How can capitalist social structures be blamed for the incel epidemic?

> to get jobs

To have jobs created for them, you mean.

Fucking true. If my weird looking, scrawny ass could get hot girls there’s absolutely no reason most other people can’t. The “it’s your personality” thing is cliche as fuck but it really, really is true. I promise you guys. Of course, as with all things, there are exceptions, some guys are just hideous, but yeah.

>Ghodsee’s title is a memorable one, with its suggestion that under socialism women might all be having as much fun as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez pirouetting on a Boston rooftop. As in the Times Op-Ed from which the book originated, the title refers to the results of studies conducted in Germany from the mid-nineteen-eighties onward, which reported, among other intriguing findings, that eighty per cent of East German women always experienced orgasm during sex, compared to sixty-three per cent of women in West Germany. Ghodsee cites the work of a number of scholars of sexuality, who have addressed these topics in greater depth. But her own point is a larger one. “Unregulated capitalism is bad for women,” she writes. “If we adopt some ideas from socialism, women will have better lives.”
>The two Germanys, whose populations were ethnically and culturally identical before the political division, offered researchers an irresistible natural experiment through which to explore women’s rights and experiences. Ghodsee discusses several fascinating studies that suggested East German women reported higher levels of satisfaction, even the non-orgasmic kind, than their West German sisters. The division of domestic labor in the East was more equitable, in part because of a system of state-funded creches that allowed East German women to remain a part of the workforce. Because men in the East could not depend upon wealth or economic success to win over a mate, they had to rely upon other attributes, including, Ghodsee argues, a greater sensitivity to the needs of women. Divorce was easier in the East, so women could liberate themselves from unhappy relationships with less difficulty. And, as Ghodsee suggests, the very aspects of East German life that struck the West as the most repugnant—the totalitarian foreclosure of the public sphere—meant that the domestic and private spheres became, perforce, more important and more worthy of care and personal investment.
threadly reminder

Attached: 1563925404589.jpg (871x1200, 163K)

How tall are you?

Google "the powell memorandum".
It is the outline on which the debasement of American culture is structured.

The big issue is no one wants to settle, both sides are vying for the top 20% of people (young attractive women on one end and rich good looking guys on the other) obviously women have advantage but I think their desires got distorted and now they compete for top 10-5% while the bulk of guys can't find anyone but slampigs.

Of course, it's not like these guys are winners. They're usually fat, lazy and poor. Hope I helped.

Not before ruining men as a whole.

dang she thick....

Because every political economy is a libidinal economy

>capital pressures convince US corporations to send high-wage, high-skilled, unionized manufacturing jobs to the third world to cut costs and reduce worker unionization
>corporations increase profits, lobby hard to cut their taxes. Reduces public works programs that taught young men skills and helped them out of poverty in the past. Public services and infrastructure declines as companies increase profits
>America becomes dominated by the service economy, the majority of which being low-wage, low-skilled, un-unionized employment.
>Young men in their 20s and 30s unable to move out of their mom's house on shitty wages
>start blaming the Mexicans for their suffering
>liberals look down on them, saying that it's their own fault for not learning to code

Yes user the decline of the socialist left and its consequences will be the doom of the human race, we know

Amazing how the truth can be refuted by simple sarcasm. Even more powerful than repeating exactly what someone says in a whiny voice.

what do you mean?

No, I agree. It's just that nothing can be done about it.
That post was very poorly worded

This, woman stopped being selective of a partner by someone who would stay and instead they just get laid with the same few man who would never marry them. If you get with a woman who was really promiscuous you might already being cucked, since she might not really desire you in comparison.

Well, sex is reduced to a lifestyle commodity, just like hiking or surfing or collecting butterflies. Some people have access to means to do that, others don't. Why should sex be treated in a special way?

Cumbrain

based
also the fact that women were allowed into the work force effectively halving the cost of labor and ensuring future generations grow up in daycare, a known disadvantage

whats funny is this is basically one of Jordan Peterson's talking points. break down of monogamy means top males get all the sex, and even slightly above average males and below get little to none

Things can be done about it, just that it'd require coordinated democratic revolution on a global scale all at the same time.

Which is more likely to happen as the climate catastrophe approaches, just that it might happen too late.

I was watching Bill Maher the other night and he had these two women arguing about politics and it fucking hit me. Women are the reason identity politics and political correctness are so pervasive and destructive in the left wing of politics. These two women were sat there arguing over whether jews or muslims were more oppressed and how its the white supremacists who were undoubtably the only terrorist threat. Women bring a pathological type of compassion whereby a perceived disadvantaged group must be elevated at the expense of an entire other group. 30+million whites in poverty? nah just ignore that because it doesn't fit the privileged narrative

I don't know if the first thing you said is true. Wages aren't immediately driven down by an increase in the number of workers, that only happens when workers aren't organized and protecting each other.

Part of the corporate push behind Hart-Celler was to drive down wages by increasing the number of workers coming into the US, and it failed because US unions were still too strong and were simply organizing with the new immigrants together. A main reason why companies then opted to move overseas to more repressed countries.

The West just shoot themselves in the foot by making women equal to men in terms of social politics. First the voting rights, then the labour rights, then sexual revolution or whatever. Now they are no longer equal to men. They have more power, now both biological (ability to choose a partner among 100s) and social (ability to ruin a man's life/repuation with a single tweet). Think about it logically. In the past women selected men for protection, and later for money/status, but now women (and men) have both of these things by default (given by the system they live in), so what's the next tiebreaker? Genetics. Women are the Saint Peter of the biological world; they guard the biological gates and decide who gets to reproduce and who doesn't. It didn't use to be like this. And most men are average looking, only a minority is attractive and women are fighting for those men. Add to that capitalism, liberalism and the Internet (a brand new force that we don't understand yet and has a deep impact in our world, brain, lives, etc.) and it's the perfect recipe for DISASTER. My advice for Western men? If you want a life partner go to the Third World or to so-called developing countries where women still want those early characteristics and aren't yet more powerful than men, also these women tend to me more loyal and conservative instead of total whores who have fucked dozens of men by the time they are 20. The West is doomed.

if you track the number of union workers over the decades it has plummeted, which means the two factors amplify each other. outsourcing good jobs and more competition for the leftover jobs. the current state of capitalism in the US is a fucking mess and it's getting worse

because it's fundamental for reproduction and health

>Why should sex be treated in a special way?
lol, man i'm absolutely sure tribal wars broke because of sex. God only knows how many man would become rappist if not for porn.

You're right about the first part but again lack of organization leads to endless competition, not the other way around.

women were ruined since the beginning, now they just don't hide it

Attached: 1561580650953.png (875x405, 418K)

Capitalism has no interest in reproduction and health as long as they lie outside of its scope, but it is quite happy to devour them and mince them and produce commodities of them, too. Then you have porn and incubators and fertility treatments and e-thots and whatever our sick culture tries to invent to alleviate its sicknesses.

f e m i n i s m is a capitalist indulgence..

It's not just capitalist indulgent, it's a corporation-reinforced marketing group/purchasing demographic.

something something mouse utopia experiment

I feel like this is also some hedonistic treadmill stuff going on, where people are in a relationship or dating and then they're like, "oh, but if I get with this other more attractive or interesting looking person, maybe I'll finally be happy!"

I'm speaking from experience here as I've been with girls who were nice and kind and attractive, but after the initial magic wears off I'd start to think, "ah, maybe I need to get with this other girl, and THEN my life will be great!". Then you realize the problem is with you and not the other person. Obviously not everyone is like me and people stay together for a long time, but I can't help but feel there's a small part of that in everybody and that's partly the reason people aren't as serious about relationships nowadays.

damn this guy is 110% right

Holy shit dude. That's like a goldmine worth of information in there. Thank you for this.

My skepticism with the whole pauperization of sex is that I think it has always been like this. Ugly undesirables in society have always been born and lived their lives marginalized and mocked. In the past, it was more along the lines of glaring physical defects (hunchbacks, clubfoot, etc), but it was still present. Now today's undesirables are being wrung under a different type of filter.

>Yet, as every business executive knows, few elements of American society today have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corporation, or even the millions of corporate stockholders. If one doubts this, let him undertake the role of “lobbyist” for the business point of view before Congressional committees. The same situation obtains in the legislative halls of most states and major cities. One does not exaggerate to say that, in terms of political influence with respect to the course of legislation and government action, the American business executive is truly the “forgotten man.”

This guy was an actual Supreme Court Judge.

Attached: lewis-f-powell-jr-2dc22ad8-57ff-4657-b038-a888719ef2a-resize-750.gif (275x374, 46K)

...

Read Tribe.

You'd be completely surprised how low women's standards actually are and how many low quality males get laid or gfs. You just have to be okay with fucking trash women.

The filter is broader and is magnified with the internet

You don't NEED to be around others to live anymore, so if you have money you can just be alone and feed your depression. As most of us probably know depression is a self feeding thing and feels good while you're doing it, but doing the things that you feel like you don't want to do are what cures it. So white boys fall into the trap of depression and because they're middle class and can't really fathom alternative viewpoints they blame everyone but themselves. Most incels would be average looking if they just cleaned themselves up a little.

Men are victims of their own physiology. It is truly sad to see how irrational they become when they don't get sex. Femcels get a dozen cats and die lonely, being a minor health hazard at worst. Malecels would bring society down rather than renounce their primal urges.

This is a vague collection of non-sequiturs

Attached: 1568491536663.jpg (1536x2048, 565K)

vocaroo.com/i/s1k5N2N3GV4o

Attached: 9de.jpg (680x468, 35K)

Why would men want to impreove when they know the best their getting is some used up roastie who's had 20 penises in the last 5 years, has no homemaking skills and generally just acts like a man ? Women give men of today no reasons to want to improve.

If there were a bunch of femcels they would bring society down as well, only that they're more organized because they're more social.

sexuality is just a small part in a man's life while for women its everything

Why should rights and wages be treaded in the marxist special way and not sex?

consider that the women have the ability to be the most tender, likeable, graceful, motherly, feminine, caring creatures and then look outside the window and see what women look like today. you have 15 year olds wearing booty shorts with half their ass hanging out. there is no transcendetal or moral thought crossing their minds for the most part, they are completely submerged into the dominant narrative of competition on the basis of economic luxury, ease of life and "fullfillment". One cannot hold a meaningful conversation with a woman without engaging in symbolic exchange. A symbolic exchange where the disposition of the woman towards you is based on the amount of value you seem to superficially convey (likes on social media, clothing, watches, cars, behavior towards others and behavior of others towards you). Ultimately you have make this symbolic dance to be taken seriously in society even going beyond women, which is really the part that is dehumanizing.

do you really think that the average man is different from the average woman in regards to either intellect/materialism/inner striving or wish for monogamy?

refer to this if women are shallow enough to demand those things (clothing, watches, cars, behavior towards others etc), men themselves would also be shallow because they direct their lives based exactly on these materialistic issues

is this a chicken/egg question ?

Yes, it's a carrot/stick situation where you idealize women you haven't been with yet. People will go out and chase people because of the picture they have in their head of what being with that person will make them, they internalize some idea of "winning" side by side with the relationship itself not realizing that just being with someone won't make you a better person. I've been with a fair share of women and can tell you that a bad woman can ruin your fucking life, it don't matter how hot she is.

Of course a lot of this comes from the "objectification of women," young guys who treat women like prizes they won and not expecting to have to do any work. It's gotten so bad that now women do it to guys with similar effects. The fact that so many women are "acting like guys" means that there's no settling and all relationships are volatile.

Attached: 1539798503341.jpg (238x211, 12K)

So you telling me that ugly men have more changes of scoring a girl in capitalist conservative society since women are more insterest on your capacity to keep them alive and thus your capacity for career success instead of the aperance?

Its honestly been a thing that has been fermenting in my head. I may be full of shit here, but i really think that attractive people would prefer the socialist egalitarian soceity where they can more easily strive at scoring a partner while the ugly men, the "nerds"/incels/study-hards would prefer the capitalistic soceity where they can score more based on their wealth.
Ofc there is also a relation between wealth and attractive people that favours them aswell.

They shouldn't. Or rather, it's just the matter of negotiation. Working class wasn't content with being treated like dirt so the worker protections were introduced. With enough people becoming incels, societies will be divided to those which can deal with them (either with sexual counterrevolution or other means) and those which can't and will consequentially disappear. Don't look at archaic societies like islamic or indian ones btw, they are just a bit late on their way to be ground into post-industrial capitalist mush. A really functional society that can deal with capitalism will incorporate capitalism, but will overcome it and treat it as the ultimately trivial thing that it is, by finding the spiritual meaning elsewhere.

That's just a construction of your own psyche. You confirmation bias yourself because you see some women who represent your worldview, you have no confidence that you can get a good woman. Women don't need to give men a reason to improve, and historically they never have. The incels of the past existed (cough Nietzsche cough) but were never noted in history due to their underwhelmingness.

What you want is a beautiful, caring, virginal woman but your expectation of all of these things is at odds with yourself.

If you earnestly took the path of self improvement without women to make yourself happy you would probably find you have a lot more sex and by that point you're basically a male used up sausage who's had 20 vaginas in the past 5 years. The reality is though if you're happy and fulfilled and you have had some sex then it doesn't really change who you are as a person. So you aren't really getting a used up roastie so much as someone with shared life experience as you. You've both learned from mistakes and have had the opportunity to mature, as opposed to jumping into something way too young for life and setting yourself up for a lifetime of resentment.

As an incel the women that might be available to you would be of equally low social standing, and they won't fit your criteria, and why should they? If there is nothing positive you offer then it's logical that you will get the worst women.

Essentially, you are insecure about your sexual inadequacy and because you treat women naricissistically (possibly a byproduct of masturbation) this manifests itself in thinking that a woman with some or greater sexual experience than you thinks in the same masturbatory way as you do and thus compares you with others.

Like I said, depression feeds itself

coomer and kenzie... man I should retire from the internet

>The reality is though if you're happy and fulfilled and you have had some sex then it doesn't really change who you are as a person.
Generally speaking, more sexual partners means less ability to bond emotionally during sex. That works for both men and women, but I guess the effect is stronger for women since they are overall more emotionally invested in sex.

To clarify what you said, so this is a matter of getting more incels poping into the world so they turn it around and also implement socialist ways on their desired fields?

More or less. Expect Betas' Glorious October Uprising.

who cares, have sex, dilate etc.

>thinking that a woman with some or greater sexual experience than you thinks in the same masturbatory way as you do and thus compares you with others
Do you imply an average woman does not compare you (or her sexual partner) with others?

she cute

Why would women try to be traditional when the modern """men""" needs a boomer psychologist to tell them how to behave? They can't even go outside and get rejected without bitching about muh foids.
Third wave feminism is essentially organized femcels, and they're not shooting up schools, just whining on Twitter.
Why you lying on the internet, user? Do you know where we are?

I think that it true after a certain point - certainly for some kind of sex worker or something sex is very much a glorified act of mutual masturbation, but I think for most people this is not the case - most men and women have sexual partners in the single digits by the time they settle with men more likely to have a higher number.

The idea that women are out getting fucked left, right and centre when young is kind of misrepresented by incels who have watched too much 'college co-ed gets FUCKED by GARGANTUAN BLACK DICKS' and 'REAL LIFE DORM PARTY FOOTBALL PLAYERS RUN TRAIN' I'm not saying that those women don't exist, but they're a relatively small minority as anyone who had female friends in college will be able to tell you. Most women have a boyfriend for some time, maybe that doesn't work out, they have a rebound, then they get another long term boyfriend and after trying 3 or 4 times they finally find someone they feel comfortable being with. That's understandable and doesn't prevent an emotional connection in the same way that being a serial hoe would do.

lol seething roastie

>Women don't need to give men a reason to improve, and historically they never have
absolutely fucking wrong. The issue is that women act like men now, they're extremely competitive and lack the grace and empathy women are usually associated with, which makes them much harder to approach.
>What you want is a beautiful, caring, virginal woman but your expectation of all of these things is at odds with yourself.
why would that be at odds with myself?
>If you earnestly took the path of self improvement without women to make yourself happy you would probably find you have a lot more sex and by that point you're basically a male used up sausage who's had 20 vaginas in the past 5 years. The reality is though if you're happy and fulfilled and you have had some sex then it doesn't really change who you are as a person. So you aren't really getting a used up roastie so much as someone with shared life experience as you. You've both learned from mistakes and have had the opportunity to mature, as opposed to jumping into something way too young for life and setting yourself up for a lifetime of resentment.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. I scorn promiscuity in both males and females. Each partner you have takes a little piece of you away that you can never return, you become more numb and lose time, no matter how much whores scream that things can simply be sexual and nothing more it's impossible to not have at least some feelings towards the person you're going to bed with, unless you have mental problems or you're a sociopath. Fucking one night stands is as much good experience as falling asleep drunk on the street.
>As an incel the women that might be available to you would be of equally low social standing, and they won't fit your criteria, and why should they? If there is nothing positive you offer then it's logical that you will get the worst women.
this makes no sence if you know what "incel" means
>Essentially, you are insecure about your sexual inadequacy and because you treat women naricissistically (possibly a byproduct of masturbation) this manifests itself in thinking that a woman with some or greater sexual experience than you thinks in the same masturbatory way as you do and thus compares you with others.
this is just the same bullshit whores feed one another. "Nothing i do matters teehee, if you see a problem with me and my army of ex's it's because youre insecure". Women have been thought that they can do whatever they want but are surprised when people bring up the consequences of their shitty life decisions. Being promiscuous and having a large number of partners can only tell someone you're emotionaly immature.

t. seething involutary celibate

>Most women have a boyfriend for some time, maybe that doesn't work out, they have a rebound, then they get another long term boyfriend and after trying 3 or 4 times they finally find someone they feel comfortable being with.
As one can argue from the idealised monogamous point of view, every failed relationship is an emotional damage (for both men and women) that drains the ability to trust a partner, to invest in them emotionally and to support them through high times. The logic here is oh, well, if I don't like something I can always try someone else. Then of course you get people perceiving themselves as too old to land a good partner anymore getting stuck in relationships they don't want to commit to out of hopelessness.

Why do you care about promiscuity?

I imply that the average woman (outside of a casual/promiscuous context) and man does not consider sex a means to an orgasm in the sense that it is masturbation using a partner.

Hence, the fear of sexual inadequacy and not satiating someone's sexual appetite is a little silly. It assumes that the only thing they care about is having an orgasm. Of course if you do think of sex in a masturbatory way then it makes sense that your worth is diminished and. If you only think of women as sex objects for example, what good is one that can't make you cum? Maybe a minority of women also share this view, but in most sexual encounters this is not really the case, you wouldn't really be engaged in the sex you're having if the other person was a motionless expressionless plank and this works both ways.

Sure, maybe they might compare but it's not really that prevalent or important. You don't really think about your old girlfriend when having sex with your current girlfriend. (or maybe you do because you don't have that closure yet - a healthy and emotionally mature person doesn't)

It's possible to write for ages on this but I've tried to maintain some brevity - I'm happy to expand.

Because it's bad for the curret and future state of society. It causes burn out, emotiona numbness and injects eve more competitiveness into an already extremely competitive time. It gives way too much power to one gender and it's superficial attribute system by which they choose their partner. Is a massive waste of time in general. Not to mention all the issues with STD and unwated pregnancies, single parenthood. There are LITERALLY 0 benefits to having a promiscuous society, not for the women, not for the men, not for the children,

I can certainly see how this manifests and I'm not saying that it's an infallible idea, but from a risk management point of view it makes sense. Maybe you can have these small emotional damages but if you compare this to the potential gigantic emotional damage of being with the first partner you find and having little experience and emotional maturity then it makes sense.

I certainly wouldn't want to hit 20 and settle down with the first girl I find, I have no idea what she's going to be like in 10, 20, 30 or even 50 years. Maybe I'll be too old for another relationship if it ends, can you imagine the amount of emotional damage and lost youth the ending of a 30 year long relationship could cause, especially a bad one. It's absolutely terrifying and makes no sense.

>One cannot hold a meaningful conversation with a woman without engaging in symbolic exchange. A symbolic exchange where the disposition of the woman towards you is based on the amount of value you seem to superficially convey (likes on social media, clothing, watches, cars, behavior towards others and behavior of others towards you)

Nailed it.

Not everyone feels what you just said, and if they do then they will repent. 'waste of time' is arbitrary, your problem is you are trying to see it from a level of wisdom but you forget that others don't have it

Usually, not being satisfied with your partner sexually (at least to a some degree) precludes a healthy relationship. Moreover, a woman having many partner implies having quality sex is important to her (and it's way easier for a man to have satisfaction in a sexual encounter than for a woman)

>I certainly wouldn't want to hit 20 and settle down with the first girl I find, I have no idea what she's going to be like in 10, 20, 30 or even 50 years.
That's where you should understand a relationship as a commitment, a task to work at, rather than a commodity to choose at the shelf in the store. The whole "finding the right person" narrative, while certainly making sense from the regular point of view, is actually very harmful in the long run. The longer you search for the right person, the less sure you become if the person besides you is the right, the more ready you are to stop trusting them and discard them as undeserving your affection if anything doesn't go the way you want it to.