Raise your hand if you think the OP has ever actually talked to a woman.
Raise your hand if you think the OP has ever actually talked to a woman.
toozy wrote:
It’s completely normal - and reasonable - to publicly comment on common examples of negative behaviour that generally comes from men more often than women. We can also all identify it.
So why, when negative behavioural patterns we tend to see more often in women are commented on, do some people take such offence?
I'm not taking offence.
Just laughing at the idea the original poster made his thread for any other reason than to get the incels all excited.
This is letsrun. People create these threads for one reason only. No amount of incredulous posturing is going to convince a sensible person otherwise.
cmr055 wrote:
i know this one wrote:
A women-bashing post on Letsrun? I’m shocked.
It’s not a “women-bashing post”. Gtfo of here
To the OP: because it’s comforting to think that society is to blame for one’s own personal shortcomings
Literally his first sentence makes it so.
Whop wrote:
My friend is 32 years old and college educated. :/
facts:
> 32 years old
> college educated (clearly not well enough)
opinion:
> probably unhappy that her only greater purpose in life is diminishing away as she ages (and nears the end of her reproductive lifetime). Likely that she is now questioning the validity of the economic system she exists within because such things are fading away...
imagine:
> being a woman
Is your friend female? Why do you cite "women" as holders of this opinion?
Have you asked her to expand on this question? Put it in other words or clarify? Do some basic questioning *before* judging?
A more considered response?
I'd be interested in a friend's underlying reasons for this statement, because thet are a friend *and* because there is a topic in her statement that evokes some ideas about Capitalism that may have merit.
That's what friends do.
fethullah gulen rupp wrote:
bust out the marx and get reading. you might both learn something. lucky for you it's all in the public domain.
anyone who says that socialists seek to abolish work is either stupid or arguing in bad faith. of course people will be required to work under socialism. the point of socialism and marxism is that human labor has value. this value should be owned and distributed among the workers, and not skimmed for profit by the capitalists. that skimming and associated alienation is why your friend and many others hate their 9-5 B.S. jobs.
The good old Karl Marx. The lazy drunken son of wealthy Jewish entrepreneurs that wanted to leave on his inheritance and do nothing but get wasted all day. Certainly putting forward the social construct of an addict , rebellious lazy kid will improve the world as a whole. Do you know he grew up in a nine bedroom house with servants?
Women would not have to work if they moved to some Middle Eastern Countries.
Get a bowl of cold gruel, snuggle up on a hard bench with a think blanket, and watch this movie, which depicts one day, that is no different than the six other days of the week:
Whop wrote:
I've seen several women post such things on social media, but I also have a personal friend who thinks "capitalism" is to blame for why she has to work 5 days per week. I'm kind of dumbfounded as to how to explain to her that people doing work is what allows there to be food at the store, electricity, gas at the gas station, etc... Kind of feels like I'm a daddy explaining to his 5 year old why adults go to work each day. My friend is 32 years old and college educated. :/
What would you say?
Can't live with them, can't live without them.
I wouldn't say anything. You shouldn't talk to people like that
trollism wrote:
cmr055 wrote:
It’s not a “women-bashing post”. Gtfo of here
To the OP: because it’s comforting to think that society is to blame for one’s own personal shortcomings
You're either very dishonest or new here.
The OP has difficulties with women so he knew when he posted his 'all very innocent' thread that folks like Steve the druggie would come back with some misogynistic crap.
The only question now is, does he feel better about it? Have the responses he's received made him feel better about himself?
I think you might be projecting a bit here.
OP, maybe you should let her know of the Lenin quote “he who does not work, neither shall he eat.” Work is necessary even under communism. Seems like a lot of people in America who say they’re socialists don’t know this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat#Soviet_UnionAnd hadn’t even set foot in a factory when he was trumpeting the rallying call ‘workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains!’.
Not yet 30 years old, he couldn’t claim to have a legitimate clue about what sort of society people wanted to live in. He churned the manifesto out in 6 weeks. Incredibly audacious, but the irony is palpable.
fethullah gulen rupp wrote:
bust out the marx and get reading. you might both learn something. lucky for you it's all in the public domain.
anyone who says that socialists seek to abolish work is either stupid or arguing in bad faith. of course people will be required to work under socialism. the point of socialism and marxism is that human labor has value. this value should be owned and distributed among the workers, and not skimmed for profit by the capitalists. that skimming and associated alienation is why your friend and many others hate their 9-5 B.S. jobs.
I actually just did that and got two books about Karl Marx. I always knew that he wrote about the relationship of workers and the industrialists who owned the means of production. He never invented "Marxism" which doesn't really exist.
BLM!! wrote:
OP, maybe you should let her know of the Lenin quote “he who does not work, neither shall he eat.” Work is necessary even under communism. Seems like a lot of people in America who say they’re socialists don’t know this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat#Soviet_Union
That was a reference to people who were not 'working class'. Basically anybody who didn't work and could still make money because of assets or because they paid people to work for them. In today's society - business owners, landlords and cryptocurrency speculators - Lenin is saying they don't get the rewards of production.
Whop wrote:
I've seen several women post such things on social media, but I also have a personal friend who thinks "capitalism" is to blame for why she has to work 5 days per week. I'm kind of dumbfounded as to how to explain to her that people doing work is what allows there to be food at the store, electricity, gas at the gas station, etc... Kind of feels like I'm a daddy explaining to his 5 year old why adults go to work each day. My friend is 32 years old and college educated. :/
What would you say?
2 things:
1) Convincing her that "Capitalism isn't why you have to go into work every your day" won't get her to sleep with you.
2) Tell her to subscribe to the Lindy Newsletter for tips on how to survive the 4HL (4 hour life) if she's struggling with that
Whop wrote:
i know this one wrote:
A women-bashing post on Letsrun? I’m shocked.
The point was not to bash women. I only mentioned the genders because I've seen probably 10 or so women post something along these lines but have never seen or heard a man say such things, which I find significant and worth thinking about.
Yeah, I was going to post something about a possible unconsciously misogynistic bias on the part of OP, because the same thing struck me: Why point out that the friend is specifically female? What does the friend's gender have to do with political/economic outlook? If a white person starts out saying "So this black guy I know" or if POC's talk about "white people" there are most likely some broad generalizations at best, or some negative prejudice at worst.
But then I thought about it, and it did occur to me that there is something to be observed here, it is real, and not rooted in bias. Without conducting a proper study, it seems to me that in my own experience, the women who talk about "the patriarchy" -- mostly but not all white, largely millennial, intelligent, college educated, politically progressive, active voters -- are overwhelmingly the same demographic (many times the exact same individual) who talk about capitalism as a problem in our American society and globally.
Sometimes they have some interestingly valid points; sometimes they use the terms "democratic socialism" and "social democracy" interchangeably because they don't appear to understand the difference or to have an awareness of the horrific history.
I am neither strictly left-leaning or right-leaning, but this all reminds me of the saying that goes something like "If you aren't liberal when you're young, you don't have a heart; if you aren't conservative when you're old, you don't have a brain."
Whop wrote:
i know this one wrote:
A women-bashing post on Letsrun? I’m shocked.
The point was not to bash women. I only mentioned the genders because I've seen probably 10 or so women post something along these lines but have never seen or heard a man say such things, which I find significant and worth thinking about.
You went out of your way to say female which is usually derogatory lol. The basis of capitalism is to be as exploitive as possible and still have a successful business and happy enough laborers lol. Like yea there are worse things than capitalism but an economy based on exploitation isn't ideal either imo
sikeloitheone wrote:
The good old Karl Marx. The lazy drunken son of wealthy Jewish entrepreneurs that wanted to leave on his inheritance and do nothing but get wasted all day. Certainly putting forward the social construct of an addict , rebellious lazy kid will improve the world as a whole. Do you know he grew up in a nine bedroom house with servants?
yeah and engels literally owned factories. that doesn't invalidate their ideas. they both loved to party and certainly did not shy away from the trappings of 19th century wealth. there is a common misconception that marx and engels wrote this highly prescriptive guide for doing the communism. that is not true at all. a lot of their writing is describing capitalism in all its good and bad traits in excruciating detail. they saw how capitalism exploited workers in unprecedented ways and concluded that this was obviously bad for workers. they theorized that this class struggle would force human progress towards socialism/communism, and that it was inevitable.
The labor movement is why people work 5 days a week. Back during the Lochner court era, your job was yours as long as you showed up. The day you missed work is the day someone else took your job. It took about three decades of strikes and political activism to get to the point where we had a 40 hour work week.
But your friend is right and it is not at all controversial or Marxist to say that Capitalism is why everyone has to work 5 days a week. Capitalism only exists if the capitalist is able to pay workers a fixed amount and then take the excess value of their labor as profit. In a socialist system (a truly socialist one), people would only have to work as long as needed to produce the goods and services that people need. We would have the rest of the time to ourselves to pursue hobbies, be with family or just hang out and have fun. Capitalism requires us to over produce and over consume because the only other option is to starve and be homeless.
Tatar. wrote:
BLM!! wrote:
OP, maybe you should let her know of the Lenin quote “he who does not work, neither shall he eat.” Work is necessary even under communism. Seems like a lot of people in America who say they’re socialists don’t know this one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat#Soviet_UnionThat was a reference to people who were not 'working class'. Basically anybody who didn't work and could still make money because of assets or because they paid people to work for them. In today's society - business owners, landlords and cryptocurrency speculators - Lenin is saying they don't get the rewards of production.
Yes, but it still implies that people need to work/produce for society to function. You wouldn't just get rid of work in a communist society. I guess it's not clear what OP's friend is saying. Maybe she's just saying people would work less than 5 days a week without capitalism, which is a more reasonable statement than what OP is implying she meant.