A Discussion Log About “Materialistic, Vain Women”
Self-Sin 12:46
How do you view this kind of materialistic, vain woman
烽火Flame 12:51
How do you want to evaluate it?
You’ve already evaluated it all.
Materialistic. Vain.
Then can other people still oppose?
May I ask how you can tell that someone is materialistic and vain?
Self-Sin 12:53
Just look at the picture—on the second one, it’s like saying the phone is the latest model, and there’s also the nail and beauty stuff.
Then can other people still oppose?
Self-Sin 12:54
I’m not really sure if it’s like that, so I’m asking.
烽火Flame 12:54
I can see from the core of you that you’re a male chauvinist.
Self-Sin 12:55
I was wrong.
烽火Flame 12:55
Talking about Marxism every day, but in reality you don’t believe it, don’t learn it, don’t use it at all.
Historical materialism in Marxism is to analyze people from social relations and production relations.
You see her using a latest-model phone and getting her nails done—so it becomes materialistic and vain.
Self-Sin 12:56
So how should we analyze it? I can’t—could you explain?
烽火Flame 12:56
Let me ask you something:
If the husband in this family buys the latest-model phone, goes for beauty treatments, and spends money however he wants—would you oppose it?
Why is it that when this wife buys a latest-model phone and a dishwasher, you oppose it?
Answer first.
Self-Sin 12:57
A bit, I guess. It must be the petty bourgeoisie or the bourgeoisie—because I can’t afford it.
烽火Flame 12:57
So do you think that’s “materialism, vanity”?
Why is it that when the wife buys a latest-model phone and a dishwasher, you oppose it?
Self-Sin 12:57
This wife isn’t a full-time stay-at-home, is she?
If she has a job, then it’s fine.
So do you think that’s materialism, vanity?
Self-Sin 12:57
Well then, no.
烽火Flame 12:57
Then why is the wife materialistic and vain?
螺丝钉 12:58
What double standard.
Self-Sin 12:58
Because I saw that she’s using a new-model phone, that kind of thing.
thinking This wife isn’t a full-time stay-at-home, is she?
Then the money she spends like that is the husband’s money.
So it seems like there might be a problem with big-ticket spending like that.
I know that’s incorrect, but I don’t know why it’s incorrect.
烽火Flame 12:58
At the end of the day, you’re not seeing her use a new-model phone or go out to spend.
What you’re thinking is:
A family slave shouldn’t have any consumption at all.
Fundamentally, Self-Sin is a complete and total male chauvinist.
He thinks that a family slave should just be a slave properly—just work, not get paid.
He doesn’t acknowledge that domestic labor is labor.
五一日 12:59
Bullshit “full-time stay-at-home.”
Say it plainly: she’s a family slave!
烽火Flame 12:59
You want to keep a sex tool, a reproductive tool, and a family slave in your own home,
but you don’t want to feed that slave.
Want this, want that.
Isn’t that exactly the most nauseating male chauvinist thinking?
寒清 12:59
Outrageous. Is that school, Sunrise, controlling and restricting people this severely?
They even go grab people in the street.
烽火Flame 13:00
So why does this woman become a full-time housewife?
Isn’t it because in a patriarchal society, men’s economic status is higher than women’s,
and women are pushed out of social and economic sectors?
May I ask Self-Sin—have you ever seen an article that explains how human society transitions from matriarchy to patriarchy?
And may I ask—why doesn’t domestic labor count as labor?
Self-Sin 13:00
It seems also true.
When I analyzed the husband,
I didn’t think there was anything too big of a problem with using a latest-model phone.
I just felt it was petty bourgeoisie doing identity signaling.
Anyway, I wouldn’t think it’s materialistic and vain.
But when analyzing the woman,
I felt she was materialistic and vain.
烽火Flame 13:00
If the wife spends over a thousand yuan on a dishwasher, people criticize her.
If the wife buys a latest-model phone, people criticize her.
May I ask Self-Sin—have you ever seen an article that explains how human society transitions from matriarchy to patriarchy?
Self-Sin 13:00
I’ve seen it before, but I forgot recently.
烽火Flame 13:01
Then when a man spends some money,
he gets a lifelong, permanent living asset.
Why don’t you criticize him?
A man spending money is only natural.
A woman spending money should be condemned.
To put it plainly—
originally, it’s men who create women,
and women are pushed out of social and economic sectors,
ending up dependent on men.
Self-Sin 13:02
That’s true.
Even if I oppose men’s consumption, it’s only because I can’t afford it myself, so I oppose it.
烽火Flame 13:02
On one hand, enjoying all the services that a family slave brings you.
On the other hand, not allowing the family slave to have any consumption.
Isn’t that disgusting? Disgusting, right?
Self-Sin 13:02
I have a question.
Why can’t the wife go get a job?
烽火Flame 13:02
Yes, the wife can go get a job.
When you become a woman, go try.
螺丝钉 13:02
Does Self-Sin think women find it easy to get jobs?
Self-Sin 13:02
I was wrong.
I shouldn’t treat women as family slaves who can only depend on men.
Self-Sin 13:03
I’m not sure about that.
烽火Flame 13:03
When you become a woman, you’ll know.
From the day you’re born into the family, there’s favoritism toward boys over girls.
You basically don’t get educational resources equal to men.
After you graduate and go job-hunting, it only gets harder.
All economic sectors will push women out.
They’ll make you happy as you work 12 hours a day.
Working in a supermarket for only a bit over 2,000 in monthly wages—would you be willing?
And besides, in this society,
the household is the economic unit for living.
If a woman lives alone on low income and something happens, what then?
And later, there are no children either.
Her own life just can’t be maintained.
Self-Sin 13:04
That’s true.
So it’s also because this society’s economic issues
that women end up depending on men.
If that’s the case, then when women are full-time at home,
it’s because they’re pushed out by the job market,
and because labor conditions are harsh, right?
But it also seems like there’s no labor—
so can we call it parasitism?
烽火Flame 13:06
It’s not that simple at all.
Your thinking is too simple.
Not just “pushed out by the job market,”
and not just “worse labor conditions.”
螺丝钉 13:06
Also, the reason that husband gets angry is extremely reactionary.
He says that buying a dishwasher wasn’t approved by the husband,
and the wife shouldn’t be unsympathetic to the husband or whatnot.
烽火Flame 13:06
Self-Sin acts like we have nothing to do with this.
He doesn’t even know what gender oppression and women’s liberation are.
Like someone from a left-wing circle.
So I tell you, don’t go play in the left-wing circle.
Go learn some basic theory properly.
Self-Sin 13:07
I scroll through Telegram too much, so I’ll end up making fun with them.
Self-Sin 13:07
Okay.
RedGPT
This case should not be generalized as “materialistic, vain women.” This kind of judgment itself is a typical male-chauvinist perspective + an intuitive reaction that isn’t based on historical materialism. You can break the problem down and look at it clearly.
1. First, the conclusion
This isn’t “materialistic, vain.” It’s a contradiction that erupts when the family labor system, gender division of labor, and class oppression jointly squeeze someone into a breaking point.
Treating “a latest-model phone,” “nail and beauty treatments,” and “buying a dishwasher” as moral evidence in the first place is to assume a premise:
Full-time housewives aren’t allowed to spend money, aren’t allowed to consume, and aren’t allowed to have a decent life.
This premise is utterly male-chauvinist logic.
2. Why the judgment of “materialistic and vain” is wrong
The double standard is obvious
Same behavior—it doesn’t apply to men:
- A man buys a latest-model phone → “normal consumption / a status symbol / petty-bourgeois vanity, at most criticizable for class taste”
- A woman buys a latest-model phone → “materialistic, vain, doesn’t understand things”
The problem isn’t consumption itself, but “who is consuming.”
This shows that you’re not criticizing “materialism”—you’re criticizing:
Women, especially “women who don’t directly earn money,” shouldn’t spend money.
This isn’t a class analysis; it’s a gender domination relationship.
Full-time housewives ≠ not working
In this family, what labor does a full-time housewife actually do?
- Taking care of two children (reproductive labor)
- Doing all the household chores (long-term, repetitive, high-intensity)
- The husband’s “over 10,000 yuan a month” premise is because she has absorbed the cost of living within the household
She isn’t “spending the husband’s money.” Instead:
She uses “invisible, unpaid, and not counted as labor” methods
to exchange for the whole family’s functioning.
Denying her right to consume is essentially:
You want her to be a family slave, yet you don’t recognize her as a laborer.
The dishwasher point actually reveals the problem the most
What is a dishwasher?
- It’s not a luxury good.
- It’s a production tool that reduces the intensity of domestic labor.
What she’s asking for is:
Not a branded bag- Not pleasure-based consumption
Something that reduces long-term labor burden
When the husband refuses, gets furious, and smashes furniture, this already isn’t an “economic issue”—it’s:
violent maintenance of the patriarchal household order
3. Why the question “why doesn’t she go to work” is itself a trap
When you ask “why doesn’t she go to work,” you must look at three real conditions together:
-
Gender-discriminatory employment structure
- Women face higher job barriers
- Lower wages
- Systematic exclusion of married and childrearing women
-
Structural binding of childcare and housework
- The two kids aren’t “there for nothing”
- Society privatizes these costs to the household and pushes them onto women
-
Low independent wages ≠ safety
- Part-time gigs of one or two or three thousand a month
- Illness, unemployment, and all risks are fully on their own
- Fundamentally, it’s another form of unstable survival
So reality is:
In patriarchal society, women are pushed out of social labor first, then society turns around to accuse her of “not earning money.”
4. What truly should be criticized
If you want to criticize from a Marxist standpoint, in this case there are at least three things worth criticizing:
-
Gender exploitation within the family
- Unpaid domestic labor
- Reproductive labor not valued or priced
-
Male monopoly over economic power
- Privatization of wages
- One-way control of consumption rights
-
Violent maintenance of order
- Losing emotional control
- Tendencies toward domestic violence
- Punishment for “resistance”
These are the real issues.
5. One-sentence summary
When a woman is deprived of labor compensation and trapped in the household,
and you call her “materialistic and vain” because she bought a phone, got her nails done, and a dishwasher—
this isn’t class analysis; it’s a male-chauvinist instinctive reaction.
A real Marxist analysis, isn’t about staring at consumer goods to accuse someone, but to ask:
- Who is doing the labor?
- Who is controlling resources?
- Who is being deprived?
- Who is using violence to maintain this structure?
Self-Sin 13:07
ok, I’ll take a look.
RedGPT
Alright, then I won’t insult you. I’ll break this down from beginning to end for you, step by step. Your current problem isn’t attitude—it’s that your concepts are all mixed up.
1. First, answer your most core question
“Does a woman full-time at home count as parasitic?”
Conclusion first: No. Calling it parasitism in itself is male-chauvinist ideology.
Why? Let’s break it down.
2. What “parasitism” means: what are the prerequisites in Marxism
Parasitism isn’t “not having a job.” Parasitism has three necessary conditions:
- Not laboring
- Not undertaking socially necessary labor
- Maintaining one’s own livelihood by appropriating the fruits of other people’s labor
Note: it’s “not laboring,” not “not getting paid.”
3. Then does a full-time housewife do labor?
You have to first correct the concept of what counts as labor.
Labor ≠ taking a paycheck
Marxism never defines labor as “wages.”
The essence of labor is:
the necessary expenditure of physical and mental effort made by people to sustain society’s reproduction.
So what is the full-time housewife doing?
- Cooking, washing clothes, cleaning (maintaining the reproduction of labor power)
- Childbearing and raising children (the reproduction of labor power itself)
- Caring for family members (reducing the household’s cost of living)
This is called reproductive labor
It’s the most core labor in capitalist society, but deliberately hidden.
So conclusion one: she is doing labor, and it’s socially necessary labor.
4. Then why doesn’t she “earn money”?
This step you need to distinguish clearly:
It’s not that “she chooses not to earn money,” but that society’s structure forces her not to.
The job market isn’t neutral
- Married and childrearing women face systematic discrimination
- Low wages, temporary work, easily replaceable
- Work hours fully conflict with childcare
This isn’t “personal laziness”—it’s structural exclusion.
Someone in the family must take on reproductive labor
The issue is:
- This labor must exist
- But in capitalist society, it isn’t paid
- And who is it finally pushed onto?
Pushed onto women
So a woman being “full-time at home” isn’t escaping labor—
she’s being assigned to bear unpaid labor.
5. Then if she’s “spending the husband’s money,” does that count as parasitism?
This is where you’re stuck, and we’ll just punch through it directly.
The key sentence you must remember:
Family income isn’t “the husband’s money.” It’s the product of labor by the whole family.
Why?
- The husband can go out to work because someone is at home:
- Taking care of the kids
- Cooking
- Doing laundry
- Handling all household chores
She uses her own labor to exchange for part of the family’s income being available for her use.
If you deny this, then the logic can only be:
What she does doesn’t count as labor.
→ She’s a family slave.
→ She shouldn’t have any right to consume.
That is naked male-chauvinist slave-master logic.
6. So who, in the end, should “parasitism” be used for?
Think it through the other way: what is parasitism?
- Not laboring
- Not undertaking socially necessary labor
- Living off the support of someone else’s labor
- At the same time still controlling rights over resource allocation
So in this case, who fits more?
The husband.
Why?
- He treats family income as “my money”
- Denies the value of his wife’s labor
- Uses “without consent” to deny his wife’s consumption rights
- Even uses violence (smashing furniture) to maintain dominance
This is:
Exercising private property power inside the family
and appropriating the wife’s labor fruits for himself
7. What your real problem is right now
I’ll say it plainly, no sugarcoating, but this is the fact:
Your previous problem wasn’t “you can’t analyze.” It was:
- Assuming men are the “earners = masters.”
- Assuming women are “not earners = dependents.”
- Assuming domestic labor doesn’t count as labor.
- Assuming women’s consumption needs to be policed.
None of these are “your personal badness.”
It’s the default settings of a male-chauvinist society directly installed into your mind.
8. The correct analytical framework—you can just follow it
When you run into similar issues later, think in this order:
- Is she doing labor?
- Is that labor socially necessary labor?
- Why doesn’t this labor get paid?
- Who benefits from this unpaid labor?
- Who controls resource allocation?
- Who uses violence or morality to maintain this structure?
As long as you think like this,
words like “materialistic,” “vain,” and “parasitic” will naturally never come out of your mouth.
9. Final harsh words, but useful to you
The fact that you’re starting to realize the problem means you’re still changeable.
But you have to understand one thing:
If you don’t treat women’s liberation as part of class struggle,
then all “Marxism” will degrade into Left-skin male chauvinism.
螺丝钉 13:09
I remembered when my mom went to Xi Bei’s kitchen to do hourly work.
During busier times, every day she had to keep cutting vegetables for six straight hours.
She basically couldn’t go to the restroom or drink water.
Those days around New Year’s Day were like that too.
And then I realized:
When my mom was out cutting vegetables, she could earn more than 3,000 yuan a month.
But when she cooks and cuts vegetables at home, there’s absolutely no compensation at all.
