Books to get rid of slave mentality and hierarchy?

I will attempt one, but I will likely not do as well as Baudrillard.

>Nietzschean Slave/Master/Ubermensch concept but a much more stripped down version.
>Marxist economic considerations
>Net result: Baudrillard sort of stripped away the Nietzschean definitions and inserted an economic minded one in terms of generation of capital in society.

To fully appreciate how well he did what he did you have to keep in mind Marx only made incredibly qualified statements about Hegel's original template in PoS, and it was subsequent thinkers like Kojeve and Sartre who directly attributed Marx as having subscribed to the Hegelian template, when in fact Marx really only took certain aspects from it in terms of labor power. Baudrillard reduced it to money and kept some of Marx's observations which were extrapolated from Hegel, the Ubermensch/Artisan reconciliation is really where he hit the nail directly, an artisan is in need of consumers so they can apply their profession, but their profession is not readily or even possibly reducible to mechanization or automation, the possession of the profession itself also means that they may not actually be replaceable by surplus labor either. The Artisan is a self-sufficient construct that is only beholden to consumers for end product or service and may not need a separate business owner or employees, and can apply the profession seemingly as they choose.

I very much doubt it, but I suppose that is more of a subjective opinion than anything else. You can find other historical parallels if you look hard enough that existed independent of Baudrillard. We could view some of the guild organizations in feudal societies through a somewhat similar dichotomy, or highly specialized fields or even owner-operator type businesses in a strictly capitalist environment as possessing similar attributes. The fusion Baudrillard offered is probably the most applicable to the modern world and the inhabitants therein, so that is why I mentioned it.

All females want only upper tiers. The male upper tier can and will respond to desire even from lower ranked females. This is how the sexual market works. How female sexual desire is regulated in practice then determines the actual outcome. How female sexual desire is regulated is determined by competing forces between the male winners and male losers. In the last 100 years male losers have been massively been losing ground due to the growing welfare state, the decline of religion, the financialization of markets and automation of manufacturing. All of these make hits to the utilitarian value of a male, leaving only his biological value intact (and maximizing its exposure and ease or access through social media and dating apps). Why do you think AI dating is such a fast growing market? Kindroid and the like? Because the next move will be redirecting the frustrated sexual desire of losers into paid subscriptions (already happens with onlyfans but as soon as AI becomes realistic enough it will take over). The only real way losers can obtain authentic access to the sexual market is of course by teaming up in a slave revolt that births ideologies that constrict female sexual desire and maximize utilitarian rather than biological value of men. But the future seems more realistically to be the case that frustrated male sexual desire will not be diverted into a slave revolt but into a new capital market of AI companionship. This will temporarily make all parties satisfied: male winners don't have to make social concessions to losers, females do not have to interact with lower ranked males, lower ranked males satisfy their sexual frustrations by realistic AI. Of course we are not close yet technology-wise.

Many women admit it is better to be alone than to "settle". Monogamy between lower ranked males and any female is a struggle when said female had sexual (but not necessarily emotional commitment) access to higher rungs of men, this causes constant doubt and resentment towards the lower ranked male (if i was good enough to have x high ranked male sleep with me, maybe if i played my cards ride i could/can get commitment). Sexual liberty ensures that women who have access to much higher rungs will forever feel like they are eating stale bread in a commitment with a lower ranked male. This market when it is liberalized cannot function any other way. Either a slave revolt is necessary that births an ideology that can regulate it, or women need to make decisions to forgo access to higher ranked males if they themselves are not in the same rank, which it is simply impossible for the majority to do in a liberalized sexual marketplace. Only men collectively can implement a constricted sexual marketplace, hence either a slave revolt of foreign conquest.

Most women, even moreso than men, are even incapable of objectively analyzing their dating value because the ease of sexual (but not commitment) access to levels outside her realistic value fries any sense of objectivity she might have. If you're getting DMs from CEOs or pro athletes for booty calls, most women (in a wienertail of emotions resulting from being dicked down by said men) will completely lose track of their own objective value. This would be like if you were constantly asked by Victoria Secret models begging you to frick them through your formative years. Even if you were self-aware enough to realize something is off, you would still do it and think about settling later.

Now women don't need the same level of re-direction because the friend zone exists to satisfy her emotional needs she cannot satisfy in being frick buddies with the guy she really wants. But of course the same markets re-capitalize female frustration. Dogs, romance books etc.

Animals are cringe

Men rate other men poorly tbh. Getting 100 or so votes on various pics on photofeeler is a decent reflection of reality. Tested it with guys i know are struggling to get laid and "players" and such. Generally guys who couldn't get 7 or above average ratings were not doing well and the players all averaged over 7.

It's far more likely you can't evaluate properly the men you saw. Men are notoriously bad at it.

The truth is that it doesn't matter if the dude is ugly (sure, there are absolutely hideous weirdos out there, the kind that look inbred, but they look inbred because they are and it shows in their total lack of character) but the 'incel' circles refuse to recognize that there are other factors. It's when you're a loser, your friends are losers, you have no practical or social value in addition to not having the means to pay for it.

I believe the truth is that it's not that women have high standards, it's that a large contingent of men, say 30% or more, are subnormal. The spread of women being literal morons or other outliers being much narrower. That is even harder to contend with, because it's obvious to anyone who pays the least bit of attention to the people around them and who can get laid.

I think different women have different standards, it’s not like they’re robots.

Pua doesn't work except for those who are already attractive but too moronic or pussy to approach. Other than that it's effect is super marginal

In the context of the dating game/climate, that is true. Although that's not what that anon is supposing. When you've come full circle to still advocating females' "brutal selection process", you're playing yourself and still genuflecting to the salacious omnipotence of women.

Yet, somehow, men are STILL turning against THEMSELVES because women are refusing/accepting them in a vicious feedback loop. It still remains that we are so pathetic that we can only glorify, defend or blame ourselves for fabricated shortcomings spawned by the expectations and validation of women in their rigged dating climate. We eagerly participate in their men sorting algorithms by droves for the slim chance of finally feeling loved

Ironically, the catch-22 here is that the ultimate boon is to go full circle to acquiring a woman that will fulfill the male's desire for companionship. Now, this can split into the path of equalization of power (reducing the inherent power of the woman to that of the man), or the re-fetishization of women and re-establishment of their salacious power. Men are naturally dependent on women, which is why we have the problematic dating game right now. It's instinctually impractical to completely forgo the prospect of a woman, which is why men should aim for {equalization and not glorification}.

It feels to me that you are supposing that through this independence of men that either men completely liberate themselves of the desire for women, or that women somehow veer to men for their desire. The latter is the utmost practical and utilitarianally beneficial, and I completely agree with that levelling solution.

> The ironic thing here is that we're still focusing on what women want from men
Women are incompetent beyond belief. They know how to use a dishwasher but they would never be able to construct a dishwasher on themselves. They know how to go shopping and buy fancy things, they can memorize well so they get college diplomas and some stupid job at some office and that's what the libshits call an independant woman. But just wait until something electricity related breaks inside their apartment and they already are in need of a man. They are dependant to men in a way incomparable to how men are reliant on women.

Yes, there are these aspects that women are usually inferior in, notwithstanding this, there is still the seemingly contradictory oddity of the male having to initiate or propose the interaction for any chance at a relationship with the woman--while she's also supposed to be more dependent on your male strengths. In older societies, I think this reliance would be more valid but in contemporary times the burden is alleviated by the purchase of services for those practical things that you know nothing about. So, as it relates to the implications of dating/mating and its climate, it hardly holds much affect that they cannot, for example, fix the dishwasher for free without a dedicated male there. The power dynamic is founded on the dogma that men have to approach women in the first place for anything to work at all--and if they don't they are failures and unworthy. That's where the problem starts, how women got so contextually powerful in the first place.

> the male having to initiate or propose the interaction for any chance at a relationship with the woman
Ok? That's just because men have a lot of energy while women have pretty much no energy compared to men. This is the case everywhere in the animal kingdom; the females lie around passively, slowly making their movements towards where the food is, while the male is constantly everywhere around, attentively watching his environment and interacting with it in all possible ways. They do not pursue men, simply, because they don't have the energy to do so. When material needs make an active movement necessary, indispensable for survival, they start yelling and crying like a little toddler.
> as it relates to the implications of dating/mating and its climate, it hardly holds much affect that they cannot, for example, fix the dishwasher for free without a dedicated male there.
Marx has already criticized in Das Kapital how capitalist factories take as many women as men, exploiting them for smaller pays unironically so it's not that of a young phenomenon, that capitalism takes women into the workforce, all if possible, to exploit them and to turn them into consumers with a disposable income. Some might see women empowering themselves to the detriment of society, I see a small minority of men weaving the strings to cuck as many men out getting pussy, so they can get that pussy themselves. Once again, the current 'liberation of women' is nothing but something orchestrated by men, in order to cuck other men, and as such, does not differ from anything we have had in the past, except for perhaps deserving a little bit of originality and novelty for being unique and unprecedented, but it keeps getting older day by day, and the first few cucks have started to catch wind.

The idea that we must do what our wiring suggests because we are biologically inclined to do so according to our evolution path is uncivilized and unsophisticated. We have the intelligence to deny our biological propensities, even more especially in lieu of political (between humans in a society) advantages. So, to say that this is what it has to be because it's how it always has been or it is what nature provisions is to make an appeal to us as lowly beasts and not intelligent interlocutors, discoursers and rationalists. The reason why we have made such a vast global society is because we are beyond crude wants. If there is to be made better conditions for men by change in the dogmatic approaching to women, we should all be advocating it instead of giving animalistic excuses for why we are not.

>And if you had read correctly you would have realized my point is that women biologically are not capable of approaching men, or doing anything at all without men
But, by saying that you also indirectly, perhaps accidentally, implied the counterpart that men must be the initiators because they are more biologically capable. I'm positing that is false based on the premise that we are a civilized and sophisticated species.

>where the frick did you take this global society other than out of your ass?
I meant it less as a 'global community' and more as a broad civilization, of course it is in practice more of a diaspora of societies reluctantly communicating with each other in a international stalemate.

>In everything else humans are literal animals.
Then why suppose that men can become independent and liberated against their instincts in such a way that women are compelled to then helplessly amble over to their tutelage? If men aren't anything more capable than their base instincts, aren't we automata doomed to repeat the biological imperative as it relates to dating/mating? Will women always have power over us? Otherwise, if you think that it is simply how the life cycle of nature will play out in a society, that is naively misconstrued.

Jesus Christ dude. We are primates. Of course there is a hierarchy. There is a constant battle for domination. There’s a reason why monarchy is the most natural state of government. Denial will get you no where. Might is right.

Our complex conflicts/politics have little to do with our evolutionary lineage and more to do with how we are/were poised against each other for resources. The start of capitalism bred competition.

> Of course humans are capable of things like art and music but they're just that, animals capable of art and music, there's nothing 'magicoool' behind it.
nice b8 moron

We’ve had competition since the stone age. This is nothing new.

> the male having to initiate or propose the interaction for any chance at a relationship with the woman
Ok? That's just because men have a lot of energy while women have pretty much no energy compared to men. This is the case everywhere in the animal kingdom; the females lie around passively, slowly making their movements towards where the food is, while the male is constantly everywhere around, attentively watching his environment and interacting with it in all possible ways. They do not pursue men, simply, because they don't have the energy to do so. When material needs make an active movement necessary, indispensable for survival, they start yelling and crying like a little toddler.
> as it relates to the implications of dating/mating and its climate, it hardly holds much affect that they cannot, for example, fix the dishwasher for free without a dedicated male there.
Marx has already criticized in Das Kapital how capitalist factories take as many women as men, exploiting them for smaller pays unironically so it's not that of a young phenomenon, that capitalism takes women into the workforce, all if possible, to exploit them and to turn them into consumers with a disposable income. Some might see women empowering themselves to the detriment of society, I see a small minority of men weaving the strings to cuck as many men out getting pussy, so they can get that pussy themselves. Once again, the current 'liberation of women' is nothing but something orchestrated by men, in order to cuck other men, and as such, does not differ from anything we have had in the past, except for perhaps deserving a little bit of originality and novelty for being unique and unprecedented, but it keeps getting older day by day, and the first few cucks have started to catch wind.

But what’s the equivalent of slaying the giant these days? What does ‘take action’ entail?

That's the point of modern society, there is no giant you can slay, the state killed it and left women to pick among idle men the one that looks the most like the prince

Well for us in the West we don’t have to duel or behead the local giant anymore. What we have to do in our environment is work on our self improvement. Only you can do this. Take action to improve your health, eat right and exercise. Improve your social skills, take yourself out of isolation and talk to that cute girl and make friends outside of the internet. You’ll get better at your social skills the more you practice it. Improve your financial status. Map out your job/future career, etc. Plan these things. Write down your life goals and take action to achieve goals.

>I simply advocated for incels to have sex to not be incels anymore. Desires of women here are irrelevant (incels can pay for sex)
That's the absolute stupidest fricking thing you could say in a discussion like this one. No, the solution is not to pay for sex or to "just have sex". You complete dumbass of a dolt.

I don’t know what you mean by hierarchy exactly. But I used to think like you until I realized how chaotic the world truly is. “Might” is just one factor out of many.

>We are primates