How come leftists accept that a person can be economically unsuccessful through no fault of their own. But when it comes to being sexually unsuccessful. The rules suddenly change. "lol shut up incel". Suddenly they believe in capitalism, no one is entitled to anything, everyone is responsible for their own destiny, and everyone gets exactly what they deserve in life. What makes the sexual free market so much more magically different than the economic free market? Why do they want to regulate the economic market so badly but not the sexual market? Why aren't they demanding the nationalization, collectivization, and equal redistribution of assets when it comes to these particular means of production?

>>81803036 (OP)
Because the entire point of leftism is that people aren't property?

>>81803085
How come leftists always push for more and more statism then?

>>81803036 (OP)
Because they are either women or feminized men. That is the whole concept behind the modern left. They are economically far left socalist, taking from men whenever they can into their own pockets but in everything else far far right especially sex never ever giving away anything for free. Women biologically hate men who are under or equal to them and this system makes most men equal or lower than women making it even harder for said men to get sex. It is an endless downwards spiral. This is another reason why socialism can never work. I would not mind leftist people if they would be for real equality and fairness but nobody in this world is. Libertarianism is the only way to solve this since this puts women in their normal biological disadvantage making them dependent on men again.

>>81803589
Because in the absence of a state which enforces the idea that people are not property, you would become someone's property.

>>81803036 (OP)
what does "sexually unsuccessful" even mean? sex is just a natural part of life. if you didn't have breakfast this morning, that's generally your own fault, yes.

how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?

>>81803036 (OP)
How would you solve the problem of being sexually unsuccessful? Being economically unsuccessful is much easier to deal with.

I think one solution would be legalizing prostitution to make sex more available with less of the stigma. I don't think the right can even touch that without alienating their Christian base. There are proponents of decriminalizing/legalizing prostitution on the left but most people steer clear of the issue in order to not be labeled a perv.

>>81803692
it's like how whiteboys in prison are the property of black dudes because there's no system in place to prevent it

>>81803746
Prostitution is legal in large parts of Europe and we have the exact same problems you do.
Arguably worse since it's a global competition and you guys have richer and more attractive men.
I'm sure there are incels in Vegas too, if you want a more local example.

>>81803809
It wouldn't be a perfect solution but at least it lessens some of the impact of being sexually unsuccessful.

There are not many ways to deal with the problem at a government level without impeding on someones autonomy.

>>81803809
incels don't exist though. you can always get a hooker

>>81803779
>American can't resist posting about niggers and rape

>>81803862
>mfw when she thinks only americans understand the power of BBC.

>>81803036 (OP)
Because feminism is giving women all the benefits of equality with none of the responsibilities.

>>81803702
>if you didn't have breakfast this morning, that's generally your own fault, yes.
Yeah fuck dem african kids bro

>>81803085
False dichotomy.
The solution to the Woman Problem isn't necesssarily forcing women to have sex with incels.
And by implying this, you're also implying that the true purpose of communism is to force the hand of the upperclass, by gunpoint maybe. They may not be property under those circumstances, but it's not a more ethical way of changing things anyway.

>>81804017
african kids eat breakfast. how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast this morning?

>>81804150
>african kids eat breakfast.
Source?

>>81803036 (OP)
Feminism branched off of communism. I'm not sure what meme you are referring to but the idea of a man being sexually unsuccessful in a world where women have rights and then looking for pity is the same as a rich capitalist being economically unsuccessful in a world where workers have rights and then looking for pity.

some portion of evil men being sexless is literally the product of redistribution. yeah we have to accept that there are winners and losers in any system but you're larping about some ideological position which directly causes your problem in the first place.

>>81804235
>the idea of a man being sexually unsuccessful in a world where women have rights and then looking for pity is the same as a rich capitalist being economically unsuccessful in a world where workers have rights and then looking for pity.
The sexual market favors women, not men.
In your analogy, it would be like a poor man complaining and seeking pity from rich CEOs.

>you're larping about some ideological position which directly causes your problem in the first place.
I want to give you the benefit of doubt, so I'm gonna ask: you're not really implying that "incel ideology" or whatever is the cause of him not geting laid, right?

>>81804338
>the economy favors workers, not rich CEOs
are you retarded or something? you didn't address anything I said.

>>81804347
Who are you quoting?
Your first part implied that, in the current sexual market scenario, men are akin to rich capitalists and women to workers with rights.
It's clearly not like that.
I know being a feminist you can't help being an idiot, but at least try to keep up, will you?

>>81803085
>Because the entire point of leftism is that people aren't property?
But its exactly opposite.
Leftist don't believe in human rights and believe that states interests completely trumps all person rights and desires.
Leftism is slavery to the state.

>>81804404
Are you able to read or do you just not have any reading comprehension?

>>81804463
Just take the L and leave quietly.

>>81804017
>The solution to the Woman Problem isn't necesssarily forcing women to have sex with incels.

So what's your solution?

>>81803036 (OP)
Because the left wing is just a vehicle for the identity politics of women and minorities. And they'll immediately abandon their supposed "ideals", the moment it's not opportune anymore for them.

>>81804235
In the grand scheme of things, life is a zero sum game. I would be a lot more accepting of your ideas, if you conceded that, instead of putting up this fake and gay veneer of moral righteousness.

>>81804467
Leave what? Some anon had trouble understanding my post and started replying with meaningless non-sequitur.

>>81804473
Deradicalization could work I think.
And it starts with the truth.
No, you're not gonna be able to have your cake and eat it too: you shouldn't build a family late in life and, even if you manage, brace yourself for way more problems you signed in for.
You're responsible for what you do: relationships and sex isn't just something that happens to you (as far as hookups go, exlcuding rape then). You are partly responsible for the toxic relationships and the bad sex you get.
So on and so forth, basically completely dismantling the lie of the "You can do everything and nothing is ever your fault" feminist spiel.

Down the road that would lead to women chosing their partners more carefully, meaning less fucking around with dark triad guys and more marriages with decent people (warning: r9k's robots may not be included).

>>81804524
Life is the exact opposite of a zero-sum game. I don't think anyone is trying to give you ideas to accept. There's just a meme going around about seizing the means of reproduction and that's literally what feminism was about.

>>81804550
>Leave what?
The thread. You keep babbling about being misunderstood, but you aren't pointing out where or how, you just keep going with basic insults.
Either you're too stupid to keep up with the topic or you don't want to admit defeat, either way the thread would benefit without your presence.

this thread is retarded. unless someone offers an actual solution to the problem you're just flapping your gums and chanting lefties bad with no real purpose.

what is the right wing solution to the problem and why are you not advocating it's implementation?

>>81804550
in the current sexual market scenario women are akin to rich capitalists

>>81804559
you're ridiculous

>Down the road that would lead to women chosing their partners more carefully,

That is what is happening and that is why some men are unsuccessful sexually.

>>81803860
Starvation does not exist because you can eat animal feces.

>>81804571
The other anon wasn't keeping up, that's why he didn't address anything I said. If he wanted to reply to my post he could have tried replying with something relevant.

>>81804572
>unless someone offers an actual solution to the problem you're just flapping your gums
You mean like leftist talking about econmics?

>>81804594
Starvation would be akin to celibacy. Starvation and celibacy both exist yeah. Incels don't exist for obvious reasons.

>>81804565
Here we have it. The usual denial. Of course, if you give power to somebody, it is only meaningful, if he can actualize it. And that means somebody else has to be the sucker. A victory is meaningful only then, when it is the defeat of somebody else. Otherwise it is a consolation prize and meaningless.

>>81804610
>deflecting

who is talking about economics as a solution to sexually unsuccessful males? the incel meme among normies does not mean poor it means socially unadjusted rightwing weirdos.

>>81804572
The right wing solution is that people suffering is fine and part of the natural order. There is no problem and any attempt to "fix" things just makes life worse for everyone by spitting in the face of God.

>>81804623
Victory and defeat are not mutually exclusive. Both people in a transaction can be victorious if they have different wants or needs. Both can be defeated if the deal falls through after a lot of stressful negotiation. Meaning is generated through growth and development, not zero-sum games. You could argue that it comes at the cost of a bunch of dead people but they are dead so they don't get to experience that cost.

>>81804593
They don't choose the partners more "carefully". They go by their feelings and choose whoever is the most attractive. Which I don't blame women for, by the way. They're biologically determined to do that. But this primal instinct of attraction can be hardly be called "careful" and "considerate".

>>81804641
God is a sadist and wants this. In a way, the right only actualizes how this world is meant to operate, anyways.

>>81804659
>fat, ugly, lower class men are the most attractive
hm

>>81804641
>>81804641
>The right wing solution is that people suffering is fine and part of the natural order

The right wing solution is that people suffering is fine so put your burkha back on bitch and let me bend you over so I crank out some babies with you.

They just don't want to come out and say that.

>>81804667
God isn't a sadist. He is doing what is best for everyone, but we can't understand him. It would be like an ant trying to understand human technology.

>>81804593
>That is what is happening
Divorce rates aren't going down, birth rates are at critical levels, not to mention domestic violence or single-mothers households.
No, women aren't being careful and, ultimately, aren't happy. But keep telling yourself that until it's too late, like a good propagandized idiot would.

>>81804659
You don't get to dictate the criteria with which people choose their partners.

Thanks for lending creedence to my post >>81804674

This is just a stupid thread to attack lefties in a most deranged manner. Your shit is boring.

>>81804674
There are a lot of people who are pretty open about this sentiment on this website and in Western politics, though with the true religion instead of barbaric Islam. What is wrong with that line of thinking? Your pride making you want to go against God again and create more suffering?

>>81804638
What this post is have to do with anything?

>>81804600
>that's why he didn't address anything I said
What you said is literally quoted in green, idiot.

>>81804674
Muslims are left wing/

>>81804657
You come up with a economics example? How rich. Isn't it you guys who're always droning on about how the West has made its fortunes off the exploitation of the global South? And now you're revoking that? You only don't see the losers in those situations, because the modern market economy abstracts the master-slave relationships in a way where you can mentally distance yourself from it. Isn't it rich, how you guys all of a sudden become capitalists, when it's opportune for you?

>>81804686
divorce rates have been going down for 20 years, and the guys getting divorced tend to be the assholes who should never have been chosen in the first place.

birth rates are at stable levels to maintain current population, but there is a fear that they will go down without more migration.

>too late
it was too late like 500 years ago when we allowed men to be assholes and ruin society. now we have to slowly rebuild and women being more selective will be a step in the right direction.

>>81804686
You guys like to attack "birth rates" but then in an earlier post you discount economical factors. Wealthy couples making over 500k have more babies on average than couples making less than 500k. Just saw that stat somewhere.

Go on post your "birth rates" graph that shows how birth rates are higher in countries with less womens rights. Go look at those countries and ask yourself if Afghanistan and fucking Somalia are the types of ideals a country should live up to. You will just be giving more credence to my post>>81804674

Your shit is tired and boring.

>>81804668
they don't choose those lmao

>>81804681
you're sounding like a battered house wife trying to make excuses for your asshole of a husband. No, God clearly is a sadist who enjoys have power over people. After all, this is what this world is all about. Exerting power over weaker people. This is God's grand design.

>>81804729
Living in Afghanistan is unironically more fulfilling than life in the US or any other country cucked by secularism at this point. But yeah, just down another dozen antidepressent every morning and it'll look great compared to people living with meaning, community, and family!

>>81804721
you have to be blind to not see writings on teh wall

>>81804696
It's 2025 if you're using God to justify your viewpoints you are an intellectually stunted retard.

>>81804738
You think that way, because you think yourself to be equal to God. No, he should exert power over us, because we are weak and nothing without his guidance.

>>81803036 (OP)
about your image
tbf Russia was the most right wing reactionary country before the revolution and in no way was ready for communism (not to imply communism is good)
Russians are just Orthodox monarchists larping as socialists

>>81804743
Cool, go back there and shut the fuck up. Americans don't want to be a third world country. I believe conservatives tend to refer to them as "shitholes"

>>81804756
Secularism has proven itself to be a failure with suffering rising every year in countries that have rejected faith, one of the most essential components of human life.

>>81804690
I don't dictate anything. I'm just observing the world around me and make observations of it. You're offended, because you know that my observations are accurate and they conflict with what you want to believe. You should go to Reddit, where they'll reaffirm what want to be true.

>>81803036 (OP)
I dont think its leftists saying that I think its right wingers shaming other incel right wingers.

I have never seen a leftist mock someone IRL for being single or childless. But I have seen tons of Right wing men shame other right wing men for being single or childless. Often by bragging about their own sexual success and implying that the incels should man up and lower their standards

>>81804718
>You come up with a economics example?
I didn't say anything about economics.
>Isn't it you guys who're always droning on about how the West has made its fortunes off the exploitation of the global South?
No. Exploitation is a meme word.
>And now you're revoking that?
Revoking what?
>You only don't see the losers in those situations, because the modern market economy abstracts the master-slave relationships in a way where you can mentally distance yourself from it
I said there are winners and losers in any system, but life in general is not zero-sum. There used to be a lot more people living in what we considered poverty and on the metrics that we valued then and still value today, the trend in quality-of-life improvements has been beneficial for everyone as a general rule. In other words more people are winning without needing more people to lose, but yes things like war and famine and bad governance also creates a lot of loss for little to no benefit to anyone.
>Isn't it rich, how you guys all of a sudden become capitalists, when it's opportune for you?
What is opportune for me? I don't own land if that's what you mean. We live in a mixed economy, true capitalism hasn't been tried.

>>81804771
Americans clearly do want to be a "third world country" by your metrics. Conservatism is more popular than it has been in ages in the US after the constant failures of secularism. Christianity is finally making a comeback among the youth who have seen firsthand how hollow life is without God. In 30 years, the US will look a lot more like these "third world countries" and everyone will be happier for it.

>>81804718
Why did Trump exempt the illegals working agriculture and hotel jobs if they are all bad and undermining America?

>>81804776
Funny how the most secular countries are all the most prosperous with the highest lifespans.

>>81804761
Ah yes, here we go again. The accusation of pride. No, I'm in fact not prideful. If God wanted me to come to your preconception he'd have made the world in a way that is more akin to it. I'm only being rational here. I mean it. I'm not even a disbeliever. The world is cruel and capricious. Hence, God wants the world to be cruel and capricious.

>>81804780
>I have never seen a leftist mock someone IRL for being single or childless.
You cant be this stupid.
Women universally mock men for been virgins and all women are leftists.

>>81804747
>the writing on the wall never changes
none of this matters because if you are a writingonthewallmaxxer then you believe that we will all die from a nuclear war in the 1970s

>>81804721
>the guys getting divorced tend to be the assholes who should never have been chosen in the first place.
So, you're saying women weren't careful with their choice?

>birth rates are at stable levels to maintain current population
Absolutely not.
https://www.euronews.com/health/2024/09/28/europes-fertility-crisis-which-european-country-is-having-the-fewest-babies
We're below replacement level, if we don't count immigrants of course.

And again, violence against women is still a serious trend and, lo and behold, it usually come from current or ex-partners.

But keep coping until Dark Chad beats you to death, I guess.

>>81804807
Prosperous in what way? Fake numbers going up every year as a way to cope with how the entire populace is cramming opioids down their mouths to cope with life? And sure, you get to live far longer than God wanted humans to, suffering on Earth with your body collapsing in some miserable home, shitting yourself in diapers as your mind is destroyed by dementia. That sounds so much better than just dying young and going to eternal paradise.

>>81804803
I don't know why you even ask me that. But I'm happy to answer. Because billionaires in the farming industry pressured him. They need them, because they're cheap. By the way, they don't undermine America. They undermine the white working middle class. Are you gonna dispute that?

>>81804831
>So, you're saying women weren't careful with their choice?
50 years ago? nope

>>81804831
>replacememe level
This doesn't mean anything. It assumes we still live to an average age of 45. The population is still growing, but in some countries it's steadily leveling off or declining slightly. This is after we had exponential growth for a century so most wealthy and educated people believe our population is too high and needs to be corrected to avoid malthusian bullshit. The problem is that people are still having too many kids.

>>81804779
So you consider your anecdotal observations fact. Fuck your feelings.

>>81804797
>Americans clearly do want to be a "third world country" by your metrics.
> Conservatism is more popular than it has been in ages in the US after the constant failures of secularism.

The fact that you put those two sentences together is hillarious.

>>81804840
Okay but that's not really different than what both parties had been doing all along. What really changes of the people paying the illegals are never punished?

What if after Trump leaves ICEs funding gets cut and with no new legal repercussions against the people hiring illegals we are just back to square one?

The whole thing seems more like political theater than a meaningful change in policy.

>>81804729
>You guys like to attack "birth rates" but then in an earlier post you discount economical factors. Wealthy couples making over 500k have more babies on average than couples making less than 500k. Just saw that stat somewhere.

Poverty is certainly a factor, sure. But it's not the only one, otherwise poor countries (like Somalia) wouldn't have babies at all. Unless of course, there was another factor involved, which brings us to...

>Go on post your "birth rates" graph that shows how birth rates are higher in countries with less womens rights
They're also the countries where feminism didn't propagandize their women.
Maybe it's not just "women's rights", maybe it's this very specific political ideology that affects birth rates.
Prove to me that is specifically the lack of women's rights, and not the lack of feminism, that affects birth rates.
I jest of course, I know in your dumb head you think those are one and the same.

>>81803085
>leftist society
>look inside
>people property of state

>>81804880
>So you consider your anecdotal observations fact. Fuck your feelings
You'll step on the road and get run over on of those days. Hopefully soon.

>>81804884
Men who oppress women force them to have kids, yeah.

>>81804884
>Unless of course, there was another factor involved, which brings us to...

>overlooks more obvious factors like infant mortality, child labor laws being more lax which means children can be used as a means of family survival, etc.

>>81804884
>Unless of course, there was another factor involved, which brings us to...

people that are generally less intelligent will fuck raw as a pasttime and produce children that they then "deal with" as best they can. these places are full of these people. you're not wrong or anything, but it ain't just feminism. it's also largely as easy as i just described. are you ready for Camp of the Saints yet? it might just be coming!

>>81804845
>50 years ago? nope
50 years ago almost marked the end of feminism's second wave. If they weren't careful then there's no reason to think they'd be careful now.

>>81804869
You really think people aren't having kids because they're worried about the overpopulation of their country, or even the world?
That's a cope anti-natalists on here use to justify why they'll never have sex, couples tend to consider their microcosm, Birth rates are noticeably declining, and the cause is definitely not because men and women are worried about overpopulation.

>>81804961
they seem to be pretty careful. we have seen a lot of shitty men who don't have a marriage or kids.

>>81804961
>people aren't having kids
They are still having too many kids. I'm saying most leaders and economists think we have overpopulation. There are some cucks who do this replacememe bullshit to protect social security benefits, but then even they acknowledge that for example, there are more kids today than there ever have been in the past. That's why childcare is so expensive.

>>81804150
how would you sneed if you didn't feed
how will you ever be a woman if you're a man

>>81804961
There are more obvious to the reason why people aren't having kids than "feminism". All the women I know that have kids would consider themselves feminists. I can tell you how many trad wives I know that have kids and that's 0 because they're a dumb meme minority that practically don't exist outside of right wing media.

Perhaps you don't realize this because you're some incel on r9k whining about sexual success of males... but a big part of the conversation around "should we have kids?" is "can we afford them?"

>>81804899
Lack of feminism doesn't equal forcing women to childbirth. I'm no anthropologist but I'd bet not every country without feminism treats their women like Islam does.

>>81804911
So poverty it's the deciding factor, until it's not? I'm not overlooking the shit conditions those countries are in, I'm just stating that poverty isn't the only thing that decides wether a couple will have kids or not.

>>81804941
Oh, absolutely it's not just feminism. But it's part of the illness, not part of the cure.

>>81804993
>didn't sneed
Explain yourself.

>>81804979
the issue of course is not overpopulation per se, but a terrible surplus of parasites or takers, and a deficit of productive folk. if the mean IQ was even 100, much less 120 amongst the newest generation and they were generally raised in a decent way, it wouldn't matter a lick how many people any given nation added. outside of, i suppose, certain island nations or those in certain environmental positions. America is not one of them.

>>81804966
There are also a lot that do.

>>81804979
>They are still having too many kids
Again, you're thinking in a scope that couple ABSOLUTELY do not consider when thinking about having a child.

>>81805023
>There are more obvious to the reason why people aren't having kids than "feminism"
Never denied it. But feminism, like I said, is part of the illness, not the cure. No matter how hard you tip your fedora at m'ladies, it doesn't change this fact.

>>81805040
>mean IQ
by definition, the average IQ is always 100. that's how IQ scores are defined. you should go back to school before you try to do this 18 year old THINKER social commentary thing. but yes, obviously we have an overpopulation problem, there's just no ethical way to address it.

>>81805024
>So poverty it's the deciding factor, until it's not?

When you are living in an impoverished country where you rely on children to contribute to the economic prosperity of the family then having more kids can be a boon to your survival.

When you are living in a developed country that expects you to prioritize the health and education of your kids so they can be intelligent and productive members of society at the parents expense then you need to be more thoughtful in how many kids you can afford to have.

Did you legitimately need that spelled out for you?

>>81805052
Couples have kids for many scoped reasons. If everyone around them is having kids, they are more likely to.

>>81805026
over half a decade on estrogen to look like a teenage boy hit in the face with a shovel one too many times

>>81805068
>the shovels have estrogen in them and they make the frogs schizophrenic!
based troll

>>81805024
Love the downcast eyes and demure expression. Really sells the message and shows how confident and not oppressed she is.

Downward camera angle implies a man took that picture.

I would question the authenticity of that sign.

>>81805052
>Never denied it. But feminism, like I said, is part of the illness, not the cure.

I think we would be better served by addressing the more glaring issues of raising children then. "Can we afford to have a child?" "Can we afford the added cost of food, diapers, childcare?" "Will we be able to send our child to college?" "Will we have access to good healthcare during and after the pregnancy? Will we be able to afford healthcare for our child?"

>>81805056
right. i am not using "IQ" as a measure in a given test population. i'm using it in the literal sense of "how would x individual in a population like the US score on a proctored standford-binet or other IQ test" and generating a mean or median based upon those results.

i suppose i should have said that if the most biologically-productive people didn't create and raise such stupid fucking kids it wouldn't much matter how many of those kids there were. given your "ethics", why would it not be acceptable to offer cash lump sums for sterilization amongst the most stupid and parasitic populations and individuals? i don't get thinking there is a strict overpopulation problem that is gonna fuck us big time, but thinking "ooooh thats not moral, everyone should have the right and ability to have kids they just shouldn't!!!!!"

>>81805065
My bad on citing countries like Somalia as an example, that was a misstep on my part, because I contributed to shift the scope from first world countries, which is completely meaningless in this discussion. As far as first-world countries go, yes, poverty is a factor, but saying it's the end-all-be-all factor on which all the couples out there are making their decisions on, well, it's disingenuous and simply not true.

>>81805067
Indeed, but I simply do not believe that people, anyone that has sex really, settle on not having kids due to overpopulation. You will have to provide me some objective fact for me to believe it.

>>81803746
>How would you solve the problem of being sexually unsuccessful
The legalization/normalization of all sex work including porn and the removal of stigma against male sexuality would be a good start. Perhaps pointing out how picky and selective women are compared to men and that no one benefits by having too high standards or by women having casual sex with a small percentage of men who won't ever settle.

Women would always have a head start and have it much easier in dating, that's a given due to the power that lies in their sexuality. But it would even out the playing field a bit.

>>81805099
I'm making fun of muslisms, not supporting them.

>>81805117
How many "couples", if we can call them that, do arrive at that stage of the relationship though?
You're imaging that the falling birth rates are due to Mr. and Miss Jones being low on money. Some cases may be like that, sure, but feminism nips it in the bud and simply prevent a couple like that to be formed or, if that happens, to endure to that point.
Modern women don't say "I don't want kids because I can't afford them", they say "I don't want kids because they are a burden". Fine and dandy, until they realize (too late) that that burden also come with great rewards.

>>81805156
Anon what kind of data are you basing your views on? It all seems very theoretical to me.

>>81803036 (OP)
>>81804780
Leftists are usually loser antifa communist men or feminist women and both of them hate men if we simplify what they say, do and stand for. Especially white men. Heterosexual men. The people they think run the world and represent capitalism and all "Evil" in the world. That's why they'd never care about issues that predominantly face men. It'd seen as a betrayal to women (higher prioritized in their oppression Olympics) and their cause.

>>81805205
You'll have to be more specific on what part of my post you're referring to. If it's the second yes, it's absolutely theoretical, which is why I asked for some objective proof. I'm willing to back down on that point, but as it stands now I absolutely do not believe a solid couple will backtrack on having kids because "Think of the overpopulation, Joe!".

>>81805119
the mean IQ score is always 100, it's that simple. the "young people today are stupid!" meme is a tale as old as time, and some cultures don't value education for trivial knowledge like we did 100 years ago, but that has nothing to do with IQ. there are valid arguments for both why humans are becoming more intelligent, and also some arguments that say we are getting less intelligent. IQ tests normalize to 100 though. the idea is that IQ should follow a normal distribution, even though you could theoretically (and probably practically do) have a much larger population of people who are baseline intelligent enough to function in society, and then 10% of people who are exceptionally intelligent but all close within each other, ie. bimodal.

>>81805234
Do you have data that supports your idea that feminism is a major reason that women are not having kids or chooses not to enter into relationships?

>>81805296
There are some studies that, while not outright saying feminism is to blame (of course they wouldn't), cite factors such as "prioritising other interests in life" as well as saying that "It seems that commitment and taking the next step in relationships has become more difficult." (https://lesglorieuses.fr/falling-birth-rates/ this is from a FEMINIST website). And I don't think I need to explain why feminism is the first ideology that promotes that.

>chooses not to enter into relationships
Never said that, I said/implied that they enter relationships with men that wouldn't make good fathers or husbands.

>>81803036 (OP)
marxists and liberals aren't true leftists. revert to jacobinism and complete the revolution

>>81803085
that's liberalism you fucking moron

>>81805418
They do not mention feminism once in that article. It's about falling birthrates in general. What lines are you reading between to blame feminism?

Here are some quotes I think are interesting:

>" countries where economic progress outstrips social progress - and which see less gender equality in household division of labour - see the most rapid falls in fertility. "

This to me kind of suggests the opposite of the point you are trying to make. Feminism is generally considered social progress. When households see an equal division of labor that suggests more equality between the sexes, ie feminism. When economic progress outstrips social progress, you see a fall in fertility.

>"However, the most significant decline has been in first births. Surveys indicate that a childfree lifestyle is becoming more common.""

People just don't want kids, and the ones that do are having them.

>"The current decline is mostly due to cultural changes in lifestyle aspirations and lack of support to young adults, the relationship recession, mental health challenges, and so on," she told me.

>"While lack of a partner and economic uncertainty were previously the most common reasons for postponing or forgoing childbearing, a notable shift has occurred. Increasingly, one of the primary reasons cited in recent years is prioritising other interests in life."


>"The current decline is mostly due to cultural changes in lifestyle aspirations and lack of support to young adults, the relationship recession, mental health challenges, and so on," she told me.

People just don't feel supported and don't feel like they can have a good lifestyle with kids.

>>81805631
>They do not mention feminism once in that article. It's about falling birthrates in general. What lines are you reading between to blame feminism?
I literally quoted them and literally said they wouldn't blame feminism outright. The article is also 1) from a feminist website, like I said 2) Has different people give different answers.
I picked the ones I picked because I found relevant how feminism, by some, is considered responsible even if it goes against the narrative (of the website, in this case).
What did you expect? Numbers and a diagram for a societal phenomenon?

>>81803036 (OP)
How has retarded feminist leftism not been meme shamed out of existence yet? These memes have been made for 15+ years, is the conditioning really that deep?

>>81805719
Not blaming them is different than not mentioning them at all. This was not an article that said anything or implied anything about the views of feminism effecting relationship or childbearing.

You cite other articles and don't provide them and you assign your own meaning to the responses to the survey. Did they ask the women if they were feminists?

I am responding to the source *you* provided to back up your views. If you are going to link me to an article and have me read it in an attempt to persuade me it better damn well address your claims. It doesnt, and the fact is there is a direct quote which contradicts your claims.

>>81805863
You mean something more like this?
https://npg.org/press-releases/pr03212019/

>>81805904
That's what you should have led with anon. Though I'm not entirely convinced. Here is the study they are talking about: https://npg.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ControllingPopulationInAStrongEconomy-IsFeminismTheAnswer-FP2019.pdf

I'm not sure if you read it. There are some issues I have with it and don't find it entirely convincing. While they talk about the past a bit they try to attribute new social movements to declines in birth rates starting from 07-17. The sharpest declines in birth rates were from 07-10. In 07 we were in the midst of the Iraq war and directly followed by the great recession which they even mention in the study. Having a large population of men missing from the continent and then coming back to a financial crisis... that seems like a bigger thing to blame than feminism. Rates were relatively steady and even rose briefly from 10-17 where it dropped pretty steep once again.

Towards the tail end of that period (the drop) they mention the "me too" movement, record numbers of women going into office and running large corporations. They describe that economic for women at a time when another wave of social progress was coming into the forefront. From the other article you sent economic improvement outstriping social progress leads to lower birth rates.

>>81804593
>That is what is happening and that is why some men are unsuccessful sexually.
yeah theyre getting pumped and dumped and left as single mothers even with rampant access to abortion, which, by and large should only be for cases of rape, or their being complications, or you turn out to be related to the father.

>>81806587
how many single mothers do you know personally?

>>81806605
I work with at least 3, and a few more did work there who left
2 of them have tried getting with me despite me being kinda weird irl, and one of them quit when she realized I wasnt signing up for that.

>>81803036 (OP)
Modern culture is firmly against the discrimination and for empowering women. And the main thing women do is sexual selection. Sexual selection is the most brutal discrimination out there. For example everyone has a racial preference and that is fine. Yes it is all hypocritical to the core.

>>81806626
based. the last time i met a single mom was probably 2015, i normally don't go to ghetto neighborhoods and it seems like even in the cases where i've heard a couple split up the woman quickly found a new boyfriend to be the father figure.

>>81803036 (OP)
How do you know what sexual success would look like in a leftist economy where economic equality is strived for? Perhaps in an economy that guarantees everyone a certain level of success and priorities the middle class sexual success would become more equal as well. Women want security for their babies and will gravitate towards mates that can provide that on some level. In a lefty economy where a decent quality of life is guaranteed women would be more freer to pursue a wider variety of men without having to resort to Rich Chad CEO.

The fact is we are in a fully capitalist society as a result of right wing policies. If you're so in love with right wing policies why do you want to abandon those ideals and have women go around with men that are impoverished in looks? It is only right that those with the most lookswealth hold greater sway in a sexual economy.

You just want to have your cake and eat it to. You want to live in a right wing political climate with a left wing sexual climate. In reality you can't separate the two. You either strive for economic and sexual socialism, or you accept the consequences of economic and sexual capitalism.

>>81803036 (OP)
>why are leftists hypocrites
because you cannot understand what hypocrisy is when you do not have values to begin with. If a predator uses mimicry to lure its prey it doesn't feel guilt over it because lying, as a concept, proceeds from the idea that the truth matters.

>>81806934
I couldn't understand your word salad but left wing politics, specifically socialism and communism, do not "guarantee" any standard of life. They believe that people should be more directly responsible for their own success, and that the state (if a state should even exist) should only facilitate a fair and balanced playing field for everyone, first through collectivization and then through reeducation and central planning. The entire point of left-wing politics is that nobody should be guaranteed success just for existing and exploiting others, specifically the capitalist class. Under the philosophy of abundance they believe that you can have more people reap more of the rewards of their labor, but they also believe in labor theory of value, meaning you have to work for what you get and value is derived from your work.

Nobody has ever advertised socialism as "magically, everyone will be a successful billionaire"; they in fact think highly successful people simply shouldn't exist.

As for sex and reproduction, communists did make it your duty as part of the communist party to go out and raise families (USSR) or limit the number of kids you have (China), but more broadly they also made sure the men weren't weak degenerates. In many cases, if you were unattractive, unable to fit in with society, etc. your duty was to go be fertilizer or cannon fodder, individual freedoms and "entitlements" were not respected.

>>81803589
I think you need to look more into leftist though before you can make wide sweeping statements. You seem curious so you should do some more exploring. Not all leftist believe in the same things and you could easily find an ideology that rejects statism.

>>81803036 (OP)
I'm bored so here's an answer from a leftist instead of a /pol/ chud.

What you consider being "sexually unsuccessful" is just women applying Capitalism to mating behaviors. When social mobility and economic mobility are only available through marrying up, then obviously women are going to minmax and select for the wealthiest most successful partner that can give them the wealthiest most successful offspring. You see this in 3rd world countries a lot: Men with a lot of resources will have a monopoly on the women, and as resources become more centralized and stratified so do the women. If you took this image and replaced "Wealth" with "Women" it would pretty much be identical. The only solution then, is to eliminate the wealth gap from society to even the playing field. ie, socialism. As people are no longer filtering potential partners through their "potential" income, they will be forced to look at other factors such as personality. Hell, if women simply weren't required to marry a rich man to have a happy life due to the competitive nature of Capitalism, they'd probably be more willing to settle for you.

Ultimately I don't think state-mandated sex redistribution is necessary because almost the entirety of it is solved by simply eliminating the wealth gap and giving women more agency to not be dependent on a husband for income. The Soviet Union never had an incel problem.

>>81803085
>the entire point of leftism is that people aren't property?
Leftists argue that you don't exist as an individual and the only thing that matters is community

>>81807099
part 1
There may have been a few typos in my post anon but if you couldn't follow the logic that's more on you than me. Frankly your own reply illustrates the shortcomings of your intellect. You understood enough to respond in detail so calling it "word salad" is just a rhetorical dodge.

Socialism and communism by definition *do* ensure some standards of living, not luxury, but access to basics like food, healtcare, education, etc. People are still expected to contribute to their own and societies success but there are also safety nets in place to minimize exploitation and ensure no one falls into abject poverty. Your definition of socialism is deeply flawed.

>>81807099
part 2
There are a few problems with your ideas on billionaires. In socialism or communism the idea is that no one person should be able to exploit people to such a degree that there even are billionares (or whatever high number it is that signals they are living way beyond the way ordinary people are living). If the resources are there for everyone to be billionares, then sure everyone should be, but if they're not, no one person should be able to attain such a status when it means others would be exploited heavily. Also you are equating being highly successful with being a billionaire. You can be highly successful and accomplished and fall drastically short of being a billionaire. Would you not consider someone making 500k a year highly successful?

As for sex and reproduction capitalism already limits peoples reproductive choices. You can't have children you can't pay for. The limit might not be stated outright but it's infinitely easier for the wealthy to raise more kids, provide them more security, a better education, and wildly different opportunities from those of the lower and middle classes. Capitalism doesn't encourage strong families at all, it turns them into a luxury. The pressure to not reproduce falls exclusively on the poor and lower middle classes. Further we still shun men who are weak degenerates in our capitalistic society. The whole point of OPs post is that there is a sexual economy that weak ugly men can not be a part of.

We've already had this thread before. Bla bla Houllebecq bla bla Whatever bla bla pauperization.

Here's your (you).
>>81803036 (OP)