Lpl

The rise of the manosphere is a deliberate ploy by the billionaire class to divide young people.

Before about 2-3 years ago, capitalists had a problem. This problem was that each generation was becoming more progressive and more socialist than the last. That was the case with millennials and was also continuiing to be the case with zoomers. For that, they needed a solution. The solution was in the manosphere. If they could brainwash young men into becoming misogynists, they would create a fissure between young men and women and provide a means of bringing men to the right and therefore away from socialism and to the service of the billionaire class. So they pumped out a lot of money promoting these manosphere influencers, manipulated the algorithms, ran bot farms until they got the result that they wanted.

That chronologically doesn’t work because the manosphere emerged first and FDS’s dogmas are literally copy-pasted from those of the manosphere. I also don’t think enough have heard of FDS to have such a huge impact.

Not necessarily. Lots of people haven’t died in Rojava or in the areas of Southern Mexico controlled by the Zapatistas. Authoritarianism was the problem with restructurings you allude to, not socialism.

Tell that to a child slave in a cobalt mine.

Being “dedicated to succeeding” is a one-way ticket to burnout.

Succeed at capitalism? That’s a fool’s errand. Better to point them to the real enemy which is the bourgeoisie and the real solution which is for the working class to form democratic organizations aimed at overthrowing the ruling class and form worker led democratic ways of organizing society.

Manosphere men fall pray to the XY problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_problem?wprov=sfla1.

They demand the X which is a girlfriend and money in order to solve problem Y which is a lack of social connectedness and decreasing standards of living.

They believe themselves entitled to X because of that. Actually, everyone (including Manosphere men) is entitled to a solution to Y which affects everyone appart from the bourgois (who still lack social connectedness) but the solution to that is Z which is a wholesale restructuring of our society and economy to one that is maximally democratic and socialist.

The lack of income independent from your spouse is a huge argument against being a housewife.

“2Sure Finland’s female-led coalition party is not feminists according to YOU<br> https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-55020994”

If you see feminism as every time there are women in government, why do you oppose feminism?

“So pro-left they are & yet so pro-war”

They’re a right-wing austerity government but I’ll bite, which war are you talking about?

“TERFs are a thing too”

Sure, I never said all feminists are left-wing. There are reactionary strands of feminism (if we accept that they are indeed feminists) such TERFs for example. My point is that feminism is not a monolith and the bulk of it is left-wing.

“The feminists do not oppose the draft.”

Correction: A country right next to an expansionist dictatorship does not oppose the draft. I’ll probably get shouted at buy when you are right next to a country like Russia, the draft is a necessary evil.

“(Finland has a male-only draft & wants to join NATO which totally a defensive alliance)”

Perhaps the draft should be extended to women. In any case, irrelevant to your “point” about feminism.

The 1950s was when women were relegated to the role of housewife. You are asking why women don’t want to be relegated to that role.

That has nothing to do with my remark. The far-right is anti-feminist.

As to you question, there are many different strands of feminism and Marxist feminism, anarcha-feminism, intersectional feminism, queer feminism etc. are very much pro-left.

Really? Finland had the far-right Finns party in coalition in the last few years.

No one even brought up sex or dating. The logical jump to incels here is baffling.

Explain how you can cancel a comment ?

The extreme depression and anxiety exhibited by women in the 1950s contradicts your claim.

Well. If there’s nothing identifying them as an arm of the state, it’s legal to shoot them in self defense should they try to kidnap you. You can also say that the law doesn’t matter anymore as the US government is flagrantly violating it but that also means that the law no longer has legitimacy as the government is breaking it’s end of the social contract. Therefore, normal morality in the absence of law applies which says that self defense is legitimate.