Post: #1

I tend to see everything through a money prism.

I believe that that the popularity of feminism, and androgyny is the result of market forces, and not some high ideal of equality or egalitarianism.

Business are always trying to expand their markets. If most of your products are for men, what better way to double you earnings than by getting women to buy your product, and visa versa.

Remember the whole "metreosexual" thing?

Business man for face cream corp: I have an idea- let's double what we make selling face cream to women by marketing towards men as well.

Post: #2

Of course it's about money. Feminism is a business. It's goal isn't to end sexism or misogyny. It needs them to thrive. If one day too many people will think we're all equal now and women have it great, they're going to lose federal funding and book sale money.

Post: #3

Everything is money driven. Feminism, climate change research, women's liberation (for taxes etc), wars etc

It's when you look at it like this, it gets you thinking that a pure free market probably isn't best!

Post: #4

(04-04-2013 04:00 AM)Teedub Wrote:  Everything is money driven. Feminism, climate change research, women's liberation (for taxes etc), wars etc

It's when you look at it like this, it gets you thinking that a pure free market probably isn't best!

What does interest groups hustling for government funds have to do with free markets?

Post: #5

There is no such thing as a free market. Government makes the markets and protects the major players when that market while the rest get scraps. They gain from this just as much as the market.

I have said at times that "Femenism" is a ruse to extract wealth from males whom had the ability to protect societies purse. Big business and big government came on board because a feminist tilted society gave them more power. Government is able to expand its scope to artificially prop up women, Big business gains because women always will part with more of their money more easily then men. They can be drive to act on emotional impulses where more then men can, and big business creams over that. Both have seen those opportunities and bought in.

Women on average spend disposable income way more then men. I have a theory they also pack on more debt then men but I need to look at those numbers so it's just my guess. A Female tilted society leads to bankruptcy and moral hazard. We will be pushed to brink and us men will have few means to fund our battle. That ability is being siphon'd away from us right now in real time.

Post: #6

(04-04-2013 04:03 AM)megatron Wrote:  

(04-04-2013 04:00 AM)Teedub Wrote:  Everything is money driven. Feminism, climate change research, women's liberation (for taxes etc), wars etc

It's when you look at it like this, it gets you thinking that a pure free market probably isn't best!

What does interest groups hustling for government funds have to do with free markets?

I probably phrased it wrong. When the sole purpose of society is profit rather than progress, problems arise. When I say progress I don't mean "progressivism", I mean things like space exploration, cancer research etc. Like I said in another thread, my political views bounce around extremely frequently.

Post: #7

Yes I have this same feeling when reading about a feminist group known as femen. This group of very pretty feminists who like to get naked appear to be paid a salary and are funded by some nefarious billionaires.

Post: #8

(04-04-2013 04:50 AM)kosko Wrote:  There is no such thing as a free market. Government makes the markets and protects the major players when that market while the rest get scraps. They gain from this just as much as the market.

I have said at times that "Femenism" is a ruse to extract wealth from males whom had the ability to protect societies purse. Big business and big government came on board because a feminist tilted society gave them more power. Government is able to expand its scope to artificially prop up women, Big business gains because women always will part with more of their money more easily then men. They can be drive to act on emotional impulses where more then men can, and big business creams over that. Both have seen those opportunities and bought in.

Exactly. Businesses have a huge interest in transferring money that a man makes over to women because women generally spend more money on consumer goods than men. If a man was making $100 thousand per year then suddenly starts making $200 thousand per year his spending on consumer goods would only increase by a small amount. But if the same situation happened to a woman she would increase her spending on consumerist products substantially. I am speaking in general terms here but thats what companies and businesses look for, trends in the market.
I currently make very little per year but I am spending far less than I earn. I only buy things that I need or are strictly related to hobbies I enjoy such as mountain biking, I don't waste my money on material shit. My female cousin however who is the same age and lives in the same city as I do is stacking up debt on her student loan account with all kinds of consumer purchases, under the belief that she will soon be making more money in the future.
So the businesses and companies have a lot to gain with the transfer of wealth from men to women, and current western laws regarding marriage and divorce reflect that.

Post: #9

(04-04-2013 04:50 AM)kosko Wrote:  There is no such thing as a free market. Government makes the markets and protects the major players when that market while the rest get scraps. They gain from this just as much as the market.

I have said at times that "Femenism" is a ruse to extract wealth from males whom had the ability to protect societies purse. Big business and big government came on board because a feminist tilted society gave them more power. Government is able to expand its scope to artificially prop up women, Big business gains because women always will part with more of their money more easily then men. They can be drive to act on emotional impulses where more then men can, and big business creams over that. Both have seen those opportunities and bought in.

Women on average spend disposable income way more then men. I have a theory they also pack on more debt then men but I need to look at those numbers so it's just my guess. A Female tilted society leads to bankruptcy and moral hazard. We will be pushed to brink and us men will have few means to fund our battle. That ability is being siphon'd away from us right now in real time.

I think an argument can be made that markets make government, or the two evolved simultaneously/symbiotically.

But's not just about feminism. A business will have the chance to make more money if it has more potential customers. So, if can get all groups in it's crosshairs, then it has a greater chance of being successful.

After industrialization, the supply part of business exploded. But, the demand was not matched. Is it possible that all the equality movements happened not because it was the right thing to do, but because business needed more customers to buy their mass produced products?

Post: #10

Post: #11

The above interview, in its entirety is fantastic, and disturbing:





He exposes the Rockerfeller family, 9/11, Osama Bin Laden etc.

Post: #12

(04-04-2013 10:05 AM)vic Wrote:  

Interesting find. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I've been feeling the power of companies as more of states in themselves:

The state of Facebook is more populous than the entire world was two hundred years ago: http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ar...04/263250/

McDonald's - "Billions Served"

The power that the big companies wield is enormous. Government is just the skin.

I'd be curious to know which makes more money per year: the money generated from income tax or the revenue brought in by the oil industry.

Post: #13

(04-04-2013 10:14 AM)soup Wrote:  The power that the big companies wield is enormous.

I'd be curious to know which makes more money per year: the money generated from income tax or the revenue brought in by the oil industry.

of course taxes onto people , income tax.

the large companies usually pay zero tax, because their profits are going through the Cayman Islands

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/12/28/2...on-profits

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsb...haven.html

Post: #14

(04-04-2013 10:11 AM)Teedub Wrote:  The above interview, in its entirety is fantastic, and disturbing:





He exposes the Rockerfeller family, 9/11, Osama Bin Laden etc.

Anybody remember how he died?

Post: #15

Feminism arose from disgruntled middle-class white women. Athlone has a good post about this on ROK.

For example, the idea that gender is a social construct originated with French "philosopher" Simone de Beavoir in her book "The Second Sex."

Let's take a look at her background (source: http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo...oir.html):

Quote:De Beauvoir grew up in a respected borgeois family, the eldest of two daughters. She adopted atheism while still an adolescent, and decided to devote her life to writing and studying.

Hmm does that sound like anyone we know? Oh yes, pretty much every contributor to Jezebel fits this description! She had no cares in the world, she rejected religion, and she decied to do the modern equivalent of blogging. How could she just dedicate her life to "writing and studying?" Because A MAN, her father, was already successful and she didn't need to worry about any dirty grubby things like money or a job. Can you imagine a waitress who worked 3 jobs and supported 2 kids writing or thinking anything like this?

Quote:Her major thrust into philosophical analysis was due to her life-long friendship with Sartre. Using some of the ideas she worked with in Ethics and a few of the underpinnings of existentialism as described by Sartre, she went on to produce her famous work, The Second Sex. Working with the idea that women are the "other," and another statement: "that women is not born, but made," De Beauvoir delves deep into the history of women's oppression. This was the definitive declaration of woman's independence.

Well well, it all started because she was messing around with a MALE philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre. She felt that women were the "other" because that's how she felt about herself I bet. Throw in projection and solipsism, mix with existential gobbledygook, and voila! Her statement about women being made is absurd on its face. It actually applies to men, not to women.

Nothing is expected of women except that they look pleasant and have kids. They don't have to do anything special to accomplish that. It is men who have to struggle and prove themselves otherwise they are seen as worthless.

She had an open relationship with Sartre but would not marry him; apparantly he was short and ugly. She did have the hots for an alpha-male however, Nelson Algren.

Quote: Beauvoir called herself Algren’s “wife,” a word she never used with Sartre; he gave her a ring. She signed one typical letter: “Good night, my beloved one, my friend, husband and lover. We were so happy, we shall be so happy. I love you so much, my local youth, my crocodile, my own, Nelson.” (In their private language of pet names, Beauvoir was the French frog to Algren’s toothy, toothsome crocodile.)

Source: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and...ecomes-one

There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to women. The same patterns repeat over and over through the ages; they merely appear different due to the distorting lenses of time and culture.

So as you can see, feminism originated in the insane thoughts of a woman with a comfortable life who just wasn't "haaaappy." The same sorts of women propagate it today.

Post: #16

Feminism is also good for the elites and business as it doubles the working pool, allowing for wages to remain low due to the size of the labour pool, especially for low skilled workers.

Post: #17

Why do you think Sandberg's telling girls to lean in? Why do companies have flex-time programs? Gotta flood the labor market, make it an employer's market. Whatever wave of feminism that's going on right now is to prevent more women from questioning the rationale of giving up the luxuries of being a housewife to be nuns for corporations.

Post: #18

(04-04-2013 10:21 AM)vic Wrote:  

(04-04-2013 10:14 AM)soup Wrote:  The power that the big companies wield is enormous.

I'd be curious to know which makes more money per year: the money generated from income tax or the revenue brought in by the oil industry.

of course taxes onto people , income tax.

the large companies usually pay zero tax, because their profits are going through the Cayman Islands

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/12/28/2...on-profits

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsb...haven.html

Lets consider for a moment that those companies did not exist in the first place

1) The taxes of the people it employs would not have been paid
2) The sales taxes would not have been paid
3) The taxes on dividends would not have been paid
4) The payroll taxes they company pays would not have been paid
5) In the US, I think you have to match medicare and social security payments. Those would be gone.
6) Unemployment insurance taxes would not have been paid
7) Federal taxes would not have been paid
8) State taxes would not have been paid
9) property taxes would not have been paid
10) Excise taxes would not have been paid

But hey, multinational companies are not generating enough revenue for the super reliable, super awesome people in government who know exactly how to spend the money and who to spend it on. What we want to do is take money out of the hands of people, and give it politicians instead.

AT LEAST THEY DONT HAVE AN AGENDA OR ANYTHING