Is Ralph Nader right about young women being capitalism's main asset?

that capitalism poisons relationships to the point women are ok with consuming their individuality and being trophies and men are happy with keeping a wife that only loves them for their money around? yeah he totaly right.
smash capitalism.

But isn't that essentially the promise nationalism implicitly, sometimes explicitly, suggests? A providing man. A submissive woman. "natural biology".

The only time I see these ideas diametrically opposed to each other is Not Socialism. I think we all know what a dumpster fire of an ideology that is.

not really getting what you said, can you explain more? english is not my first language.

also i'm not suggesting he means that

Let's be real here.
Women only care about status, no matter if we live in capitalism, socialism, feudalism, whatever-ism, they will always only go after the most successful chads.
Now you guys can continue to delude yourselves that it is a purely economical thing and not human nature but that won't change the reality of the facts.

He straight up says "young wives," thats a specific subset that drives a specific problem.

maaaan women do this thing and men do that thing and what is up with the food on airplanes

Women are driven to either chads or to boring providers depending on their current conditions. The shittier things are, the more the concern becomes their kids actually make it to adulthood, the better things are the more it becomes about their kids being able beat everyone else up once they grow up.

Young women do seem more into the "career" meme. Definitely know far more female middle managers than male ones. Not sure why that is though.

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

jacobinmag.com/2017/05/handmaids-tale-margaret-atwood-trump-abortion-theocracy

Is this why women have ignored me and my friends our entire lives? Subconsciously they don't aren't too thrilled about raising children so only chads get on their radar?

They still want to have children will naturally gravitate away from you and toward a small number of men at the top who can actually afford to raise a child.

The irony here is that most guys that can do that are either autistic/virginal engineers, overworked doctors/lawyers, or rich little shits. Not a very good selection IMO.

the desire to have children is still there, but actually having children or even relationships has become increasingly complicated under capitalism. Western careerist 'feminism' is a symptom of our material conditions, you can observe a similar process of falling birthrates, young people living with their parents and having less sex in japan, a place were western style 'feminism' isn't much of a thing. We should convince r9k their problems are fundamentally economic and related to capitalist alienation

...

Then i must assume Donald Trump has a cunt, because he only cares about status as well.

Obviously.

Women are much, much more interested in status signaling commodities than men are. They expect fancy dinners, they waste money on fashionable clothes, they purchase apple products, and they form the bedrock of the jewelery industry. Men will also waste money on things that signal status, although they'll do it far less frequently, but they'll generally do it to signal their wealth to women- think of the guy who drives a sports car and is accused of compensating for something. Women love luxury commodities because it makes them feel valuable, they enjoy feeling worth a nice coat, an expensive dress, a diamond earring.

Women are by far more materialist than men. The feminine drive for validation has allowed marketers to turn industrialized romance into an orgy of deliberate wastefulness. Women are largely responsible for the ceaseless drive for wealth accumulation in industrialized countries, and make capitalism about twice as shitty as it has to be.

wrong.
the first socialist revolution was started by women. (Paris Commune)

The problem here is that the roles got reversed on the work force but the roles are still the same on the relationship level.
Men and women would have to accept that this new reality also requires a change in mentality/culture, meaning that women would have to accept being the main providers of a home and men would have to accept not being as successful as their wives and maybe even becoming house husbands in some cases. But this will never happen because women will never abandon their nature imperatives and men will never swallow their pride.
The result of this role reversal on the work force it's exactly what we are seeing now with the majority of women fighting tooth and nail for a very tiny group of men on the top while the majority of men get discarded like if they were trash.

This is correct. This is exactly what is happening in Japan as well. Young women are building themselves up to be the breadwinners and men aren't as much. But they have a harder time than Americans in loosening gender roles, so women find men gross, and men jerk off to anime all day.

It is possible to sort of crush gender roles way harder than the US and Japan have, ie: Scandinavia. Almost the entire population is androgynized and ultra-welfare-capitalism has offloaded the daddy role to the state. Scandinavian women will still prefer the physically attractive men, but money becomes much less of an issue.

...

So is this a good thing then?

when did you last speak to a real female besides your mum?

ahahah what are ferraris…aston martin's…70k dollar rolex. Fuck off you useless cunt

Whatever dude. To be honest I talked to a female cashier about an hour ago.

Women are more voracious consumers of commodities than men are. Denying that much is silly. That doesn't mean they're all evil whores or anything.

intelligent post

dunnolol

They really do do it far less frequently.

There's professionalism peer pressure and the ultra-wealthy wasting their money to justify accumulating it, but shopping for luxury commodities makes up a substantial part of many women's lifestyle. The same isn't true of very many men.

I've never really gotten this concept of unpaid house labor, care to elaborate? This is a serious question, maybe there's something I'm just not seeing.

...

labor theory of value -→ housewives do labor but don't technically own real assets until after divorce -→ want real assets from being housewives

Why don't they seize the means of production and share child rearing responsibility by going to work then and making their own money. Oh wait they already do, and younger women are doing it more than men.

and there's nothing wrong with that. in fact a state stipend for housework would probably go a long way towards lowering the divorce rate.

Men literally work themselves to death because of the pressures to be a breadwinner and make their wives happy. Women still think money is one of the most important factors in a partner.

He cares about status because a supermodel 20 years younger than him will only marry him if he has status

If we kill women we kill capitalism. This is our last resort. Our last chance at revolution.

But nobody gets paid for housework, I'm single and I don't get paid for it. Also how come the income the man paid to the woman doesn't count. Also the full time stay at home housewife is an anachronism.

He still tries to be relevant? Goddamit. Although what does he even try to accomplish with the victim blaming?

Also maximum keks from wiki:

Because men aren't indoctrinated to think that for centuries? It makes no fucking sense to single out young wives now that they only begin to do what men been doing all along.

It's given that young women focus on careers and personal advanced after their mothers and grandmothers were held as quasi slaves, while men are used to self determination, so we're less motivated to embrace opportunities.

Why does he need to marry a supermodel who is 20 years younger again?

The entire thread is infested by them. As the glorious Führer would've tweeted: Sad!

Well, are culture certainly does everything to try and make women feel insecure and unpretty, encouraging them to make up for this by spending money on stuff they don't really need. It's not so much that women are the problem, look at DFSNS for a counter example to this, it's simply that our society treats women in such a way that makes them into the ideal consumer.

*our

The motivations are completely different tho.
Men believe that ONLY with money and success they'll be able to find a significant other. For a man the entire career struggle is just a mean to find love. With the exception of the obvious psychopaths.
For women money, status and consumerism are an end in itself which should bring happiness to them.
Men wouldn't give much of a fuck about all this insane consumerist shitty culture if it wasn't for women giving so much value to it. So the point being made here is that it is really women's fault that capitalism has grown so ugly.

women's nonstop consumption of utter garbage does really turn my stomach
every time you see a product that you wonder who the fuck would buy it, like a juice bag presser, the answer is women

...

Ever considered marrying women for, i don't know, their personality? If you want a hole to stick your dick in get a sex doll

Wew, you could have said the same thing about men 50-30 years ago.

Its got nothing to do with gender, its just capitalist brainwashing.

Right, they feel absolutely no fulfillment in having a higher status than others and feeling needed or buying some shit.

That's quite an assumption based on what? Men were the main drivers of it through history and only recently women had the chance to play the game too.

So in his world a women only has value if she's young and hot (which can be helped with cash, as his daughters tried at least) What other options women even have than careerism than? They can either depend on shortlived things to get some shithead, who will eventually discard them, or take care of things themselves and be independent.

I'll consider marrying a woman for her personality the day they start considering marrying me for my personality too and not because of status n' shit.

esdeath is so fucking hot it hurts my dick btw

...

Ebin. How am I ever going to recover from this?

Bruh I already hate you, why would you think your personality is so great?

He is still relevant. I got $1500 from progressive insurance after listening to his podcast about small claims courts. He promotes tons of activists.

He's in his 80s, you're more efficient on tools you've been using the longest. You're on a chan, the only form of social media that's more archaic is usenets.

You waste your time hating people on the internet because of silly posts? I can tell already that you are a child with an awful personality.

Strawmann alert! I listen to this guy every week, he's saying women are the largest drivers of consumerism, plenty of people have identified suburbanite lifestyle and the most cancerous form of consumerism, he's saying the primary driver behind that is women. It's BECAUSE of women former second class status that they are pushing for this hyper consumerism.

Congrats. Guess there are upsides to him.

It's less about the typewriter (although no matter how long you use it, it's a lot less efficient than alternatives, the feel/experience would've been a better point) and more about the idea that there is anything modest about spending 25k on bills.

Well, let's just assume he got the data right, what does it tell us? After centuries of mostly being demoted to house slaves, women want some spoils out of the system too now and acquire goods instead of being one. How bizarre! Almost as bizarre as only picking up recent developments while ignoring centuries of history that lead to these.

What point is there in singling out a small group of people who want to improve their situation in a perhaps misguided way that was taught to them, if a much larger group of people did it before and is still doing it.

Women are the majority idiot.

College graduates tend to be a minority already, then add gender.

Women tend to prefer security compared to men. The reason for this doesn't really matter. What matters is that while capitalism manages to sustain itself and give enough people a decent life, (most) women will support it. Once capitalism starts to really degenerate and can't do that any more, women as a whole will start to reverse and seek an alternative that actually provides stability. This is part of the reason why change is so sudden so often. People in general are averse to change, so they tend to avoid it until that's no longer possible and then do a lot of changing all at once. The more a group values stability the stronger that tendency is.

Was that a recent one?

This is horrible anthropology. You have to reverse that radfem brainwashing man.

It's not goods though, it's empty status symbols, it's not seizing the means of production, its consumerist crap that goes way beyond meeting a families needs and right into conspicuous consumption. I don't even really agree with it but you are totally spinning what he is saying like some kind of tumblrina.

And I can tell you're a fragile egotist. Women do too

No, probably goes six months back,
nader.org
Has his podcasts categorized so you might find it there. Awesome inspirational podcast that prompted me to fight for my rights in court.

I'd like to take Blizzard to court over ruining Starcraft with recent patches that prevent network play on the fucking operating systems listed as supported right on the box. I paid good money for this game over 10 years ago and I want it back. Think I should go for it?

And why exactly is that? Is it something so terrible to require reciprocity between genders?

Blizzard are shitters and banned me from D3 for hacking. Found out about a year after I stopped playing in an email.

You have to take a look at history, man. Don't even need to go back in centuries, look at the rights and lack of them women had to deal with 50 years ago.

Why the fuck would you expect some revolution from women when they live under the same system? Now they simply have the opportunities to take advantage of it too, which is, well tons of useless shit we're told we need. The same shit men wasted money on for centuries and still do. Did the guy complain about young husbands doing it?

Many women are expected to perform unpaid labor for their husbands, in exchange for eating off the husband's table

You haven't studied any history. Any actual historian would laugh at your claim that all women were basically reduced to house slavery for all of human history. This reductionist understanding of gender relations throughout history was created by radfems because radfems are mostly petite bourgeoisie white women who only care about the rights of other petite bourgeoisie white women and their standing in relation to their husbands. Those "house slaves" certainly didn't care about actual slavery that sustained their cloistered life style before the abolition and radfems didn't give a fuck about actual slavery that was happening globally all throughout the 20th century and still goes on today.

The majority sure as fuck were if we talk about Western civilization, why do you think I used "mostly" instead of "all". Radfems like Engels certainly agree too.

Holy shit, a group of people only caring about themselves. These evil radfems are sure something else!

Sure, usually big corps like Blizzard will settle out of court. I recommend sending a demand letter first and get a signed recipt from the post office, cost you about 8 bucks.

You are either single or dating a fat girl I guarantee it

This

It's funny how white men get shit on for complaining about their situation using terms based on people who had it much worse, but when white women do it it's both fine and completely understandable. Almost as if radfems tend to be sexist and treat women as babies who have too little agency to merit criticism.

Engels was a 19th century chad who was sympathetic to women. That doesn't make him a radfem. Actual radfems of the second wave didn't get their ideas from Origins of the Family. Those that did became Marxist Feminists or communists.

If you don't think this cynical "self-interest" that only perpetuates conflict is worth overcoming then you are not a leftist.

I'd read the EULA, because they certainly will have. There's websites that break down EULAs into plain English. But most likely after you've served them they'll settle with you.

This!

LEL.
Nice idpol, nerd.

Nader rejects Marxism, he thinks capitalism can work if we had real capitalism. He is not a revolutionary. He's saying families that don't save are vulnerable, suburban lifestyles eat cash, women want that lifestyle not men. He ignores white flight so I don't agree with him, but this women were slaves to their husbands is so foolish, it's an affront to modern day slaves.

Not having property rights isn't slavery, also you ignore the subservient position prole man had to capital and the bourgeois

Absolutely. Women lead purchasing and spend other people's money despite making more money on average than men, less homeless than men, etc. They are more responsible for climate change, capitalism, debt slavery, etc.

It's a good point to strike out from if you're a fem leftist, and the best point to deny and cry about if you're a libfem piece of shit.

Almost as if white men still got the better deal, no matter how shitty the overall situation was.

Well, he certainly had the same ideas about the treatment of women.

Check the thread. The entire shit is idpol against young women who want to play the capitalism game that men played for centuries.

Which is bullshit. Women couldn't even dream about following that lifestyle until recently and just joined the hamster wheel.

Slavery existed before Murica. The enslavement of women was closer to the way it happened in ancient Rome to some slaves or modern debt slavery in India. Though given how it was perfectly legal to beat up and rape your wife, the comparison with house slaves in America isn't that far off.

It's not just property rights, come on.

Not at all. All proles were (are) treated like shit, but prole men still had power over prole women. Instead of focusing on the prole part, the thread is some idpol shit bitching about a small group of women for some reason.

Huh? The suburban lifestyle started with the end of WWII. Long before 3rd wave feminism made women in the workplace normal. They were still passing legislation over the pay gap into the 70s, and sexually harassment laws weren't enforced probably into the 90s.
Sexual harassment that Ralph Nader is fighting by speaking out against mandatory arbitration laws.
You get mad about this quote but don't care about the material conditions of women, like women not being able to sue in a court of law for sexual harassment and forced into the kangaroo court that is mandatory arbitraration.
You are a hypocrite like all 3rd wave feminists, Ralph Nader has done more for women, by putting money in women's pockets, then all you tumblrinas combined.

Some ivy league universities didn't even allow women after WWII.

Before that, acquiring the suburban lifestyle would require marring someone in it. Like, the rest of your post explains why it wasn't a real option until recently.

So why is he bitching about them starting to do it now? That makes even less sense.

How are they a small group? Suburbs define modern capitalism. I think there is a lot of truth to the claim it's mostly women, but I think it's mostly white people too. There WAS a flight to the suburbs, if you don't think it was women fine, but it was someone, and it was certainly motivated by something since suburbs cost more to live in.

Yeah, and if you wanted to make your wife happy you bought a home in the burbs. You saying women disnt have any influence over purchasing descions back then. Divorce laws were liberalized starting in the 50s, there were penalties to ignoring your wife's wishes.

Housewives are terrible, yes.

t. Proudhon

Numerically they are, careerist women in the suburbs are far from the norm compared to the overall population and even to women.

In spending but it's all upper middle class, which is pretty small, specially if you only count the women.

Which should've been the focus of the guys message, although it's still sub-optimal. In the end even the people in the suburbs are just proles who get shafted a little less, and consumerism affects all kinds of people and classes. It it was his main issue, focusing on that would be more productive instead picking on a specific group, that was historically on the receiving end of most.

A little more than kids. If you wanted to make your kids happy, you'd buy some shit they saw in the ads too.

Care to name any, I honestly don't recall them. Besides, there were many, many more penalties for the women who wanted to fulfill their wishes themselves. Now they have more opportunities to do so, hence more consumerism.

Either way this whole shit is idpol the board claims to dislike.

Truly groundbreaking.

What nonsense is that?