Why Isn't Sexual Inequality A Public Issue?

Carkudo · 2016-02-12T01:09:51+00:00

Of course, it wouldn't be realistic for the government to set up a committee or force people to date each other, but you can redistribute wealth without having a command economy, and there are plenty of ways to tackle the issue without literal totalitarianism.

Can you elaborate? What solutions do you propose?

Also I think this problem doesn't affect as many people... so the government won't want to lift a finger yet. I think we can agree they're not very good at preventing crisis anyways.

Lonny_zone · 2016-02-12T02:12:32+00:00

...

So what do you propose the government should do about it?

[deleted] · 2016-02-12T03:56:50+00:00

Should women then be able to husband-up what she considers an amazing guy? If she can't find one that she wants, should she be entitled to be provided one by the government?

TheChemist158 · 2016-02-12T02:27:37+00:00

A while ago I said that Blue Pillers are hypocrites because they have an Ayn-Randian attitude toward the sexual marketplace but a socialist perspective on the economic marketplace.

Those are pretty different things. I don't see the hypocrisy in thinking different approaches work in different situations.

Before the 1870s, domestic violence wasn't considered a "private issue" and not regulated by the laws in America, apart from when it got really serious (like murder). Before the 1960s, private businesses discriminated against female employees. Before the 1970s, marital rape was legal. Civil Rights means you can't exclude people from your private businesses for certain reasons.

Those are all instances of a person harming another person. And all about things that are important to life.

Feminists want free birth control and throwing alphas in jail for not committing to their plates.

What did that article have to do with that? Dude was 18, boned a 15 year old, and got sentenced to one year in jail for sleeping with a minor. What does his commitment to her have to do with anything?

For the, sex isn't a need, food is crowd. Would you support dismantling the public education system? Lack of schooling won't kill you. Close down the DMV? Public roads? Etc etc.

When I say "need", I don't mean a literal need for survival. I mean it is important to keep your life and society flowing. We need roads. We need education. We need these things to be productive. We don't need sex. We like sex. Would you be in support of giving everyone access to jetskis? Jetskis make people happy.

[deleted] · 2016-02-12T14:48:45+00:00

There's so much sexual inequality today in Western societies, for both men and women, because there's so much of other inequality - physical, financial, etc. Consider, for example, the American society and just how diverse it is in all means - you have people of various ethnicity, which means there's a huge variety in height and other physical features - you could find 4'9 men and 6'2 women, and you could also find 3'9 women and 6'6 men, and everything in between. You could find countless shades of skin tone and hair colour. There's a huge variety in wealth because of capitalism - there are billionaires and homeless people and everything in between those two extremes. There's also a huge range of education level, millions of different jobs, movements, dozens of religions, etc. This is what you get when you take a country and have people from all over the world move in there over the past five hundred years, and each of the group basically developing their own community and culture.

And American culture holds individualism to one of the highest values, and promoting individualism, as a result, promotes inequality. People are encouraged to compete with each other and look for ways to stand out. Plus, like I said, the influence of capitalism. Capitalism + individualism + the cultural context of USA (all that diversity, etc) = massive inequality.

If you want to understand how sexual inequality today in modern USA differs from sexual inequality in some hunter-gatherer tribes (similar conditions to how humans have lived 99% of their history), consider this:

tiny tribe of 50 - 150 people (most often between 50 and 100) versus 319 million people
egalitarianism/"socialism" vs capitalism (gift versus commodity economy as described by Mausian theory; communalism versus individualism; no concept of private property and wealth accumulation, both of which are foundations of modern society; and many more other factors)
extreme homogeneity versus extreme genetic/ethnic diversity
all people growing up in the same conditions and learning the same trades and tasks versus extreme variety in conditions (public vs private education, higher education vs no higher education, different jobs and fields, working class vs middle class vs upper class, rich districts vs poor districts, ethnic discrimination, etc)

That's not to say, of course, that there's no inequality among hunter-gatherers. If some man was a significantly better hunter than others, he would be admired more - but he would not have more legal power, only more social power, which doesn't have that much value if it doesn't lead to some sort of institutionalised power that can be exerted over others. A woman who managed to reach old age without dying in childbirth and provided food for her children and her children's children and other people would also be admired more and have higher social status but, again, this would not lead to some strictly enforced institutionalised power because in many hunter-gatherer societies, there was none. But my point is that, in such a society, it's much harder to stand out and get ahead of others because all people essentially have equal opportunities and are much more physically similar to each other. The differences are relatively minor compared to the differences you would find in a modern society, especially one like USA. This is one of the reason their egalitarianism works. It would be all but impossible to have the same social structure in society with many more people and much more diversity.

Now, consider what this would mean in terms for sexual inequality. There would be no hard distinction between "Chad" and "beta" (not that there's a hard distinction in modern societies either, it's just a Red Pill belief, but still the distinction would be even smaller). Every man would be fit, and every woman too. There would be a few jobs/tasks and many of them of similar importance. There would be no public versus private schools, everybody would receive largely the same education by their parents, siblings, relatives and friends. There would be no "HB1s" and "HB10s", more like women would range from "HB5s from "HB8", not that much difference. The best way to stand out is probably to reach old age and become one of the oldest in your tribe, but obviously that wouldn't lead to more sexual success, just more social respect for both men and women.

[deleted] · 2016-02-12T15:00:58+00:00

Sexual inequality isn't a public issue because no one cares about men who cannot get laid. Men have had to solve that problem for themselves, individually. As things have improved overall for women and deteriorated overall for men, more and more men are solving this problem mostly with online porn.

We have the HAES (for women) movement and the Fat (Women) Acceptance movement because everyone cares about women who cannot get sex from hot men.

Fat Acceptance is not really about HAES. Fat acceptance is about helping fat women get access to sex with hot men. Fat acceptance is about mercilessly shaming men for refusing to date, have sex with, invest in, and marry, fat women. That is ALL it is about.

Society cares nothing about men who can't get laid. Society cares very, very much, though, about women who cannot get laid.

dragoness_leclerq · 2016-02-12T03:44:52+00:00

How should the government or the public resolve the issue of some men not being able to find sexual partners?

[deleted] · 2016-02-12T18:26:14+00:00

because it isn't a women's issue

SirNemesis · 2016-02-12T01:01:09+00:00

Because people's intimate lives are their own and I doubt very many of even the most frustrated people would want the state interfering in their sex lives (or lack thereof, heh.) People will discuss it openly in anonymous forums like this but how many would really want to be outed as chronically unable to get laid? Its a very personal problem.

With that said: I think the legalization and regulation of sex work would go a long way toward alleviating this issue, because for many-- although not a biological need-- it is a legitimate impediment in the pursuit of happiness. A well-trained, certified sex worker would be a godsend for people who suffer from social, sexual, and even generalized anxiety... by enforcing existing consumer privacy laws it would be a discrete service that wouldn't cause embarrassment. This would also go a long way toward solving the issue of human trafficking and abuse even of willing prostitutes by johns and pimps.

This is a pretty common perspective in feminist circles, though not universal. There are certainly some vocal feminist opponents but I think religious moral crusaders are a bigger barrier.

WrensPens · 2016-02-12T02:09:56+00:00

Nobody can get you laid but yourself, bro. If guys just get pussy handouts from the gov teat, society will just turn into like omegas.

despisedlove2 · 2016-02-12T04:27:34+00:00

There used to be a solution to this. It was called marriage.

However, the rise of no fault divorce ended marriage as an institution.

Answer: given prevailing social norms that are guaranteed to lead to long term readjustment of the population of males to well below 50% (over and above the small difference created by life expectancy differences), don't expect anything.

If you want to know what is coming next, just run the reel backwards until you come to a time before monogamy. A large fraction of males who can't get good jobs, aren't attractive enough and powerful enough to find a faithful wife, and ultimately get used up in wars. This has already started. Look at the middle east for instance. Millions of unemployable, sexually frustrated (thanks to polygamy) men who end up in the violent religion business.

People like to conflate polygamy and large scale war with patriarchy and old time religion, but they don't seem to understand that modern feminism and the social obsession with the destruction of males is leading us back to the same dark ages. And unlike the dark ages caused by religion, this dark age will last awhile. The global economic collapse has already started. This is how societies ultimately kill themselves.

Before anyone gets started on this, I am a borderline atheist. However, only pure stupidity would lead one to ignore the strong correlation (and likely causation) between the institution of strong monogamous marriage and civilizational progress. The reason is that the real civilization builders tend to be non alpha males - your despised nerds and geeks. You take away their social safety net and their buy in into the system, and you take away the pillars on which civilizations form. The difference between blue pill males and non blue pill males is simply that the latter know that they are being wiped out. The former persist in the self delusion that modern feminism is about equality.

You don't need to buy the pickup culture RP BS to get any of this. All you need is open eyes, basic intelligence and some common sense.

BiggerDthanYou · 2016-02-12T01:03:17+00:00

Because sexual inequality overwhelmingly affects beta/omega men, and nobody gives a rat's ass about men, while more or less everyone is in favor of helping women. See: eggs expensive/sperm cheap, pussy pass, etcetera.

The only person that's going to help a lame man get access to sex is himself.

GridReXX · 2016-02-12T03:07:21+00:00

How should the public give men more sex?

[deleted] · 2016-02-12T07:11:57+00:00

Sex is naturally an inequality, and it's naturally not a resource. Inequalities are judged on the based of being unnatural and a resource.

In a marriage oriented, conservative culture, where women are primarily home makers and men are the providers. This creates an unnatural, equality of sex. The women trades sex and caregiving for the man's resources.

Feminism turned sex back into a non-resource. It's not tradable, hence niceness are not tokens to get sex.

Overall, you cannot make an inequality of something that is not a resource.

autoNFA · 2016-02-12T17:44:01+00:00

Because it's not a major problem, at least in America. The numbers of men and women are roughly the same, and realistically speaking most men and women of slightly below average attractiveness and above will be able to find some partner, given the right advice and reasonable effort. However, it's a huge issue in places like China and the Middle East, where large excesses of men who will never be able to find a partner lead to civil unrest/violence.

I do think legalizing prostitution would be a good thing for American society.

joseremarque · 2016-02-12T20:31:45+00:00

The government used to do something about it. Marriage was for life and divorce was prohibited. Adultery was punishable by death and marital rape was a-ok. It worked. Almost everyone had one and only one partner: very equal.

I prefer laissez-faire.

hmlaasanen · 2016-02-12T06:32:57+00:00

The goverment redistiributes men's money to women by taxing. Men pay most taxes and women get most of that money.

So the goverment is effectively reducing the women's dependency of men - just as feminists have wanted.

Women don't have trade their sexuality to men's wealth, because socialist economy taxes men out of their money.

So the solution is opposite to goals of feminism: stop redistibuting men's money to women by taxing men.

Same goes for police, army and other tax payed institution that reduce men's bargaining ships. If women get security without needing a man to protect, they have no incentive to trade sex for security.

[deleted] · 2016-02-12T17:14:58+00:00

So many threads about incels lately... I do not see this reality happen in the real world. I don't meet that many thirsty men. Even the overweight men I talk to are either in relationships or are making do on their own without wanting to bring down China, Russia, and the united states if they brings them pussy.

Look, the vast majority of the red pillers are kids. 16-28. Their only pressing concern is getting their balls empty. Easy access to clean water. Nice food you don't have to risk losing a limb to get. No one is trying to rape you and your family. You have access to doctors. If a guy is complaining about not having his dick sucked.. he's not exactly someone I would like to meet. I'm not even going to say he's a low value male. He's a zero value human being. For his entitlement, arrogance and his lack of ability to see women as human beings.

There is no such thing as hypergamy. Women hook-up and date men in their league. if a man is being rejected by women from a certain league he's not part of it. Lower his standards.

anitapk · 2016-02-12T20:31:10+00:00

Because if sex was made readily accessible for 99% of men they'd stop being useful to society. Men aren't driven to reproduce like women and the mere fact that a man has to have a job to be attractive (in most cases) makes It so that he works to have at least that.

informat2 · 2016-02-13T02:02:05+00:00

There's some stuff in Europe like the goverment paying for prostitutes, but you have to be disabled to get them. So if you're the typical unattractive male, it's not going to help you very much.

[deleted] · 2016-02-13T08:52:25+00:00

That's because right now, feminism is considered incredibly important and prioritised by politicians in the west, and feminists only want to correct inequalities that hurt women. And don't tell me "but it's totally different, you won't die without sex". Women won't die without being fairly represented in all the professions like leadership and STEM fields. Women won't die if it became legal to purchase sex in countries such as Norway and Sweden. There is no real difference between giving out regular welfare and giving gift cards to go to a whore and get laid. And if most welfare money comes from men, maybe most whore money should come from women. If you wanted equality, you'd make it happen.

DrunkGirl69 · 2016-02-12T00:47:24+00:00

It's pretty simple. A free sexual market place benefits women. A socialist economic market place... also benefits women.

dakru · 2016-02-12T01:09:56+00:00

It's really important to know what you're actually proposing or suggesting. What does it mean for the government to deal with some people having a lack of sex?

The closest comparable thing to treating a lack of sex as a public issue is treating a lack of friendship as a public issue.

AutoModerator · 2016-02-12T00:41:54+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns here
For CMV, Question for Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging his view or if the question is not targeted at you, you may post it as an answer to this comment.

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Why Isn't Sexual Inequality A Public Issue?

Comments

firstworldproblems"

Title	Why Isn't Sexual Inequality A Public Issue?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	6
Comments	66
Date	February 12, 2016 12:41 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/45c2o0/why_isnt_sexual_inequality_a_public_issue/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/why-isnt-sexual-inequality-a-public-issue.276287 https://theredarchive.com/post/276287