Turns out in fully exploring the logical conclusions of socialist belief systems, as a philosophy student does, when you follow the rabbit hole all the way down one makes a startling discovery -- actually a few discoveries.
The obvious one, though, is that socialism rejects competition as its most fundamental tennet and therefore is diametrically opposed to feminism's core belief systems.
How is this so?
I have seen polls suggesting that women culturally are more accepting of socialist politics and practices -- but actually I don't believe this.
In fact, I believe its the opposite, with women being the original and continued sustainers of competition, due to competitive mate selection and theories if sperm competition, and therefore conservative principles and, ultimately, capitalism as a framework for individuals to exist in relation to one another in a society.
Capitalism is fundamentally hierarchical. Ownership enforces a working class, which creates an existing poverty at all times -- by design. One trip to a supermarket makes this self-evident. All front brick and morter stores represent adults who will not recieve as much benefit as their owners. This is the framework of capitalism itself -- there is no opportunity beyond the structural roles in which people occupy. Eventually workers can move up to higher roles, but this does not eliminate the roles. And because we need retail stores to function as a society these roles are permanent, plentiful and are designed to keep more people down than up.
That's the nature of the beast.
Why do people work?
People work to have access to life necessities. Food, water, housing. A psychologist came up with a graph of categorizing basic human needs in order of relevance. Often named after him as Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
Indeed, according to Maslow, secure access to sex must be had before one can pursue fruendship, have high morality, self-esteem and lack of predjuduce. (possible explanation for INCEL outbursts?!)
Here's the problem: true or false, this sort of theory (truth?) offends feminists and seemingly universally offends women all over, because it leads to an obvious conclusion that women seem to really hate.
House the homeless, feed the hungry, provide clean water to those without clean water but do not provide sex to the sexless.
Liberal women and their picket fence.
While many feminists identify with the left-wing politics they seem to have a line which they do not cross. That line is capitalism, preservation of inequity and a hatred of socialism.
Indeed, I'm not only talking about redistribution of wealth but redistribution of sex.
I was curious if I was the only one who made this realization, but I am not. Sn economist from George Mason University published an article highlighting this exact train of thought and used it as an argument as for why conservative libertarianism is the only ethical economic system (as a libertarian would).
An Op Ed piece picked up by the New York Times coverd his article and linked it to INCEL culture proposing it as a solution to the phenomena -- ultimately making the claim that it is no different than raising taxes on the rich. Ultimately, I agree. In principle it really is no different. If you go all in on one, you must also go all in on the other.
This has made women all over Op Ed publications react negatively with disgust and revoltedness. As can be seen in a piece written on VICE, The Washington Post and others. Anti-redistribution arguments range from a wide variety of claims but the most prominent are the following: 1) INCELs are actually just violent toxically masculine men and sex won't fix them they just use that as an excuse to be violent and are therefore too dangerous for sex workers, 2) sex is about personal boundries and privacy of consent and personal space therefore nobody has the right to it, and so redistribution is offensive, 3) INCELs are actually only celibate because of their belief systems -- in other words, their plight is a non-issue because all people want sex they're just being stupid. If they changed their attitude they'd see how easy it was, therefore no need for redistribution, 4) nobody has brought up female involuntary celibates in these pro-redistribution op-eds and so would they benefit as well? Those who made this argument, do not seem to think so.
So that's what has been written.
I'm not going to say anything about the argument or the counter arguments -- I simply believe that socialism and this idea of redistribution are inseperable and therefore if you believe in one you must believe in the other. And that means if you are anti-redistribution of sex you must be pro capitalism as well otherwise you are contradicting yourself.
Something to think about as we head into upcoming elections.
I'm honestly curious to hear what a person like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has to say about an idea like redistribution of sex, because she is the first truly socialist woman I think I have ever seen or heard about, ever, in modern political landscapes embracing the true Bernie Sanders platform (unlike all other femake politicians I can think of in the United States). Does this mean she would support tbis idea? I don't know.
I'd also wonder how people in the European Union feel about these ideas as they too seem to be largly pro-socialism.
As usual, would love to hear honest thoughts and viewpoints. ✌