Feminism Uses Intellectually Dishonest Arguments to Propagate Classism

Metapolitics & General
1

https://english.emmaclit.com/2017/05/20/you-shouldve-asked/

Link above states how not being helped with unspoken chores is a moral imperative being wronged.

However it’s not really about the chores. It’s an intellectually dishonest argument meant to propagate classist ideals at the expense of their loved ones.

The basic hygiene is met and is nowhere near the verge of a biohazard. However the argument is presented as though it is a completely utilitarian and even moral necessity ignoring the underlying need for ritualistic chores.

“The silverware has to polished daily otherwise we live like animals.”

“Having a 10 dollar rug instead of a 1,000 dollar rug means we live like animals so now we have to go pick one up immediately.”

Ritualistic chores are unpredictable to the independent mind yet they are treated like they are completely and obviously predictable.

I find it funny that individualistic cultures that fetishize independence so much can’t seem to break away from the judgment of their peers. Life is a stage and even if your audience (your peers) are not currently watching the show you are in constant preparation for a show they will attend. One would think if your peers cost so much performance tax you would drop as many as you could. You know, do the independence thing you all love much. In this system the feelings of your cashier literally means more to you than the feelings of your spouse. Which is funny because…

•Your cashier will not going to pick up dinner for your when you sick.

•Your cashier will not visit you in the hospital.

•Your cashier will not hug you.

If you can easily drop someone who does something for you, then why not drop the people who don’t do anything for you, as well?

Capitalistic societies can’t admit to you, that your worth in society is a salary so it tells you your worth is agreeability. You become so devoted to being agreeable, to being a good citizen, to “being a good person”, that you’ve slowly become a perfect consumerist and you haven’t even realized that your life has become transactional. You’ve traded friendship for therapists. You’ve traded romance for sex work. You’ve monetized intimacy.

I’m reminded of Mildred Montag. Mildred follows the demands of her peers so dogmatically that she snitches on her husband to the state. What is happening here is the same concept. We expect propaganda to be intimidating while isolating critical information however our propaganda instead presents itself as harmless self-help while isolating the family unit. Instead of snitching we voluntarily isolate ourselves. When we isolate we lose second opinions. We lose that critical information. Information instead, is only served directly to us from approved sources.

2

Notice how these people are really concerned about trivialities: what happened in a movie, how a school of interior design has “roots” in oppression, the way that men sit on the bus. It reflects a sheltered, comfortable lifestyle.

Political belief systems are economical. When you live materially well, you still want to economize your environment.

3

If white nationalists successfully captured the West, then they would probably argue over the meaning of Abe Lincoln’s statue – whether to dynamite it or not. They would argue about the meaning of particular poems. So “comfortable lifestyle” may be just as easily replaced with “victorious.”

4

Honestly what if feminism is just women behaving economically?

All humans naturally want greater degrees of freedom to conserve effort. Maybe women are just childish enough to demand it.

Or think about this: men (in this patriarchal scenario) already control their wives, so they do not demand mens’ rights. Yet men try to control other men.

However, men do not ask for better treatment from other men, because they know it looks weak. So if you took away that norm, you might find men behaving like women and demanding things childishly, like free meals at work, a wingback chair in the office, or a three-day work week.

In other words, ideology may be a mask for the Principle of Least Effort.

5

If these women wanted to cut down on effort tax, they wouldn’t be adopting all these “ritualistic chores” I’ve described. Ritualistic chores are the opposite of the principle least effort. It’s the principle of the most exhausting effort. Anxiety is what makes mountain of molehills. Ritualistic chores are all about soothing performance anxiety. Criticizing the way men sit isn’t low effort. Not only is it high effort, it doesn’t save on future effort because the way a man sits doesn’t ruin your own personal schedule but complaining about it takes up a time slot. If you really wanted to conserve effort you’d manage your anxiety first.

Speaking of looking weak, look into the differences between men and women prisons. Men are very aggressive with hierarchical systems but women create pseudo-families. Fearing weakness and enforcing hierarchies is a symptom of aggression. Cooperative systems are more mathematically effective. Imagine what we could accomplish if we behaved like ants. Ants are the creatures that embody the principle of least effort perfectly.

There’s nothing wrong with asking. If your demands are unrealistic at least someone will come back to say they are but asking at all forces them to double check if the demand is actually unrealistic at all.

6

Well, the Principle of Least Effort states that all decisions are economical.

The women have a “job” (acquire respect), and they use a “tool” (ritual) to achieve it. They perform this job in the most economical manner possible.

7

‘Less effort’ is believed by the women. For them, putting up with their husbands or being degraded is more effort.

8

We’re more like them then you might think. Everything from speech to thinking is economical, and follows harmonic distributions

9

Sure but that is micro-economical. Macro-economical would be to reduce or throw out the need for respect. It’s throwing dollars away to save pennies logic. The underlying vulnerability, ego, or social dependency that creates the “job” of acquiring respect in the first place. It is more economical to reduce desire itself. They are economical when restrained to a certain system but the system itself is not economical. Look into stoic apatheia or buddhist tanha. You can perfect any method but true perfection is knowing which methods to eliminate.

10

What a beautiful thing to think and say :sparkles:

I see your point.

11

Obviously we should dynamite Abe Lincoln’s statue and never speak of him again.

He had one of the most intense records of Native American war and removal of any US president, and is considered one of the worst presidents by Native Americans.

He was driven entirely by dreams of National expansion, ambition, etc. He was a descendant of Puritans who had that particular belief in their Manifest Destiny to rule and conquer.

His emancipation and Civil War was entirely done out of Imperial pride - he had absolutely no foresight that his actions would precipitate a culture of cuckoldry, race-blind perfectionism, demographic self-immolation, and a complete divorce of political decision from ethnicity.

To worship Lincoln is to worship the act of introducing millions of outgroup people into your society, with reckless disregard for whether such coexistence will be harmonious.

Lincoln is a worse version of Merkel.

Dynamite.

12

But he planned on deporting all the emancipated slaves (oh, excuse me, enslaved persons :laughing:) to Liberia. He was assassinated before he could get the program started and Johnson seemed uninterested in it.

13

I’ve seen this argument many times from WN who, for some crazy reason, can’t let go of Abe Lincoln fanboyism. It’s untrue.

His attempt to make black people colonize were small and brittle. After his attempt to settle <500 black people on Cow Island failed, Lincoln officially gave up on colonization, and instead he began projects for the assimilation of black Americans.

When Abraham Lincoln Tried to Resettle Free Black Americans in the Caribbean | HISTORY

Regardless of that - even if Abe did have some vague desire to make black people leave, it is still terribly reckless to unleash them into a white society that did not want it.

In addition, it is rather suspicious that his efforts were so weak and small. Why not just settle the black people in a particular region of the USA and make it a semi-autonomous black state? Same thing as Native American resettlement, which Abe Lincoln loved to do, and did at a rate that is among the highest of any president.

His primary interest was expanding the USA - like many Puritan Northern Americans who formed the main thrust in pushing West, Lincoln cared more than anything about growing his glorious, democratic, free, egalitarian, Yankee empire which, they believed, would save the planet from all “oppression” and bring God’s Kingdom to earth. He was not a president who had some kind of paternalistic benevolence for his fellow citizens - rather, he was drenched with power-hunger.