[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


 No.451809

the other incel thread got derailed into age of consent shit-flinging, and furthermore i have a larger point so i will make a new thread. overall, i am of the belief that blackpill ideology and the materialist analysis of sex can be reconciled with one another. it is of my opinion that the reason so many incels are traditionalists stems from a fundamental false consciousness that has its origins in the truth of sex not having fully actualized

both black pill thinking and radical feminist thought share a fundamental kernel of truth: that sex based asymmetries are fundamentally grounded on the ownership of particular reproduction organs. other sexually dimorphic traits of the human species which are not primary sexual characteristics still play a role in job market, but as evinced from the fact that we still have unequal representation in jobs that do not require manually intensive labor, it should be clear that their role is far more minimal. there have also been posited psychological differences between men and women, but while they might have some explanatory power, there is a care that should be made, on how substantial these differences really are, which hasn't been had. my problem with this direction is that it uses a continuous distribution of neurodiversity in order to justify a bipartite categorical structure. furthermore, such an explanatory approach is practically inept, as it either suggests that nothing should be done in asymmetrical sexual standards, or an impossible regression in the material conditions of sex (id est, traditionalism). such a regression is, on one side impossible under hegemonic capitalism, and on the other hand, unlikely with current technologies (viz, automation, proliferation of contraception/protection from STIs, mate finding technologies like tinder, etc). this isn't to mention that a social-material regression would be predicated on women turning back on their material interests, which, without copious propaganda is unlikely. not only that, but many men either prefer to have women that are genuine intellectual and economic equals, or are simps who would rather prioritize the rights of women over their own sexual gratification

not only is standard traditionalism insufficient, but so is socialist approaches. the material conditions which produce asymmetries in sexual relations are mostly invariant to economic distribution strategies. we've had patriarchy since agriculture. technology and the reality of differences in reproductive labour are the ultimate determining factors

like i said, both incels and feminists recognize this. for the former, they note the expensiveness of wombs in comparison to dicks as an argument for why there is this difference in the ratings of attractiveness of the two sexes. on the other side, radical feminists understand that patriarchy is fundamentally grounded on ownership of women's bodies. both agree that the pussy monopoly somehow plays a fundamental role in the structure of society

my issue with feminists is that they place too much faith in their capacity to convince men to be on their side. at the end of the day however, it really does come down to a war of the sexes. men want pussy as social and economic currency. incels understand this intrinsically, since the main result of their incapacity to get laid is the resulting subhumanity/low rank in status that they feel. vagina=power, and men without vaginas are powerless subhumans (women have vaginas, and hence the on first analysis economically incoherent assessment that women live life on "easy mode"). to this extent, SCUM manifesto's inversion of freud is unironically correct. i should note here that while solanas might have intended her thesis to be largely satirical, we see this inversion both in lacan and jung. for the former, the sovereign is the mother, whilst for the latter, man's soul and source of spontaneity is in their anima (i.e. their feminine aspect). in both cases, the feminine is then intrinsically understood, either as a completing element, or the very ideal of completion itself. the problem was seeing the feminine as a mere negation, as opposed to an element which must be sublated for the truth of the male sex to be manifest

(if one is feeling particularly brave, male gender dysphoria could ultimately be grounded in this incompleteness of the male. im not sure how true this really is, but could be plausible. that the man's striving after creativity is contradicted by the womb's innate, effortless creative energy is certainly a contradiction that would cause much vexation)

so this liberal feminist idea that mere protest is sufficient is one that should be treated with skepticism. not only do men materially benefit from the patriarchy, but they in some sense ontologically aided as well. of course, the benefit in the latter case should be qualified which takes us to why incel attraction to traditionalism is fundamentally a false consciousness. a regression is plainly insufficient, and it failure lies in its fundamental ignorance of their real grievances. making women merely subservient to men obstructs man's reflection back into himself as the woman is still another animal which resists introjection. the problem with love (or recognition) is itself twofold:
i) the dialectic of recognition involves the incorporation of the woman qua consciousness into the man
ii) love and subservience are competing intentionalities. marriage, is in the last instance, a mating contract. "romantic love" and its relation to marriage is a prevalent idealist perversion which has its salience vanish when we move to traditional models

i should note that "transmaxxing" is not a serious solution either. and this is for numerous reasons:
i) reverse gender dysphoria is always a possibility
ii) with our current technology we do not have artificial wombs so it is an insufficient solution
iii) even if it was ultimately possible, it would only result in the male subject to transmisogyny since the womb is still attached to their organism

so we see here then that both feminists and incels have a false consciousness. they are attached to means that do not ultimately fulfill their ends. my claim is that fembots (and mayhaps menbots) can ultimately be the final solution to the incel/female question, but first i must diffuse another element in feminist false consciousness. this is centred around the outrage pertaining to sexbots
>>

 No.451810

Jesus, look at all those words
>>

 No.451812

File: 1631840385121.jpeg ( 29.47 KB , 563x545 , images - 2021-09-09T02332….jpeg )

Also

>SCUM manifesto

Stop reading misandry, google Esther Vilar
>>

 No.451816

>>451810
>>451812
>no arguments
OP is almost right.
>>

 No.451823

File: 1631843608618.jpeg ( 60.25 KB , 729x729 , tumblr_3b6b047532f53e255e….jpeg )

>>451810
>>451812
>i will not read your argument but instead suggest you to go read this person's book that i haven't myself read but support since it deflects serious criticism while affirming my intuitions… of course i will ignore the fact that the book doesn't at all conflict with the arguments you are making either
at least don't interrupt ._.

>>451809 (OP) (You)
why exactly do some feminists believe that sexbots should be banned in the first place? it is grounded, ultimately on a phenomenological account of sex. sexbots not only repeat sexist stereotypes, but they literalize objectification since men would be fucking an object in which the coexperiencing of sex would not be possible. to me, this argument is fundamentally wrong. first i will review however a new materialist objection to the call for banning sexbots in order to contrast my own objection. this is the article i will be commenting on:
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/8/8/224/htm

first we will ask how they are they going to argue against this? well, their approach is to broaden subjectivity to the point in which objects can function as agents to coexperience sexual intercourse with
>Does loving and feeling loved necessarily require its object to ‘love back’? Or does it suffice, when the loving person assumes that their love is shared? I am leaning towards the latter. David Levy, one of the most outspoken advocates of robot sex, once predicted that within few decades, marriages between humans and robots would be widespread and perfectly normal (Levy 2007, p. 150). This bold statement obviously does not account for the fact that ‘marriages’ between humans are much more than just a vow of trying to make a relationship last. They bind together not just the bridal couple (or triple, or n-ple) but their respective families as well, thus creating complex networks of relatives and in-laws. However, we do not have to go that far to question the necessity of mutuality in loving relationships. Our love for pets and the manifold forms of objectophilia clearly show that the reality of our feelings does not rely on their reciprocation. I do like to believe that my dog in some way or the other loves me, but of course I will never find out, if that is true in an ‘objective’ sense. That, however, does not change the reality of my feelings nor does it deny the very existence of an affectionate relationship between us

this seems like a natural approach. the immediate issue however is that it doesn't completely address the anti-sexbot point. sure, it would be more accurate to say that sexbots subjectivize as opposed to objectivize, but it doesn't address the other concern that they reinforce unhealthy expectations and views of women. indeed, the new materialist still recapitulates this sentiment
> Now, the dolls, on which Harmony’s robotic head is to be mounted, may be impressive from an artistic perspective. From a feminist point of view, they are—there is no other way to say it—horrific. The same is true for the accompanying app that comes as a female avatar designed to serve as an interface to the robotic head. Both can be ‘customized’—meaning that the client can choose from a selection of skin and lip types, labia, pubic hair (trimmed, ‘natural,’ shaved), nipple shades, breast sizes (all of them perfectly round and oddly defying gravity), and so on.

so how exactly are they going to try and solve this glaring problem? their solution is instead to look to dildos and suggest that these are a "better" approach to sexbots. after some remarking about how dildos became far more popular when they started to resemble male sex organs less. they go on to conclude:
>the obvious question we have to ask is: why should a sex robot look like a human?

this is, in my opinion, an exceptionally disappointing thesis, and there appears to be two competing forces taken. on one side the author is trying to subjectivize these robots, but at the same time, she tries to argue against their subjectivizing tendencies. what she said earlier has little efficacy for her ultimate conclusion, and it is ultimately symptomatic her position being too liberal

to elaborate, there is this focus on objectification which has negative effects on intersex relations, but it is my claim that the current moving against this is incoherent for much the same reasons i have called out traditionalism and standard feminist approaches that pretend education is sufficient for abolishing patriarchy. there is another fundamental problem here: these feminists are too attached to the sanctity of coexperiencing human subjects. to them, sex is still a good thing which must be protected from deterritorialization. really, they only care about having women enjoy these things more hence the plain hypocrisy in their position which celebrates female masturbation instruments which can do things that no man can do, yet are appalled by men consuming media that have female figures which obviously no women can achieve. in sharp contrast, i believe that a true solution should result in objectification being no longer relevant. as opposed to somehow "purifying" sexual relations, sexual gratification should be ultimately abstracted from such notions as romance. the obvious compromise would be a world in which the only reason why a man would desire a woman would be precisely this coexperiencing that only they can provide. meanwhile, various paraphillic hyperpornographic fixations should be capable of being directed to other places. as opposed to trying to repress the shadow self, men should be capable of embracing it. it is clear that this approach actually works alongside technocapitalistic progress as opposed to trying to, once again, repress/regress up a mountain

the other part of why the focus on objectificaiton is the wrong way to go is ontological as well. the root of patriarchal ideology stems from women having wombs, as we have accepted in the previous post. pornography is not an independent phenomenon produced by some transcendent powers, but rather the explication of the logic of sex which has been present since agriculture. women have, for much of history, been understood as objects, so the focus on porn is merely treating a symptom

now that we have gone past that, why are fembots the way to go? well there is something about the mere focus on experiencing that ignores another vital part of robot subjectivity, namely that their being is one which is far more disclosed and open to artificial revision than a woman's. you can not install a patch in your wife for them to behave in a way which is entirely different. this manipulability highlights how they are capable of completing man. rather than fembots being a subservient being, they can be understood as a proper extension of man. thus one with a womb reflects man back into himself thus completing the dialectic. artificial organisms are the frontier in which man properly claims the vital creativity he sees in the womb, thus ending sexual history

lastly, we arrive at a final comment. the SCUM manifesto mistakenly pushes a matriarchy as the final end goal - one they mistakenly identify with biological females ruling. this is where my unironic support for its conclusions vanishes. we, after all, live in a patriarchial society, so the species that will be ultimately annihilated will be almost surely the female one. indeed, i do not come for some vulgar emancipation for womankind, or a simplex gender abolition. rather i believe that femininity will be all-together deterritorialized. make no mistake that the female and the incel will be annihilated. it is, after all, a final solution
>>

 No.451824

>>451816
I don't even understand what OP's arguments are

>>451823
I read your first post and this one, just saying the SCUM manifesto is utter garbage.
>>

 No.451826

>>451824
>read
>don't understand my arguments
and the SCUM manifesto as i said is apparently meant to be satire, but i extract some grain of truth from it by referencing psychoanalysts that seem to recapitulate its ideas

idk how i can summarize my argument even further without removing the nuance there, but it goes like this: incels and feminists should really want the same thing, and sex based oppression is fundamentally predicated on having a womb. if men had their own wombs (through fembots) they would no longer need to objectify real human women. incels get their waifus and feminists get their autonomy. i criticize alternative approaches as ultimately missing the point
>>

 No.451828

>>451826
We are never getting fembots though, it's just too expensive.
>>

 No.451829

File: 1631847691840.png ( 331.49 KB , 600x784 , schizo.png )

>>

 No.451833

File: 1631851311140.webm ( 6.77 MB , 622x474 , 1625664684093-3.webm )

>>451829
>nazi
webm related

>>451828
initially yes, but as their production becomes more automated and general supply increases, they would become cheaper. i think a larger hurdle would be whether or not they are possible. we currently do have commercial sexbots, but its basically just a chatbot attached to a doll with some uncanny valley facial expressions. how much a fembot can do for a man would be greatly dependent on how general purpose we can make an artificial intelligence without making them have consciousness
>>

 No.451842

File: 1631862885933.gif ( 266.17 KB , 650x729 , 1621520067122.gif )

>>451834
i agree with what you are saying, but this is more of a partly orthogonal facet than a position that is an objection to what i am saying. the dichotomy between the nuclear family unit, and single parents is a false one. plato understood this over two thousand years ago in his republic (it is always ironic how traditionalists always forget how in this book he very clearly pushes the idea that the nuclear family should be abolished in favour for his more ideal system). instead of having children raised by 2 parents, much of the work can be outsourced to the larger community. of course this perhaps presupposes a fractal localist social structure to achieve a satisfactory balance between the contingency (and intimacy) of parental autonomy on one hand, and the necessity of broader socialization. really i think the main problem with single parents is the need to both raise their children as well work. this is a problem for modern parental units as well

i say only partly orthogonal as the structure of the family is undoubtedly predicated on asymmetries in reproductive labor as well. the process of carrying children and labour is such a physically demanding task, the more parsimonious delegation of responsibility would be to keep women near the house altogether. maybe there are nuances here i need to tease out though for instance how this relates to hunter gatherer division of labor

the two posts i made above were just appealing to incels and feminists. i think the more mgtow crowd are easier to appease as they already have little desire to be in a relationship with biological (as opposed to synthetic) women. im not sure if i should say more since it all depends on how advanced fembots will get. if you can get an onahole that can help around the house, this is already a good deal. with that said, your post gives me the sense that you are one of those men that really want a woman that is your intellectual equal which i don't think pertains to explicitly family per se. this is a difficult problem that would require alteration of the superstructure as it shapes female socialization. to the extent that this superstructure is determined by base material conditions, my approach would have a positive benefit on this as well. i touched a bit on why in a leftypol thread:
https://leftypol.org/siberia/res/149718.html#149733
tinkering and exploration will be less discouraged for women when their reproductive value diminishes and they become less expendable
>>

 No.451843

>>451834
*become more expendable
>>

 No.451846

File: 1631864305123.jpg ( 138.54 KB , 1200x750 , steathmarketing.jpg )

>>451809
>mate finding technologies like tinder
Are you're at least getting payed for this ad
>>

 No.451847

>not only is standard traditionalism insufficient, but so is socialist approaches. the material conditions which produce asymmetries in sexual relations are mostly invariant to economic distribution strategies
>it really does come down to a war of the sexes.

So is this just a reactionary post wrapped in obscurantist language to attack the class struggle by saying that the real conflict is war of the sexes ?

Cringe
>>

 No.451849

File: 1631866815491.jpeg ( 16.72 KB , 261x380 , The_Dialectic_of_Sex_(fir….jpeg )

>>451847
not at all. undoubtedly class struggle is still a thing. it's just neither for a simple "class reductionism", nor abandoning material analysis for some intersectional nonsense (maybe too strong a word). im not firestone [spoiler] yet [/spoiler]

>>451846
marketing what?
>>

 No.451850

File: 1631869193337.gif ( 1.06 KB , 302x55 , spoilertext.gif )

>>451849
>undoubtedly class struggle is still a thing, it's just ….
here we go again, i wish i knew what drove intellectually minded people to constantly search for reasons to de-prioritize class struggle, why are you doing this ? Is this just callous self interest because you think you personally benefit more from this society than a socialist one, or do you really believe this ?
i think spoilertext uses double asterix, i have no idea what firestone is and online search engines want to sell me camping equipment if i search for it
>class reductionism
Marxism is when you do a class analysis, why do you have to make up new words ?


I have noticed that there are people who have a tendency to use "neither-nor-ism" when they define their own political line, what is that about ?
>>

 No.451851

File: 1631870531477.jpg ( 151.89 KB , 520x426 , FB90E126-ADB6-4802-AFF2-26….jpg )

>>451850
>Is this just callous self interest because you think you personally benefit more from this society than a socialist one, or do you really believe this ?
i don't think class analysis is bad or that a socialist society isn't preferable to a capitalist one. it just has its limits as do all modes of analysis. sex based oppression is still not as important as abolishing capitalism. i am only saying that you need slightly different analytical tools and new solutions which pair with socialism for these issues
>why do you have to make up new words
it's a common liberal slur for people only analyzing things through class, and i couldnt think of a better word. i put it in quotes because i dont want to directly associate with those people though i think some of their grievances might have merit in a very qualified sense
>I have noticed that there are people who have a tendency to use "neither-nor-ism" when they define their own political line, what is that about?
there are a lot of false dichotomies for some reason. left and right, the nuclear family and single motherhood, lucid economic analysis and idpol, etc. sometimes it is useful to contrast your position against them. if you want hardcore neither-nor-ism, read foucault's archeology of knowledge where he contrasts his concepts with several possible interpretations

ty for spoilerpill firestone is the feminist who wrote the book whose bookcover i posted as an image. this is the book she wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dialectic_of_Sex
>>

 No.451852

>>451849
wuts this book about
dialectics of sex?
>>

 No.451857

>>451851
>i don't think class analysis is bad or that a socialist society isn't preferable to a capitalist one. it just has its limits as do all modes of analysis. sex based oppression is still not as important as abolishing capitalism. i am only saying that you need slightly different analytical tools and new solutions which pair with socialism for these issues
>it's a common liberal slur for people only analyzing things through class, and i couldnt think of a better word. i put it in quotes because i dont want to directly associate with those people though i think some of their grievances might have merit in a very qualified sense

The capitalist class filters literally everything through a class conscious lens of their interests. The working class must do the same if it wants any chance to win the class struggle.
It runs counter to Marxism to exempt anything from class analysis.
The "class reductionism" slur for Marxism is an attack on the interests of the working class, you are creating a hole in the theoretical armor that the working class needs to defend it self against the onslaught of communicative capitalism. This term is reactionary in character. Keep in mind how aggressive the ideological structure of capitalism has become, the vast amount of mental labor that capital expends to impose the ideas of the ruling class on society. It would be criminal negligence to not ruthlessly criticize everything on the bases of class.
You are very ignorant if you think that class society doesn't interfere with sexuality and reproductive relations of humans, Try reading what Friedrich Engels wrote about the 18 century bourgeois social reproductive unit (It has lost some relevance for today, because social relations have changed, but if you keep in mind the historic context it is still very good material that teaches you methods of analyzing class relations of things that aren't immediately apparent as having economic relevance)

>there are a lot of false dichotomies for some reason.

That's not a valid reason to ditch an analysis grounded in material conditions
>left and right,
i would grant you this example, but i fear that you think centrism is somehow not yet another form of extremism
>the nuclear family and single motherhood,
again this seems reasonable if it means you want to point out that there also are things like extended families, but i fear that your motivation might be about rich people having the ability to buy children as a commodity. child trafficking gets the special gulag
>lucid economic analysis and idpol, etc.
No just don't even bother with that line, there is no rehabilitating idpol

>sometimes it is useful to contrast your position against them. if you want hardcore neither-nor-ism, read foucault's archeology of knowledge where he contrasts his concepts with several possible interpretations.

I think i'll pass

I'm not going to read a Wikipedia article on anything that is ideologically sensitive, seriously.
>>

 No.451863

>>451857
>You are very ignorant if you think that class society doesn't interfere with sexuality and reproductive relations of humans
nowhere have i said this is the case, though perhaps my wording is poor. it isn't that it doesn't, but merely that i dont believe socialism in itself would be a sufficient solution. why should it? patriarchy didn't start with capitalism, so it is not immediately clear why it should altogether end with its abolishment
>if it means you want to point out that there also are things like extended families
yes, though not only >>451842 (You) (You)
>That's not a valid reason to ditch an analysis grounded in material conditions
i have not. feminism's normative force already rests on the centrality of these material conditions as they effect women. by the claim "asymmetries in sexual relations are mostly invariant to economic distribution strategies", i am simply looking at the fact that you have patriarchy in the ancient, feudal, and capitalist modes of production. maybe the 'mostly' qualifier is too strong
>i would grant you this example, but i fear that you think centrism is somehow not yet another form of extremism
it's just that grouping marxism with other so-called leftist ideologies is a meaningless pursuit. left-right obfuscate class interests which play a far more substantial role in politics. though fascists would also identify themselves as centrists
>No just don't even bother with that line, there is no rehabilitating idpol
what's the explanation for why stalin recriminalized homosexuality? idpol as it stands obscures class as the primary basis of things like ethnic discrimination, but there are other quandaries you can't simply understand fully without other tools

i mentioned firestone because she apparently believed that even our class structure ultimately has its grounding in the biological reality of sex. im not that extreme, and open to the idea that they came through other factors. with that said, even she presupposed socialism despite her analytic shift. it just wasn't sufficient, but still necessary

>>451852
haven't read it yet which is why it wasn't originally mentioned. i doubt i can do a better summary than the wiki link

also btw i called this "right" in the sense that accelerationism is "right marxism". not really because of incels or what not
>>

 No.451864

>>451863
ignore the extra (You)s. im not smart
>>

 No.451867

>Unironic N1x g/acc neoreaction thread
This board has gone straight into the ground, we're literally the worst part of /lit/ now.
>>

 No.451868

>>451863
>i don't believe socialism in itself would be a sufficient solution
Why not ? If the collective owns all the means of production, there is no need to buy a "womb-person" to produce airs for capital, it will be enough if society as a hole has enough children.
We would need to reintroduce "the people's combat training", so that both men and women are able to fight with lethal weapons to avoid warrior chauvinism. That fixes both of the remaining historic developments that caused women to be subjugated, since there is nothing like men being better at plowing or women having better dexterity for weaving that plays much of a role in a technological society.
I would recommend the Book:
How the World Works by Paul Cockshott
It has the most materialist account of how the social relations between the sexes are affected by material conditions and modes of production. This book goes from prehistoric hunter gatherer societies to the modern world.
I think the author of this book thinks that socialist economic relations will produce a matrilineal society (not matriarchal to avoid confusion)
>what's the explanation for why stalin recriminalized homosexuality?
Soviet Society was still branded with feudal idpol and this was a real politic concession, and to be fair to Uncle Joe, this just meant that you could not be openly gay if you wanted a political career. Which really pisses off liberal sensibilities (because they assume everybody is a callous social climber, and their idea of fairness is everybody getting a fair chance to step on the lower classes), but it did not entail any of the torture shit that capitalist societies still practice under the label of "curing the gay". (but hey capitalism also has gay CEOs and as long as some percentage of the ruling class has minorities represented, it doesn't really matter what happens to the plebs, that's the idpol logic when you say it out loud)
I think that you might be dishonest to play the game of ripping historic events out of temporal context, because right now we have feminists that support imperial invasions because "overthrowing patriarchal regimes is progressive" and rich men being able to rent the bodies of poor women for sex is also somehow progressive.
Liberalism has regressed very far, i don't think you can find any past socialist leaders that held views this reactionary.
>because she apparently believed that even our class structure ultimately has its grounding in the biological reality of sex.
That means she could be a bourgeois feminist who assumes bourgeois economic relations as a given, and projects that onto biology. Statistically speaking men are better at playing the game of class society, and if you are a bourgeois feminist looking to preserve your class privileges but also don't want to deal with the consequences of class society you excrete shit theory to square a circle. If she isn't a bourgeois hypocrite, she would be a bio-centrist which is much worse, because bio-centrism is the logic that you have to change people on a physiological level to get any kind of improvement for the conditions of humans. Once people like that get political power political disagreements turn into biological defects and the only effective counter arguments to that kind of logic tend to be very kinetic.
>im not that extreme, and open to the idea that they came through other factors. with that said, even she presupposed socialism despite her analytic shift. it just wasn't sufficient, but still necessary
In practical reality this political line boils down to gate keeping for class analysis. Capitalism is so pervasive that capitalist logic touches virtually every aspect of the lives of people, and that means virtually every aspect of the lives of the people now has a class character.
>>

 No.451885

>>451867
>>Unironic N1x g/acc neoreaction thread
not at all. i don't see transness as particularly revolutionary, nor do i see "femininity" as this force that will eschatologically prevail. i don't build on land at all and would much rather prefer determinate directions than any vague praise for alterity

>>451868
>Why not ? If the collective owns all the means of production, there is no need to buy a "womb-person" to produce airs for capital, it will be enough if society as a hole has enough children
women are the ones who do most of the labour in producing a child. whether wombs must be used for the purpose of a man's impotency or the greater good of society makes little difference. im not exactly sure how socializing things somehow erases the fundamental reproductive asymmetry here. maybe it might be fruitful to think of a way what i suggested wouldn't be efficacious. i suppose one issue is that after this move and supposing the system is still capitalist, bourgeois ideology could retain their positions about competency of women in order to keep them in an artificial lower class much like black people. i say artificial as it would be abstracted from the reproductive basis of subjugation and merely a tool to divide the proles. socialism would be needed to prevent this
>We would need to reintroduce "the people's combat training", so that both men and women are able to fight with lethal weapons to avoid warrior chauvinism
chauvinism is a symptom, not a cause
>How the World Works by Paul Cockshott
i will check it out sometime
>this was a real politic concession
ignoring the fact that stalin himself recapitulated the ideology, it doesn't address the fact that the feudal idpol still persisted. the reason why it didn't vanish is because sexual acts weren't reified into class. the most "rational" justification for exclusive (the mere sexual act has less of a justification for being there) homosexuality is that it reduces rates of reproduction provided a mating system which is not hypergamous. at any rate, the cruciality of reproduction is an issue which is invariant to modes of production, so homophobia persisting is to me unsurprising. contrast this to how race has a far more substantial association to class as class collaboration becomes more attractive if you are working with those in "your tribe". here, the efficacy of moving to a socialist system is far more concrete. the distorted views of progress by liberals is not relevant as i am not arguing that their own approaches are very effective either
>That means she could be a bourgeois feminist who assumes bourgeois economic relations as a given, and projects that onto biology
an anthropological starting point need not be so crude. marx himself has a positive anthropology of the human as a productive animal which must work for its survival. such a description doesn't eliminate the historicity and ultimate contingency of capital
>Capitalism is so pervasive that capitalist logic touches virtually every aspect of the lives of people, and that means virtually every aspect of the lives of the people now has a class character
i never denied this. but clearly looking at how capitalism treats sex relations wont give you a root cause analysis. different post-hunter-gatherer modes of production also give you different modes of patriarchy. none of them are its essential form
>>

 No.451889

i think females should fuck 2 incels per month and get free monthly bus pass
>>

 No.451910

>>451885
I have the impression that beneath all this verbal sophistication, is just a very crude pseudo politics of men against women.
>>

 No.451933

File: 1632122793928.gif ( 688.23 KB , 286x310 , 1565550598869.gif )

>>451867
perhaps
>>

 No.451977

>>451809
>jobs that do not require manually intensive labor
You erred when you failed to realize that the dimorphism between humans applies to these jobs as well. There will always be fewer women working in any job that requires actual talent than men because there are simply fewer women who have the desire to work in demanding fields. Why would they when they can just get some betabuxxer to do all the hard parts? Even the women who do work in demanding fields are usually incompetent and need the men to help them with everything.

>this isn't to mention that a social-material regression would be predicated on women turning back on their material interests

It doesn't matter whether women turn their back on their interests or not. Women have no inherent power and never have. The only power women have ever had is whatever power men are willing to give them. And men are just about done tolerating feminist bullshit.

>my issue with feminists is that they place too much faith in their capacity to convince men to be on their side.

Didn't you just say feminism depended on women?

>not only do men materially benefit from the patriarchy

There is no patriarchy. There has never been any patriarchy. Only Chads have privilege. Incel men have never been privileged. Incels are the people who get sent to die in wars. Except now incels are forming their own class consciousness and refusing to serve a society that obviously doesn't serve them. I'm not reading the rest of this word salad because your fundamental assumptions are so bad they invalidate anything else you could say and you can't even keep your story straight to begin with.

>>451823
>why exactly do some feminists believe that sexbots should be banned in the first place?
Because they affect the sexual marketplace by offering other sources of sex and therefore lowering the sexual market value of the feminist roasties. This is also why feminists raised the age of consent and have attempted to get porn banned. That's all there is to it. None of this other stupid shit you talked about is anything but a smokescreen for that.

>>451826
>incels get their waifus and feminists get their autonomy.
Your mistake was in believing that autonomy was ever what feminists were after. Feminists love being slaves…for Chads only. Feminists want to ensure their access to Chads and when their looks expire they want to ensure their access to betas' wallets. Feminists would never want incels to have any sexual outlet even if they gained no financial benefit from depriving incels of sexual outlets. Women hate non-Chad men simply for existing and if they had their way every man they find unattractive would be sent to a slave labor camp or killed.

>>451834

>Incel traditionalists are delusional, because they don't understand what they are asking for.
Hmm. Let me investigate this statement…

>goes to incel forums

>immediately finds 234285523482 threads where incels celebrate people who shoot women

Nah I'm pretty sure they know exactly what they're asking for.

>>451847
There are three major castes of men - Chads, normies and incels. Normies would benefit more if they allied with incels, but normies at least in Anglo countries generally tend to ally with Chad and punch down at incels. Normies are ultimately the problem because there are not enough Chads to police the incels if the normies were eliminated. Class war is subordinate to the war of Chad vs non-Chad because Chads are overwhelmingly wealthy and incels are overwhelmingly poor.

>>451868
>because right now we have feminists that support imperial invasions because "overthrowing patriarchal regimes is progressive"
I support imperial invasions of the United States and other anglo countries which propagate feminism by non-feminist countries such as China in order to lower the age of consent.

>>451910
That's all politics of any sort ever was. Politics was never anything but post facto rationalizations for different demographics struggling for power. Also lower the age of consent to make feminist roasties seethe.
>>

 No.452111

File: 1632726229374.png ( 203.01 KB , 560x408 , download (2).png )

>>451977
>There will always be fewer women working in any job that requires actual talent than men because there are simply fewer women who have the desire to work in demanding fields. Why would they when they can just get some betabuxxer to do all the hard parts? Even the women who do work in demanding fields are usually incompetent and need the men to help them with everything.
>It doesn't matter whether women turn their back on their interests or not. Women have no inherent power and never have. The only power women have ever had is whatever power men are willing to give them. And men are just about done tolerating feminist bullshit.
i addressed these within the paragraphs you quoted. aside from women having their own interests, there are also men who would defend womens' rights for whatever reason. that women don't have as much agency in our society is an affirmation of my point that when fembots come, it would mean the annihilation of the female sex. i should however qualify this with saying that your view as to why women lack power might be too simplistic given our current ballistic and cybernetic technologies which would make female resistance a tenable phenomenon provided a similar allocation of units and resources between the two camps. of course this distribution is not a reality, but that is besides the point
>There is no patriarchy. There has never been any patriarchy
>The only power women have ever had is whatever power men are willing to give them
these are contradictory claims. moreover, your mention of wars only illustrates a poor comprehension of what male privilege is. it doesn't mean that your life is automatically more fulfilling than some arbitrary woman's merely because you are a man. it isn't something that is distributed equally, and certainly some men experience the short end of the stick. i would not be suggesting incels should invest their time into building fembots if i didn't believe this. note that incels as we understand them are only a group particular to this mode of patriarchy. there was a reproductive hypergamy in feudal times, but it was based solely upon status as opposed to also including attractiveness. inceldom would be largely unintelligible in such a system thanks not only to arranged marriage, but also the relative absence of romantic love behind marriage
>refusing to serve a society that obviously doesn't serve them
i am not merely making what i wrote up. there is a community where incels and mgtows are trying to construct fembots. im not stating where to avoid a raid. if you are still curious, you may contact my temporary fbi.gov: literally who#1853
>None of this other stupid shit you talked about is anything but a smokescreen for that
>Your mistake was in believing that autonomy was ever what feminists were after. Feminists love being slaves…for Chads only
this is assuming all feminists are sex positive. moreover, the purported salience of your observations even if they were correct does not automatically entail that an internal critique of feminist ideology is not useful. you are shrinking your perspective in fear of the possibility that what they say might make rational sense. to avoid this negativity, you merely focus on sexual behaviour of a select portion of women as opposed to the internal logic of their thought. if such an approach is not wrong, it is certainly uninteresting. moreover, for the people who have comprehended feminist philosophy, your approach would be unconvincing. put shortly, i am setting up a magnanimous position which can reach out to multiple perspectives simultaneously. of course, there are purely blackpill reasons to like fembots too, but i am not one allergic to some intellectual miscegenation

idk i wish i could talk to people that are patient enough to seriously read what i have written but i fear that i have cut them off
>>

 No.452146

>>451977
>You erred when you failed to realize that the dimorphism between humans applies to these jobs as well. There will always be fewer women working in any job that requires actual talent than men because there are simply fewer women who have the desire to work in demanding fields. Why would they when they can just get some betabuxxer to do all the hard parts? Even the women who do work in demanding fields are usually incompetent and need the men to help them with everything.
This, a lot of online socialist claim to be materialist but are really just disgruntled woke shit libs going through a phase. In at least 1st world and developing countries there's a de facto matriarchy.
Women are given every advantage and can completely attain most of life's milestones like having a family, completely free of consequence or with a male partner. The opposite is not true for me.
It isn't sexist to say this, if these incentives were given to men, you'd see the same behavior. Which is why feminists loathe the idea of extending welfare assistance to fathers, can't have everyone free riding, someone has got to be the beast of burden.
I'd quibble with your assertion that women in challenging fields always need help from men. I've worked with many well qualified women and there's no data to back up that women are carried by men in difficult fields.
What is backed up by data is the women LEAVE challenging fields after only several years, usually to have a children, and never return to the rat race.
>>

 No.452147

File: 1632860517661.jpg ( 200.26 KB , 1985x1008 , 1632856191776.jpg )

>>452111
>these are contradictory claims. moreover, your mention of wars only illustrates a poor comprehension of what male privilege is. it doesn't mean that your life is automatically more fulfilling than some arbitrary woman's merely because you are a man. it isn't something that is distributed equally, and certainly some men experience the short end of the stick.
The classic feminist faint on the definition of male privileged. You have plenty of descriptions on what male privilege is, but none on what it actually is. Since my every material measure males suffer and do worse than women. Something you feminists can never reconcile other than by saying men suffer at the hands of other men mostly, as if having a penis is some original sin that all men share.
>i would not be suggesting incels should invest their time into building fembots if i didn't believe this.
This just proves what a pernicious misandrist little shit you are. Fembots are decades away from being anything close to being passable girlfriends or wives.
There's no need for such a convoluted as sex bots when all men need to do is travelmaxxx and seek partners overseas.
The incel problem is first and foremost an economic one. Men in the first world are poorer on average than women, they go to college far less and fill the worst most dangerous jobs exclusively.
Marriage is and always has been an economic pact first and foremost. Men in the first world cannot provide any sort of increase in the socioeconomic status of women like their boomer parents could. So therefore the poorest most deeply neglected men on the capitalist ladder are just excluded from dating by women altogether.
But in 3rd world countries these same 'incel' men represent a dramatic rise in their standards of living (from dirt poor to at least working poor or even lower middle class). So these poorer women are attracted to these men for the same reason that Western women are repelled by them, their income.
>note that incels as we understand them are only a group particular to this mode of patriarchy.
Lol, incels are a very recent phenomenon dating at the earliest to the 2000's. The term 'incel' wasn't used in the popular lexicon until the 2010's after the Rodger Elliot shootings.
All the way until the 1990's only 3 percent of men under 35 were unmarried, much less an incel. And now 1/3 of all men under 35 have not have sex in over a year. Unless you think patriarchy didn't exist before the 1990's.
I'm sure you'll handwave it away as just being a "different mode of patriarchy" but never explain what these modes are LMAO.
>there was a reproductive hypergamy in feudal times,
No there wasn't, there was no welfare state and women died in child birth regularly. Women back then couldn't fuck around. >inceldom would be largely unintelligible in such a system thanks not only to arranged marriage, but also the relative absence of romantic love behind marriage
There was arranged marriages back then because the costs of having a child out of wedlock were so staggeringly steep for women. Women consented to arranged marriages implicitly for this reason too. Also there were plenty of marriages that were freely formed, arranged marriages were by no means the norm even in medieval times.
>>

 No.452148

>>452147
*You have plenty of descriptions on what male privilege is not,
>>

 No.452149

>>452147
*There's no need for such a convoluted solution
>>

 No.452150

*format fuck up
>inceldom would be largely unintelligible in such a system thanks not only to arranged marriage, but also the relative absence of romantic love behind marriage
There was arranged marriages back then because the costs of having a child out of wedlock were so staggeringly steep for women. Women consented to arranged marriages implicitly for this reason too. Also there were plenty of marriages that were freely formed, arranged marriages were by no means the norm even in medieval times.
>>

 No.452172

>ii) love and subservience are competing intentionalities. marriage, is in the last instance, a mating contract. "romantic love" and its relation to marriage is a prevalent idealist perversion which has its salience vanish when we move to traditional models
LOOOOOL
>>

 No.452186

>>452111
>female resistance a tenable phenomenon
Lol no. This relies on women having the same competence as men in non-manual labor fields and they don't. You didn't address a fucking thing.

>these are contradictory claims.

No they aren't. Men do have power over women if they act as a group. But there is still no patriarchy because men rarely ever act collectively as men. Normie men generally simp for Chads and act as Chad's thugs to oppress incels. In the rare cases where normies have sided with incels, Chads got BTFO and women got their privileges taken away. If the sentence was worded "whatever power whichever group of men happens to be in control right now are willing to give them" it would still have the same intent while dodging your nitpicking.
>>

 No.452232

File: 1633055115334.jpeg ( 158.55 KB , 774x1000 , Unknown_engraver_-_Humani….jpeg )

>>452147
>You have plenty of descriptions on what male privilege is, but none on what it actually is
the term is self-explanatory. the problem i saw with merely listing examples was that position was not merely flawed, but rather your mode of argumentation itself. the response you quoted was me addressing this. merely enumerating examples without that effort would be trite since you could always say "well men have to face X" as though it is somehow a knock down argument. an example of it would be that women are socialized into more docile roles from when they are born. this has ramifications for where they are born. men are much more likely to be taken seriously than women, this also partially to do with them having more neotenous facial characteristics. not only are women hired in less leadership roles, when they do it is often in positions which are very much disposed to fail (search up the glass cliff effect). there's the obvious fact that as a woman you are more likely to be sexually harassed in public. these things rarely happen with men… there's also the wage gap which is an injustice even if it is a matter of women failing to negotiate their wages. such a system simply isn't meritocratic. you shouldn't be compensated for mere audacity as opposed to the raw labour you produce
>But in 3rd world countries these same 'incel' men represent a dramatic rise in their standards of living (from dirt poor to at least working poor or even lower middle class). So these poorer women are attracted to these men for the same reason that Western women are repelled by them, their income.
first world incels move the third world and take the women there. this just means more third world incels. your plan shortsightedly ignores that the global distribution of males and females is roughly equal so courtship, if we bar polyamory, is a zero sum game. so much for "class consciousness"
>Lol, incels are a very recent phenomenon dating at the earliest to the 2000's
this does not contradict what i said. all you are pointing out is that their emergence wasn't immediate with the laissez-faire manner marriage was performed now, but required further technological developments (such as dating sites) to be properly manifest
>Women back then couldn't fuck around
hypergamy isn't just being sexually promiscuous. the upper class could marry multiple wives and hav concubines on the side

>>452186
>as men in non-manual labor fields
this is why i mentioned cybernetics as well. computers and artificial intelligence are great productivity boosters which would narrow the importance of proficiency in non-manual tasks. i was very particular in how i worded this statement. we are of course also ignoring the fact that even if men won such a hypothetical war it would be greatly damaging to them thanks to technology. also note i am purposefully conceding the notion that women are innately worse at these tasks than men which i am skeptical of. lastly, this is just a far out ideal case which ignores our current societal conditions in which many men would fight on behalf of women's rights. your point only seems consequential after the mountains of generosity i am lending you
>Normie men generally simp for Chads and act as Chad's thugs to oppress incels. In the rare cases where normies have sided with incels, Chads got BTFO and women got their privileges taken away. If the sentence was worded "whatever power whichever group of men happens to be in control right now are willing to give them" it would still have the same intent while dodging your nitpicking
you conflate political action partial in favour of a demographic with that demographic needing to take some fictitious collective action above and beyond obeying the laws and behavioural patterns which holistically produce an overall imbalance of power. moreover you conflate mass action with intentional collective action when these are not the same thing. take climate change for instance. individually, everyone can just be consuming and living their middle class life. globally however, we see something new happen entirely
>>452146
read this post and >>452111
>>452172
thx for bump i think
>>

 No.452297

>>452232
>the term is self-explanatory.
It's not though, it's really amorphous which is how you can go from claiming all men have even when faced with the long centries long history of men bearing the brunt of class society's abuse. Your premise can never be falsified because it no concrete definition.
Any real examples of male privledge can be explained by class.
>>

 No.452298

>>452232
>first world incels move the third world and take the women there. this just means more third world incels
Not really, Western Women are welcome to go these same 3rd world countries and marry men there as well. Why are 3rd world men benethe western women, their poverty has no bearing on their charcter.
>>

 No.452299

>>452232
>the upper class could marry multiple wives and hav concubines on the side
As early as the 50's having a child out if wedlock was a scarlet letter. Only booj men could have multiple partners.
>>Lol, incels are a very recent phenomenon dating at the earliest to the 2000's
>this does not contradict what i said. all you are pointing out is that their emergence wasn't immediate with the laissez-faire manner marriage was performed now, but required further technological developments (such as dating sites) to be properly manifest
It does, you implied incels have some long prominance, and that a balanced male female partner ratio can't be achived under capitalism, neither of which are true.
And it's not "technology" that's causing it. It's the machinations of both silicon valley and the media for the purposes of turning dating and sex into a commodity for short term profits.
Tinder could have been concived on any communications platform and indeed there's plenty of primitive tinder predecessor like VHS video dating and phone chat lines. Any of those services could have become Tinder with the venture capital money and the relentless propoganda Tinder and hook up culture received.
>>

 No.452300

>>452297
*all men have privlege.
>>

 No.452302

File: 1633170435145.jpeg ( 69.37 KB , 1128x858 , hR0GL6A4oU875k-uO6D75sEA9….jpeg )

>>452297
>it's really amorphous which is how you can go from claiming all men have even when faced with the long centries long history of men bearing the brunt of class society's abuse
male is a qualifier. it's a term to describe privileges men have because of their sex. it is more specific than a proposition merely claiming men are privileged in some way. pointing out men needing to go to war demonstrates a basic lapse in understanding of human language as opposed to a failure in the concept's clarity
>Any real examples of male privledge can be explained by class
if you not only ignore issues that aren't merely economic like harassment and sexual harassment, but also ones that have origins in attitudes which predate capitalism, then yes. note this is a major concession either way. a solely class-based analysis doesn't detract from the original point in which patriarchy was brought up. all it suggests is that it is an instance of class collaboration to boot

>>452298
>Why are 3rd world men benethe western women, their poverty has no bearing on their charcter
they being lower in economic and social status obviously figures into it. i don't fall for the personality meme since romance beyond sexual relations is fake anyways

>>452299
>It does, you implied incels have some long prominance, and that a balanced male female partner ratio can't be achived under capitalism
no, i made a claim about conditions of possibility
>And it's not "technology" that's causing it. It's the machinations of both silicon valley and the media for the purposes of turning dating and sex into a commodity for short term profits
this is not a refutation of my point. without the technology, this sort of large scale commodification of relationships would be far more infeasible. sure, marketing plays a role too, but the increase in male virginity with the advent of social media is far greater than the sexual revolution which was something that had been occurring for decades. even if my observation was wrong, your solution still rests on there needing to be a strategic innovation in favour of the capitalists for this shift to occur. in either case it's pretty tangential to my point
>>

 No.452303

>>452302
>harassment and sexual harassment
sexual harassment and sexual abuse*
>>

 No.452304

File: 1633189953913.jpg ( 28.24 KB , 563x500 , sniff.jpg )

>>452302
>origins in attitudes
rofl get a load of this idealistic nonsense.
>>

 No.452307

>>452302
>male is a qualifier. it's a term to describe privileges men have because of their sex. it is more specific than a proposition merely claiming men are privileged in some way.
This is just semantics, I asked for historical or empirical proof that all men collectively hold power over all women.
>pointing out men needing to go to war demonstrates a basic lapse in understanding of human language as opposed to a failure in the concept's clarity
I said men are killed, injured and impoverished at much higher rates than women, and their raped at the same amount as women.
What other major forms of oppression are there.
What perfect way to oppress women than by getting yourself killed, hurt and raped more. No one will ever suspect men!
>they being lower in economic and social status obviously figures into it. i don't fall for the personality meme since romance beyond sexual relations is fake anyways
Marriage is the gold standard of human relationships. It's an oath to love and support someone for life.
If you simply marry a man for money what you have is a roommate and a business partner not a husband.
Also this notion that men have to already be wealthy is so typical western feminist women. Wealth can be fleeting, a rich man can be poor tomorrow and a poor man doesn't necessarily stay poor forever. As the saying goes "If you want to be the wife of an Admiral, you have to marry a lieutenant". But instead western women are ugly consumerists that demand that their male partners elevate their status right fucking now.
Anyway men have always "dated down" economically. Now that women earn as much and more than working class men they'll have to do the same. Demanding men that not only have good character but are wealthy as well is just selfish and bratty.
>no, i made a claim about conditions of possibility
You said incels are the result of this particular mode of patriarchy. Patriarchy is claimed by feminists to span centuries so how can incels be a product if they're only 20 years old at most.
Also state what this "mode of patriarchy" because I've never heard of feminism divide patriarchy into epochs. They all pretend that it's still the medieval ages.
>this is not a refutation of my point. without the technology,
It is, you hinge the creation of Tinder on the advent of smartphones and the internet. As far back as the early 1900's people worried about women using phones for infidelity.
But we never saw the social sea change that Tinder caused until now. It wasn't technology that changed, because IT based dating services existed as far back as the 1970's. It was the result of a generation of boys being raised by single mothers to be simps and the indoctrination of feminist ideology via compulsory school and media. As well as the booj plowing real money into turning dating itself into a commodity, instead of merely making money off of facilitating it via bars, clubs and restaurants.
>if you not only ignore issues that aren't merely economic like harassment and sexual harassment,
I don't ignore that, men and women have different material conditions. Namely women can have children. Therefore there's plenty of sphere's women suffer and men do not. This doesn't constitute a patriarchy and it doesn't mean men don't actually have it worse overall.
>>

 No.452311

File: 1633233610911.jpeg ( 146.69 KB , 1080x1293 , Ew4MEiaXEAAr2H5.jpeg )

>>452304
indeed just "attitudes" is not comprehensive enough. they have their origins in material reality. i already worded my point better earlier in the thread
<the material conditions which produce asymmetries in sexual relations are mostly invariant to economic distribution strategies. we've had patriarchy since agriculture. technology and the reality of differences in reproductive labour are the ultimate determining factors
<not only do men materially benefit from the patriarchy, but they in some sense ontologically aided as well

>>452307
>This is just semantics
your primary disagreement here stem from a lapse in conceptual comprehension as evinced by choice of arguments. semantics here is perfectly relevant
>I asked for historical or empirical proof that all men collectively hold power over all women
already mentioned examples. here you demonstrate a failure to understand what "collectively" entails which does not mean that each individual of the collective has an advantage over every other individual of the other collective. you can't dismiss imperialism by mentioning homeless people in the first world and rich people in the third world. it's still a nonsensical approach no matter how you slice it
>What other major forms of oppression are there
the ones i listed
>It's an oath to love and support someone for life
it is an economic contract. dating down makes sense since women were always the goods
<love and subservience are competing intentionalities. marriage, is in the last instance, a mating contract. "romantic love" and its relation to marriage is a prevalent idealist perversion which has its salience vanish when we move to traditional models
>You said incels are the result of this particular mode of patriarchy
<note that incels as we understand them are only a group particular to this mode of patriarchy
>Patriarchy is claimed by feminists to span centuries so how can incels be a product if they're only 20 years old at most
wasn't the claim. note here you are progressively making what i said less precise so my claims seem bizarre. in this sentence you have even loosened it from a mode to patriarchy in general
>Also state what this "mode of patriarchy" because I've never heard of feminism divide patriarchy into epochs
mainly as they correspond to different modes of production. cockshott here >>451868 sounds like he has a similar idea
>As far back as the early 1900's people worried about women using phones for infidelity
not even comparable to the sort of social media and sheer automation of matchmaking we have today. this paragraph overall, even if correct, is facile. to quote:
<even if my observation was wrong, your solution still rests on there needing to be a strategic innovation in favour of the capitalists for this shift to occur. in either case it's pretty tangential to my point
>This doesn't constitute a patriarchy and it doesn't mean men don't actually have it worse overall
it's not a question of "worse overall" but rather of power which includes economic mobility. going back to our example with imperialism, you can't just dismiss it by saying that third worlders are ostensibly happier overall. it only seems vague when you make the topic at hand less precise than it deserves. your only argument for this "worse overall" assessment is merely an activity men do to themselves overall due to higher levels of aggression. people tend to assault people they are closer to, so it is unsurprising men would be more likely to assault other men. being the uyghurs of gender isn't proof of oppression
>>

 No.452319

>>452311
>it is an economic contract. dating down makes sense since women were always the goods
It's not though, and this calculating way of viewing marriage is why increasing numbers of women find themselves alone. No man wants to be the eunuch. And what pray tell does the man get out of this contact? Sex, they can be had outside of marriage. Children? No, since women can take those away at anytime via divorce.
If marriage is just a business transaction then it's a bad one for men.
>>What other major forms of oppression are there
>the ones i listed
How does sexual harassment supercede murder and bodily injury? Also sexual harassment of men by women is not taken seriously by society just as the rape of men by women isn't. If it was you'd see a parity just as you saw with rape statistics when male sexual assalt victims was seriously studied.
The fact thay there aren't females in leadership roles isn't a form of oppression. If it was males wouldn't work all the worst jobs. 99.99% of males aren't in leadership roles either.
>mainly as they correspond to different modes of production.
No plainly state what "mode of patriarcy" we're in and what "different mode of production" are we in now, becasue as far as i can tell it's still capitalism.
>here you demonstrate a failure to understand what "collectively" entails which does not mean that each individual of the collective has an advantage over every other individual of the other collective.
No, i never said this, which is why I used stats that collectively encompassed all men. All, men do not work the most dangerous jobs, but collectively men work them and women do not.
>not even comparable to the sort of social media and sheer automation of matchmaking we have today.
Not true at all, forms of instant messaging existed as far back as the 1920s, video teleconferencing was demonstrated in the 60's, not to mention all the snail mail dating services that existed and we quite popular through 40's and 50's. What you think of as new technology is actually quite old and it's only new to you because some booj decided it was time to introduce it to the public.
>wasn't the claim. note here you are progressively making what i said less precise so my claims seem bizarre. in this sentence you have even loosened it from a mode to patriarchy in general
I'm not, it's just that feminist define patriarchy in terms of invaluable inalienable traits just like the fash do with Jews instead of in terms of economic and social relations. Men are not more economically moible than women, they wouldnt be dying more on the job if they did. People do not work in dangerous jobs because they have econmic mobility.
If there really was a patriarchy then men would make women do those jobs, and fight in wars.
>>

 No.452320

>>452311
>you can't dismiss imperialism by mentioning homeless people in the first world and rich people in the third world.
No one does this and it doesn't even follow. Imperialist wars are simply rebranded as wars for demoracy or to fight terrorism. That's what happens in the real world.
>>

 No.452321

>>452311
>people tend to assault people they are closer to, so it is unsurprising men would be more likely to assault other men.
So it's men's own fault they're raped because the rapist is also male? So do feminist subtract rapes suffered by women by the hands of other women when speaking about rape culture? What about sexual harassment stats?
>>

 No.452335

File: 1633285175566.jpeg ( 36.42 KB , 497x462 , states-custody-time.jpeg )

>>452319
>It's not though
no argument
>If marriage is just a business transaction then it's a bad one for men
true. legally men get the short end of the stick here. it isn't to simp for women, but rather the implicit assumption that taking care of the kids is the woman's job
>How does sexual harassment supercede murder and bodily injury
<being the uyghurs of gender isn't proof of oppression
>The fact thay there aren't females in leadership roles isn't a form of oppression. If it was males wouldn't work all the worst jobs
mentioning men taking shittier jobs is a complete red herring unless you are offering an institutional basis. for leadership roles, it pertains to hiring practices. i would guess if poverty plays a factor it would be because sexual objectification of women sells better for men. needing to whore yourself when you are poor as opposed to working in construction does not seem like some institutional advantage to me. moreover, even beyond we have an explanan where bringing this up is appropriate, it's still a red herring, as women in leadership positions doesn't have any clear relation to men working more dangerous work
>becasue as far as i can tell it's still capitalism
yes
>All, men do not work the most dangerous jobs, but collectively men work them and women do not
but the reality of needing to work dangerous jobs is primarily a class issue. some middle class suburbanite isn't going to work a dangerous job like this most of the time. it lacks specificity. admittedly, my identification of the issue that it isn't about individuals was incorrect, but the example i used works with what i am saying here too
>What you think of as new technology is actually quite old and it's only new to you because some booj decided it was time to introduce it to the public
the examples you listed don't include machine learning and the internet, but even if they did:
<even if my observation was wrong, your solution still rests on there needing to be a strategic innovation in favour of the capitalists for this shift to occur. in either case it's pretty tangential to my point
>People do not work in dangerous jobs because they have econmic mobility
yes our system in general has poor economic mobility. it's worse for women
>If there really was a patriarchy then men would make women do those jobs, and fight in wars.
it doesn't mean "fuck women they should have their lives as shitty as possible". it's based on a particular feature of material reality and differences in the base and superstructure are determined by said feature in the last instance. it isn't random. someone loving their mom doesn't stop them from being a misogynist. it is describing something which is produced by a specific logic
>>452320
>you can't dismiss imperialism by mentioning homeless people in the first world and rich people in the third world
it's meant to be an analogous example to demonstrate there was something wrong with your argument. admittedly i misidentified the main cause of the absurdity the first time
>>452321
>So it's men's own fault they're raped because the rapist is also male?
no, but you can't say it's due to misandrist oppression. the higher violence of males in comparison to females can be observed transculturally and even in other primates. it will never go away, no matter the society
>>

 No.452336

also meant
>>451933 for >>451910
just realized i screwed that up >_>
>>

 No.452338

>>452335
>no argument
Just because western women have vulgarized marriage into an exploitative con doesn't mean that's what marriage is.
>mentioning men taking shittier jobs is a complete red herring
It's not, poor prole men occupy all the most dangerous jobs, while no poor prole women do. This is across all of capitalism and has been true since these type of stats have been counted.
>i would guess if poverty plays a factor it would be because sexual objectification of women sells better for men.
Prostitution is illegal in all but a handful of places. Women that participate in it are lumpen, and the revenue is nothing compared to large legal capitalist enterprises.
So the fact that women dominate the sex trade is irrelevant. Women who are prostitutes can get regular jobs and be proles. There is no alternative for a man working in a coal mine.
>yes
So what do you mean by "mode of patriarchy"? I repeat one again incels as a social phenomenon are only 20 years old, there was never throughout history this huge glut of single men.
>but the reality of needing to work dangerous jobs is primarily a class issue.
The reality that only men work these jobs is not a class issue.
>some middle class suburbanite isn't going to work a dangerous job like this most of the time.
My point is that men are a disposable class because a population can recover when almost all men are slaughter, but will collapse if too many women are killed.
How can men be the group that is killed most by capitalism while simultaneously oppressing women.
If that were true more women would be dying, not men.
>the examples you listed don't include machine learning and the internet, but even if they did:
Neither are necessary to bureaucratically match traits on a data sheet. All the functions Tinder and other IT systems do was done by paper and filing cabinets for centuries.
<even if my observation was wrong, your solution still rests on there needing to be a strategic innovation in favour of the capitalists for this shift to occur. in either case it's pretty tangential to my point
It doesn't though, which is why I specifically mention postal based dating services. Paper and pen are not considered technology by anyone reasonable.
>yes our system in general has poor economic mobility. it's worse for women
If it were worse for women they'd be working in the coal mines instead of men.
>it doesn't mean "fuck women they should have their lives as shitty as possible".
Never said this, what I did say is that it disproves any existence patriarchy, and shows that men are actually the more oppressed sex. Although no necessarily by women.
>no, but you can't say it's due to misandrist oppression.
You can though since their victimization is being dismissed based on their sex.
>>

 No.452345

File: 1633323776813.jpeg ( 415.83 KB , 1200x1200 , 20822.jpeg )

>>452338
>Just because western women have vulgarized marriage into an exploitative con doesn't mean that's what marriage is.
arranged marriages were rarely about love. what do you think romeo and juliet is about? this is just baseless blaming of women for an economic issue. women have always "married up" (though previously there was little agency in the matter) as well
>Women that participate in it are lumpen
you are just falling for liberal feminist nonsense that sex work is liberation. for most prostitutes its simply how they can get by
>Women who are prostitutes can get regular jobs and be proles
you are just stating this baselessly as though everyone is a middle class suburbanite. i mentioned prostitution as it is one of the only jobs that i can think of that a poor uneducated man would be discriminated against based on specifically sex. maybe another one would be a nanny which would be again because women are understood to be caregivers
>men are a disposable class because a population can recover when almost all men are slaughter, but will collapse if too many women are killed
wombs are a more valuable resource than balls yes. so things are geared far more around womb management. this doesn't imply higher economic mobility or autonomy by virtue of them having wombs
>It doesn't though, which is why I specifically mention postal based dating services. Paper and pen are not considered technology by anyone reasonable
it's not comparable to tinder in which everything is automated, mass adopted, and there is a swipe system which makes selection based on looks far more efficient. the time scales are different. you can talk to someone on a dating site instantly. moreover, everything is far more centralized now as well. doing matching by pen and paper has terrible scalability which works against wide scale adoption as well
>>

 No.452346

>>452345
>arranged marriages were rarely about love.
I'm not talking about arranged marriages, and I never was.
>you are just falling for liberal feminist nonsense that sex work is liberation.
I called them lumpen, I don't recognize them as workers. How is that implying that sex work is liberating?
>for most prostitutes its simply how they can get by
This is a long gone myth now. Most prostitutes hook online via social media platforms. Even prostitutes that sell themselves on the street aren't doing it because they are desperate.
>i mentioned prostitution as it is one of the only jobs that i can think of that a poor uneducated man would be discriminated against based on specifically sex.
It's a criminal underground activity and irrelevant to conversation about proletariat men and their lower caste beneath women.
>wombs are a more valuable resource than balls yes. so things are geared far more around womb management. this doesn't imply higher economic mobility or autonomy by virtue of them having wombs
It does, you have to be healthy and able bodied to work most jobs. Women are protected from a lot of harm that men are exposed to. This just innately increases your economic mobility.
>it's not comparable to tinder
It is, all Tinder and other IT systems do is automate logistics. But automation of logistics far precedes computers. There were mechanical sorting machines, filing systems and even vacuum tube based network where tubes filled with paperwork could be whisked around a building and even a campus. You still see these vacuum systems in most bank drive throughs.
Obviously the internet is faster, but Tinder doesn't cause societal woes because it's so fast. It's that it facilitates a hook up culture that's buttressed by mass media propaganda.
Tinder is not special, and is preceded by many other dating services which were successful, even internet based ones.
The real reason why Tinder is so widely adopted is because of the massive amounts of capital investment put into by Silicon Valley venture capitalist. They've been plowing money into web based apps like Tinder for over 20 years now. Anything with that much capital behind it would have been successful.
Thinking that it's successful because of "technology" shows how good Silicon Valley is at making it's very simple applications seem like they some kind of breakthrough.
People sent each other tons of information and photos via post back in the past, it's almost no different than a smartphone.
If anything smartphones and Tinder represent a regression in information technology. One of walled gardens and very dumbed down applications and interfaces. A desktop PC is superior in every way in terms of information processing.
The real innovation of smartphones was their financing. When they were first introduced in 2008 they gave very generous financing to newcommers, while $1500 PC's were long out of reach of most of the public.
>>

 No.452378

File: 1633414284542.jpeg ( 7.85 KB , 192x187 , 1632383457874.jpeg )

>>452346
>Even prostitutes that sell themselves on the street aren't doing it because they are desperate
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J134v09n03_04?journalCode=wpov20
>Women are protected from a lot of harm that men are exposed to. This just innately increases your economic mobility
the jobs that stress health the most are the very dangerous jobs you speak of. higher paying jobs and high ranking positions stress this much less
>Obviously the internet is faster, but Tinder doesn't cause societal woes because it's so fast. It's that it facilitates a hook up culture that's buttressed by mass media propaganda
all i can take from these two sentences is that you are pretending to disagree with me
>>

 No.452379

>>452346
also
>I'm not talking about arranged marriages, and I never was.
so you are just going to pretend that idealist undersandings of marriage which came out of a special subset of the institution's history are the real ones and completely ignore everything else
>>

 No.452380

>>452379
No, arranged marriages were the standard in some regions, but overall, throughout history, women married who they wanted to in a around about way.
>>

 No.452381

>>452378
>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J134v09n03_04?journalCode=wpov20
Street prostitution is now only a small sliver of prostitution. Your really think street hookers have the reach of instagram?
>>

 No.452415

>>452380
>women married who they wanted to in a around about way
to believe marriage was ever about love requires you to ignore all material and biological reality, but sure, let's pretend this is true. when has there been a society where it was common for women to marry down? this is not even feminism but basic blackpill observations

>>452381
the discussion was not about prostitution in itself but the actions people of different sexes make when they can't find other options
>>

 No.452417

>>452415
>to believe marriage was ever about love requires you to ignore all material and biological reality,
I never said it was all about love, but yes that plays a very large role. Both partners in a marriage put themselves in a very vulnerable position to the other partner in exchange for social assurances that money cannot buy.
Men promise to stay with their wives even after they've had their children and are old, when women become bigger liabilities than they are assets.
Women promise to be faithful, have the children of their husband and help raise them and care for their men when in need.
It's not a business contract in the least. Women used to recognize that having a two person household is a much more stable and nurturing environment for rearing well adjusted children. And every stat about single mothers proves it.
Marriage, for women, is very much a long term, semi self sacrificing commitment. You're giving up a tremendous amount of freedom so that your children and family can have a better life in the future.
If women really only cared about how marriage could profit them, they'd just try to have the children of the richest Chad's. Being in a harem economically is better than being the exclusive partner of a poor man. They even have a saying for this very axiom in China which is:
>It's better to cry in a BMW, than smile on a bike.
Unfortunately this sexual "Hunger Games" where women spend their entire youth fiercely competing for the seed of Chad is where the West is heading.
>>

 No.452418

>>452379
>so you are just going to pretend that idealist undersandings of marriage which came out of a special subset of the institution's history are the real ones and completely ignore everything else
This is just a strawman, I never said I believed in the romantic notions of marriage.
But you'd have to be ultra spooked by zero sum capitalist thinking to think marriage, even in the past, was some kind of Machiavellian scheme to exploit men.
Both men and women give up a tremendous amount in the name of that union. Because in the long run, it's better for both parties to be in a loving, monogamous relationship built on strong bonds of trust. Trust that can't be bought, and only come about through years of being in a stable relationship.
>>

 No.452421

>>452417
>If women really only cared about how marriage could profit them
by economic contract i didn't mean necessarily profit motive. it's centred around protection, child raising, and exclusiveness in sex too. with that said, there is an aspect of self-interest involved in so far as children are important for old age and helping around the house + economically
https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-02378400/document
moreover, having a man take care of you was/is understood as important for economic security…

the sexual hunger games ofc is a new thing, i don't disagree with that. but even in our society, we have chad fucks beta bucks which is built out of how marriage has always been understood as being a benefit to women/their family (note: of course capitalism has further separated sex from the equation). when you focus it more on the woman, you are moving into more engels analysis

also i thought you thought it was grounded on love because you said this
<Why are 3rd world men benethe western women, their poverty has no bearing on their charcter
but maybe i just read it wrong

>>452418
i agree trust is an ideal otherwise you can easily get a divorce, but i was pointing out the economic nature of marriage in the context of marrying third world men

also my main solution is appealing if you can't do any of these things, are female seperatist/mgtow, etc as well. it's imo more comprehensive of different ideas. again, i can link you a community of people who are more on the incel/mgtow current who think fembots are the best solution to current problems though their reasoning is different from my own as they are solely targeting incels. when i am trying to get people who don't like women on board, i use different rhetoric because the feminist aspect wouldn't be as appealing to them which is understandable
>>

 No.452433

>>452421
<Why are 3rd world men benethe western women, their poverty has no bearing on their charcter
>but maybe i just read it wrong
You didn't read it wrong. I was saying why can't Western Women lobe 3rd world men like western men can of 3rd world women?
The point isn't even about love, it's not like sexpats are going overseas and marrying handicapped women. They're marrying women that generally grow in income and wealth themselves. But Western Women are so misanderist and spoiled they demand suitors that are wealthy right now, instead of being willing to build wealth together in a marriage.
>>

 No.452434

>>452433
*love 3rd world men
>>

 No.452435

>>452433
The bottom line is is that western women won't date down. There's stats that prove western women rarely marry someone making less than 10k then themselves.
It just shows how staggeringly warped western women's expextations are to the point its causing problems in society like high rates of fatherless children and incel men.
Women in the west are such ugly consumerists they won't take poor men even though in all likelyhood they will not remain poor.
>>

 No.452436

>>452421
>also my main solution is appealing if you can't do any of these things, are female seperatist/mgtow, etc as well. it's imo more comprehensive of different ideas. again, i can link you a community of people who are more on the incel/mgtow current who think fembots are the best solution to current problems though their reasoning is different from my own as they are solely targeting incels. when i am trying to get people who don't like women on board, i use different rhetoric because the feminist aspect wouldn't be as appealing to them which is understandable
All of these solutions are liberal in nature as they seek to nuteralize the anger building in men over the completely unfair gender relations in society.
Going MGTOW or being an incel does nothing to undermine the power women have in sexual relationships.
The only thing that does is when men date and marry foreign nationals. Because then that leaves women with no back up if they can't get Chad. Women as of now can externalize the risks in the sexual revolution by keeping a monopoly on chances lower class men have on relationships. If lower class men find alternatives then the zero sum game they play in being one of Chad's many clamoring suitors comes into stark contrast. If there's no sex starved betas sound around then women will become lonely incels themselves if the fail to snare Chad, which they know in their hearts is very unlikely. Which is why you see whole tomes of feminist literature about how men datinf 3rd world women is actually exploitative.
>>

 No.452437

>>452436
Also sexbots would effectively undermine women's power, which is why feminists are already trying to get them banned.
>>

 No.452449

File: 1633589804289.jpg ( 481.48 KB , 972x371 , 22968F3D-BB89-4D95-8643-E8….jpg )

>>452436
nothing you said can't be argued for fembots. an anon on the site i speak of has made precisely this argument before but for fembots (pic rel). moreover, the problem is that simply going to the third world would only do this at home as opposed to being a global movement and is predicated on mass migration. it is definitely something individual incels can do if they are desperate for a wife though

>>452437
if you even accept this then you should accept fembots are not merely a liberal solution to the problem. with that said, this is precisely where my criticism comes in as it criticizes anti-sexbot feminist ideology on their own terms

another point, the fact that sexbots are being discussed not only by feminists but by the general public occasionally as well as even grifters like agent kochinski (him saying he can argue for loli sexbots) shows the issues are in the public unconscious far more than moving to the third world is
>>

 No.452450

>>452449
>nothing you said can't be argued for fembots.
Sex bots are no where near where they need to be to have any effect on sexual relations. Might as well be waiting for flying cars to alleviate traffic.
>another point, the fact that sexbots are being discussed not only by feminists but by the general public occasionally as well as even grifters like agent kochinski (him saying he can argue for loli sexbots) shows the issues are in the public unconscious far more than moving to the third world is
The only thing Westerns talking about sex bot proves is that Westerners love masturbating to idealism. Might as well be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a needle.
>>

 No.452451

File: 1633592889797.gif ( 299.61 KB , 941x726 , 0a86256b2a8de3458d4e9cef7f….gif )

>>452450
>Sex bots are no where near where they need to be to have any effect on sexual relations
agreed it's not something that can happen overnight. things are still developing so i can't tell incels to just buy one. at best i can just encourage them to join the cause and work towards fembot advancement

>The only thing Westerns talking about sex bot proves is that Westerners love masturbating to idealism

not completely wrong as at this point they are just thinking about as a mostly hypothetical problem. of course, the people on this imageboard are actively working towards making become a reality. pic rel is a poster's perhaps crude attempt. we aren't just sitting down and discussing the politics of it. many of the discussions are about actual engineering and/or showcasing their current work done. yes ethical discussions are still abstract, but they will grow more concrete as the technology itself develops. there will come a time when fembots do indeed become a serious issue at which point we would have a strategic advantage. not just ideologically, but also through constructing these bots in a decentralized manner

ive seen someone suggest making a crypto token business with the construction of ai waifus in mind though no one has made the technology yet. personally id go for a union that somehow permit anonymous organization. im not quite sure the logistics of these but they could be a next step in the process
>>

 No.452452

>>452451
>making become a reality
*making it become a reality
>>

 No.466614

Reading this thread has made me thankful to not live in the west
>>

 No.466619

I can tell you yet again about my time as an incel. I was an OG when incel was still new.

No longer incel and I get along well enough with women. There's a culture of very nasty women and enabling their behavior, but you can see how successful these people really are. Actually normal and well-adjusted humans don't get on this shriek train when they see an incel. They get what it is and why it is this way. It's not a question of understanding, because the incel life is not complicated. Sexual mating is a game of mass rejection, and there isn't a man alive who doesn't understand that. Those who claim sex is easy never intend this "advice" for themselves, and they're doing a power play. Sexualism is a game of nonstop backstabbing, and it's a wonder anyone finds such a thing pleasurable. There are some strange perverts who actually do enjoy the backstabbing and douchebaggery of it all.

Incel becomes a thing because of the rampant lying, the Satanic cycle, eugenics' intellectual dominance - and this was new when the eugenists began their offensive during the 1990s. The other great thing is that no one has money, and family life is no longer possible. The predatory element breaking up families and invading private life has a chilling effect, and the incels noted that VAWA was oriented towards this invasion, but in typical liberal fashion, they redirected the rage towards random women rather than any center. The incels were primed to a world where the Satanic cycle is absolute and no criticism of the ruling ideas was possible. They started what is now normalized.

I did a podcast on this a while back:
http://eugeneseffortposts.royalwebhosting.net/podm006.mp3

Basically - the incel shit, like any sexual politics, is a bunch of horseshit. You know they want to push artificial insemination, and they need to break people of this idea that they have control over their offspring. We're not at the end of this nightmare, and it will become much, much worse before humanity gives up and they get their breeding facilities to create the slaves, born in chains and knowing nothing but maximal terror and maximal slavery.
>>

 No.466620

>>466614
It's coming to a country near you very soon. US and Eurofags are just the vanguard, and always have been the vanguard of global eugenics. There isn't a good argument for "tradition", since the actual historical condition of the family has been dire.

You could have had this transition peacefully, if we lived in a world where the eugenic creed didn't win and demand depopulation. We weren't going to be allowed that, though. The incels are given the Little England myth but for relationships, usually because they're cowards and they would rather indulge in the lie than face their weakness and what has been created, and they definitely don't want to stop enabling the rot or their porn addiction. Usually where there is an incel there is a heavy porn addiction. Those who don't fall into pornification figured out that the incel spaces on the internet were a lost cause. There were in the old days a few tourists who shared their story, got to know what the incel world really was, and said "fuck that" and accepted that it really was over. You'd have to be sick and have nothing to live for to dwell on the matter too much. Since I had no life, I dwelled on this stupidity far more than I should. If I had anything to live for, I probably would never have gone down the road that I did. It was precisely because I couldn't have the thing that I wanted - security and an expectation that the world isn't out to destroy me - that the incel world was a cope.
>>

 No.466626

>>466620
you know what's worse than an incel? a self-loathing incel
>>

 No.466629

>>466626
Well, I'm not an incel - not that it matters. Once rejected, always rejected. It will always be some bullshit.
If people really want to value this, they're only contributing to the nightmare. I wish I could say it's only their problem, but their problems become my problems because they're trained to go after me or anyone who wants to stay out of their faggotry.
You're not really "incel" unless you're in that hard lumpen class, and in that situation, your life is destroyed for far more than the lack of pussy. It's just a reminder of why the world is a living hell.
But go on. I don't know why you think you're going to win with your likely porn addiction or whatever pity sex you are getting, or why you think this ends well. Fags always revel in the rot.
>>

 No.466631

Seriously, I'm glad I didn't accept being a fag, which is one of the objectives of this rot. That's worse than anything I saw in the incel world, and that's saying a lot. That said, one of the fates for incels was to become a fag or troon out.
>>

 No.466740

Feminism is just liberalism for middle class white women.
>>

 No.466760

>>451812
SCUM manifesto has done more for both men's rights and women's rights than regular feminism has since it's inception by theory alone.
>>

 No.469989

File: 1686528586263.png ( 174.95 KB , 440x278 , 98h98hkoi.png )

>incel/female question
just call em lesbians

Unique IPs: 25

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]