I
Incel_Because_Short
Veteran
★
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2017
- Posts
- 1,084
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.
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: