/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Unironically Nick Fuentes explains performative masculinity on the right well here using Matt Walsh as an example. He goes into detail on it.

I'll post a long text too by another rightoid about this which was interesting

>>2456203
Why would it not be? It's important to everyone. Women will be the first to tell you to "be a man" and to "man up" that's if they even fuck with you at all.

>>2456208
One of the architects of Queer Theory was Judith Butler, whose work it has been said can be reduced to the following six words: "Life is drag; drag is life." What this refers to is her concept of "gender performativity." Another more modern way to summarize it is "all gender expression is gender cosplay."

The idea behind gender performativity is that all expressions of "gender" are, in fact, performances. If the underlying biological substrate of sex (male or female) matters at all, it doesn't matter at all to how we interact socially or in how we see ourselves as people. It doesn't factor in at all.

Instead, we aren't living as members of our sex with all attendant diversity; we're performing our gender as a role, somewhat like on a stage ("all the world's a stage") but more like the way a professional plays the role of his career.

For example, consider a hypothetical judge, Judge Smith. Judge Smith might just be Bob in his day-to-day life, just another upper-middle class guy with a professional class job and country-club lifestyle, but when he puts on the robes and sits at the bench, etc., he's "Judge Smith." Judge Smith talks in ways becoming of a judge, dresses as a judge, uses a judicial-specific dialect of English, etc., but Bob doesn't usually. Judge Smith is a performance.

That performance is meant to do an array of social signaling, particularly of his judicial authority, not just to others but also to himself. The entire courtroom engages in an extended performance too, calling him "Your Honor," for example, and deferring to his judgments and leadership of the court. It's all just an act to convey a kind of professional status that "Judge Smith" has but that isn't located intrinsically (or essentially) anywhere in Bob.

This idea of "performativity" comes from J.L. Austin from a lecture series in the mid-1950s, and Judith Butler appropriated it rather badly into her critical constructivist view of sex, gender, and sexuality (what became called "Queer Theory") in the 1980s, expressing the idea most fully in her two most famous books, Gender Trouble (1990) and Bodies that Matter (1993). Her idea was, as I said, all of "gender" is the same kind of social-signaling performance.

Thus, her work can be summarized in those six words: "Life is drag; drag is life." Drag is a stylized and deliberately parodic (like parody) performance of sex, but given as a performance of "gender." An obvious male portrays himself as a highly stereotypical female in the "drag queen." An obvious female portrays herself as a caricatured male in the "drag king" (less common). Butler's wacky idea is that everyone is actually doing drag all the time.

If you are male and acting female, you're a male doing female drag, but if you're a male acting male, you're a male doing male drag. You're still doing drag. The same goes for women. Everyone is doing drag all the time. Much in those two books specifically discusses the role drag performances play in formulating her conception of "gender performativity," in fact. It's not an idle correlation; it's intentional.

Moreover, Judith Butler's idea is that all of society goes along with and reinforces these performances. Men are supposed to play "male drag," and women are supposed to do "female drag." For her, this establishes a sociognostic circumstance ("system of oppression") called gender normativity that came to be called "cisnormativity": your "performed gender" is socially and sometimes legally expected to match your sex.

Her idea is that people learn to do these signals from people already enacting the society-wide "drag" drama, whether to fit in, avoid trouble, get advantages, or whatever else, and they replicate the performance from one person to another. Thus we're all complicit in spreading the "performative drag" to everyone and reinforcing the sociognostic circumstance of normativity.

To "queer" something, as it came to be known, is to challenge this whole "production" and its underlying assumptions and actual truths through deliberate parodic "drag" performances outside of the normative range. See, Judith Butler didn't believe the normative frame could be overcome, but it could still be mocked. She called this approach "the politics of parody," again based on drag (and the fact that drag queens are doing critical and deconstructive performances in womanface, ultimately).

The idea behind this strategy is to transgress the boundaries of normalcy in the name of overcoming alleged repression or perceived oppression (oppression in a free society tends to be a matter of histrionic interpretation). It is to slowly erode the concept of normativity by mocking it around its edges and shocking the conscience further away from them. The goal is to dissolve the stability and connection to reality that the norms provide and represent.

So, to queer is to transgress with a deliberate aim of dissolving or moving the so-called "Overton window" of acceptable "performances" of self, particularly relevant to sex, "gender" (stereotypes about sex roles), and sexuality.

It is possible to transgress those boundaries through performative cosplay in another way. Rather than seeking to transgress against norms believed (or just said) to be too repressive, you could transgress against norms believed (or just said) to be too licentious. That is, rather than asserting normal and healthy boundaries based in reality, morality, decency, stability, etc., one could engage in a kind of virtue-signaling cosplay performance of strict, narrow, and old-fashioned modes of expression, including around sex, gender, and sexuality.

The name for this "reverse queering" we use today is "Trad," which is a kind of faddish style and commodity-identity that people can take up and perform in a variety of ways, especially at the conference scene and on Instagram.

"Trad" seemingly refers to "traditional" or "traditionalist," but that's only where it gets its inspiration. It is not actually traditionalist except in pastiche, and it attaches to no living tradition whatsoever. While someone might like 1950s styles today, for example, to suddenly adopt them outside of the continuity of the evolution of culture and style is, in fact, a performative action. It's wanting to be seen in a particular way and to see oneself in a particular way in a very fake-it-til-you-make-it way. It is, in short, a "gender" performance, just not one expanding the range through artificial manipulation (queering) but contracting it artificially. That is, it's the same activity.

When this performativity is adopted for deliberate political ends or means, it is, in fact, a kind of "politics of parody" through performative negation of the current mode and current style. It remains essentially a kind of queering, however, and it is still living life deliberately in drag for political ends, which is what Queer Theory claims as its raison d'etre, at least in a certain way.

Because it is "trad performativity" (or, "trad drag," if you prefer) and because the traditions it draws from are not living traditions at all, "Trad" actually refers to pseudo-traditionalism, a kind of act pretending to be traditionalist while being conspicuously not in line with living tradition anywhere. Because of the break it represents, it is also a (mild, for now) form of transgression, though there are associated things that are not so mild (e.g., whatever the radicals mean by "based," which isn't "based in reality and principle").

Am I saying you shouldn't be "Trad"? No, not really. It's (still, for now) a free country, or free society, and you can represent yourself as you wish (again, for now). You should just be clear on what you're adopting: a form of queering just as queer as queering but with a mind to constrict norms rather than expand them. You're as free as you want to be a Queer Theorist in your own fashion.

Judith Butler might grumble about the expression, but if she understands her own theory, she'd strongly approve.

PS: Most of the people posting this performativity on the 'Gram aren't living any more of a "Trad" life, much less a traditionalist one, than Bob would wear his judges robes to the golf course on Saturday afternoon. Those people are a TV show, and they might be taking you to the cleaners.

It's like asking why is makeup and everything else women do about their appearance so important to to them. The answer is fucking obvious.

>>2456212
But none of you anti-gender role fuckers will talk about that, or if you do you'll say that's the fault of the patriarchy, aka the fault of men, and male gender roles are the fault of the patriarchy, so that's also the fault of men in the end.

Saying everything is the fault of men and they were the only ones with agency in human history is the ultimate patriarchal viewpoint tho.

>>2456215
It is the fault of hetmoids tho

Hetmoid masculinity = being a violent, sadistic, hateful piece shit

What was your relationship like with your father terminally spiteful gay guy?

>>2456203
Political power is about enacting violence on their enemies. Hence, in history, masculine societies tend to destroy less masculine societies. The price of failing to live up to masculinity is to watch your people be destroyed. If the Soviet Union or Chinese communists during the revolution were effeminate, and not interesting in weapons and war, they would have disappeared from history.

Some people claim that technology renders this moot, but that's not true. Fighting spirit is paramount.

>>2456218
Nta, but unironically a lot of gay men are masculine in a less performative way then performative het men are, largely because when it is "performance", they acknowledge and are aware of that, while you get characters like Matt Walsh (discussed earlier) who effectively wear "trad drag" while refusing to acknowledge the performative nature of what they are doing. A person engaging in performative "traditional masculinity" might go on and on rhetorically about how he is such, so as to try and "reify" his desired perception, but many masculine gay men don't bother trying to "sell" it, they just "live" it, if that makes sense.

Ok so masculinity is bad now, what's the alternative? Femininity? You are going to attract women by being the most feminine/ist?

Anons here seem to unironically think this is the future and this is what women actually go for in 2025. Spoiler:it's not

If a woman wanted to date a woman she could just date a woman.

>>2456223
He's a media personality. Basically an actor. Yeah no shit his "masculinity" or whatever is performative, he's literally a performer.

>>2456223
>but many masculine gay men don't bother trying to "sell" it, they just "live" it, if that makes sense.
What about this fag?

>>2456209
>Why would it not be? It's important to everyone.

Personally, it has never been important to me. I was born male and I identify and present as a man, but it's more out of force of habit than anything else; I don't have any emotional attachment to the idea of being a man, I don't care about being masculine or appearing to be masculine, and I have never really even understood what it means to be a man or be a woman, it all just seems to me like a bunch of arbitrary cultural customs that people made up a long time ago and I have no dog in the race. It's also probably worth mentioning that I'm autistic and my feelings about this sort of thing are probably not representative of most men.

>>2456224
>You are going to attract women by being the most feminine/ist?

How did we get onto the subject of attracting women? I don't see what that has to do with this discussion, but it is very interesting that you are bringing it up now.

>>2456221
>Political power is about enacting violence on their enemies. Hence, in history, masculine societies tend to destroy less masculine societies. The price of failing to live up to masculinity is to watch your people be destroyed. If the Soviet Union or Chinese communists during the revolution were effeminate, and not interesting in weapons and war, they would have disappeared from history.
I think this is a mistaken and modernly informed view of what "masculinity" is. You are effectively essentializing gender, so as to make it something which is removed from the social context it exists in. What about "masculinity" is being interested in weapons and war? What about "femininity" is not? Is a man who goes to war out of necessity, but would prefer in life to garden and live in peace feminine? Is a woman who craves conflict even in times of peace masculine? From western standards, certain eastern societies appear "effeminate", but these societies have not fallen, and vice versa. I think rather then make us "stronger", such obsession and over-identification with roles (as the daoists would say) turns us into "insects", in the same say way the division of labour over-specializes us in our occupations. It is no wonder that labour affects so much our perception of "gender". Overtime, we become unnuanced, less rounded, and eventually less grounded, stagnant, and subject to instability. By understanding instead that we have aspects of both, we can then come to understand that "both" was a fallacy to begin with, an over-identification with roles that we created for ourselves in the formation of civilization.
>Some people claim that technology renders this moot, but that's not true. Fighting spirit is paramount.
What is fighting spirit? Is it motivation? Is it perseverance? Is it these things in of themselves, or the results of them? And if either or, why should the masculine have and the feminine lack? Why assume that one doesn't and the other does?

>>2456218
I hate him and wish him a slow painful death. Why? He used to beat the shit out of me to """"man up"""", one time he actually broke one of my fingers, my mom booted him for being an alcoholic when I was 14 and I couldn't be happier

>>2456231
In fact, I'm more "masc" than other gays because I learned to repress my mannerisms to not get brutally beaten

being male means existing in a dominance hierarchy. its better to be on top than bottom. simple.

>>2456232
but in your soul youre still a sissy

>>2456224
I don't think anyone was saying "masculinity bad", that doesn't seem to be part of OPs point.
>>2456225
I believe the point is that he doesn't want it to be viewed as or sold as a performance though, its "kayfabe" without the awareness, adopted for "deliberate political ends" as someone quoted earlier.

>>2456212

Is the answer really that obvious? At first glance one might say it's just a peacock mating ritual to be more sexually attractive to men, but that doesn't explain why women wear makeup in completely non-sexual situations, such as a funeral or a corporate workplace. The reasons go far beyond just making men horny, they have to do with social expectations and conformity to cultural norms, ideas deeply imprinted into the brain from early childhood which influence how we see ourselves and how we fit in with the rest of society.

>>2456223
>Nta, but unironically a lot of gay men are masculine in a less performative way then performative het men are, largely because when it is "performance", they acknowledge and are aware of that, while you get characters like Matt Walsh (discussed earlier) who effectively wear "trad drag" while refusing to acknowledge the performative nature of what they are doing.
I agree with that. I think part of what's going on is that traditional heterosexual masculinity is supposed to appear effortlessly natural. But in reality it's highly constructed, disciplined and performed. Like you need to have a certain posture, clothes, gestures, which take a long time to learn and master (beginning in childhood) and also what those signifers are have changed over time and been subject to historical contingency, so people who code as macho bros today would be read as 100% effeminate in the 1960s. Now they're 100% dude.

>>2456203
>Even transgender people I have known do not obsess about their gender identity to the level that these cis hetero men do. Why is that? Why is it so important to them?
Plenty of people (most famously Judith Butler) have attacked the distinction between "sex" and "gender" in various ways. Butler defined "gender" as a "performance," and then said the way we think about biological sex is an attempt to "naturalize" our constructed gender identities, to make them seem inescapable. It appears to be just the way things are, so attempts to tear it down – or to insist that it's merely optional – must be irrational or dangerous. To have something like a social construction installed in your operating system so effectively, you cease being aware that the crap in your head is a social construction. So other people doing their own thing with gender, over there, is dangerous to some extent, because it points to how a lot of basic categories about how we treat each other aren't natural or inevitable at all.

What people like Matt Walsh are doing is reacting to that possibility. Also biology itself is complex and is getting more and more alterable.

>>2456221

You're making the assumption that an entire society can have a collective gender identity and that there are "masculine societies" and "effeminate societies", okay let's grant that, but by your very logic the most effeminite societies have been the most influential and powerful societies in all of history, from the toga-wearing pedos of ancient greece to the powdered wig-wearing faggots of the 19th century european empires.

>Even transgender people I have known do not obsess about their gender identity to the level that these cis hetero men do.

Well, have you asked those transgender people, those that identify as heterosexual, whether they would tolerate a somewhat feminine or fruity boyfriend? No, lmao, they would tell you they would think that he is gay, which would undermine their transhood so they would largely prefer a masculine straight boyfriend. And that's the point, it's not something that springs out of the individual conscience of the average straight male but that is socially enforced, even by people who would consider themselves to be progressive.

>>2456254
>have you asked those transgender people, those that identify as heterosexual, whether they would tolerate a somewhat feminine or fruity boyfriend?

I would imagine that a somewhat feminine/fruity boyfriend is the only kind of boyfriend they would be interested in and the only kind of boyfriend they would really be compatible with; the typical alpha-male jock smashing a beercan on his forehead is not the type of guy that trans women tend to pursue and the alpha male jock retard is not the type who will typically have an open mind about the idea of dating a trans woman.

>>2456259
>I would imagine that a somewhat feminine/fruity boyfriend is the only kind of boyfriend they would be interested in and the only kind of boyfriend they would really be compatible with;

So you haven't asked them and have no idea. Better not imagine so much absurd stuff and start making conclusions based on actual real life observations, you know. Next time you are with a self-professed progressive bi lib girl ask her whether she prefers split the bill on the first date. Why are patriarchal standards so persistent you are asking, why are there so powerful on straight men? Well one of the reasons is that even within progressive circles, even among self-professed progressive and marginalized groups, even there they are being enforced when it's convenient and as a straight male you are constantly reminded of this double standard by people like you.

>>2456209
When reading the title of this question before the body, this was my thought. Being non-traditionally masculine is just a shitty experience for men.

>>2456224
The average leftypol user is fucking retarded. No interesting political thought comes from this board. Mao would've executed like 99% of the users here for being retarded

>>2456254
>even by people who would consider themselves to be progressive.

This is why I don't take leftist women seriously. Their progressive beliefs are exclusively for women. There's functionally no difference between dating a conservative or progressive woman because they both hate men.

Insecurity.
It’s only important to people that don’t feel like the man they purport to be.

>>2456203
A good chunk of cishet men are insecure little fags, so they desperately cling to some made up identity that hasn't been relevant in 500 years or so and in a rational world people wouldn't try to bring it back. They're like effeminate homos in conservative areas - trying to pass as Manly Mayun so nobody beats the living shit out of them.
>>2456208
Faguentes is a big fag himself, so he knows what he's talking about.
>>2456209
>>2456216
Women (the cishet ones) don't wanna date fruits and femboys because the cishet men drilled it in their heads that dating anyone other than the real life Dragon Ball Z character = LE BAD and LE DEGENERATE. If you want pussy without looking like Son Goku or whatever his name is, start undoing the patriarchy, you fag.
>>2456218
Fuck off, Freud ballsack mongler, your shit hasn't been relevant in 50 years.
>>2456224
>Ok so masculinity is bad now, what's the alternative? Femininity?
>Anons here seem to unironically think this is the future and this is what women actually go for in 2025.
Nobody said that. It's not that masculinity is bad, it's that most of its variations are shitty and outdated.
Though if you ask me, I'd unironically would suggest you transhumanist out. Most men these days look horrible and they want to be women anyways. If 70-80% of the world's male population were literal transhumanistjaks, it would be better for everyone involved, starting with men.

>>2456203
You dont get pussy if you seem like a weak faggot.

>>2456312
t. someone who definitely does not get pussy.

In order to fully understand this you need to read up on incel and rad fem studies, both too controversial and idpol oriented to ever be discussed seriously on this site without a ban too.
I'll give you the run down of it though:
Masculinity is a spook, at best in a material and measurable state it is the level of testosterone a man has, how big he is, how his ramus is in relation to his chin, that's about it as much as femininity can be measured in a womans ass.
Masculinity as the spook came from "othering" the men, who then othered the women, to understand and trace the lineage of these ideas you can look through matrilineal communalisms fall to the Yamnaya, the freeing of men and deposing of women priestesses, etc, but basically war and organized strength in men "Strength and power" freed us from them. This is why in the classical world those values became important especially when you began to fight other men in tribal war to now protect your tribe. These were the foundations that only made material sense to care about as a man when
-You are living in a warfare slave economy
-You are living in a society where the women are reliant on picking to survive rather than first world freedom to pick who you truly love.
Then under patriarchy which did in a small usually very small, and often not really, often unfair, but slightly better than now today for men way, reward these traits and made women seek them out.
The dating power over the dating market men used to hold was insane, we get stories of ugly ass 5'5 grandpa cheating on grandma's every week with sweet young poontang and grandma just had to accept it.
Now that it has inversed we are seeing more women cheat than men, a new study just came out that they're doing it more "Going against historical trends."
No shit women are the dominant class now.
After the fall of patriarchy when women would rather build everything themselves and get jobs for themselves, women began to choose men for what they always cared about deep down: Pretty faces, big dicks, tall stature. All of which have increased over the past 40 years for a reason.
In this dating crisis rather than face the music a generation of men went back to the past with the easiest answer being redpill "trad" garbage, ie look to the past for solutions, without realizing those solutions require revoking womens rights to choose. That said a few were smart enough to figure it out though now men more or less know women are incapable of love, which is in fact a spook itself but that is besides the point.
In order to try and desperately convince themselves that human society is not fundamentally flawed, imperfect, that if we are made in Gods image he must be a cruel God too on a deeper philosophical level, etc, they tell themselves "No bro women don't like that homes just focus on getting that money, getting strong, women love it, no means yes, she's just shit testing you and playing hard to get, she's calling the cops as a test not because she's actually afraid bro."
In short masculinity in modern times is a very sad desperate cope by men who are facing a deep existential crisis on all levels and the worst part is that it just makes them look like clowns, the better material solution would be MULTIPLE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
This has lead to the entire culture industry created around it, but rest assured and this is something that will piss two thirds of you off, but the problem is not that the free market allows for vultures to indoctrinate people into these ideas, teh problem is that there is a material crisis on men by women that leads them into the arms of these vultures. Deep down these grifters just know that these men will never make it anyway because they were born into failure because they were born now, arguably one of the worst times to be alive ever, and that's why people like Tate laugh behind their backs.
TLDR it's a grift that men still fall for due to spooks and wanting women who would rather date hot 6 foot femboys over masculine ogres under 6 feet. As a rule of thumb Solanas was right, whenever asking "Why are men like this" ask "What did women do to make them like this through material choices?"
This is also why there is no such thing as "Left masculinity" or trying to appeal to men through the left, to do so would have to admit that on some level class war goes to gender too and that on some level DOTP does too meaning either men or women will have to concede. It's just not a fruitful discussion to have when trying to advance socialism.

Because it's part of the ethos of hetmoids being an inherently sadistic, violent PoS

Despite being roughly 40% of the globe's population, hetero males represent over 90% of:

Rapists
Thieves
Child Abusers
Murderers
Homophobes
Assaulters
Racists
Reactionaries
And every single other scum you can imagine really

Hetero males are the OVERWHELMINGLY majority of right-wingers globally, it is no exageration to claim over 90% of every right-wing/reactionary party in the globe is a hetero male sausage fest

As if the statistics and the fact they're a fascist demographic aren't bad enough, straight male """culture""" and """mannerism"" are vile to stratospherical levels, consider the fact hetmoids are devoid of ANY POSITIVE sentiment and emotion, and completely uncapable of showing empathy, tenderness, kindness and general human decency because apparently doing so is ""gay"" (and "gay" for hetmoids is the ultimate offense, worse than being perceived as a pedophile or child murderer). Hetero males can't have a basic personal hygiene routine because it's "gay", they can't wipe and wash their assholes because it's "gay", they can't wear nor have pink stuff because it's "gay", and the only things true hetmoids can have as hobbies and interests are football, women, ufc fights, cars, beer and pewpew shooting online games, anything that deviates from these is inherent "homosexual" according to their sick minds. They also can't also while sitting down either because the only true macho thing is having your women cleaning up the disgusting mess you do at the toilet

If they only kept these brainworms to themselves I wouldn't give a shit but they'll literally verbally and physically harass and hate and assault ANY man that deviates from their accepted and disgusting cultural norms as early as SCHOOL DAYS, meaning even as a child an hetmoid is inherently violent, sadistic and subhuman

Hetero males also only see women as slaves and cum dumpsters, trophies to brag about to their "bros", in fact, hetero male ""friendship"" consists of attacking, humiliating and belitting each other all the game (90% of the time calling each other "gay"), and the rare occasions they compliment each other they can ONLY do so to the stuff they have or did (how many women they fucked, the expensive material stuff they have, etc), never THEM directly, on the extremely rare occasion they compliment each others' appearance they can only so indirectly, because it's "gay" to do otherwise, ex: 'bro has rizz', 'bro has swag'. I genuinely believe an average hetero male life is devoid of any positive interactions with ANY human being, including their """friends""".

In short, hetero males are a political abomination because they're fascist, an ethical abomination because they're violent, hateful, bigoted and sadistic, and a cognitive abomination because they're ignorant. The End

>>2456312
You do get bussy thoughbeit. Im a transhumanist and I prefer weak, autistic and somewhat faggy men.

>>2456389
I agree with hetmoid schizo for once.
>straight male """culture""" and """mannerism"" are vile to stratospherical levels, consider the fact hetmoids are devoid of ANY POSITIVE sentiment and emotion, and completely uncapable of showing empathy, tenderness, kindness and general human decency because apparently doing so is ""gay"" (and "gay" for hetmoids is the ultimate offense, worse than being perceived as a pedophile or child murderer). Hetero males can't have a basic personal hygiene routine because it's "gay", they can't wipe and wash their assholes because it's "gay", they can't wear nor have pink stuff because it's "gay", and the only things true hetmoids can have as hobbies and interests are football, women, ufc fights, cars, beer and pewpew shooting online games, anything that deviates from these is inherent "homosexual" according to their sick minds. They also can't also while sitting down either because the only true macho thing is having your women cleaning up the disgusting mess you do at the toilet
Very specific I'm sorry you had to deal with your boyfriend shitting everywhere or whatever I won't lie I speed read through that part, but like I said above, traditional masculinity is indeed more in line with violence, control, "bravery" only in the sense of having the bravery to kill others when required, because it was what initially freed men, it was what saved men from matrilineal tyranny.
It also ironically only made women worse because by making certain aspects "male" women inversely applied the opposite to femininity such as seduction and underhanded tactics.
Likewise I think you're forgetting just how equally ontologically evil het women are, if men see women as something to conquer and control, trophies by nature, women by nature see men only as walking gene seeds worth nothing more than the storage for labor and raw material input that their bodies hold.
This is a very depressing discussion that requires much of humanity to admit that we are objectively just a evil species at heart and I doubt anyone much less on /leftypol/ is ready for it.

>>2456402
I meant pissing

>>2456411
I'm sorry he pissed everywhere then.

>>2456382
>>2456402
Humanity is vile. That's why I don't generally respect anyone.

>>2456229
>How did we get onto the subject of attracting women? I don't see what that has to do with this discussion, but it is very interesting that you are bringing it up now.
It's the answer to your retarded OP:
<Why is masculinity so important to cishet men?
It is pretty straightforward.
HetMen(masculine) attracted to HetWomen(feminine)
HerWomen(feminine) attracted to HetMen(masculine)
It is the entire reason you exist on this Earth as a sexually dimorphous species.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_sex_characteristic


There is no way you are seriously retarded. You are playing dumb.

>>2456474
Because this is still probably not clear to you.
Your most urgent biological imperative is survival of the body you are in right now. Then, evolutionary, because we are a species that evolved to reproduce through sexual reproduction, your next biggest biological imperative is to sexually reproduce.

Hope that could clear it up a little.

>>2456480
Bro seems to have chosen a thick latina

>>2456203
Masculinity is just being a patriarch which literally means owning a private household. In other words, masculinity is a superstructure associated with the private ownership of land/housing. The extraction of unpaid labor from women rests on urban sprawl which is only a result of cheap post-war credit. The consequent gender war is a result of the gradual reproletarization of the imperial core since the 70s. Basically, men are bourgeois.

>>2456734
>patriarchy was invented in 1945
more brilliant analysis on this website

I think the most succinct explanation is that it's an artifact of the historical warrior role. The contingency of your value as a man on honor or whatever has its origins in whether or not you're a good soldier, and it ties directly into disposability which is supposed to motivate you to live up to the standard lest you be discarded as useless or worse criminal. It's a model of psychological coercion that was figured out millennia ago and the core of it has been mostly preserved because it's useful to a ruling class to manipulate people this way.

It works more for men than for women mostly because of the differences in roles people are assigned. Women have their own standards to live up to, but they are defined more by their ability to do reproductive labor (including biologically). Women aren't threatened so much with losing the status of womanhood as they lose "purity" which ties into the question of reproductive identification and ownership of women as property. Women can't be physically emasculated (at least not easily) the way men can be, so there's not exactly the same threat of being "reduced" to a non-woman the way a man can become a eunuch (literally or metaphorically).

>>2456474
The guy i know who had sex with the most women was fat manlet that was in to anime, for the sole reason he actually approached women
Every "masculine" guy i know that was obsessed with working out, having a beard, their height, their income, their aggression, was using all those things as a cope to not actually approach women and being seen as "creepy" or whatever

>>2456926
The guy I knew had the most was a swole manlet.
>for the sole reason he actually approached women
Similar story. It's hard for a man these days with any sense of shame. There's these things like the tea app and just women putting you up all over social media. That guy I was talking about was homeless. He sometimes grifted a place off women until they kicked him out. He has a kid now, at least one I know of. But being a homeless g/drifter that just hollers at every woman he sees. It's a winning strategy. I've said it again, no matter the odds, it's all about how many times you roll the dice. If rolling the dice costs you nothing, that's just mathematics and statistics and shit. Go take a course.

>>2456751
🙄 I didn't really feel like going into feudal and semi-feudal property/household dynamics.

>>2456203
>Why is masculinity so important to cishet men?
Contrary to what rightoids say, they actually believe there's *three* genders - man, woman and faggot. To be considered insufficently masculine is be placed in the "faggot" catagory. Masculinity will always be a moving shrinking target because reactionary ideology must always have an irredeemable evil "Other" that justifies that reactionary order.
>>2456221
>Some people claim that technology renders this moot, but that's not true. Fighting spirit is paramount.
That exactly what every reactionary from the Confederates to Imperial Japan belived and industry and technology squashed them both. You can have all the fighting spirit you want but it'll do as good of a job helping you in the age of cheap FPV drones as HGH injections and red meat deep-fried in beef tallow.
>>2456218
Gay Misandrist is one of my favorite anons.

The guy I knew that got the most puss was an obese, 4'8" disabled midget in a wheelchair. But he had GAME and confidence.

Masculinity isn't important if you are confident in yourself. That's what women tell me anyways.

>>2456308
You didn't need to insult Dragon Ball.

>>2456968
Keep grinding in the gym and in your wageslave job, im sure eventually a woman will magically materialize in your bed

>>2456382
>Everything is actually the fault of woman, because it's the despicable decisions of woman that make men who they are
>>2456389
>Everything is actually the fault of hetmen, it's they're vile decisions that go on to degrade men as a whole and of which woman go on to largely suffer
The dichotomy of leftypol.

>>2457017
Men and women should both be exterminated

Women are bourgeois and counter-revolutionary, they own the means of reproduction, we live in a dictatorship of the pussy. Incels are the revolutionary vanguard.

>>2456308
>Women (the cishet ones) don't wanna date fruits and femboys because the cishet men drilled it in their heads that dating anyone other than the real life Dragon Ball Z character = LE BAD and LE DEGENERATE.

Most women don't know what the fuck dragon ball z is. Women tend to like tall, muscular men because those traits signal good genetics. What you're attracted to is mostly governed by genetics rather than sociology.

>>2457072
This.
>>2457017
Both are true.

Because it's about the fear of their own mortality, loss of status (versus women) and control (as patriarchs). It's all very Freudian really.
>Uhm it's just hoomin nature
Is an excuse on their part because they can't get themselves to spell out what it's really about.

>>2456402
>This is a very depressing discussion that requires much of humanity to admit that we are objectively just a evil species at heart and I doubt anyone much less on /leftypol/ is ready for it.
>Evil
No, that's religious nonsense. Especially because there's huge chunks of the world who don't feel their lives are meaningless if they can't own their wives like a piece of property.
Homophobic cishet men despise homosexuality because it upends the sexual hierarchy over women.

To explain, you have to understand that in the context of patriarchy, women at the most extreme end are property. And sex as a man, is something you do to a "thing" (the woman). The female orgasm doesn't matter because women aren't people.
By accepting homosexuality, you accept that another man might treat you in the same manner.
Masculinist cultures are deeply androphile and homoromantic, but also ones where sex is about domination.

Another angle is the fact that homosexuality threatens legacy under patrilineality. You being a fag threatens the legacy of your father, your sons being fags threatens your legacy and thus immortality.
Sons of course here are also not simply separable from their own fathers. Note how in many languages and patriarchal cultures names follow the format of "[name] son of [father]". But the mother equivalent of this largely doesn't exist. I for one can't even recall a single example.
Sons are avatars of their fathers. So when your son is a fag, that not only threatens other men, it also negatively reflects upon you. Raising a fag is a failure of the patriarch to control his own family and his offspring. Which can at times only be rectified by killing the son.

>>2457284
why do they need control over people and women?

>>2457301
For the same reason they need control over property, which extends to their families, wives included.
Their economic anxieties are inseparable from their sexual anxieties and their fear of death (including having no legacy upon death). Hence also the frequent obsession with having sons.
You cannot understand these types of reactionary thought without examining their psychosexual underpinnings.

>>2456215
>Saying everything is the fault of capitalists and they were the only ones with agency in capitalism is the ultimate bourgeois viewpoint tho.
Correctly pointing the finger at the booj of gender (moids) isn't the same as saying the proles of gender (women) have no agency you fucking moron.

>>2457317
>the booj of X
not how things work midwit

>>2457317
Weren't women the booj? Since they have the commodity of sex? Thats what I got from "women as sex vendors"

>>2456215
>or if you do you'll say that's the fault of the patriarchy, aka the fault of men, and male gender roles are the fault of the patriarchy, so that's also the fault of men in the end.
Making 3 unfounded assumptions in one sentence is pretty impressive.
>Saying everything is the fault of men and they were the only ones with agency in human history is the ultimate patriarchal viewpoint tho.
On a micro level? No, men didn't solely have agency, with no singular woman acting with such. On a macro level? Men as a generalized whole absolutely were the only ones with agency as a consequence of reproductive labour, the end of matrilineal kinship, and the rise of private property relations which necessitated control over female reproduction. Engels talks about this.

>>2456382
>After the fall of patriarchy when women would rather build everything themselves and get jobs for themselves, women began to choose men for what they always cared about deep down: Pretty faces, big dicks, tall stature. All of which have increased over the past 40 years for a reason.
>In this dating crisis rather than face the music a generation of men went back to the past with the easiest answer being redpill "trad" garbage, ie look to the past for solutions, without realizing those solutions require revoking womens rights to choose. That said a few were smart enough to figure it out though now men more or less know women are incapable of love, which is in fact a spook itself but that is besides the point.
To be blunt, I don't think you've ever talked to or dated a woman in your life.

This is hot take that I don't think many here are willing to accept, but having worked in a male dominated trade, and been around and involved with the conversations both men and woman have behind closed doors with friends, and having been in the kink scene for a hot minute, largely having been intimate with coupled people, I can safely say this: men and woman are way, way less different then people think they are. The primary difference is gender norms and expectations.

>>2456382
>>2456389
>>2456402
>>2457317
>both too controversial and idpol oriented
Yeah, no fucking shit. All they can amount to is moral critiques that fundamentally misunderstand the communist view of class and oppression. They mistakenly treats "men" as a distinct class or economic category, a concept that is alien to communist analysis.

Marxism isn't about feminist programs, it's a class-based program focused on transforming the economic mode of production. The goal is to abolish the system itself, not to blame the personal failings or moral flaws of a subgroup, like men. Even the term "Marxist feminism" is misleading because feminism, by focusing on a group like women, spans all classes. Many larping radfems even mention Kollontai as a feminist, but she wasn't even one. This perspective ignores that women in different class positions have different material interests.

Communism, in contrast, focuses on class as a whole, regardless of whether individuals are male, female, LGBTQ+, or of any race or nationality. Only the class as a whole can abolish the system that generates oppression. Doing so will definitely eliminate the structure that oppress women, but its aim is always defined in terms of class, not gender, so it isn't feminism and doesn't need to adopt feminist frameworks either.

>>2456948
I'll believe that when the effeminate American empire finally wins a war against a traditional masculine culture.

>>2457423
The U.S. military is plenty masculine, but it's not going to make the people in the country you're occupying love you more.

>>2456203
> Even transgender people I have known do not obsess about their gender identity to the level that these cis hetero men do.
thread started off with a false premise

>>2456203
>Even transgender people I have known do not obsess about their gender identity
lol? this is like one of the most basic bitch ass "arguments" against being trans from terfs

>>2456203
Why are non-cishet non-males are so obsessed with masculinity?

>>2457439
Muscles and bravado are not masculinity but it's good for the world the West believes it. Like when Kabul fell and they mocked the "skinny" Taliban men who had never seen a gym before.

>>2457400
>Marxism isn't about feminist programs, it's a class-based program focused on transforming the economic mode of production. The goal is to abolish the system itself, not to blame the personal failings or moral flaws of a subgroup, like men.
I think people tend to lump several things together, but it's pretty undeniable that women's liberation has been central to transforming modern societies, and communist countries have – along with their focus on class in general – also stressed improving women's position in particular, and the relationship of women to work and education, and they didn't see that as contradictory because the oppression of women is structural and material and eliminating it is all part of a broader social aim. You can also watch films from the USSR like "White Sun in the Desert" (good movie) where Red Army troops come across an Islamic warlord's harem of burqa-clad women and they're like WTF

I don't think they used words like "feminism" though since that is more of an identity-based movement.

>>2457452
Muscles are so fucking unnecessary. Beyond basic level of physical activity, it's basically female beauty standards, but on steroids (lol)

>>2457452
>>2457454
Besides, cells have a limited number of divisions built into them, so muscle retards are going to die earlier in their life than a random basement dweller who have never seen a gym

Also, basement dweller is going to have a better skin than a person who works under the sun. Because skin becomes wrinkly and old specifically because of sunlight

Turns out, all common signs of health, according to science, are not healthy at all

>>2457453
Also "Red Detachment of Women" where women "who have suffered a lot" are encouraged by communist military cadre to overthrow evil feudalism. Check it out around 29:00.

>>2457072
Sexual reproduction is an evolutionary mutation, gender is unnatural and against God. Retvrn to the transcendent Gnostic unity of our species or perish alone

>>2457400
>internality of a worm
If you demand workers waste their lives googling random shit to do research to "debate" you on 4chan for "engagement", you might be a LaRouche /r/Destiny class political parasite in the ACP
>They mistakenly treats "men" as a distinct class or economic category
The movie Eyes Wide Shut is a documentary about Jeffrey Epstein's friends and how every woman is a sex object whose goal in life is to groom her daughters

>>2457453
>X country called itself communist and they did Y, ergo, Y is communist
zero critical reasoning skills in this shithole rofl

also you think the world is still the same as a century ago jfc, capital reigns supreme everywhere today and everyone has been reduced into the democratic ideal, the only thing thats left is abolishing class

zero historical materialism thread. You should be asking:
<why is masculinity so important to the bourgeoisie?
<why it is very important for wage slaves to present as valuable workers and must exude traditional slave character in everything they do?
male workers have Stockholm Syndrome cope and take pride in their alienation

Marxists see the superstructure as generated by the mode of production:
During times of hard manual labor, the male worker must be made stoic and unemotional, so political economy of early capitalism can exist and continue to function by disposing and replacing workers with damaged bones and tendons. Porky says "A real man shouldn't complain to others about pain". How many people with chronic pain did Purdue's opioid drug cartel kill and dismiss as "deaths of despair"?

During modern industrial proletarian era…the liberal man is uh…liberal? Sorry I cannot think about such a big topic as masculinity in the 20th century ("new comedy bit: what if a boomer worked at a canning factory in the Midwest" nah its been done before)

During 21st century, the "metrosexual" reflects post-industrial mode of production, like that one Vice hipster fascist guy who had his "Proud Boys" do fascist initiation rituals by chanting the names of corpo breakfast cereals. That's what they want from you: a real man is a moisturized and skincare regimented consumer with lots of credit card debt because you bought a big truck to keep Wall Street afloat

>>2457495
Unity through chopping your dick off

>>2457520
Is the pic outsider art or (regular) reactionary psychosis/psychopathy?
Call it

>>2457499
>also you think the world is still the same as a century ago jfc, capital reigns supreme everywhere today and everyone has been reduced into the democratic ideal, the only thing thats left is abolishing class
The world isn't the west you psued. Your arguments are myopic, this isn't one or the other. Rather, for example, things like the struggle of oppressed minority groups is inherently interelated to the class struggle, as their issues are emergent from the capitalist structure. Communists therefore have always championed emancipatory struggles while basing their analysis on a materialist framework, rather then just telling such groups to not place any focus on the struggles they face. Communists do not go up to say, anti-colonialists, and say "Stop calling yourselves anti-colonialists! Don't you know that colonialism is merely a development out of the embryonic gestation of early capitalism to it's more advanced form now?". Rather they say "I see your struggle, now let me provide the tools to better analyze it."

>>2457534
That's Russian skoptsy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skoptsy

>>2457534
>>2457541
The Skoptsy referred to themselves as the "White Doves" (белые голуби). Their aim was to perfect the individual by eradicating original sin, which they believed had come into the world by the first coitus between Adam and Eve. They believed that human genitals were the true mark of Cain, and that the true message of Jesus Christ included the practice of castration, that Jesus himself had been a castrate, and that his example had been followed by the apostles and the early Christian saints.[5]

They believed that human genitals were a mark of original sin, and that after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve had the halves of the forbidden fruit grafted onto their bodies, forming testicles and breasts. Thus, the removal of these sexual organs restored the Skoptsy to the pristine state before the original sin. The Skoptsy maintained that they were fulfilling Christ's counsel of perfection in Matthew 19:12[note 2] and 18:8–9.[note 3][citation needed]

>>2457541
>>2457543
Jesus.
That's metal
>It reached the peak of its popularity in the early 20th century but was essentially wiped out by the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin
Victims of communism foundation called. I have an idea for their next xeet.

>>2457499
>also you think the world is still the same as a century ago jfc
I didn't say that at all. The world has been transformed pretty fundamentally and IRREVERSIBLY compared to a century ago and the rising up of women is one of the core reasons why and how that happened. This isn't a matter of feminist idpol but the fact that it expanded the labor force (by quite a lot), shifted social relations, family structures… you simply don't have a modern industrial society without the liberation of women, which is why communists were so supportive of it. You don't get to communism without it. Women hold up half the sky and that's shrimple. You can't transform society in the direction of social and economic progress unless half of humanity is free to participate in social production. We're all better off because of it.

Sexual liberation? That's… more of a cultural phenomenon. I think it's good but it doesn't reshape labor and economic structures in the same way. It may be a second-order effect of these changes.

>>2457516
><why is masculinity so important to the bourgeoisie?
It isn't anymore, porky is replacing men in anything that doesn't require life risking labor on an oil rig, and sometimes even that with women. The paygap is already reversed under 30.
Porky doesn't give a fuck about gender, or white supremacy, or any of that nonsense, they just want a workforce to exploit.
>>2457394
>To be blunt, I don't think you've ever talked to or dated a woman in your life.
Worse, I've spoken to many, and all of them have said this, I've had to cover for women friends who were cheating on their boyfriends, I know women better than you however.
>I can safely say this: men and woman are way, way less different then people think they are. The primary difference is gender norms and expectations.
Yes, I will also say that men are also basal animals for the most part, capable of less self control than women, but still driven by looks based material desires. Equally incapable of love but capable of a Stockholm syndrome that resembles it whereas women cannot.
>>2457300
>Homophobic cishet men despise homosexuality because it upends the sexual hierarchy over women.
Materialistically speaking that happened with little to no help from gay men.
>By accepting homosexuality, you accept that another man might treat you in the same manner.
I thought homosexuality was in comparison about mutual orgasm as opposed to the view of sexual procreation.
>Masculinist cultures are deeply androphile and homoromantic, but also ones where sex is about domination.
See above where I explain domination was viewed as the only way to create social order in bronze age nations and the material conditions that made it that way.
I think ironically enough people greatly over estimate the involvement of gays in these discussions, but not bisexuals due to studies showing that 80% of women are bisexual which just reduces the over all dating pool for men even more, it is no wonder most will end up single and old, and if they are lucky so will most women, ideally this will hammer down that love is not real and humans must finally rearrange how we view sexual reproduction and organize it as you would with any other means of production, I believe that organizing humans as tools of labor is going to overall be more beneficial than decommodifying us under some idealist bullshit.

>>2457369
>No, men didn't solely have agency, with no singular woman acting with such. On a macro level? Men as a generalized whole absolutely were the only ones with agency as a consequence of reproductive labour, the end of matrilineal kinship, and the rise of private property relations which necessitated control over female reproduction
>Engels talks about this.
He said a lot of really stupid shit.

Article about performing gender and a trend towards gender differentation:

>Because I’m such a special person, a worldly sophisticate, I just spent a week in France. Arriving in Cassis, a beautiful little city outside Marseilles on the Mediterranean coast, I noticed a few things. One was that I was in the middle of an extremely multicultural situation featuring all sorts of people from all sorts of origins, including French tourists and also Germans and Brits, and many people from various regions of North Africa and the Middle East and South Asia. But I also noticed early on that the clothing and hairstyles weren’t as diverse as the homelands.

>Many of the younger men featured a style I’ll call “golden age Andrew Tate”: a shaved head and a beard. It’s hard to imagine a more direct expression of masculinity as the world now understands it. The gendering of a person with a shaved head and a beard might be ambiguous or questionable deep inside, but as far as the outward signs are concerned, the message could not be clearer: Dude, I’m a dude.

>The style of the young women was just as uniform, though it’s true that many visibly Muslim women still wore head coverings. But I’ve never seen so many sundresses in my life. There were racks of them in the shops and most women were wearing one, often more or less visibly over a bikini. They were favoring luxuriant locks, as well, a kind of modified Kristi Noem: there were few younger women with short hair. Again, one effect is to leave no one in any doubt for a moment about one’s gender: to signal it as definitely and quickly as possible.

>As if to show that southern France isn’t alone, Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce styled themselves more or less in this way for their engagement, the biggest story since World War 2. He had the buzz cut and facial hair, she the sundress of right now. Looking at them in any outfit or no outfit at all, you wouldn’t be in any doubt about Taylor and Travis’s genders. Looking at them as restyled for 2025, it’s hard to imagine a more gender-differentiated couple.

>“Your English teacher and your gym teacher are getting married,” said Taylor on Instagram, and that too is gendered, especially right now, as people assume and assert that a man would only read a novel as a performance to impress women. So the English teacher of now I suppose, is definitely female. And Travis Kelce is some jock. When he gets his gym outfit on, you’ll find that a number of secondary sex characteristics are evident.

>The hyper-verbal genius of female experience has hooked up with the inarticulate hunk. But they play their little roles very consciously; they play at gender differentiation; they’re on a gender play date. And they definitely make it look fun.

>Five years ago, we were in the middle of an extended “trans moment”: many people were exploring trans and genderqueer identities, and many styles on the streets here and there reflected that fact. Five years ago, people who one might have supposed to be male were wearing little dresses and high heels around campus. Fashions on the runways and even at the beach reflected this fluidity. People debated and still debate whether the trans moment was a fad or fashion or an affirmation of deep human identities that were previously concealed. I think it was both, but it was definitely a fashion among other things. You can tell, now that everyone’s restyled.

>The great contemporary thinker Judith Butler is famous for arguing that “gender is a performance”: a matter of the way one dresses and moves in public space. She’s come in for much derision from gender essentialists of the sort who are driving the redifferentiation. The difference between men and women is a biological difference, they say. It’s natural, not a performance at all.

>But whatever the biological situation, gender is among other things a performance, as we can see vividly in Cassis or on Instagram. Maybe you’re naturally biologically female, for example. Okay! Maybe. But in your daytime sundress and nighttime trad-wife lacy flow, you’re also performing gender. If I’m styling as Andrew Tate, I’m trying to leave you no doubt, even echoing the Tate brothers’ misogynist or abusive gender relations. Whatever all these people are doing, they’re performing gender as well.

>A problem with the trans moment was the attempt to “naturalize” trans identities, a move which Butler, for one. must regard with some hostility. The account was that people have a gender identity, m or f, deep inside, which may or may not match their bodies. Then the clothing and hair but also the hormones are supposed to reveal or express one’s authentic identity.

>The way gender gets expressed, however, indicates that this isn’t a plausible account. Through the trans moment, more and more younger people identified as non-binary. I think they were exploring different gender expressions, not merely revealing who they were deep inside.

>This is the best thing about gender: you can put it in play. In various ways it’s sexy, it’s fun, it’s interesting. The ways many non-binary identities are expressed is charming and fascinating, and it opened up new possibilities for fun and art and flirtation and fashion. And right now, the Travis/Taylor style of maximum differentiation is fun and flirtatious too: it seems almost innocent, and also easy: like we’re returned to a familiar vocabulary.

>The problem with the buzzcut/sundress style of trad gender was above all the oppression and objectification of women. The highly-differentiated style was appropriate to patriarchy. And maybe there’s a “re-establish the patriarchy” vibe to the current situation, which coincides with a worldwide rise in right-wing populism. We’re in many ways in a reactionary moment.

>And yet I vibe that Kristi Noem isn’t exactly a traditional wife, and Taylor Swift neither. I don’t think we’ll be able to re-establish the patriarchy.

>One thing that Judith Butler is right about: the sundress/bikini vs beard/shaved head thing isn’t biological. You can tell because it just blossomed fully over the summer. Gender’s very volatile, and is liable to look different next year than this year. It’s a lot about playing dress-up. Now if it stays primarily on the level of play, this could be just another fun moment in the non-stop transformation of gender. But if it’s accompanied by a new transphobia or a serious attempt to restrict the basic rights of women, it’ll be a disaster. Meanwhile, worldly sophisticate that I am, I think it’s okay to play.
https://www.splicetoday.com/pop-culture/our-moment-of-gender-redifferentiation

>>2457300
Based I will destroy the past by being gay

>>2458462
Judith Butler: man is wearing pants and woman is wearing dresses

I'm realizing that a lot of women, namely cisgender heterosexual women, have a very strong emotional attachment to their gender identity and it is very important to them to present as women and exude traditional feminine characteristics in everything they do, to the point where everything they think and perceive is through the lens of femininity. Even transgender people I have known do not obsess about their gender identity to the level that these cis women men do. Why is that? Why is it so important to them?

>>2458661
Technologies designed around the social division of labor will reflect the social division of labor, communism is not a movement to achieve whatever seemed rational to the bourgeoisie, Marx was always significantly more perceptive than Engels and that is why MLs rest of Engels and not on him

>>2458684
*will reproduce the social division of labor

>>2457795
From an evopsyche perspective homophobia makes no sense because gay men are not a reproductive threat to virile men. The threat exists only in a specific social context.

Bisexuality in women also isn't socially threatening, because for much of human history women were expected to be loyal wives or at least pretend. There wasn't much "choice" in the matter the way it exists today.
Likewise in the context of Bronze age other pre-modern cultures, male homosexuality was mostly tolerated only insofar as homosexual men were married to women, with or without actually being bisexual, and they either had sex with men in secret, or only members of an outgroup lower in status than them.
Homosexuality was less taboo under the caliphates, when slavery was common, than it is in the modern Islamic world. The end of slavery, including sexual slavery in the Roman Empire also coincided with growing intolerance of homosexuality. That's not to say however that homophobia cannot co-exist with slavery.
Another overlooked point is that that places like Ancient Rome also had a tradition of adoption, with patriarchs of these elite families adopting sons to continue their legacy. Which also makes homosexuality less of a social threat. Note also how taboos against homosexuality are vanishingly rare in "hunter-gatherer" and semi-agricultural/nomadic cultures. But also frequently occur in the context of nomadic cultures, specifically those with with partilinearity. Where, like in agriculture cultures, the question of inheritance of property (including land) and continuing one's lineage (including as a clan or tribe) is much more important.

>>2459124
homophobia is retarded but
>From an evopsyche perspective
LOL

>>2459127
Oh I dislike evopsyche, but what I'm getting at is that the often repeated idea that disgust for homosexuality is somehow evolutionary ingrained makes no sense even from this "evopsyche" perspective. It's self-contradictory, because homosexual men are not a threat a heterosexual man's ability to reproduce. It's a fancier way of saying "hoomin nature", which in turn is a way to absolve oneself of actually examining the real reasons for their attitudes and behaviors. Same goes for appeals to "god" and "tradition".

Cause it's their identity! Psychology aside people attempt to distinguish themselves, have to distinguish themselves in an age of interchangable wage labour. And this results in people giving existential meaning to their Being. This manifests as masculinity for men, but for trans people its their identity as TGD individuals, for black people its their identity as black folks, etc etc. This is the age of identity

>>2456215
>the fault of the patriarchy, aka the fault of men
someone confusing systems with individuals again

patriarchy =/= men

in fact I would argue that patriarchy hurts most men in the long run

>>2457025
>And I'll be called stunning and brave for it because I'm the only one out here giving prisoners a job.
we got a job creator folks

>>2459144
What makes it patriarchy?

>>2456203
It's not that complicated. Everybody is insecure and trying to fit in some mold in the digital era. Young men are just louder, as they always have been. To be fair, I don't if is not even that difficult nowadays. I mean, my uncle drag me to a whorehouse to prove that I was a "man" back in the day. Taking pictures with guns and beer is pretty mild.
>>2456389
Because they are stronger. Most women don't have the strength and drive that testo gives you to kill somebody you dislike. If you inverted the material conditions the gender ones would follow it.

>>2459168
>It's not that complicated. Everybody is insecure and trying to fit in some mold in the digital era. Young men are just louder, as they always have been
Are they tho? Or is it more that everyone is louder about them? All this MRA shit was always framed as a "male version of feminism." I definitely have heard much more from women and their male feminist supporters than I've ever heard from their opposite, it's just that anytime some men try and copy their stupid antics it's like the biggest scandal ever, whereas it's generally accepted everywhere to do the female chauvinism.

>>2457454
>>2457457
Not sure if bait or retardation.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30427277/

>>2459189
C'mom, you and me both know what the third kind of post is. Just like I knew some gay guys in college who tried to seduce straight colleagues saying that women are shit (but I can be your best friend with a hole!) a lot of radfems are lesbians trying to convince young traumatized girls that men are evil by nature but womanhood is special and blablabla. A lot of people we judge stupid are just manipulators.

>>2459198
Yeah alright, I'm just saying, in my experience, IRL, women are much more vocal about their identity as a woman. In fact most of the men I know would only talk about some chivalric type BS when it comes to their identity as a man.

>A lot of people we judge stupid are just manipulators.
I agree, the tate, the manosphere, the whatever, I think they exist because so much stuff nowadays is kind of specifically anti-male identity or whatever. Like this so-called feminism which they take to both extremes:
>Women can do anything just as well as any man!
<But of course women are inherently more empathetic, and cooperative, and sugar, and spice, and everything nice.

It's the classic have your cake and eat it too thing. Every identity group wants to get rid of all the negative stereotypes about themselves, but keep all the good ones.
<Nooo you can't say Jews are greedy, cunning, tricky, duplicitous
>But you can say that Jews are very hyper-intelligent and creative, and academically accomplished.


But anyways, getting away from the point, that was, in my lifetime, where I grew up, I feel I've heard a lot more of this identity stuff from women.

>>2459168
> I mean, my uncle drag me to a whorehouse to prove that I was a "man" back in the day.
I guess it depends where and how old you are.

>>2456211
great post, if only >>2456215 didnt have such a short attention span theyd have their answer

You know if someone made this thread about women it would be banned and deleted in like 5 minutes.

Just make all the straight moids gay. If they refuse to be gay, force them. If they resist, kill them. A good chunk of cisheteroids are reppers actually.

>>2459245
Why are you people like this?

>>2459248
Who's "you people"? It's just me.
Why shouldn't we be like this? The queers must bash back. Cishetero tyranny must be destroyed. Cishets should be forced into re-evaluating their identity and if they still remain cisheteroids, they should be killed or at least isolated from the queer utopia.

Some of you guys actually fret over your masculinity or the masculinity of society?
Gender expectations change over time. Worrying about this shit seems reactionary.
Hell, what does it even “feel like” to be a man?
All I’ve ever felt like was me.

>>2456474
>your next biggest biological imperative is to sexually reproduce.
Speak for yourself, hetboy.

>>2459257
Bro you've made like 20 posts about how every "hetmoid" is obsessed with your strawman. Why are you so obsessed? Maybe that would be a more practical question to ask yourself.

>>2459262
I am not whoever you’re complaining about.

>>2459264
Ok you're just the guy seriously taking the retard's bait then, my bad.

>>2459257
Congrats on not being the schizo's strawman. That's quite an accomplishment.

Probably for the same reason trans people want to be seen as their chosen gender and go through a crisis if they aren't.

>>2457795
>Worse, I've spoken to many, and all of them have said this, I've had to cover for women friends who were cheating on their boyfriends, I know women better than you however.
<Another anon that is surrounded by terrible friends, yet "coincidentally" isn't another terrible one, and thinks their experience is shared by everyone else
I've had woman around me all my life, whether it be family, platonic friends, or partners, and I've never had to do this and would never do this lol. Honestly, you just sound like a bad person who orbits and covers for bad people, who the fuck would ever do this that wasn't?
>Yes, I will also say that men are also basal animals for the most part, capable of less self control than women, but still driven by looks based material desires. Equally incapable of love but capable of a Stockholm syndrome that resembles it whereas women cannot.
This is why I doubt you having many woman in your life, because holy shit, lots of woman are ground zero for stockholm syndrome in relationships. I literally had a conversation not even a week ago with someone that I had to be blunt to (more so then normal) about getting her shit together and just being some pityable person, because her whole rhetoric about her partner (that isn't even with her at this point) was that "oh he's such a caring nerdy guy and I love how he has hobbies and all I want to do is make him feel good, but it hurts so much when he drinks and plays WoW all night and uses me like a mother and drunkenly calls me slurs. But he's not a bad guy! He's just got issues and baggage from his family, and I'm not perfect either, I just don't know why I'm not good enough to make him want to be better after all I do." Like, plenty of woman are complete anxious attachment trainwrecks that will obsess over the idea of love and how that equals sacrifice for their partner, even when their partner has almost no conventionally attractive qualities in either appearance, hygiene, or action. Men can too, I definitely had my own anxious attachment issues way back, but for woman its way more normalized. I agree though that woman have just as many failings as men, but that should temper and ground your view of them, not make you come to the conclusion that "they are incapable of love" lol.
>Porky doesn't give a fuck about gender, or white supremacy, or any of that nonsense, they just want a workforce to exploit.
<ideally this will hammer down that love is not real and humans must finally rearrange how we view sexual reproduction and organize it as you would with any other means of production, I believe that organizing humans as tools of labor is going to overall be more beneficial than decommodifying us under some idealist bullshit.
If you're not in favor of the division of labour and believe that "decommodifying" people is "idealist bullshit", you're not a Marxist and I don't understand why you are even here.

>>2459370
>Woman goes out of her way to defend abusechad while ignoring, and even being disguested, by every guy that isnt a sociopath
How is this supposed to disprove anything incels say?

Man who gives le shit. In communism there will be le chads and le incels. Le incel theses are UNDEFEATED, okay?

>>2459453
>Woman goes out of her way to defend abusechad while ignoring, and even being disguested, by every guy that isnt a sociopath
She isn't disgusted by non-sociopaths at all though, that's the thing, and I don't think someone who hasn't been anxiously attached before can fully understand. Her ideal is when they first met and he wasn't "that way". She just stays around out of some socially informed view of obligation and sacrifice. The dude isn't "Chad" looking at all, she just had some crazy baggage about trying to fix her own families issues, which you then realize talking to or having relationships with a lot of woman, most woman have. Anxiously attached men will do this to, there's just (on average) less anxiously attached men out there and men tend to deal with direct spousal abuse (statistically) less often. I'll also say, a lot of guys (some woman too) do fake who they are when they first meet someone and then drop it when they know they've integrated themselves into someones life.
>How is this supposed to disprove anything incels say?
Because it isn't "men get stockholm syndrome pretending to be in love, while woman are incapable of love outright". It's that both men and woman are capable of it, it's just both a lot of socially informed and trauma based failings.

>>2459486
To give a male example, when I was a stupidly anxiously attached person, even if it was possible for me to be physically attracted to other people, I'd still remain steadfast with my partner, even if it was obvious I wasn't fully happy with things. The obligation and the sense of being there for them, and by extension subconsciously feeling useful yourself, makes the sacrifice and "fawning" behavior more worth it then the pain of that could come from leaving, both from them or yourself. For me, it probably came from being the oldest and trying to keep my family together, but for woman, you begin to understand that the need to be some kind of stay at home therapist is just whats socially expected, even at a young age.

>>2459525
*keep my family together as a child

>>2459489
Holy shit, i didnt know it was possible to be so ugly 🤢

>>2459489
Holy shit, i didnt know it was possible to be so beautiful 🥴

>>2459489
Holy shit, I didn't know it was possible to be so average 😐

Get em out, fellas

>>2456389
Yet another TRVTHNVKE wrote by the gay misandrist

>>2459370
>I've had woman around me all my life, whether it be family, platonic friends, or partners, and I've never had to do this and would never do this lol. Honestly, you just sound like a bad person who orbits and covers for bad people, who the fuck would ever do this that wasn't?
Moralist ad hominem.
Also he was abusive towards her so fuck him.
>Words words words words words words about how much I love Chad.
I'm sorry he's a manchild or good for you for finding love, but this does absolutely nothing to solve the crisis billions of men are going through, your evidence is anecdotal at best and cannot prove what it viewed as a majority per capita.
>If you're not in favor of the division of labour and believe that "decommodifying" people is "idealist bullshit", you're not a Marxist and I don't understand why you are even here.
I'm an unorthodox Marxist, and so are you, I guarantee it, where I diverge from Marx and Engels is that they were still too idealist towards me, too humanist despite it all, I believe humans need to be policed a lot more, that you cannot decommodify them even if you tried, and that fundamentally you need to seize them to manage them without trying to extract profit value.
Why are you an unorthox Marxist?
Because unless you agree Child Labor is not a problem and that genocide is ok under certain conditions (both things they said) you'll disagree with them, the difference is I am pragmatic. You are utopian.

>>2460137
>Moralist ad hominem.
Dude, how is it a "moralist ad hominem" to say that having friends that cheat and being the type of person who covers up for cheating likely means you have a warped experience and that you yourself probably aren't a decent person?
>Also he was abusive towards her so fuck him.
Definitely bored the lead there.
>Words words words words words words
I guess it was my mistake to expect you to read
>I'm sorry he's a manchild or good for you for finding love, but this does absolutely nothing to solve the crisis billions of men are going through, your evidence is anecdotal at best and cannot prove what it viewed as a majority per capita.
I don't understand what you're trying to say at the beginning here, but the "men loneliness" crisis has less to do with woman and more to do with a complete lack of socialization, even between men, and the atomization of society, as well as a lack of stability for both men and woman. Statistically, both men and woman report loneliness at around the same rate as well, so it isn't just men either, we can see this all across society.
>I'm an unorthodox Marxist, and so are you, I guarantee it,
I don't think you know what "unorthodox" and "Orthodox" means in regards to Marx.
>where I diverge from Marx and Engels is that they were still too idealist towards me, too humanist despite it all, I believe humans need to be policed a lot more, that you cannot decommodify them even if you tried, and that fundamentally you need to seize them to manage them without trying to extract profit value.
Then you aren't a Marxist, flat out. If you are in favor of the commodification of people and by extension their labour, you go against the fundamental principles, analysis, and conclusions of Marx.
>Why are you an unorthox Marxist? Because unless you agree Child Labor is not a problem and that genocide is ok under certain conditions (both things they said) you'll disagree with them, the difference is I am pragmatic. You are utopian.
Marxism is a living science, I am not some kind of blind dogmatist that takes text as articles of faith. But there is a difference in developing Marx and using modern historical study and sociology to apply a critical reading of what he said, and literally rejecting the essential core of Marxism. It would be no different then a bourgeois classical economist saying that labour plays no role in the creation of capital, its a complete rejection of the school of thought. This isn't some external point which upon further scientific study and social evaluation, we come to better understanding and recognize it's faults, like say child labour and genocide. It's a flat out discarding of Marx and an adoption of what is effectively a crass form of lasselllism, which is utopian. I also don't think understand what "utopian" and "pragmatic" mean in a Marxist context either, but nothing I have stated, and nothing about Marx's core analysis, is "utopian" in the slightest. And even using "pragmatic" in the most colloquial sense, your plan strays far from anything sustainable or "practical". Of commodification of people and their labour would lead us exactly to where we are now.

>>2460555
>Statistically, both men and woman report loneliness at around the same rate as well, so it isn't just men either, we can see this all across society.
<When looking at age and gender together, 63% of men under 30 describe themselves as single, compared with 34% of women in the same age group. Younger men are also far more likely than older men to be single – a pattern that is not as straightforward among women.
Pew Research Center 2023.
>If you are in favor of the commodification of people and by extension their labour, you go against the fundamental principles, analysis, and conclusions of Marx.
Humans are labor tools and always will be, you cannot destroy the concept of labor but you can ensure it is not used for value extraction and profit.
I use Marx's analysis and systems.
>I am not some kind of blind dogmatist that takes text as articles of faith
Stopped reading right there, legitimately just stopped reading right there.
You agree with me, and I accept your concession. Thank you and good bye, you suck your Chad boyfriends dick while he plays World of Warcraft or something.

Also
>Inb4 offense is taken at "you go suck your Chad boyfriends dick while he plays World of Warcraft or something."
This is a neutral compliment, happy for you like I said, or I'm sorry he's a manchild, don't know don't care, but go do it instead of fighting arguments that are clearly statistically against you and just go enjoy having sex because you can, a privilege most men nowadays will never know. For the record though going
>Alienation affects us all!
Outside of maybe global averages in places like Muslim African and Indian nations in comparison, but in the first world in specific, is like declaring racism affects all peoples in the USA during the 50s because white people get called cracker in response to beating a black man who was falsely accused by a white woman.
Get out.

>>2460704
<When looking at age and gender together, 63% of men under 30 describe themselves as single, compared with 34% of women in the same age group. Younger men are also far more likely than older men to be single – a pattern that is not as straightforward among women.
Really not that much of a gap (a 24% difference), but I was referring to studies regarding lonliness, which puts men and woman close to each other.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1420227/loneliness-among-adults-us-by-gender/
Also, see the study above.
>Humans are labor tools and always will be, you cannot destroy the concept of labor but you can ensure it is not used for value extraction and profit.
Humans are not "labour tools", rather they are creatures with the capacity for creative labour. Marx goes into this when he attempts to explore our "species-essense", that is to say socially contentexual and emergent "being" that differs from the prior idealistic liberal narrative of an inflexible and eternal "human nature". It is only through primitive accumulation and the division of labour that man begins to the embryonic steps of seeing himself as a "tool" of labour, upon which he must overspecialize himself to fit himself into the role of, as opposed to a human actor which socially engages in labour.
>I use Marx's analysis and systems.
No, you don't.
>Stopped reading right there, legitimately just stopped reading right there.
This is childish, if you've really read Marx, you can read a short paragraph that gives context.
>You agree with me, and I accept your concession.
I don't though, so read further.
>Thank you and good bye, you suck your Chad boyfriends dick while he plays World of Warcraft or something.
I don't understand, I don't have a boyfriend, I used that as an example of someone I knew (who really wasn't "chadlike" in any way from my standards). I'm heteroflexible, but all of my partners, causal or otherwise, have been woman. I'm a solo person.
>>2460710
something."
>This is a neutral compliment, happy for you like I said, or I'm sorry he's a manchild, don't know don't care, but go do it instead of fighting arguments that are clearly statistically against you and just go enjoy having sex because you can,
Again, not a woman, or the woman in the example. This is why reading comprehension is important. I don't see how the statistics are against me, I pointed out where my stats come from and what I was referring to.
>a privilege most men nowadays will never know.
Sex isn't the same as not being lonely, same as having a partner. And I'm a 5' 8" mixed race man in the states. I've had sex with multiple woman, many in the scene (but not all) so while you may think it's biased, I don't think most men "will never know", especially if they take the time to resist the trend of isolating themselves.
>For the record though going "Alienation affects us all!" Outside of maybe global averages in places like Muslim African and Indian nations in comparison, but in the first world in specific, is like declaring racism affects all peoples in the USA during the 50s because white people get called cracker in response to beating a black man who was falsely accused by a white woman.
Alienation does affect us all, it's an undeniable facet of capitalism, either in our labour or social relations. Woman are not exempt from this. And this is a completely absurd and crass example, it's not like racism at all and saying so dimishes the seriousness of ethnic oppression and colonially informed racism across the world. Men not having sex or feeling lonely isn't equivalent to someone having their head caved in, having ansystem of laws made against them, having to deal with racial emotional abuse on daily basis. To put relationships on this absurd pedestal is like one step away from trying to compare men not having sex with actual physical abuse.
>Get out.
No, how about you grow up despite likely being older then me. It's pathetic.

>>2461233
>Again, not a woman, or the woman in the example. This is why reading comprehension is important. I don't see how the statistics are against me, I pointed out where my stats come from and what I was referring to.
Nothing in my post implied you were.
>Sex isn't the same as not being lonely, same as having a partner. And I'm a 5' 8" mixed race man in the states.
But it correlates.
>I don't though, so read further.
But you did. You said
>I am not some kind of blind dogmatist that takes text as articles of faith.
If you disagree with Marx and Engels on a handful of things I'm sorry to tell you that you probably wouldn't be seen as their compatriots and they'd admit it, the difference is I admit it too.
>Read the context.
I did, and you missed the points Marx and Engels were making completely. These aren't just "This isn't some external point which upon further scientific study and social evaluation, we come to better understanding and recognize it's faults," they're anti moralist and anti ethical consumerist stances that by discarding you are also discarding core tenets of Marxism.
>Men not having sex or feeling lonely isn't equivalent to someone having their head caved in, having ansystem of laws made against them, having to deal with racial emotional abuse on daily basis. To put relationships on this absurd pedestal is like one step away from trying to compare men not having sex with actual physical abuse.
In many cases it absolutely is, leading to suicide, but also direct attacks on men for trying to ask women out.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/assumption-university-catch-a-predator-case/story?id=117754960
Men aren't joking when they say they don't ask women out anymore because if they do they go "Pigs come here and crack this uyghurs skull open for breaking the law of being a sub 5 and talking to me" and then that is exactly what happens.
Women and false accusations leading to imprisonment or death is just a taste of what they could do.
Women could straight up holocaust men they just don't because they view us as garbage who pose no threat at the moment.
>And I'm a 5' 8" mixed race man in the states. I've had sex with multiple woman, many in the scene (but not all) so while you may think it's biased,
Wozers, Chad fucking his Chad boyfriend, but I don't remember asking, I could tell from your cope posts, albeit from using Marxist terms to mask it, that you just want to deny the reality of modern class inversion.
Alienation affects everyone, but it doesn't affect at the same rates, not at all.
>Study which puts men and women close to each other
>2021 study
Literally at the peak of Covid, but more over men probably voted less lonely because they had adapted better to more isolated lives while women are used to social networks which their own privilege plays against them.
As for your other study understand you gave me 40 pages and yet the moderators in Manchester admit that there is variety in the participants.
No shit that older women are going to skew things, and frankly older men for that matter, older men will be more quiet, while older women are materially more lonely, actually so. Up to 50% of them end up divorced or widowed in their 50s.
And yet somehow even with that
>Although the
size of the overall effect is small, it is statistically significant at the .05 significance level, p =
.005, suggesting that males are slightly lonelier than females.
Now that aside and this is more important in my opinion:
When we speak of alienation here we speak of material conditions. You linked me a non Marxist study.
Things like "How many friends, supportive people, lovers, how confident are you in a support net, that you could count on someone if you lost your job, etc" are all things that matter exponentially more than self reporting for a statistic.
And when you look at modern first world women, there is a reason it's ok to still insult white women today and be as openly racist towards them as possible:
They are the least alienated group of people in human history.
They're inverting the gender pay gap, soon they'll be the dominant earners.
First world women are anything but alienated. In fact their loneliness comes from privilege. It is not toiling under capitalism that has brought it to them it is the entitlement to Chad and ignoring the existing means of reproduction in front of them that leads to their loneliness.
Now you can argue that this stems from alienation of Gattungswesen, but it still would have to admit that they have the feelings, regardless of where they came from of deep bourgeois entitlement to the best for themselves.
And so to you my friend I rather, ask what then is your solution?
Because Engels likewise thinks destroying capitalism will improve the dating market, but if alienation only enables the worst of humanity, then how can you trust a infected species to leave behind those notions?
I guarantee you they'll just want hot labor Chad over rich slave owning Chad if that happens.
Because again you misunderstand.
We're not talking about some self reported survey asking "Do you feel lonely? Yes :( or No:) ?"
We're talking about material conditions and every single one is reporting more and more that society is turning from a patriarchal capitalist one to matriarchal capitalist one, and if history tells us one thing well, men are never as king when it comes to gender liberation as women are. In fact I'll go as far as to agree with radfems. Men are very violent when it comes to getting their fair share. Every day it gets worse, and it's less of a "When" and a more "How much more can they take before they make bronze age patriarchy look like a joke?"
Tick tock tick tock tick tock…

Also please excuse my constant use of "Means of reproduction" that's just a funny way of saying other humans.
Even as based China once again saves this shithole of a species, we have to also admit that a lot of like you said too, what many men want isn't just a womb and pussy. It's another human. Other humans.
A community. Someone to love.
So that is becoming less and less of a part of it.
And Marx and Engels solution is that capitalism ending will somehow let true love reign, but this is what I always found utopian in The Origin, Engels go into such rich detail about how all of human history is more of a sham than we think.
Yet we're still foolish enough to believe in love.
From birth we promise all women Chad princes, and boys princesses in western capitalist propaganda films like Cinderella.
I think that we are seeing that trying to believe we can achieve these goals are idealist, it's as impossible as equality, which if Marx denounced equality, why not community? Why not love?
No I don't even think that enslaving women would do much good, what would it? Forcing them to date men they hate again?
I think in order to avoid all this in the future, we need to set up a harsh statist socialist state that believes in anti love, and raises all artificial womb born babies in state communal raising centers discouraging love. With me as the dictator of course.
Sort of like the "loners" in the Lobster if they had succeeded in their rebellion and banned all love.
I've seen too many people destroy their lives from love. Me and so many others suffered from this brain washing. So many have walked into abusive relationships just to chase it.
No truly rational creature would ever acknowledge that they are animals, and yet allow their animal natures to thrive.
I know this makes me sound like some Disney Dreamworks villain who wants to enact some outlandish plan, but that's what they say about every dreamer.
The saddest part this is the best option you'll get.
Either women will dominate or men will, the only way to prevent class warfare between sexes is to destroy the system completely. We need to kill love.
Tis better to have never loved than to have loved than to have loved at all.

>>2461453
Sounds reasonable. Maybe humanity should just die out instead

>>2461455
Yeah probably

>>2461453
You need to industrialize domestic labor. Then romance will fade away like any other religion.

>>2461432
>But it correlates.
Sex doesn't correlate much, only relationships do. And only because of there being direct social interaction, those people who also possessed involved community social interactions also reported similar levels of being less lonely. Getting into a relationship out of loneliness also does not guarantee (and anecdotally more over leads to) the relationship lasting in any long term way.
>If you disagree with Marx and Engels on a handful of things I'm sorry to tell you that you probably wouldn't be seen as their compatriots and they'd admit it, the difference is I admit it too.
And your basis for this? Marc and Engels had multiple compatriots that they didn't agree with everything on, and Marx is clear the preamble to Capital I that his theory isn't static and will have to be built upon. The issue is that you don't build upon it, rip the very core out of it and try and puppet the corpse.
>I did, and you missed the points Marx and Engels were making completely. These aren't just "This isn't some external point which upon further scientific study and social evaluation, we come to better understanding and recognize it's faults," they're anti moralist and anti ethical consumerist stances that by discarding you are also discarding core tenets of Marxism.
They aren't though? What core tenet specifically am I discarding? And be specific. Marx himself retracted much of his views regarding colonialism later in life, is he now discarding his own "core tenet", or just building on his analysis in way that he understood as incomplete?
>In many cases it absolutely is, leading to suicide, but also direct attacks on men for trying to ask women out.
>https://abcnews.go.com/US/assumption-university-catch-a-predator-case/story?id=117754960
This is clout based "pedophile hysteria", not an example of men getting attacked for asking woman out. Men not having sex isn't equivalent to physical abuse, someone having bodily autonomy isn't the same as someone violating it.
>Men aren't joking when they say they don't ask women out anymore because if they do they go "Pigs come here and crack this uyghurs skull open for breaking the law of being a sub 5 and talking to me" and then that is exactly what happens.
Give me statistics, this practically never happens and you have to be incredibly sheltered to believe so. When men don't ask woman out, it's more out of shame from their peers witnessing it and a fear of rejection. It's the same reason you might not ask a question that may have an answer you don't like.
>Women and false accusations leading to imprisonment or death is just a taste of what they could do.
Does it happen? Sure. Is it extremely common? No, especially compared to other crimes, and especially among white men. The vast majority of false accusations isn't all woman vs all men, the vast majority with consequences is white woman and black men, for obvious reasons related to racism and how media portrays black men.
>Women could straight up holocaust men they just don't because they view us as garbage who pose no threat at the moment.
Bro, the only way woman could "Holocaust" men would be through men. It's men largely enforcing men at the end of the day. Also this is hysterical and pathological, it's like saying minorites in the US could rise up any day now and start killing white person because they have a theoretical numerical capicity to, but don't because they don't see whites as a big enough treat yet. It implies that that's a thing non-whites would even want to do, its absurd. And even then, men make up the majority of female sexual abuse and murders, so if there was any kind of "Casus Belli" to be had in your fantasy world, it's already here. Yet woman don't. If anything, woman are weirdly more tolerable (likely because of social factor and pressures) then men in regards to solutions, because while there may be some small amount that go "kill all men", the vast majority go "Men should go to therapy, they need help, we need to have classes to teach sensitivity and not be toxic in how they practice their masculinity blu blu blu :'(". If a lot of current men were treated the same way, you would have men calling out for blood.
>Wozers, Chad fucking his Chad boyfriend, but I don't remember asking, I could tell from your cope posts, albeit from using Marxist terms to mask it, that you just want to deny the reality of modern class inversion.
The bourgeoisie are still the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat the proletariat, so I'm not seeing any class inversion in the modern day. Sexes aren't classes. Also, why the continued mention of boyfriend? Is it meant as an insult? What's wrong with being gay anyway?
>Alienation affects everyone, but it doesn't affect at the same rates, not at all.
I think it does, but it just does so in different ways, due to us living in a patriarchally informed society. The disintegration of third places as well as how men are expected to act in the role of being a "man" creates a difficult path for men to make deep bonds with other men that aren't done through the medium of some external activity. Making social bonds in a shared hobby is easy, but without any IRL hobbies, men are forced to try and make friends by directly talking and asking to be friends. That isn't how men are conditioned however.
>As for your other study understand you gave me 40 pages and yet the moderators in Manchester admit that there is variety in the participants.
Of course there is variety? That's how studies on populations work, they go into more detail in the study as well.
>No shit that older women are going to skew things, and frankly older men for that matter, older men will be more quiet, while older women are materially more lonely, actually so. Up to 50% of them end up divorced or widowed in their 50s.
How is this a counter argument? It's largely an assumption regarding the study, you don't have actual basis to state that the only reason is that older men don't report (in a study that specifically asked people) and older woman skew.
>size of the overall effect is small, it is statistically significant at the .05 significance level, p =
.005, suggesting that males are slightly lonelier than females.
I said close, not a perfect 50-50. This is a petty thing to bring up.
>Now that aside and this is more important in my opinion:
When we speak of alienation here we speak of material conditions. You linked me a non Marxist study.
When we speak of alienation, we speak of multiple forms, whether it be alienation from ones labour and what one creates, and alienation from self and from others. These derive from the material conditions of capital. Whether this is a non-marxist study is unimportant, because it contains information regarding what seems to be an alienation from others. The study doesn't need to be marxist to use it for Marxist means, like how Cockshott might use publically available data regarding labour time and production to help with his proof of the LTV.
>Things like "How many friends, supportive people, lovers, how confident are you in a support net, that you could count on someone if you lost your job, etc" are all things that matter exponentially more than self reporting for a statistic.
Absolutely, and have studies that ask that.
>And when you look at modern first world women, there is a reason it's ok to still insult white women today and be as openly racist towards them as possible:
Huh? Where do white woman face racism? The worst white woman get are snide jokes, usually made by white woman. They don't face the same actually open racism non-white woman face on sometimes a daily basis.
>They are the least alienated group of people in human history.
We are talking about woman in general, not white woman. Alienation is not the same a privilege, which white woman undeniably have. They can get away with there whiteness being mocked by the less privileged, because in the end there is little affect on their actual conditions.
>They're inverting the gender pay gap, soon they'll be the dominant earners.
Bruh, where? Show me stats. Younger woman may now be going into jobs that in the current capitalist market pays better, but I have seen no proof of men as a statistical while showing any trend of being on the "other side" of the pay gap.
>First world women are anything but alienated.
Stop conflating first world woman with first world white woman, you know what you're doing. And they are, it's unavoidable.
>In fact their loneliness comes from privilege. It is not toiling under capitalism that has brought it to them it
It has, woman work in factories, in kitchens, in fields, as cleaners, as retail workers, etc. All these jobs, as with many, entail alienation.
>is the entitlement to Chad and ignoring the existing means of reproduction in front of them that leads to their loneliness.
You have issues. Let me ask you this, because you think I'm some great Chad. Would you expect me to say yes to someone and have sex, maybe even a relationship with them, even if I'm not attracted to them, simply because I'm lonely? No, that would be pathetic and pityable, a diservice to both of us. I would be with her only because I want to dull my own feelings and have her as a crutch, and she would have to live her life knowing that I'm not actually attracted to her and only using her physically to satisfy myself emotionally. Is that the world you want? Where all woman just get with people they don't like, that they cannot feel emotional and sexual attraction to, and just tolerate it while the men know they are just being used to get over loneliness? That's a complete pathetic state of affairs for both.
>Now you can argue that this stems from alienation of Gattungswesen,
Yes!
>but it still would have to admit that they have the feelings, regardless of where they came from of deep bourgeois entitlement to the best for themselves.
We are all socially shaped by our environment, sometimes in ways we are unaware. Do I pretend that relationship and our feelings about them aren't in some way affected by capitalism? No, but I don't prescribe then that relationship and love is itself capitalistic. These things preceded capital as a whole.
>And so to you my friend I rather, ask what then is your solution?
Fighting against capitalism, constructing third spaces as an offset to the enclosing walls of private business, and fostering a mutual sense of community among all of us.
>Because Engels likewise thinks destroying capitalism will improve the dating market, but if alienation only enables the worst of humanity, then how can you trust a infected species to leave behind those notions?
Because we aren't static permanently "infected" creatures? This is like asking how can the proletariat in the USSR be trusted to perpetuate the revolution when they lived in pseudo-feudal realtions for so long? People are always in flux, we are always in a state of change. We both act upon on the fire, and the fire acts upon us.
>I guarantee you they'll just want hot labor Chad over rich slave owning Chad if that happens.
Can you guarantee this? I cannot. Standards change, people change. The people half a century ago would likely recoil at what we find attractive now.
>We're not talking about some self reported survey asking "Do you feel lonely? Yes :( or No:) ?"
Self reporting is always but one part, but you have to do it to get any meaningful data.
>We're talking about material conditions and every single one is reporting more and more that society is turning from a patriarchal capitalist one to matriarchal capitalist one,
Where? Show me your basis for this, because I'm actually in a stereotypically working class job, and this 100% not the case. We still live in what is fundamentally a patriarchal society, and until you show me a society in which woman compete for men and use them to show off their womanhood to other woman, and men are largely the ones having to manage reproductive labour in the family and take a passive/supportive role in social affairs, we're still going to be in one.
>and if history tells us one thing well, men are never as king when it comes to gender liberation as women are. In fact I'll go as far as to agree with radfems. Men are very violent when it comes to getting their fair share. Every day it gets worse, and it's less of a "When" and a more "How much more can they take before they make bronze age patriarchy look like a joke?"
>Tick tock tick tock tick tock…
Edgy. In my view, gender liberation help both sexes, but if you think men are inherently patriarchal and can't except gender liberation, I think you hate men and have more self loathing then you could ever accuse me of having.

>>2461453
>Also please excuse my constant use of "Means of reproduction" that's just a funny way of saying other humans.
Idk, tells me a lot that you only see humans as being a means of reproduction.
>Either women will dominate or men will, the only way to prevent class warfare between sexes is to destroy the system completely. We need to kill love.
I'm not going to respond to every part of this idealistic self-absorbed fantasy that drags and misuses both Marx and Engels to try and rationalize his misanthropic view of humanity, but this kind of encapsulates why I loathe your view of people. I don't throw this around lightly, but it unironcially stinks of the same cancerous and sludge ridden view of humanity that "civic" fascists share. Where history is about one person dominating another, of groups, of sexes and ethnicities, engaging in a perpetual and eternal struggle of social domination, of which no consensus can ever be reached or desired. We cannot cohabitate, and the only way to possibly ensure stability is the creation of an eternal state in which a few (or one) dominates, and man is distilled into merely a function, with nothing existing outside of that.

I would rather love, and deal with heartbreak a thousand times, then live in a world which denies me even the pain of expressing it. Idk dude, read some Lao Tzu and get over yourself.