[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / arepa / clang / film / games / leftpol / senran / time ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


WARNING! Free Speech Zone - all local trashcans will be targeted for destruction by Antifa.

File: 464e80988836a5f⋯.jpg (1.06 MB, 2048x1363, 2048:1363, 1511876542568.jpg)

 No.89456

assuming there are only 2 sexes

>female sex is the most consumptionistic sex

and simultaneously

>female sex is the most anti-capitalist sex

wtf

 No.89462

>>89456

They pass on more genetic information than we do and are focused on giving birth, making them weaker for it. It's a min/maxing design. You won't see a male walk around for 9 months being extremely vulnerable and even more so after giving birth, having to take care of another extremely vulnerable life form along with its already weak self. Why would someone handicapped at competing willingly participate in a losing game?


 No.89471

>>89456

Being pro-capitalism is tied with productive effort. It's really unsurprising that the weaker, consumptive sex would be less friendly to it, because AR a fundamental level they aren't as familiar with it. Women are used to being given what they want and submitting to authority, hence them being "consumptionistic." The fact that they're benefiting from capitalism doesn't play into the equation, because as far as they're considered money just appears in the bank account for them to use the how they want.


 No.89472

Your premise is flawed. Go back to /pol/ until you learn how to think clearly.


 No.89519

>>89472

which premise?


 No.89595

bump


 No.89620

>>89456

Well, to be fair, for most of history consumption for women involved spending other people's money, and specifically the male figure.

Also, to push back just a little from the usual echo–chamber around these parts: active consumption, AND communism do make sense, in my opinion, at the family level. I for one basically do want a communist type society for my family, and I want that for libertarian type reasons–I think if everyone in my family is free to express and act as they can and should, then it will tend to better for all of us. And I like wife-anon to have her own opinions because I like arguing with her and talking with her, otherwise it gets boring. I also want my kids to do whatever THEY want to do, even if I think it's stupid and crazy and dumb, some lessons you just gotta learn on your own.

Wife anon and I have rules for our kids of course, but I also recognize those rules are pretty arbitrary and will explain as much to them when they get old enough to where it seems like that I can comprehend that type of belief system.

Wifeanon spends money, and she also makes money, and she also dealt with all the decorating, furniture buying, clothes shopping, etc. etc. that make it so that when I invite people over they don't see a total infestation of dirt and disease that would have probably been the case if I were left to my own schedule of cleaning and clothes shopping only when it becomes absolutely necessary to do so. I probably look a bit better in public because she comments on my clothes or buys new ones when things get in her opinion out of fashion or old or dirty. I think it's pretty awesome I just come home and they are already all just there literally folded and in my drawer. That costs money to do, but it also costs time, and I don't want to do it at all. I'm super glad to have her around, and I think an even division of labor and things mostly works out. She's got her domain, I've got mine, and we both contribute separate but equally to making our family work.

Now, at the state level, I'm with you, and adopt the line of pretty much everyone here. I don't want anyone else coming in telling us how it's going to be.

Here's how I think this relates to OPs post: state level, macro-type scale, we're getting huge swaths of people males and females who are getting married later and later in life, with fewer kids, and more purchasing power. women dominate social media and dominate consumption. But think about what that means for a moment anon. This also means that women dominate the formation of social relationships. If you want access to social capital, you have to go through women–and they guard their mysteries hard. I still have no idea how they work. Luckily wifeanon does, and through her i'm granted access to this more socially connected social domain. Through her, I also meet the menfolk connected to her wimminfolk friends. And we now have lasting connections that would have never been created without having that.

Since the OP post is slightly baity, and since this forum is slightly baity in the first place with some of its groupthink, I'll just head off any accusations about my comments here by saying that I do mostly agree with two things though about wimminfolk psychology: they do seem more emotional and tend to think communism could actually work at the state level AS WELL AS the family level. I think this is 100% false. At the same time, I do think this works at the family level. And so, there we are then.

Open to comments and critiques.

peace and love, ya'll.


 No.89622

>>89620

annnnnnnnd i forgot this was a super slow board. bummer. welp, I'll check back later I guess. bye for now.


 No.89626

>>89620

>Well, to be fair, for most of history consumption for women involved spending other people's money, and specifically the male figure.

Correct, which is what I was implying in >>89471 –being consumptive isn't pro-market when you get your stuff for "free."

>active consumption, AND communism do make sense, in my opinion, at the family level

If participation is voluntary it isn't communism, anymore than your place of business providing you with a company car is communism.

>I think if everyone in my family…

I really don't see how any of what you describe in your scenario is communistic, so now I'm really not sure what you're getting at. Implied contracts and division of labor according to complementary specialties is capitalistic as fuck.

>some lessons you just gotta learn on your own.

This sentence especially, it's the opposite of the commie ideal. Commies are terrified of their children going out on and making their own fun–instead of sending their kid to the park to play ball for a couple hours, they will demand he join the PTA-approved Rec and Ed team, with an approved referee and at least two approved chaperones.

Normally, when people talk about family-level communism they mean teaching their kids ideals like "sharing is caring" and "fairness for everyone." And in those cases, I disagree that family level communism "works"–if little Timmy wants his brother Billy's toys, it's far better to encourage Timmy to offer something of his own in exchange rather than demand that Billy redistribute his wealth…or else.

>This also means that women dominate the formation of social relationships. If you want access to social capital, you have to go through women–and they guard their mysteries hard. I still have no idea how they work. Luckily wifeanon does, and through her i'm granted access to this more socially connected social domain. Through her, I also meet the menfolk connected to her wimminfolk friends. And we now have lasting connections that would have never been created without having that.

Women perform the lion's share of socializing…but primarily with other women, and about women-related things. There's a world of difference between your hypothetical wife's book club and the boardroom negotiating table.


 No.89660

File: 5b2fee7b9d1093a⋯.png (29.33 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, 1024px-Yin_yang.svg.png)

>>89620

You're spot on, but I think you fail to realize your points about communism and individualism working together are simply commentary on masculinity and femininity working together. As they should. As wiser men than I have described.


 No.89729

>>89620

>Wifeanon spends money, and she also makes money, and she also dealt with all the decorating, furniture buying, clothes shopping, etc. etc.

And then you woke up and realized you are an incel xD


 No.89822

>>89626

>being consumptive isn't pro-market when you get your stuff for "free."

but in free market husbands would earn more so more money for women to spend


 No.89828

>>89822

You're not wrong. However, you're not touching on the fundamental issue—Being "consumptive", the average female simply doesn't realize this fact because their daily lives are detached from where the money comes from. So even if they can consume more without the state, that doesn't occur to them because they don't think about money in those terms. They just know that the person/state taking care of them makes the money appear somehow, and if they can't buy what they want it just means they need to throw a bigger tantrum.


 No.89847

Sure is Summer 'round here.


 No.89861

>>89828

so why do women prefer richer men to mate with?


 No.89869

>>89861

Being detached from where the money comes from =! not knowing you need money to buy things. They're overemotional and parasitic, but that's not the same thing as being brain-dead.


 No.90072

>>89869

>=!

what is it?


 No.90077

>>90072

Does not equate, you can also write it like this "=/=".


 No.90135

>>90072

Programmer speak.

But why "=!" and not "!="?


 No.90140

>>90135

Because I'm a pleb that doesn't into programming.


 No.90174

I can't let you have sex with my animals because I'm trying to make up for the time I was passed around the entire football locker room and broken in by the coach. Ah the good old days… -Weeps softly-


 No.90285

File: 723284a60fed215⋯.gif (3.23 MB, 720x404, 180:101, funnybutsad.gif)

>>89456

>assuming there are only 2 sexes

>assuming

Post discarded. There's only one sex, women are property.


 No.90311

>>89456

>assuming there are only 2 sexes

>no capitalization

>>>/reddit/


 No.90324

>>89456

>assuming there are only two sexes

back to reddit my friend


 No.91373

ITT incels


 No.91404

>>91373

incels > manginas




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / animu / arepa / clang / film / games / leftpol / senran / time ]