The market is inefficient and pretty shitty, it creates massive inequality and usually fucks over the already vulnerable when anything goes on. Hence why every even remotely successful non-revisionist socialist country abolished markets and centrally planned their economies.
How is the sexual market any different from the economic market? Has tinder and social media not created a hugely unequal sexual caste system not unlike the urban class system brought about by the industrial revolution? Mating patterns are being affected in a profoundly negative way.
Women are collectivized too
that's the whole idea the gender that contributes to society in more ways than a HR job will be rewarded with the gender that acts as a reproductive resource in a planned manner by an elected committee for it
Men will be collectivized* You incels will all get the hambeasts, even in communism. Better kill yourselves now.
This is a literal incel thread talking about enslaving half the population because they can't get laid. Yes, muh incels need to be hanged from a lamp post and shot.
You seem awfully butthurt. Roasti.es getting toasty
Yes, I'm mad that this shit passes for leftism because they use words like "collectivize" and "central planning", and 90% of this board seems to think these positions are acceptable. This board is completely unsalvageable.
Then fuck off back to Zig Forums, bitch. Women are property and will be nationalized just like land, factories and everything else
Thankfully the only people with these positions are basement dwelling children who cannot organize thanks to their extreme social anxiety.
hahahahahahahaha you get no pussy keep defending foids on the internet
No, this is an obvious, lukewarm b8 thread which you'd know if you weren't new or autistic. Taking it seriously means OP wins.
So what's keeping you here?
Hopefully there will be less butter golems without the baleful influence of capitalism
women are the most vulnerable to casual manipulation by corporations, and their leaders are neoliberal idiots. this is why neoliberals on the left should be identified and dumped.
I don't actually care if you can't have sex, I care about the faggots who can't have sex and end up blaming women for it.
probably time to start caring about yourself judging by your posts here
gtfa id pol retard!!!! "it's never the womens fault." they are proven to hypergame, by definition that is fault.
Anons this is the very type of neoliberal that needs dumping. it's why trump won once
you're the faggot
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Not wanting men to scapegoat women is neoliberalism? Sounds like the exact opposite to me. How about blaming the system that atomizes and alienates people from communities?
Incels are not people, therefore there is no argument to be had.
women have been proven to hypergame. that alone proves fault. you are an id pol retard because only a neolib would virtue signal women.
Hypergamy happens with both sexes you fuckhead, and in societies that are more gender equal, where women don't have to rely on a rich man to raise a family, women tend to value wealth and status less in a potential partner. Make a structual analysis, don't resort to dumb essentialism. It is blatantly un-marxist and goes against the findings in the social sciences.
I'm poor as fuck, fairly short, average looking and I get laid. And this applies to anyone who isn't completely socially awkward. Turns out women value kindness and intelligence too. Who would've thunk.
Not at all what I'm doing. This dumb "sex war" is anti-class struggle. Most women are workers too.
it's not about getting laid retard. no one wants a roastie slut at 4 if you are an 8. or a nigger Autism Level if you aren't.
that definition is stereotypical. if you look at what it means in its sub parts it means acquiring higher value than worth. there are other value than MONEY loser. like genetics
yes you are. women should not be workers.
Did you read my post at all?
Funny, because the stereotype is that men marry young and beautiful women (good genes), while women marry rich and ambitious men (sociological). So which is it? Get your idpol out of here.
The argemunt is about applied. Studies reveal most women have false ideas about comparative value, where men are realistic.
it's not idpol.
Okay. And what is your point then?
Yes it is.
You are the point. Get lost with you bullshit or have the entire movement collapse again. As if women have no responsibility, when it's proven they do.
Responsibility for what exactly?
Men can blame women for their problems. Some will be accurate, some won't. I think it's better to blame the system and women together.
So, responsibility for what, exactly? I'm waiting for you to say "to fuck me", but you won't say it, will you? Look at what this thread is. I'm not against the position that there are behavioral norms for women (and men) that are utterly disgusting, but this "women are subhuman becus uhm I can't get laid so we must enslave them all" needs to fucking die, and the people espousing it should be shot too.
Neither are women, including your mother
But that's the way it was in caveman times, minus the guns. Might is right the basic central motive of all humans, regardless of how much modernism is piled on top of us. It's just that men are physically stronger.
Let's ignore for a second that "back in cavemen times" is entirely speculative and riddled with backward projection of modern ideology - I don't give a fuck what happened thousands of years ago, that is not relevant to the present or how we should structure the future.
I can't tell if some people here are baiting or if they're actually retarded, so I'll act on the latter assumption
let's discuss the position of the woman in society, and how she got there. Prior to agriculture's existence, women and men were generally equal socially. Men hunted, women gathered, that kind of shit. With the advent of agriculture, women's primary supportive role, gathering plants and shit, was effectively made obsolete. Long story short, the potential working value of women to society was increasingly co-opted by males as working itself became a masculine activity. (I'm making a fuck ton of generalities here, just roll with me on this) Therefore, as males took on the role of homebuilder, women's primary value was reduced to their ability to reproduce. This made women a device for reproduction, to be won by men, giving them the "prize" role, their womb becoming something to be earned. Effectively, livestock. The power this afforded to women was at first minimal, because they were made property of their fathers, and this stance of being property was maintained by marriage being transactional between father and husband. Thus they had no control over their prize value. However, as women became more autonomous in their ability to pick a partner, this prize role allowed them to be selective of their partners, and forced the males to compete for the woman's approval, since women were the prize to be won. This power carried over even after sexual liberation, where sexual promiscuity became more acceptable. This is what creates the "hypergamy" as you call it. Everyone is pretty much allowed to fuck as much as they want, so women use their prize leverage to seek higher status men. The men will accept these awards, because it only adds to their stature (in most cases). This doesn't work in reverse because men are considered to be the prize-seekers, and thus a higer status woman would be considered to be lowering the value of herself as a prize if she accepted a lower tier male.
In conclusion, hypergamy and shit are socially constructed by the relegation of womens sexual value to a prize status, and by the assignment of men to a contestant role. Therefore, gender abolition now. (apologies if this is rambly, I wrote this all in one go and Im not doing revisions for a post on a dead image board)
tl;dr: The commodification of women in society indirectly lead to this state of affairs by making women into prizes and males into prize seekers.
(cont.) so no, govt assigned gfs are a retarded way to solve the problem
Lol I never thought see a decent reason to abolish gender.
safe bet tbf
Depends who you ask. Some evidence suggests women were worshipped for fertility reasons and had more power than men. Agriculture was an outgrowth of gathering though, and women were just as apt to be farmers as men (at least in early and pre- civilization). Eh, for most of history the working class had women doing labor same as men. The idea of women only doing reproductive labor is a modern projection by bourgeois women onto the past. Except no. Women were capable as laborers too, and did labor like men. It was later religious impositions that demanded women be used as brood mares, and that was because there was effectively an arms race of population growth with the constant wars of feudalism.
This is notoriously a complete misunderstanding of the historical evidence. Read Debt by Graeber. Specifically chapter 6. That wasn't a development. It was always part of the "transactional" marriage system. It's a lot subtler than this. Yeah, that's broadly accurate. A. the origins of a phenomenon don't justify or condemn it B. your characterization of the origins are inaccurate C. this is a product of the specific gender roles we have right now, not of gender itself D. gender is not purely a social construct (although a lot of it is), and you won't abolish it without full transhumanism
Again, read Graeber. The "commodification" of women you're talking about was always wholly separate from the regular "economy" and didn't function at all how you think. The actual commodification of sex as in prostitution is a completely different thing.
You're right but for the wrong reasons.
ONE MAN, ONE WIFE
NO TAXATION WITHOUT SEXUAL REPRESENTATION
that's enough, grappa
Genuinely appreciate both posts
I might add that True to an extent, but both of these usually took different forms from the labor men did, such as textiles, crop processing, mending, etc. With the advent of capitalism, this further diverged between wage employment men were subject to, and piecework employment women were, which drove something of a wedge into the path of early labor organization efforts.
which is perfectly consistent with equitable but different labor per
This is also true, and an issue with the other post, since the stark material division occurred much later. I would, however, posit that there are distinct advantages and disadvantages to both wage labor and unpaid domestic labor. The more important thing than arguing over whether men or women had it worse is to recognize the material basis of the different experiences and the economic and political factors that create that basis.
Yeah, though this still resulted in a change from something more liberating (gathering in the field) to something fixed to a workshop, tying women (and child laborers) further to domesticity. I was referring to piecework, which, while it does typically occur outside any formal workplace, is paid. Nothing to do with the ridiculous "unpaid domestic labor" or worse, "unpaid emotional labor", canard spouted by 3rd-wavers.
Something similar happened with moving men (and children) from farm work to factory work. I'd argue that a major benefit of domestic labor over wage labor is that you don't have to travel to a place where you have no control over your working conditions, while that's offset by reduced options for productivity. I know, I just felt like I had to include that. Piecework is still commodity production although it's got different cultural forms than what we usually think of as wage labor, so it's comparable enough. It's usually less alientated though since it tends to be more self-directed and communal. Yeah, I know. It just always gets brought up so that's where my head goes. A big problem with that whole thing is that men do housework too, just usually different shit. Honestly I'm terribly disappointed by Marxist feminists who are effectively whining that women have chores instead of jobs.
yeah, that's restricted to people who think basic human interaction is a commodity lol
they really do be like that
doesn't imply equalism seems like an issue to you, not me oh well shoot hippies shoot more hippies
(apologies if this is rambly, I wrote this all in one go and Im not doing revisions for a post on a dead image board) I'd like to see you try stay mad
Muh incels. Go play in Area 51
They weren't that cancerous as random supporting characters in the first Despicable Me, but the studio saw an opportunity to monentize them and they were given center stage in all their unfunny glory. It probably didn't help that the writers were all probably either drunk or actively trying to sabotage it, which is what I'd be in their shoes.
Im down with this. I dont need a twig with a cute face.
Hate to tell ya this but "muh basement dwellerz" may be twice whatever age number you think they are
Lol no way, I want to see how you subjugate half the stronger population with half of the weakest, along with some Chads.
I wouldn’t I’m not gay, and feminists haven’t successfully gotten me to hate my own sexual orientation enough to think a man in a skirt is a woman.
Lol, liberal getting triggered by men undermining their “the status quo is perfectly meritorious” myth. Well fine, if women don’t want to sleep with 70 percent of men, then those men shouldn’t have to pay for anything those children use like schools. Women can only be cunts to low status men because the state makes them pay taxes that pay for their Chad hellspawn, Make those roasties work and pay for their own children.
It's low hanging fruit too. But since most of you are fruits of another kind, I'm sure you can relate
I've been saying this for awhile. If women are so good at multitasking, prove it
You're both over analyzing this with bullshit social "science". The reals reason for hypergamy is pretty simple and logical. Women are just more sexually valuable than men. A man can impregnate dozen of women simultaneously but a woman can only bear the seed of man man at a time and once they're pregnant they're out of the game for 9 months where as a man can just go fuck another woman and knock her up too. Not to mention men keep producing sperm their entire lives after the balls drop and until they're dead and women are born with a set number of eggs and they eventually go bad. So eggs are in higher demand than sperm. Sperm are a dime a dozen, eggs are precious. Sex has steeper consequences for women than men. Women have to carry the child for 9 months and risk death birthing it, and it's their breast that feeds it. So women are going to care more about mating with someone who has good genes than men. They don't want to carry a kid for 9 months and have it come out all fucked up.
this, social sciences are a meme and everyone who is or larps as being an expert in them should be shot in the back of the head Khmer Rouge style
This. Men are too obsessed with "muh purity, muh hymen", yet some men want to fuck all the lassies within line-of-sight or want the women to be like secondary moms, to cook and clean but not question his whereabouts.
So how does being sexually more valuable (or just existing) give them the right to pick whoever they want even though they don't create any value beyond a sexual one, while you could be the next guy to cure cancer, or even just a basic wagecuck (but still creating actual value that isn't just sexual) and not have any access to pussy at all?
An inherently mammalian trait, I doubt this is actually a reason for hyper gamy. Unfortunately true, men can't have children without a woman, this inherently means they have to chase after women if they want them. Women definitely aren't as hypergamous as some might think, Chad will still get cucked just as anyone will, the real pressing question is, how did humans fuck up so badly as to have hypergamy but no hypersexuality like Zebras did? That's the blunder of the entire species right there.