The Feminism 2.0 Manifesto: "If You've Got It (i.e. s*x appeal), Charge for It"

knowless · 2014-01-29T10:53:07+00:00

Morality, Hakim says, is “deployed by men to restrict women’s ability to exploit their one major advantage over men and to humiliate women who do succeed in gaining money or status through those activities.”

Well its good to know my morals are just a way to oppress people. The whole article describes a female PUA handbook for exploitation of men and businesses.

rapiertwit · 2014-01-29T16:26:35+00:00

“Patriarchal men have always found it in men’s collective interest to… generally reduce the price of sex and erotic entertainments by lowering the value of women’s erotic capital (“Beauty is only skin deep, hence worthless”) and by squeezing the cost of sexual entertainment (“Only depraved women would sink so low”)…. Women who openly deploy their beauty or sex appeal are belittled as stupid, lacking in intellect and other “meaningful” social attributes.

Nope, nope, nope. Rigid patriarchal structures (the real ones, not the bogeyman that's to blame for everything short of bad weather) benefit from keeping sex costs high, so that high-ranking males can afford more than their share, young aspirant males work harder, and low-ranking males can be denied, creating an underclass that reinforces the status of the elite. Low-end prostitution serves a dual purpose - a pressure-release valve for the lower class, and a punishment for females who defy social norms (i.e., have sex before marriage, get tossed out of your family and have to make a living the only way you can). In effect, the price of failure for men is not enough sex, and the price of failure for women is having to have sex with whoever has a coin.

One of the most male-dominated, female-repressive societies I can think of, ancient Greece, had multiple strata of prostitution, the uppermost level of which had educated ladies who got rich playing powerful men against each other for their affections.

chevalier_d_eon · 2014-01-29T11:28:24+00:00

FEMINISM 2.0 = TRADITIONAL CONSERVATISM

Who would have thunk it? So you girls are basically saying now you've got all the same rights as men, you want to hang on to the old way that relationships were run as that worked totally in your favour?

Boy, have we got a surprise for you coming sister.

dungone · 2014-01-29T13:46:34+00:00

Feminism 2.0: let's show 'em why we got banned from the workplace in the first place.

unexpecteditem · 2014-01-29T15:52:23+00:00

This is fascinating. Thanks for posting.

2014-01-29T18:35:22+00:00

Feminism: turning women into whores and men into disposable cogs.

JasonWaterfall · 2014-01-29T18:45:34+00:00

I see some parallels here with Roy Baumeisters work on sexual economics.

But the author is very wrong, I think, about the consequences of making sex a commodity to be traded like any other: As Baumeister shows, it is women who benefit from traditional sexual morality, because it prohibits establishing an efficient market for sex. Instead there is a kind of sexual cartel where if you undercut the agreed upon minimum price for sex, you are ostracized and slut-shamed (or prostitute-shamed, I guess).

So if women really started to openly treat sex as a commodity to be bargained for, and stop shaming each other for acting like that, the "price" of sex would fall, not rise.

Not that I foresee that happening or would welcome it if it did.

2014-01-29T19:57:12+00:00

So she is basically admitting what feminists have denied for 50 years? That men have stronger sex drives and, therefore, that men and women cannot be expected to behave in identical ways?

2014-01-29T23:29:52+00:00

What an utter load of nonsense.

In any case, let them try this strategy. Soon, they will figure out that the previous feminisms "liberated women sexually" and have contributed to a considerable delay in marriages and families.

If they are to try to commoditize their sexuality, they will soon discover they are doing so in a market that is saturated and, thus, the value of the commodity itself is at its lowest in history.

What an idiotic, supremacist premise.

chavelah · 2014-01-30T04:48:09+00:00

“The puzzle,” Hakim says, “is not why intelligent and attractive women become prostitutes, but rather why more women do not choose this occupation, given the high potential earnings for relatively short work hours.”

This psycho is PUZZLED at my reluctance to be a hooker?

I don't even know where to start with that.

2014-01-29T18:10:10+00:00

Hakim says erotic capital is an “unacknowledged asset” that we’ve been tricked into giving away for free, and she blames an “unholy alliance” of the patriarchy and radical feminists.

Those wascally bandits. Always the patriarchy and the radfems.

We have special names for such ambitious women. Hookers charge for it and sluts give it away for free. Gold diggers want the ring for it and trophy wives are the lucky ones who get the ring.

Actually we have special names for women who give it away for cheap. Women who charge handsomely for it get... feminism 2.0 I guess.

Edit:

Internet porn, The Atlantic says, “bares an uncomfortable truth that the women’s-liberation movement has successfully suppressed: men and women have conflicting sexual agendas.

Women don't look at porn? News to me...

It's hard to even know where to begin... the next time someone won't accept that feminism isn't always about equality I'm linking them straight to this.

2014-01-29T18:47:12+00:00

A very enlightening article. A good read.

typhonblue · 2014-01-29T18:02:16+00:00

Guys, I gotta be honest with you.

I've been swinging back and forth with the dominant identification to the victim identification as a male. Both are true depending on the perspective and both are irrelevant.

The world is the way it is, and you have to do what you can to accept it and change it to your benefit, but not waste energy on unproductive thoughts. In reality, some things are really unfair about being male, other things are really advantageous. Truth is we have more advantages than women in this society (But I believe overall you earn that advantage).

Take this "erotic capital". Double edge sword that women will lose over time... In all honesty, I along with you am butt hurt over this concept because a part of me believes that I am at the mercy of women and their manipulation (not all women manipulate and it's not all manipulation, but I'm at the mercy of when they do). But we're not...

Women give us erotic capital in older age because women still want to fuck George Clooney but we don't want to fuck Diane Lane. Women wanting to fuck George Clooney gives rise to ageist sexism that feminists complain about because they feel more and more powerless to fulfill their social-sexual desires as they age. They undercut their own power by wanting to fuck George Clooney in their younger age, thus making men in old age desirable, and then flip it on us and say it's sexist that we don't find old women attractive.

Just like feminists have this mental paradox, you do too over this situation. Yes, a lot of women use sex as leverage. But if you live a smart life style, you'll be more and more attractive as time goes on. You may even gain erotic capital as Clooney did (becoming sexier in old age), and on top of that gain the other social, economic and human capital.

In the end, the system that is being promoted here will end up hurting women, as younger women will keep throwing themselves at affluent older men hoping to get a bone thrown back to them in the "exchange".

Women don't stay hot forever, as age isn't as kind to them, so playing this game in which sex is a transaction makes them lose eventually because their stock is going down. They have a timed shelf life and in this approach where it's an erotic transaction they have nearly 0 value after 40. They will lose in the game they created.

So instead of being bummed, laugh. This dumbass is promoting a system in which society will punish women past 35... Intelligence wins, stupidity loses. This article is very, very shortsightedly stupid.

_waltzy · 2014-01-29T12:16:46+00:00

I agree, more or less with what /u/chevalier_d_eon is saying, It looks like Feminism 2.0 is just traditional conservatism but angrier.

Title	The Feminism 2.0 Manifesto: "If You've Got It (i.e. s*x appeal), Charge for It"
Author	c1410811
Upvotes	57
Comments	45
Date	January 29, 2014 9:31 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1wgcv9/the_feminism_20_manifesto_if_youve_got_it_ie_sx/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/the-feminism-20-manifesto-if-youve-got-it-ie-sx.1004346 https://theredarchive.com/post/1004346

Comments