>>11349>You're wrong. I'm genuinely shocked.No, you're just defecting criticism liberalism by using passive-aggressive ostracization. You libs ALWAYS do this, it's so predictable.
If you were genuinely just curious you wouldn't immediately do the Reddit "LitTerAllY ShaKinG" act.
>Please, tell me more about what you mean by "Applying materialism to dating culture"I already gave you 2 examples so I already know you're asking in bad faith, but I'll humor you for now for the sake of other people lurking.
In order to maintain private property violence must be used. But regardless of how superior your strength might be against an opponent you are absorbing risk anytime you employ violence against anyone. History is riddled with 'David and Goliath' stories. The booj cannot maintain their class if they're own well being is constantly being threatened. They need cannon fodder.
The role of cannon fodder falls on men because of how materially human reproduction works. One man can have many babies at once, while women can at most have one or two at a times. Therefore for any hierarchical like capitalism to perpetuate itself, it needs all women to reproduce, but only a small number of men. The spare men are used to absorb the risk associated with using violence to uphold private property.
Women, at least women that can potentially reproduce, are treated better than men, they have to be. From these simply and undeniable material realities a whole host of political dialogs emerge.
The superstructure frames men as dangerous animals, to justify the inhumane disposable status that's imposed on them.
This is why libs like you faint shock at "incel ideology". It's because if men are recognized as just being inherently valuable as humans (without caveats) it undermines the entire liberal order.