Post: #1

Some people in the "red pill" seem to believe in free-market capitalism, and see feminism as an offshoot of leftist forces. Undoubtedly, most self-identified feminists are leftists.

However, the most "feminine" women are largely found in "traditional" societies, ie Latin America/South-East Asia, or in Post-Communist ones.

Careerist women obviously are much less feminine.

Would you support an economic system, Capitalism, which necessarily leads to women becoming less feminine?

Latin America's economic system certainly seems less efficient in terms of producing material wealth. Yet their women are undoubtedly more feminine, divorce rates are lower. There are advantages to this, in maintaining traditional families.

Is it worth sacrificing traditional families and traditional women for more material wealth?

Post: #2

I would like to think it's all a result of the 70s feminism movement and is only a passing fad. The question is, how long will it last and will the spread be contained?

Japan's economy has become very advanced without its women losing their femininity. I unfortunately know of no other examples.

Post: #3

Correlation isn't causation. In a traditional capitalist society, there's no reason why feminism should rise.

The problem is being wealthy, really. In a wealthy nation where we have more than we know what to do with, there's plenty of free time and money for the social justice warriors to start agitating for all sorts of crazy leftist policies that cause problems. Feminism rises because the men in general start being white knight pussies, regardless of the market structure of a country.

So yes, I absolutely support free markets. Not that we've seen anything like a free market lately. Any time, ANY TIME the government starts screwing around with distorting the market with subsidies or restrictions prices will rise, or there will be shortages. That's just the way it is, it's not negotiable, it is a fact and it is observably true everywhere around us. I'd be a lot happier living in a world where markets stabilize naturally and I can actually get what I want. It doesn't matter if gas is fixed at $3 per gallon if there's no damn gas to buy.

Post: #4

Economic growth from capitalism leads to socialism, the socialism leads to wealth distribution which makes women less dependent on men because they now have a new husband: the state. The less dependent women are on men, the less feminine they need to be because it is not a life/death situation whether you get a man or not. The women become selectors because men want women more than women want men.

Post: #5

(05-09-2014 01:15 AM)strengthstudent Wrote:  Economic growth from capitalism leads to socialism, the socialism leads to wealth distribution which makes women less dependent on men because they now have a new husband: the state. The less dependent women are on men, the less feminine they need to be because it is not a life/death situation whether you get a man or not. The women become selectors because men want women more than women want men.

The irony is, the larger the organization the more inefficient it is at moving resources.

I see this in large corporations and the government is no different. In the case of the present, the government has grown too large with not enough revenue. Something has got to give and the make work "husband" that is the government will disappear. Once that happens, the pendulum will swing backwards.

Post: #6

capitalism is relative

Post: #7

It's not the free market, it's the Government. They coddle and subsidise feminism because they'll be earning twice the tax dollar. When woman enter the work force the government gets much bigger and they start asking for aged care, child care and the whole system becomes more socialist

Stefan Molyneux from freedomainradio, covers this very nicely. He is a philosopher.

Post: #8

(05-11-2014 09:23 AM)zombiejimmorrison Wrote:  It's not the free market, it's the Government. They coddle and subsidise feminism because they'll be earning twice the tax dollar. When woman enter the work force the government gets much bigger and they start asking for aged care, child care and the whole system becomes more socialist

Stefan Molyneux from freedomainradio, covers this very nicely. He is a philosopher.

The thing I'm wondering that some time ago, men were able to support the entire family perfectly fine on his own but nowadays, most functional families requires two person to support the household. Wouldn't that mean that men used to earn more money (value wise, excluding inflation) than today's men? If so, does women entering into the workforce even have an effect on the taxes because a husband and a wife would be essentially making the same amount of money as the sole money-making men of the the past? So wouldn't government still get the same amount of taxes?

Post: #9

I think so but the situation is always relative as mentioned. Capitalism left unchecked will destroy anything that gets in its way, and if that includes more traditional sex roles, then so be it.

Post: #10

Not a direct answer, but this video, which I shared in this thread delves into the subject of capitalism and it's relationship with feminism.

Post: #11

(05-12-2014 09:57 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  I think so but the situation is always relative as mentioned. Capitalism left unchecked will destroy anything that gets in its way, and if that includes more traditional sex roles, then so be it.

Well, yep, that is the basic fact about capital, nothing else matters but profits. Marriage? Hey, if you can lower wages by putting the 50% of the population to work for you, also transforming them into mindless consumers of all the crap they can produce while enlarging your profits to heaven, why not? Hell, steer the Government towards feminism, and you´ll have all the consumers and overworked drones you will ever want, damn the consequences.