[Discussion] Feminism was Always about Slashing the Cost of Labour and Expanding Markets.

  • Thread starter Incel_Because_Short
  • Start date
I

Incel_Because_Short

Recruit
-
Joined
Nov 11, 2017
Posts
346
Online
12h 52m
Seriously, think about it logically. Might need to read some critical economic theory to understand some of what I will say.

Embrace the Capitalist Theory of Feminism. Feminism as an ideology acts as a handmaiden for Capitalists, and has allowed them to depress wages, decrease worker solidarity and expand consumer markets not only for women, but for men as well. Through manipulating the state and the underlying superstructure, the bourgeoisie have convinced women that being economically dependent on them is better than being part of a nuclear family structure. Through feminism, capitalists hope to foster the atomization of society, where there is no family, and all goods, services and relationships are commercial or economic transactions. I will split up the explanation of this theory into parts, and it will help to explain why you predominantly see megacorporations and neoliberal capitalist societies set up gender quotas and give millions of grants to women to enter traditionally "male" jobs.

The Family

Capitalists have had problems with the family structures since the beginning. Larger families provide people with many goods and services that essentially result in a cohesive, self-sufficient community . Socialization? You have a cousins here and there to talk to and get acquainted with. Need a haircut? Your uncle's good at giving them. Have to leave the kids to get to work? Your aunt will take care of them. Ripped your pants while working? Don't worry, your grandmother has been knitting for years and can patch it up for you. You get the point.

What's the problem of that you may ask? The problem is that these are all goods or services that are being done without any commercial transaction taking place. The more self-sufficient an community is, the less likely they are to embrace consumerism. The simple exchanges among family does not allow the capitalist to accumulate wealth as he is effectively cut off from it. So the logical thing to do is to cut down family sizes in order to increase an individual's dependence on the market, and by extension, the elite that control the markets.

All the goods/services I have mentioned, socialization, haircutting, childcare, clothing, have now been turned into businesses, financed by loans that help the capitalists accumulate profit in the form of interest.

It had to be done progressively, through first cutting up large families into the typical nuclear family of a husband, wife and children. Even then, that was still too large. Society had to become even more atomized.

The Danger of Male-Only Labour

Look throughout the history of the 19th and 20th century, and you will find no shortage of worker strikes, union founding and socialist movements, consisting almost entirely of men. Men are much more likely to ask for a higher wage, and more prone to violence if they sense they cannot improve their lives peacefully. The problem with males is that due to their natural disposability they are much more likely to take risks and disrupt the status-quo if it gives them a chance of a better life. You see that even in chimps, where beta males will cooperate with each other to depose a single alpha male. Humans are not much different.

To that end, the proletariat, the exploited losers in the capitalist game, opted to cooperate and establish worker movements to improve their ability to collectively bargain, since as individuals they could not challenge business owners. It worked, because with only 50% of the population allowed to be employed, the supply of labour was actually restricted, so businessmen had to concede and give in to union demands.

The only way to solve this problem was to increase the supply of labour, reduce depence on labour (through automation) and maybe find a different kind of labourer who will more likely accept the status quo. Here's where feminism comes in.

Why Female Workers are Better for Capitalists

Unlike men, women are very, very unlikely to challenge the status quo without expressed social support. They are also more likely to be willing to work for less wages (as they were previously doing unpaid labour at home), and they were unlikely to ask for a raise. Not only that, but if the capitalists were to include women into the labour force, they would double the labour pool with a completely different demographic with their own interests, which would get severely diminish collective bargaining and allow the capitalists to cut wages in half.

As long as you can convince women that liberation means making your boss richer and spending more time at work, then they will support your company, and you will have a docile labour force that will do as told. In combination with automation, women participation into the workforce will allow capitalists to rely less on male labour, and reduce the risks that come from it. But how do you convince women that slaving for you is better than being at home? You do it under the guise of gender equality and female empowerment.

The Commodification of Society

So the capitalists went to work. They promoted feminist ideas and ideology through media, TV, and the Universities. They made it socially acceptable to be a woman and live independently from men. Then the sex revolution came in, backed by pharmaceutical companies who stood to profit immensely from advertising condoms and birth control pills to sexually liberated women. These new women, with their own disposable (although meager) incomes, result in the creation of new markets catered specifically for them. The nuclear family was the last obstacle towards commercialized society, and with it gone, you can make any relation between humans a commercial transaction.

Remember the goods and services I mentioned in my previous topic on Family? Friendship, self care, clothing, child care. All of that is now commercialized, to be bought and sold. Once women entered the workforce, you suddenly needed two incomes instead of one to sustain a household. That meant you needed to hire someone else to take care of the child. That meant there was less time to do things on your own, so you had to do more commercial exchanges for those services.

Now everything can be bought and sold, and people are not as self-sufficient as they used to be under larger families. Now financiers have their hands into all kinds of goods and services and collect interest on all sorts of businesses that were created to address shortages that were artificially constructed from having women participate in the workforce.
How Feminist Movements Increase Consumerism in Men

In prehistoric times, polygyny was rampant. Only 1 in 17 men successfully procreated. It was only with the beginning of civilization, and religions that enforced monogamy that average men, who were the workers of society, were provided an incentive for their efforts. For millennia, women were economically dependent on men, and thus had to choose partners based on factors other than genetics.

With feminism, women are no longer economically dependent on men, and can return to being as selective as they used to be in Prehistoric times. The result is that is forces men to be much more competitive with each other. First off this reduces cooperation among men, which helps reduce worker solidarity, but more importantly it encourages rampant consumerism in men.



Entire markets have been created, claiming to help men in their pursuit of being sexually selected, from cars to perfumes to jewellery to clothing. As for the men who aren't sexually successful, markets were also created to them in the form of video gaming, pornography and other coping mechanisms.



So the result is that you have hundreds of different markets created, all designed to cater to men who are either trying to be sexually selected, or have given up on it. In the past, finding a spouse was done through the help of the family, and through typical male rights of passage. Both of those have been removed indirectly through feminism, so now you have to buy your way to sexual/romantic satisfaction.




The Atomization of Society

This is the end-game of capitalism, for every individual to truly be out for themselves, and for every relationship to become a transaction. You already see this happening with the onset of Social Media for building up Social Credit, and Tinder for purchasing romantic relationships. The more atomized and isolated people are from others, the less self-sufficient they become, and the more they rely on goods and services from the market to cater to their needs. This makes them hopelessly dependent on the system in order to survive.

Conclusion



As much as people like to believe that feminism was naturally inspired, and that the proponents of feminism truly care about gender equality and women's rights, the real intention behind the movement is much more sinister. It serves only to decrease worker power, and to that end, has been the capitalist's most important instrument for remaining in power.
 
Last edited:
Benj-amin

Benj-amin

"It's over."
-
Joined
Nov 8, 2019
Posts
281
Online
4d 22h 32m
Based. Also sorry you got no reply.
 
JohnWickCel

JohnWickCel

Major
-
Joined
Jan 21, 2020
Posts
2,443
Online
36d 15h 17m
I agree that elites benefit of this but feminism exists because women finally made a push to get rid of a system that kept them from doing what they wanted to do and forced them to marry men they thought were unattractive.
 
ThoughtfulCel

ThoughtfulCel

G.O.R.I.L.L.A _M.A.X.I.N.G
-
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Posts
4,522
Online
56d 6h 50m
I agree that elites benefit of this but feminism exists because women finally made a push to get rid of a system that kept them from doing what they wanted to do and forced them to marry men they thought were unattractive.
And the funny thing is women on average are unhappier. Guess being forced to marry unattractive men wasn't so bad after all.
 
Personalityinkwell

Personalityinkwell

I'm an incel, an involuntary celebrity
-
Joined
Dec 27, 2019
Posts
18,483
Online
64d 13h 9m
tldr GrAYcel
 
JohnWickCel

JohnWickCel

Major
-
Joined
Jan 21, 2020
Posts
2,443
Online
36d 15h 17m
And the funny thing is women on average are unhappier. Guess being forced to marry unattractive men wasn't so bad after all.
Their unhappier because they have everything they could ever want handed to them. Their dopamine is fried from constant success so nothing feels exciting. Besides women will flip out over small things. Look at the women who killed themselves because of the corona quarantine.
 
ThoughtfulCel

ThoughtfulCel

G.O.R.I.L.L.A _M.A.X.I.N.G
-
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Posts
4,522
Online
56d 6h 50m
Their unhappier because they have everything they could ever want handed to them. Their dopamine is fried from constant success so nothing feels exciting. Besides women will flip out over small things. Look at the women who killed themselves because of the corona quarantine.
Exactly. So in short, they do not deserve the rights and power they have, and thus, deserve to have the system control them again, and be married off to participants who are ugly or not.
 
78980n

78980n

Overlord
-
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Posts
6,346
Online
51d 11h 34m
You might be onto something, now put more agency in the women since you make it seem like all of it is a just a capitalist trick rather than the natural imperative of women + the natural laws and logic of the capitalist mode of production, and also discuss more about the details of feminist movements.

Maybe discuss the upper-class feminist movements in the early 20th Century and how a lot of it had a connection to eugenics and other things, how it was actually pretty reactionary (can be thought of as just the overt expression of the female disdain for low-status males and stuff like that)

After that you might actually have an interesting theory, BUT you're also going to have to take into account socialist feminism and what its implications were within a socialist system, after all the USSR was a pioneer in women's rights, so how does this fit in the feminism-as-a-bourgeois-movement paradigm? Were these two feminisms fundamentally different? I saw some article linked here once about how the USSR was practically a Matriarchy , so maybe they weren't much different.

Just some suggestions for developing a complete theory to understand Feminism as a female strategy of self-interest to the detriment of men.
 
C

CuckedRedditor

Captain
-
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Posts
1,729
Online
16d 11h 49m
It's sad that high IQ threads like these barely get any replies while low IQ shit gets spammed by postmaxxingcels.
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. Operative
-
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
3,441
Online
35d 13h 27m
OP, you truly understand the purpose of capitalism: the atomization of society in order to maximize profits by forcing dependency on the system in place of family and community support.

It's sad that high IQ threads like these barely get any replies while low IQ shit gets spammed by postmaxxingcels.
It's because most people are average IQ, even here, and they have the attention span of a squirrel with ADHD.

If it doesn't make them laugh and encourages them to think instead, fucking forget it.
tldr GrAYcel
Read it, faggot. This post is worth your attention.
 
Last edited:
Yerberito

Yerberito

Paragon
-
Joined
Nov 17, 2019
Posts
18,662
Online
43d 6h 4m
Feminism is bullshit
 
I

Incel_Because_Short

Recruit
-
Joined
Nov 11, 2017
Posts
346
Online
12h 52m
After that you might actually have an interesting theory, BUT you're also going to have to take into account socialist feminism and what its implications were within a socialist system, after all the USSR was a pioneer in women's rights, so how does this fit in the feminism-as-a-bourgeois-movement paradigm? Were these two feminisms fundamentally different? I saw some article linked here once about how the USSR was practically a Matriarchy , so maybe they weren't much different.
The situation in the USSR was drastically different than in North America. So many working age men died during WW2 in the Soviet Union that women did not have a choice but to seek employment. Soviet society was still socially conservative despite this however, because of a less hierarchical class structure.

Class structures have always been prevalent in Civilization, but were rarely allowed to mix with each other. In India for example, there was a caste system, but every caste could only socialize and marry members of other castes. This helped to prevent lower caste males having to compete with higher caste males.

North America is different from other societies in that not only is there a class structure but different classes are allowed to interact with each other, which necessarily results in lower class men having to compete with higher class men for the same women.
 
D

Diet_Choke

Recruit
-
Joined
Mar 6, 2018
Posts
328
Online
2d 6h 5m
+1000

I've been saying this for years and it's a great thesis.

And yes, there are other angles to consider such as women's own agency and interests within the capitalist arrangement, in other words they went along with the capitalists because they thought they could get a better deal, or perhaps leverage that to make men work harder for their affections.

"Society" is a complex layercake of various interdependencies, this pushes against that, creating the other, affecting the first.

I think ALL societies want to figure out how to leverage women effectively to their own benefits. This goes for communists and not only capitalists, muslims and not only christians.

In other words the word "Feminist" is neigh meaningless as there are so many different /kinds/ of feminists. Some are sex-positive, some sex-negative, some liberal, some terf, some radical, some pro-sex-work, some anti-sex work.

They are not all on the same team.

So the word "feminist" simply means "as pertains to the social status of women."

Commie feminists are anti-capitalist, liberal feminists are pro-capitalist, and you also have Trad feminists and "Traditional Women's Rights" feminists who believe in coverture like it was back in the 1800's. Some muslim women call themselves "feminist" and consider wearing the veil their right to keep their beauty private from men.

It's funny that nowadays TERF's and Tradcons are in bed together, where basically chivalry = women's rights and Tradcon gynocentrism = Radfem gynocentrism.

A long time ago I exchanged messages with Karen Straughan, she said to me : "Feminism is just Traditionalism dialed up to 11."

I didn't understand it at the time, I thought Feminism was anti-Traditionalism.

But if you look at all the #metoo stuff, doesn't it remind you of Victorian England? "You are no gentleman! I'm going to tell my father and he'll give you a good thrashing!"

Except these days "father" is replaced by a militarized police-state. She points a finger at you and says you were rude to her, you abused her, your ass is toast, you're getting dragged thru court and through jail, just like Kavanaugh and Harvey Weinstein.

The reason why most men don't get involved in MRA activities is because you end up going down a rabbit hole running in circles with no end in sight, you're better off just hustling and making money then at least you could beta-bux a wife and 2.5 kids.

"Love" doesn't exist, it's the greatest fraud perpetrated on mankind.

Adults don't get love, adults GIVE love, children get love.

Even Chad doesn't get love, he gets sex for his genetic value, but once the baby bulge starts, he gets dragged to court like any other man to pay his child support.

Being born Chad is like being born rich. It's like having alot of value from birth. Social value, monetary value, it's all just a commodity.

The going rate on Instagram is $1000/week per 100,000 followers.

So you get the catgirl with neko ears showing off her puss, she's getting followers, then that becomes a marketing product to sell to sponsors like Xbox or Coca-Cola.

Life, all life, boils down to procreation.

Not love.
Not sex.
Not chad.

Procreation.

Globally and historically, %95 of the earth was beta bux, because that's the easiest way for most men to secure procreation and breeding rights.

Nowadays even that is atomized, with different sets of children from different marriages. First wife, second wife, first husband, second husband, etc etc.

Even the President of the United States, osteinsibly the biggest Chad and the most powerful man in the world, is on his third or fourth marriage, and his third set of children (Baron Trump.)

I think what MOST men on this board want is just to be loved, to have affection.

Sorry to say but that wasn't even possible 100 years ago, maybe the /illusion/ of it was there, but it was just beta bux.

As I already told you, "love" doesn't really exist.

It's just a temporary feeling, like "lust + friendship" something like that.

But it comes and it goes.

Look at most marriages, do they seem in love to you?

And even your hero Mr Meeks is onto his umpteenth relationship.

Has he found "lurve" yet?

The important things in life (order of importance debateable) :

- Procreation
- Male buddies (for mental health and platonic intimacy)
- Sex with women (for sexual intimacy)
- Money
- Good health (also good mental health, good mindset, positivity)
- Hobbies/Purpose
- Lots of free time to just relax and enjoy life

Notice that "lurve" is not on that list, because it's a fleeting temporary thing that goes with "sex with women."
 
VodkaCope

VodkaCope

Tat Tvam Asi
-
Joined
Mar 24, 2020
Posts
222
Online
1d 10h 26m
(((capitalist)))
(((communist)))

basically all the same (((shit)))
 
I

Incel_Because_Short

Recruit
-
Joined
Nov 11, 2017
Posts
346
Online
12h 52m
In other words the word "Feminist" is neigh meaningless as there are so many different /kinds/ of feminists. Some are sex-positive, some sex-negative, some liberal, some terf, some radical, some pro-sex-work, some anti-sex work.
Feminism is an incredibly malleable and opportunistic ideology. Its end goal has less to do with human liberation and more to do with ensuring that women maintain a position on the highest social strata. Because of this, feminism and capitalism intersect incredibly well, and as long as you can ensure that women are of a higher class than men, you can get almost 50% of the population who will fight to protect your system.

That's why a lot of companies make it a goal to hire more women in higher positions, provide scholarships for women to enter men's fields and offer things like paid maternity leave, etc. It's easier to bribe women into slavery than it is to bribe men.

(((capitalist)))
(((communist)))

basically all the same (((shit)))
Not all of us are white here.

Le happy merchant functions best under capitalism, with a state backing their interests.
 
Last edited:
D

Diet_Choke

Recruit
-
Joined
Mar 6, 2018
Posts
328
Online
2d 6h 5m
Feminism is an incredibly malleable and opportunistic ideology. Its end goal has less to do with human liberation and more to do with ensuring that women maintain a position on the highest social strata. Because of this, feminism and capitalism intersect incredibly well, and as long as you can ensure that women are of a higher class than men, you can get almost 50% of the population who will fight to protect your system.

That's why a lot of companies make it a goal to hire more women in higher positions, provide scholarships for women to enter men's fields and offer things like paid maternity leave, etc. It's easier to bribe women into slavery than it is to bribe men.
Yep, as long as capitalist = women are safe and eat well

Then all the women support that and it's incredibly hard to challenge the status quo or get any kind of opposition going.

So then any opposition has to come up with a counter-offer.

And everyone just ends up kissing women's asses and promising them the moon and stars.
 
I

Incel_Because_Short

Recruit
-
Joined
Nov 11, 2017
Posts
346
Online
12h 52m
Yep, as long as capitalist = women are safe and eat well

Then all the women support that and it's incredibly hard to challenge the status quo or get any kind of opposition going.

So then any opposition has to come up with a counter-offer.

And everyone just ends up kissing women's asses and promising them the moon and stars.
High IQ.

Down with the simps.
 
GanyoTribe

GanyoTribe

Willing to monkmaxx
-
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Posts
942
Online
31d 11h 44m
Interesting thread.
 
Top