The feminist capitalist complex
Andrew Usher
'Female sexual behavior' (now at http://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:female-sexual-behavior
), back when I thought there was still a chance that those people
would listen to me. I had planned long ago to write something about
how masculism ought to be socialist, but realising that that would be
rejected out of hand by anyone not already a socialist, I decided to
start with the opposite: how capitalism is feminist. As with many of
mine this should be considered incomplete and in need of farther
editing and expansion.
Andrew Usher
--------
Socialism is essentially masculist. This sounds surprising, but the
truth is that every serious exponent of socialist theories throughout
history has been a man; such things simply do not occur to women.
Likewise, there is nothing socialist about feminism - women support
socialist ideas only so far as they see them as giveaways for
themselves; they do not conceive of the higher form of ideas (or
philosophy) which deserves the name socialism.
Since the beginning of civilisation there has been significant
inequality of wealth - one of the practical results desired by
socialism is to reduce the consequences of this inequality. Greed, as
I have stated, is largely due to women, more through their influence
on men than directly. Women control the great majority of the spending
of couples (everyone knows this to be true even though, for
psychological reasons, we don't like to think about it), they own much
wealth directly nowadays (no small part being due to child support and
divorce settlements), and even many single men spend a considerable
portion of their income on women. I would make it a very safe bet that
women control at least 70% of the discretionary consumer spending in
the US, and would not be surprised at 80-85%. Their insatiable
spending drives men to put away scruples in the pursuit of money as
their standing with women depends upon it. And - although this is self-
defeating on our part - status with other men is influenced by
acquiring a woman.
And so, modern capitalism, like any system of profound wealth-
inequalities, primarily benefits women; thus it must harm men, given
the notorious fact that women do not produce nearly in proportion to
that excess consumption. As well, contrary to the feminist allegation,
traditional society in Europe had much implied prejudice in favor of
women as well as norms operating in their favor [1]; this any man that
has opened his eyes will be aware of. The convergence of those
traditional carry-overs with modern feminism and with runaway
capitalism is producing a cataclysm against men.
One example of the effect is our living arrangements. This is
something rarely seriously contemplated because it seems so basic. But
let us ask: why do we live in households? That is, why do most adults
live in such a way that family members are continuously exposed to one
another, but isolated from others? The answer must be women - it is
women that insist upon living in households; in the past it was always
women that insisted on the social norm of 'setting up house' together
in order to get married, today it is little different save that
'moving in together' is not considered the same level of commitment as
getting married. But one might say that this is just natural for
family units to live independently - nonsense. Through most of human
history, people lived communally. And even today, it is well known
that many peoples see nothing wrong with putting more than one family
units into what we consider a 'single family' home. Do I defend these?
Not necessarily; I just cite examples to contradict the theory that
the nuclear family living alone is 'natural'.
In fact, I think that there is reason to believe that men alone would
prefer communal or semi-communal [2] living to isolated households;
this would likely entail at least partial separation between men and
women in that men would probably spend at least as much time in the
company of other men as of their wives. How do we know this? - from
history, in every culture including our own, there was a tradition of
'homosociality' until quite recent times. Now, that has swung so far
in the other direction that most working men spend little or no time
exclusively with male friends, and many have no good friends other
than their wife or girlfriend. (Indeed, there is now a social
expectation that men should rely on a female partner for all their
emotional needs; this is certainly not so for women.) Is this normal?
No - it drives us crazy. Men become emotionally hollow when forced to
live like that, and it is our living in separate households that
enables it.
Now one might object that even single men live in individual
households. True, but one might wonder how much this is a consequence
of social factors rather than individual desire; namely that our
society is built up of households almost exclusively because of the
norms established by women. And men that do have a strong preference
to live alone would because of a strong desire for privacy (for
whatever reason), which is unlike the motive of women. Rather women
want their family to live in an isolated household so they can
tyrannise over it out of the public eye, so the man has no support.
We all know this to be true; women behave far more decently when
anyone outside of their immediate household is watching [3]. Though
this has always resulted in men being verbally, emotionally, and
sometimes physically abused by their wives, recent changes in
'domestic violence' laws make this even worse for men as they now have
had their one principal means of resistance taken away from them.
It should be apparent that the isolated household is mirrored in
modern capitalism's treating us as isolated individuals forced to make
our own economic way. The combination of the two empowers [4] women to
indulge themselves in unlimited consumerism, which although it hardly
makes women happier has a remarkable capacity to empty the wallets of
their male partners. Granted, not all women are so freely spending,
but those that are stingy are almost always either only responding to
straitened circumstances or have other serious psychological problems;
either way, they are invariably more niggardly with what their
husbands spend (no matter they they may carry all the household
income) then what they themselves do.
I should not be understood to mean that living communally should be
part of the men's movement, much less that I would if I had the power
force people onto communes - though I know I would get that dishonest
criticism had I posted this at SYG. Rather -
I do not mean to suggest one specific plan of action through this
post; only to give some ideas. Ideas are what properly inform our
judgements - although I promote the view that ethical behavior is
based on intentions, not all intentions are equal. Those that are well-
informed are superior to those that are ignorant.
[1] This was not true to near the same extent in other parts of the
world. Ironically, feminists, following the leftist party-line, blame
European culture for sexism but are strangely silent about other
places in that regard.
[2] 'Semi-communal' refers to an arrangement where everyone has a
reasonable degree of privacy, but still most household labor is in
common; think of a hotel.
[3] The capacity of women for such duplicity is truly astonishing and
no non-pathological man could do it.
[4] This is a word much abused by feminists but I am using it
correctly!
Masculist
> This essay was originally intended for SYG, much like my revised
> ), back when I thought there was still a chance that those people
> would listen to me. I had planned long ago to write something about
> how masculism ought to be socialist, but realising that that would be
> rejected out of hand by anyone not already a socialist, I decided to
> start with the opposite: how capitalism is feminist. As with many of
> mine this should be considered incomplete and in need of farther
> editing and expansion.
>
> Andrew Usher
You're on the right track Andrew but get lost in too much cultural and
utopian bullshit. I couldn't seriously read this but had to skim it.
You're right that socialism was originally a male "construct". In
fact the first Masculist, E Belfort Bax ("The Fraud of Feminism"), was
a leading American socialist at the turn of the 20th Century and a
protege of Marx. That he and marxism were consummed by feminism
should disqualify any use of the word "socialism" in regards to
masculism. That doesn't mean something like it, though very different
in respects to marxism and socialism, shouldn't be part of the
masculist economic agenda. Indeed, we need a new economic approach
and need to start talking about it, but it should include capitalism,
which thanks to feminism rolling over the marxists and socialists, has
won the day.
You need to face the cold, hard political and historical realities
Andrew. Men lost big time using the old methods of economics and
organization.
Tom
Andrew Usher
> You're on the right track Andrew but get lost in too much cultural and
> utopian bullshit. I couldn't seriously read this but had to skim it.
I don't understand that criticism. Yes, it's cultural - but there's a
reason for that. Feminism doesn't exist in a vacuum, and why do you
think it started here and not anywhere else? What's bullshit is to
believe that we can change it without taking a hard look at everything
behind it, such as your implication that more father's custody would
solve everything.
> You're right that socialism was originally a male "construct". In
> fact the first Masculist, E Belfort Bax ("The Fraud of Feminism"), was
> a leading American socialist at the turn of the 20th Century and a
> protege of Marx. That he and marxism were consummed by feminism
> should disqualify any use of the word "socialism" in regards to
> masculism.
What other word would you prefer? 'Socialism' is the established word
for it, dating from before Marx even.
As far as Marxism being inherently feminist, I question even that.
Sure they advocated feminism, but I think that was more due to Jewish
deconstructionist bullshit than Marxism proper. Look at how the Soviet
Union was really run - not feminist at all.
And why should Bax's being both a socialist and a masculist discredit
the connection? I can't understand that.
> That doesn't mean something like it, though very different
> in respects to marxism and socialism, shouldn't be part of the
> masculist economic agenda. Indeed, we need a new economic approach
> and need to start talking about it, but it should include capitalism,
> which thanks to feminism rolling over the marxists and socialists, has
> won the day.
Well, you come up with your new approach, and we can talk about it.
> You need to face the cold, hard political and historical realities
> Andrew. Men lost big time using the old methods of economics and
> organization.
That's why we need something new, isn't it? I'm trying to explore
_why_ we lost.
Andrew Usher
Masculist
> On Jul 9, 11:35 am, Masculist <MASCUL...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You're on the right track Andrew but get lost in too much cultural and
> > utopian bullshit. I couldn't seriously read this but had to skim it.
>
> I don't understand that criticism. Yes, it's cultural - but there's a
> reason for that. Feminism doesn't exist in a vacuum, and why do you
> think it started here and not anywhere else? What's bullshit is to
> believe that we can change it without taking a hard look at everything
> behind it, such as your implication that more father's custody would
> solve everything.
Andrew, I've explained this to you already. There's nothing we can do
about the cultural stuff until we defeat feminism POLITICALLY,
especially the second wave variety of "mandating sexual equality".
Feminists, on both the Left and Right, advocate mothers custody. So
you want to meet them half way? No, you oppose them all the way and
then maybe get half way...if you are lucky. I don't believe this for
only political reasons but even if I didn't believe this I would have
to do it for political reasons. Don't worry, it's the right thing and
many of wise old men know it.
> > You're right that socialism was originally a male "construct". In
> > fact the first Masculist, E Belfort Bax ("The Fraud of Feminism"), was
> > a leading American socialist at the turn of the 20th Century and a
> > protege of Marx. That he and marxism were consummed by feminism
> > should disqualify any use of the word "socialism" in regards to
> > masculism.
>
> What other word would you prefer? 'Socialism' is the established word
> for it, dating from before Marx even.
I said to two Puerto Rican marxists who I befriended in 1974 in
Attica, "Socialism sucks!". That took some nerve BTW. I had been a
recent convert to unbridled capitalism after moving to Arizona in '72
and seeing the contrast between that and socialist New York. What an
incredible difference and I loved it!
Good question though, what to replace it. Yes, we definitely need a
replacement because we will always need some form of government
regulation and social intervention. The problem with socialism is
that it is too comprehensive and institutionalized. The latter might
not be so bad if it were "male centric" or masculist. This discussion
should be left to masculist economists and economic historians.
> As far as Marxism being inherently feminist, I question even that.
> Sure they advocated feminism, but I think that was more due to Jewish
> deconstructionist bullshit than Marxism proper. Look at how the Soviet
> Union was really run - not feminist at all.
Yeah, but they gave serious ideological support of it knowing full
well it was the West that would suffer.
> And why should Bax's being both a socialist and a masculist discredit
> the connection? I can't understand that.
He was the first to go through the shunning and career destroying that
all of us future anti-feminists would experience from our own
"comrades"! Just this fact demonstrates the thugish nature of
marxism and if he were alive today he'd be listening to Rush. Marixsm
is definitely out. Let's not forget the anti-religious nature of
marxism which has also abused and oppressed many religious.
> > That doesn't mean something like it, though very different
> > in respects to marxism and socialism, shouldn't be part of the
> > masculist economic agenda. Indeed, we need a new economic approach
> > and need to start talking about it, but it should include capitalism,
> > which thanks to feminism rolling over the marxists and socialists, has
> > won the day.
>
> Well, you come up with your new approach, and we can talk about it.
You're right, I have to come up with more. I started some thing in
hte "trinity" but maybe now I have to expand on that. Did you know
that Nixon supported a guraenteed income? Man, I don't know how I
missed that. I was a hippie during that period and maybe that's how I
missed it <smile>. Anyway, that points up some creative ways we can
deal with this and still stay in "capitalist" limits. We need a new
term for it like you say. Masculist alone won't do it.
> > You need to face the cold, hard political and historical realities
> > Andrew. Men lost big time using the old methods of economics and
> > organization.
>
> That's why we need something new, isn't it? I'm trying to explore
> _why_ we lost.
Keep working on it but lose the anti-religious stuff. Turin had that
problem too. I see it with many Leftists as well who are "catching
on" and the fact is I was guilty of it too at the beginning in terms
of "moral legislation" like abortion.
Tom
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > I don't understand that criticism. Yes, it's cultural - but there's a
> > reason for that. Feminism doesn't exist in a vacuum, and why do you
> > think it started here and not anywhere else? What's bullshit is to
> > believe that we can change it without taking a hard look at everything
> > behind it, such as your implication that more father's custody would
> > solve everything.
>
> Andrew, I've explained this to you already. There's nothing we can do
> about the cultural stuff until we defeat feminism POLITICALLY,
> especially the second wave variety of "mandating sexual equality".
You're right, but we can't do that just by wishing it! We need to make
men aware, and while you're probably right that my philosophical stuff
won't be of interest to many, it's what I like and it's better than
nothing.
> Feminists, on both the Left and Right, advocate mothers custody. So
> you want to meet them half way? No, you oppose them all the way and
> then maybe get half way...if you are lucky. I don't believe this for
> only political reasons but even if I didn't believe this I would have
> to do it for political reasons.
No, I don't necessarily want to compromise with them, but politics is
about compromise. Yeah, you can have your principles, but then you
also have what can practically be done. You can't force the two to be
equal.
> > What other word would you prefer? 'Socialism' is the established word
> > for it, dating from before Marx even.
>
> I said to two Puerto Rican marxists who I befriended in 1974 in
> Attica, "Socialism sucks!". That took some nerve BTW. I had been a
> recent convert to unbridled capitalism after moving to Arizona in '72
> and seeing the contrast between that and socialist New York. What an
> incredible difference and I loved it!
I've definitely not impressed with Arizona in any way. I don't see how
your anecdotes are any argument at all.
> Good question though, what to replace it. Yes, we definitely need a
> replacement because we will always need some form of government
> regulation and social intervention. The problem with socialism is
> that it is too comprehensive and institutionalized.
Socialism is just a name and a principle, not a specific set of
programs.
I've said repeatedly that the guaranteed income is most of socialism,
economically; if I could get that implemented I would try, and you've
said you believe in it.
> The latter might
> not be so bad if it were "male centric" or masculist. This discussion
> should be left to masculist economists and economic historians.
Perhaps, if there were any we knew of!
> > As far as Marxism being inherently feminist, I question even that.
> > Sure they advocated feminism, but I think that was more due to Jewish
> > deconstructionist bullshit than Marxism proper. Look at how the Soviet
> > Union was really run - not feminist at all.
>
> Yeah, but they gave serious ideological support of it knowing full
> well it was the West that would suffer.
Right, so it would be guilt by association to blame their ideas for
it, given
that that's the reason they did it.
> Marixsm is definitely out. Let's not forget the anti-religious nature of
> marxism which has also abused and oppressed many religious.
I agree with you that what's known as 'Marxism' today should be
avoided.
> > Well, you come up with your new approach, and we can talk about it.
>
> You're right, I have to come up with more. I started some thing in
> hte "trinity" but maybe now I have to expand on that. Did you know
> that Nixon supported a guraenteed income?
I don't know if he really believed in it, but his administration was
willing
to back it. It would have been much better if it had been done then,
as
our economic structures have just gotten worse since then.
> Anyway, that points up some creative ways we can
> deal with this and still stay in "capitalist" limits. We need a new
> term for it like you say. Masculist alone won't do it.
Call a tail a leg, and it's still a leg - I consider the basic income
to be a
socialist program. 'Masculist' usually doesn't label an economic
program, so no, it won't be sufficient.
> > That's why we need something new, isn't it? I'm trying to explore
> > _why_ we lost.
>
> Keep working on it but lose the anti-religious stuff.
What? I haven't said any anti-religious stuff here. I'm non-religious,
but
try not to be anti-religious.
Andrew Usher
Society
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c44a4031-e149-47b8...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> [...] I had planned long ago to write something about
> how masculism ought to be socialist, but realising
> that that would be rejected out of hand by anyone
> not already a socialist, I decided to start with the
> opposite: how capitalism is feminist. As with many
> and in need of farther editing and expansion. [...]
Well, Andrew Usher, you've taken on quite a challenge.
Let's have a look at the ur-socialists and what they had
to say on this subject:
Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare-up
at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what
foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family,
based? On capital, on private gain. ... The bourgeois
family will vanish... with the vanishing of capital.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
The Communist Manifesto
After you explain away the linkage by socialists (of
all parties) of capitalism and the traditional family,
the nuclear family so hated by true believer feminists,
you can then move on to refuting the arguments of
Friedrich Engels in _The Origin of the Family, Private
Property, and the State_. This is the most complete
exposition of arguments by Marx and Engels that
capitalism oppresses women and that socialism is
the proper vehicle for women's liberation, i.e. feminism.
You'll also have to explain why by the mid-20th century
feminists had fully adopted socialist, not capitalist,
ideology as feminism's theoretical basis and argue
that this step by feminists was in error. A study of
the works of Simone de Beauvoir, the early Betty
Friedan, and Kate Millett would be a good starting
point for that. The linkage of feminism with socialism
remains strong today and shows no sign of abating.
Rather, as the collapse of the Soviet Socialist
empire has left socialism in the name of the proletariat
in the dustbin of history, feminists have been busy
refurbishing socialism into a theory of political economy
in the name of women's class interests.
Good luck, but color me your deepest shade of doubtful
that you can achieve your aim.
--
The overthrow of mother right was the world
historical defeat of the female sex. The man
took command in the home also; the woman
was degraded and reduced to servitude; she
became a slave of his lust and a mere
instrument for the production of children...
Friedrich Engels, _The Origin of the Family,
Private Property, and the State_
Andrew Usher
> Well, Andrew Usher, you've taken on quite a challenge.
> Let's have a look at the ur-socialists and what they had
> to say on this subject:
Marx and Engels were not the first socialists by any standard.
> Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare-up
> at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what
> foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family,
> based? On capital, on private gain. ... The bourgeois
> family will vanish... with the vanishing of capital.
>
> Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
> The Communist Manifesto
That's out of context. In the original context, the only specific
proposal they make is universal public education (not too radical).
Even if they did want to 'abolish the family' in the true sense,
I am not a Marxist and have said already that most of their
philosophy was nonsense.
> After you explain away the linkage by socialists (of
> all parties) of capitalism and the traditional family,
> the nuclear family so hated by true believer feminists,
> you can then move on to refuting the arguments of
> Friedrich Engels in _The Origin of the Family, Private
> Property, and the State_. This is the most complete
> exposition of arguments by Marx and Engels that
> capitalism oppresses women and that socialism is
> the proper vehicle for women's liberation, i.e. feminism.
I do not need to refute arguments that you do not believe, nor
read an entire book!
> You'll also have to explain why by the mid-20th century
> feminists had fully adopted socialist, not capitalist,
> ideology as feminism's theoretical basis and argue
> that this step by feminists was in error.
The problem is that you think there is a 'theoretical basis'
for feminism. Feminism is not logical, is is emotional and
any philosophical basis is just a rationalisation. On the
other hand, it is a fact that feminism only developed under
capitalism, and no example of socialist feminism has ever
existed in the world.
> Rather, as the collapse of the Soviet Socialist
> empire has left socialism in the name of the proletariat
> in the dustbin of history, feminists have been busy
> refurbishing socialism into a theory of political economy
> in the name of women's class interests.
And I reject that sort of 'socialism'.
Andrew Usher
Lisa Lisa
> This essay was originally intended for SYG, much like my revised
> ), back when I thought there was still a chance that those people
> would listen to me. I had planned long ago to write something about
> how masculism ought to be socialist, but realising that that would be
> rejected out of hand by anyone not already a socialist, I decided to
> start with the opposite: how capitalism is feminist.
Oh, right. Capitalism is "feminist." So are blue skies.
> As with many of
> mine this should be considered incomplete and in need of farther
> editing and expansion.
>
> Andrew Usher
>
> --------
>
> Socialism is essentially masculist. This sounds surprising, but the
> truth is that every serious exponent of socialist theories throughout
> history has been a man; such things simply do not occur to women.
That's because all the early political scientists were men. Women
were still confined to the home.
It's not true anymore, though.
Dude, here's a hint; you're a lousy historian. You know nothing.
Get a job.
Lisa
Andrew Usher
> On Jul 9, 10:30 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This essay was originally intended for SYG, much like my revised
> > 'Female sexual behavior' (now athttp://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:female-sexual-behavior
> > ), back when I thought there was still a chance that those people
> > would listen to me. I had planned long ago to write something about
> > how masculism ought to be socialist, but realising that that would be
> > rejected out of hand by anyone not already a socialist, I decided to
> > start with the opposite: how capitalism is feminist.
>
> Oh, right. Capitalism is "feminist." So are blue skies.
Why don't you read my essay. But I forgot that you're a woman
and I'm a man, so I must be wrong, right?
> > Socialism is essentially masculist. This sounds surprising, but the
> > truth is that every serious exponent of socialist theories throughout
> > history has been a man; such things simply do not occur to women.
>
> That's because all the early political scientists were men. Women
> were still confined to the home.
>
> It's not true anymore, though.
Bull.
Andrew Usher
Lisa Lisa
> Lisa Lisa wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 10:30 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > This essay was originally intended for SYG, much like my revised
> > > 'Female sexual behavior' (now athttp://menswiki.wikidot.com/essay:female-sexual-behavior
> > > ), back when I thought there was still a chance that those people
> > > would listen to me. I had planned long ago to write something about
> > > how masculism ought to be socialist, but realising that that would be
> > > rejected out of hand by anyone not already a socialist, I decided to
> > > start with the opposite: how capitalism is feminist.
>
> > Oh, right. Capitalism is "feminist." So are blue skies.
>
> Why don't you read my essay. But I forgot that you're a woman
> and I'm a man, so I must be wrong, right?
You're just another Usenut with a lot of spare time on his hands. If
I'm going to read anything, it's going to be a college text, or a
newspaper, ya dumb Netwit.
> > > Socialism is essentially masculist. This sounds surprising, but the
> > > truth is that every serious exponent of socialist theories throughout
> > > history has been a man; such things simply do not occur to women.
>
> > That's because all the early political scientists were men. Women
> > were still confined to the home.
>
> > It's not true anymore, though.
>
> Bull.
Whatever.
> Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > > Oh, right. Capitalism is "feminist." So are blue skies.
> >
> > Why don't you read my essay. But I forgot that you're a woman
> > and I'm a man, so I must be wrong, right?
>
> You're just another Usenut with a lot of spare time on his hands. If
> I'm going to read anything, it's going to be a college text, or a
> newspaper, ya dumb Netwit.
Then don't comment if you can't read it. Jesus.
Andrew Usher