~ archived since 2018 ~

Why feminized societies will fail

Sacharov-Scenario

July 1, 2017

75 upvotes

/r/MensRights

https://imgur.com/a/FSS2R

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Why feminized societies will fail
Author	Sacharov-Scenario
Upvotes	75
Comments	49
Date	July 1, 2017 2:43 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/6knc6l/why_feminized_societies_will_fail/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-feminized-societies-will-fail.919091 https://theredarchive.com/post/919091

Comments

[–]RogerBateman 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]EduBA 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Triskerai 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Economics student and "toxic masculine alpha jerk" here with some experience of the female mind.

Economics is heavily connected to both politics and psychology, and this is a very psychological experiment. Women are conditioned by society to believe that they are the choosers in the marketplace, that men should come to them just based on gender. This is a combined result of men's attraction based on looks and slut shaming.

When men receive female attention, then, it is as a normal good-one that all men can appreciate, even if a Calvin Klein model is chased after by a 300 pound whale. However, male attention to females is treated as an inferior good, because of their choosiness- they want the attention of males who are higher value than them, and the higher the value of the girl the less they want the attention of the majority of men. Moreover, high value men are comparably rarer than high value women, so they frequently end up with multiple.Note that this is a result of societal conditioning, at least as much as biology.

In short, women are told they are the choosers and men are told they are the providers. Being selfish is a form of "fempowerment" where it is toxic for men. When you have a society run by the selfish, everyone loses.

[–]Aivias 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EduBA 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HiilestTehtyAffena 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Rethgil 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fjghfjghjgh 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rognin 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fjghfjghjgh 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's a biological imperative in women

That phrase has become a catch-all cop-out for poor behavior. It's less of an excuse every day. When did human beings become so disgusting and basic that they point toward the extreme, distant, abstract past that we are in no way actually connected with, as a reason to no longer be decent people?

You're not gonna change it, only learn to work with it.

For thousands of years we grew technology, culture, ethics, philosophy, et al. by requiring women to be decent human beings.

Your logic is no different than looking at the LA Riots and going "well, that's the way it is, we are animals after all, gotta learn to live with it. It's evolution, it's in our DNA, it just is. Don't question, it just is and always was even when it wasn't." Or ISIS. After all, they must be doing what they do from some deep genetic imperative, so it's not wrong, right? Same with incest, and theft. After all, domination is merely biological imperitive. Same with killing newborns, animals do it. Same with flinging shit and eating the faces of other animals, monkeys do it. This logic has no place in a civilized, enlighten society, which is why all of this is happening. Lowest common denominator race to the bottom based on feelings and hunches.

It's a biological imperative in women

Well cool then. Let's beat each other with clubs, steal everything that isn't bolted down, and rape each other. Why not? It's what animals would do and on some level it's "our biological imperative" (i.e. to dominate). If it's not allowed for men, it's not allowed for women. Toxic femininity is cultural cancer and the death of civilized society.

We are in the new dark age.

[–]Rethgil 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile 22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]WillMeatLover -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Not gonna give up on communism, because I see no alternative in the long run.

Capitalism is unsustainable on a physical level, it directly runs against the laws of thermodynamics and mathematics. And you can't negotiate with physics and mathematics. (If you want to be buried in text on this, just ask, I can provide :) )

Communism has two major obstacles, and both are solvable/manageable now, although one wasn't historically.

The first and bigger problem communism had was that the available communication technologies made it impossible to build anything other than hierarchical communication structures if you go anything bigger than village size in a society/community. So when the communication structures inevitably are hierarchical, then the social and power structures that derive from that are also inevitably hierarchical. And when you have established hierarchies, you will inevitably have corruption, exploitation and oppression. Now with modern IT, non-hierarchical communication structures on a larger scale became possible, so so non-hierarchical power structures become possible on a larger scale, too, and with that it becomes possible to abolish corruption, exploitation and oppression. (If you want to be buried in text on this, I can deliver that too :) )

Now, the other problem is that humans evolved to function in social hierarchies on a personal level, and hypergamy is a major expression of that. But that I don't see as that big of a problem because there are a lot stronger instincts societies were able to overcome and manage than our sense of hierarchy after we implemented appropriate social tools and institutions. What the criminal justice system has done to our violent and murderous instincts over the last few centuries is remarkable. What food security and medicine has done to our instincts of procreation is equally remarkable. What travel and trade and cultural exchange has done to our in-group/out-group thinking is simply astonishing.

Granted, all those instincts are still there and often still cause problems, and probably will for a long long time to come. But it is undeniable that massive massive improvements have happened and are happening, and that it is possible to manage those instincts within a society to become less damaging.

And with the right social tools and institutions, it is possible to manage our instincts of domination and greed. There were a few examples in history, that worked for a while.

[–]WillMeatLover 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The thing is, capitalism always works towards that extreme, that's how it is set up. So when we make it to be the dominant principle of our society, our society will always head for that extreme.

I'm not opposed to using the capitalist toolkit on a small scale in a possible future communist society. Got no problem with small businesses being privately owned and run. But beyond a certain size, this can't be allowed to exist, because then the concentration of wealth and power in private hands with no checks and balances can and will dominate the communities and societies they operate in for their own special interest.

What is the threshold? I'd say no privately run organization should be allowed to become bigger than ~150 people, the Dunbar number, and no private fortune in a society should allowed to become bigger than ~150 times the smallest fortune in that society.

Because when more resources than that are concentrated in one hand, then there is too much organizational friction for natural group dynamics and communication to be able to keep the power imbalance in check and dedicated organizational measures must be taken.

[–]Brusanan 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Incident-Pit 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]WillMeatLover -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

If capitalism has been working perfectly fine for the past 200 years

Oh, there were a lot of practices that worked "perfectly fine" for a lot longer than 200 years and then were suddenly gone never to return. (Also, the capitalist idea itself is quite a bit older than 200 years, it started in Tudor England, but it was about 200 years that it completely took over Western society).

But capitalism can only sustain itself as long as there is exponential growth. And to sustain exponential growth, there always needs to be exponential influx of resources, i.e. it always needs to expand into new areas and markets. And now that capitalism truly has taken over the globe, that isn't possible anymore, there is nowhere to expand into anymore, and the planet and the ecosystems are breaking down under the pressure.

So unless we expand beyond the planet, and do it so quickly and massively to maintain exponential growth from our current state, which is an impossible order, capitalism will collapse.

The only question is how soon it will happen, and if we will still have something to fall back on when it will happen or if everything will be consumed and wasted before that.

[–]Funcuz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WillMeatLover 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WillMeatLover 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Aivias 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]imbecile1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh, but it has a precise definition, just a negative one. "Classless society" in its simplest form. You can always say what is and isn't communism using that.

And using that definition it is very obvious that there hasn't been any practical example of it on any scale larger village/commune size (and even that is debatable).

So railing against it using historical examples is not possible, because there are no historical examples of classless society.

But there could be infinitely many implementations of communism, they just need to meet this one criterion.

I have told you what it is and isn't, I have told you why it was impossible in the past, and I have told you why it is the only option for a desirable future.

I have broken it down for you that you don't even need to read Marx (which can be quite tedious for long stretches), and I have given you a clear target with more than enough angles to practically argue against and for here.

But because arguing on this level requires actual understanding and thought, most people just prefer to rail against the old strawmen and red scare propaganda.

So if you can do any of:

Say why classlessness as a concept is undesirable or impossible.
Why it is practically impossible, even with modern IT.
Or even just argue that it is possible not to destroy civilization via resource exhaustion in capitalism.

You can make me shut up about it forever.

[–]93re2 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

We're already pretty much at post-scarcity. There is no real, natural shortage of resources to go around. The wealth is inordinately concentrated at the top, and those at the bottom are intentionally and systematically denied the opportunity to get out of poverty.

Right here in the US, there are several empty homes relative to each American homeless person, and about half the food the US produces gets thrown away--and our system of food production isn't even optimized to produce or distribute food as efficiently as possible--rather, it is optimized to produce as much monetary profit as possible for the corporations.

Even a country like India most years produces massive food surpluses. Starvation in India isn't due to a lack of the resources actually existing; it's due to corruption, greed, and shameful immorality of the people in charge.

[–]Incident-Pit 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]93re2 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Incident-Pit 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]93re2 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Incident-Pit 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]93re20 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We wouldn't even need to make so much food if the systems of production and distribution were optimized to be more efficient in terms of feeding the hungry. But even if we did make this much food, we could still distribute it more effectively so that no one would go hungry. Your train of thought doesn't even make sense. I'm telling you, and I proved to you, that there is no food shortage. Now you're going on about how difficult it is to make that food. That doesn't mean there is a shortage of the food.

Each bit of food wasted isn't just food waste; it also renders the energy and resources used to produce that particular bit of food wasted as well, and also contributes to environmental damage itself.

The amount of other perfectly good resources thrown in the garbage (such as computers, cell phones, shoes, etc.) is also staggering, and on top of that, without exception, all resources used by humans are in some way intertwined with food production and consumption. Give it a few minutes of thought and you'll surely understand how that works.

There is a huge amount of food being produced and yet people still starve. There are more than enough homes, and yet there are people still sleeping rough. There are millions and millions of usable or repairable computers that get chucked into the trash. Same for things like shoes and clothes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX2q2xw5-2U

http://www.takepart.com/video/2015/05/29/clothes-trash-landfill

There is enough food, clothing, and many other goods to go around for everyone. Access to resources is inordinately concentrated at the top of the economic pyramid.

[–]Incident-Pit1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]asillyduck_ 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Deckyleaf 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicTampon3 points 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]v574v 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rethgil 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Incident-Pit 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Rethgil 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]v574v 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Rethgil 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]contractor808 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AeonBarrius1 point 9 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link