[Andy_B]

This is a topic that's been on my mind a lot lately.

It seems that a lot of wealth can be kind of bad for a society on a spiritual level.

Y'know, the whole "when you have something to lose you have something to fear" thing.

When I look at the state of the Western World, and its growing problems of feminization and asexuality, it really seems like excessive prosperity is at the root of the problem.

It just seems like people who have jobs that they fear losing are way easier to coerce into making humiliating concessions.

I mean, could you even IMAGINE something like feminism taking root in, say, early 1990s Russia?

Hard to picture it, but feminism was QUITE alive there in the fatter years during the Soviet Union.

The reason Russians are more masculine than Westerners, is because they are less rich.

Not that I'm saying the average Westerner is rich or anything.

In fact, if we were all rich, we probably wouldn't have this problem; once you get SO rich you don't need to worry about money, you can start to recapture some of the ballsiness of the starving poor, albeit for totally different reasons.

It seems, though, that when you get to a certain baseline middle class level of wealth, you start to acquire this deep fear of losing what you've got, because what you've got can be easily taken away.

Which is why I increasingly fail to see the economic difficulties in the West as a bad thing.

[kerouac]

I think once Americans start getting rich, they start looking at the British Aristocracy for life lessons. Terrible.

Once they lose that money, they start looking to Al Capone for life lessons. Much better.


vs this

[jackson.henley]

(06-11-2012 03:49 PM)Andy_B Wrote:  

This is a topic that's been on my mind a lot lately.

It seems that a lot of wealth can be kind of bad for a society on a spiritual level.

Y'know, the whole "when you have something to lose you have something to fear" thing.

When I look at the state of the Western World, and its growing problems of feminization and asexuality, it really seems like excessive prosperity is at the root of the problem.

It just seems like people who have jobs that they fear losing are way easier to coerce into making humiliating concessions.

I mean, could you even IMAGINE something like feminism taking root in, say, early 1990s Russia?

Hard to picture it, but feminism was QUITE alive there in the fatter years during the Soviet Union.

The reason Russians are more masculine than Westerners, is because they are less rich.

Not that I'm saying the average Westerner is rich or anything.

In fact, if we were all rich, we probably wouldn't have this problem; once you get SO rich you don't need to worry about money, you can start to recapture some of the ballsiness of the starving poor, albeit for totally different reasons.

It seems, though, that when you get to a certain baseline middle class level of wealth, you start to acquire this deep fear of losing what you've got, because what you've got can be easily taken away.

Which is why I increasingly fail to see the economic difficulties in the West as a bad thing.

Absolutely. But the problem is that we no longer allow the normal 'reset' to take place that follows every economic upswing. Ever get the feeling that there are no really bargains out there anymore (when it comes to stuff & women)? That's the effect. We monetize the hell out of the system in order to create artificial demand.

Look at the chart that is attached. The red area is necessary for a healthy economy over a long period of time. Without it, there is no 'reset period' and real inflation ends up being much higher (like now).

More red area = less cultural destruction = less cocky women.

[Samseau]

I certainly agree that poorer countries tend to have more virtuous women. It's probably going to be crushing poverty that brings the "sexual revolution" to an end.

[porscheguy]

It's not the loss of wealth that brings feminism crashing down, it's the loss of stability that ultimately thins out the herd of available bachelors. Look at the recent post on Roosh's blog. Notice where he mentions industrial shit hole cities in Russia with 3 women competing fiercely for each alcoholic Russian male. No mention of feminism. Feminism is a luxury afforded to women. It's created by chewing up and spitting out the surplus male population. To be honest this is the reason feminism didn't take root in Russia in the early 90s, and still hasn't taken root now. It really wasn't alive during the Soviet years. Women were eligible for many of the same jobs and educations as men, but not to the exclusion of men.

[Excelsior]

(08-16-2012 12:42 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  

It's not the loss of wealth that brings feminism crashing down, it's the loss of stability that ultimately thins out the herd of available bachelors. Look at the recent post on Roosh's blog.

It could be argued that this stability is dependent on a certain level of wealth. Feminism does need that, but you can't have that type of stability without some affluence. That is the same stability that also educates and compensates these women so well, allowing them to embrace their independence the way they claim they want.

Many societies cannot afford to do this because a) poverty takes education off the table for so many, and many cash-strapped governments can't afford to make high quality education accessible and b) the industries that women disproportionately gravitate to are simply not as large in poorer nations. The money just isn't there to support a mass of well compensated artists/fashionistas, interior designers, relationship-advice gurus, and womens/gender studies majors.

Feminism is indeed a luxury, and it is an expensive one. It is not a coincidence that its largest adherents and beneficiaries are relatively affluent western women. These kinds of social projects (ex: investigating the impact of video games on the promotion of "rape culture", debating "misogyny" on the internet or in greek campus culture, etc) are expensive, and the only ones with the time, money or inclination to engage in and actually fund them are relatively well off westerners.

When that money goes, so will much of the impetus behind it. Many will cease to care and most will be unable to pay for it. Some of the more fundamental cores of the movement that arose during the first wave may stick, but a lot of the madness you're seeing today will be hard pressed to persist-it costs too much.

[Bad Hussar]

Yes, reality always wins. Even if it takes a long time. What's the saying? "The mills of the gods grind very slowly, but exceedingly fine" (paraphrasing). I think you've already seen a lot of resetting in the US with the crash in House prices. It's always boggled my mind why run of the mill people get so excited about high house prices. As if they were ever good for the 99%.

There's a lot of talk about feminism/misandry being a similar bubble that is due to pop. The ideal would be a society which is both prosperous and where feminism/misandry are held in check. Anyone want to suggest any countries that currently fit this bill, or are moving in this direction?

[SVK]

It is all about hierarchy of needs. When you are dirt poor your primary goals are to secure basic needs like food, shelter, safety, etc. As you get richer and these needs are taken care of to the point of being taken for granted your focus shifts elsewhere. The same for countries. In a poor country the focus is to somewhat feed the populace and provide potable water, basic healthcare, dealt with crazy guerillas... When country gets so rich that basic needs of vast majority of people are taken care of it creates artificial "problems" like gender inequality, political correctness, misogyny in video games...

However, what about Japan and other advanced East Asian countries? They are rich but feminism doesn't seem to have a strong hold like in the West. Or at least that is my perception, I may be mistaken...

[MrXY]

Feminism is one of the poisonous fruits of the centralized welfare state

We are seeing the first cracks in the trunk of that tree now and, being inherently unsustainable, it will come crashing down

When it does, much of modern feminism, along with most of the rest of the ideas, attitudes,and movements that sprang out of neo-marxism will cease to exist

[Aliblahba]

(08-15-2012 11:26 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I certainly agree that poorer countries tend to have more virtuous women. It's probably going to be crushing poverty that brings the "sexual revolution" to an end.

(08-16-2012 04:32 PM)MrXY Wrote:  

Feminism is one of the poisonous fruits of the centralized welfare state

We are seeing the first cracks in the trunk of that tree now and, being inherently unsustainable, it will come crashing down

When it does, much of modern feminism, along with most of the rest of the ideas, attitudes,and movements that sprang out of neo-marxism will cease to exist

I absolutely agree with with. What do you think a beta male will do when he has to fight to get days work in, or stand in line for hours for a bowl of soup and bread, just to return home and have his wife nag? She'll get knocked the fuck out and kicked out the door. At that point there will be 100 women behind her begging for a bread winner.

I believe these days will happen in our lifetime. Just make sure you are prepared to be the bread winner. You got time.

[Hades]

Feminism seems to me like women trying to sport a man's ego. I just don't get it. What do they get out of copying a man?

[Excelsior]

(08-16-2012 04:22 PM)SVK Wrote:  

It is all about hierarchy of needs. When you are dirt poor your primary goals are to secure basic needs like food, shelter, safety, etc. As you get richer and these needs are taken care of to the point of being taken for granted your focus shifts elsewhere. The same for countries. In a poor country the focus is to somewhat feed the populace and provide potable water, basic healthcare, dealt with crazy guerillas... When country gets so rich that basic needs of vast majority of people are taken care of it creates artificial "problems" like gender inequality, political correctness, misogyny in video games...

Bingo.

Quote:

However, what about Japan and other advanced East Asian countries? They are rich but feminism doesn't seem to have a strong hold like in the West. Or at least that is my perception, I may be mistaken...

You're right, gender relations in the likes of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore are quite different and significantly less feminized than they are in the west. This is a matter of cultural variation-these societies simply will not accept some of the developments that westerners (particularly those of Anglo-European descent) tolerate and generally promote.

The rise of feminism in its modern western form depends heavily on the acquiescence of men, and some seem men seem more willing to let things go than others.

[kdolo]

(08-16-2012 05:15 PM)Hades Wrote:  

Feminism seems to me like women trying to sport a man's ego. I just don't get it. What do they get out of copying a man?

.....they get the pretense of having a penis.......of having testosterone.....of being able to intimidate physically or with glance.....like men.

in other words, they get the pretense of having personal power and security that can be projected....... of course its all pretense, because no matter what they do.....what they have.....what job they have....how much money and .....fame ...or "status".... they have, they can never ever ever really do it.....and that it the farce of the whole thing.