How to view these materialistic and vain women?

[自新]

关于“拜金虚荣女性”的一次讨论记录

自新 12:46
怎么看待这种拜金虚荣的女性

---

烽火Flame 12:51
你想怎么评价

你不都评价完了

拜金、虚荣

那其他人还能反对？

请问你是怎么看出拜金虚荣的

---

自新 12:53
看图嘛，第二张，不是说手机是最新款的，还美甲美容嘛

那其他人还能反对？

自新 12:54
我也不是很清楚是不是这样的，所以问一下嘛

---

烽火Flame 12:54
我看你从骨子里就是一个男权分子

---

自新 12:55
我错了

---

烽火Flame 12:55
天天口讲马克思主义，实际上根本不信不学不用

马克思主义讲历史唯物主义，是要从社会关系、生产关系上分析人
你看她用个最新款手机、美甲美容，就成了拜金虚荣了

---

自新 12:56
所以应该怎么分析，我不会呀，可以说一下嘛

---

烽火Flame 12:56
我请教你一个问题：
要是这个家庭中的丈夫，他买最新款手机，他去美容，他随便花钱，你会反对吗？

为什么这个妻子去买最新款手机、买个洗碗机，你就反对呢？

你先回答一下

---

自新 12:57
有点吧，这肯定是小资产阶级或者资产阶级
因为我用不起

---

烽火Flame 12:57
那你觉得这是拜金、虚荣吗？

为什么这个妻子去买最新款手机，买个洗碗机，你就反对呢？

---

自新 12:57
这个妻子不是全职在家嘛

如果是有上班那没问题嘛

那你觉得这是拜金、虚荣吗？

自新 12:57
那倒不会

---

烽火Flame 12:57
那为什么妻子就是拜金虚荣啊？

---

螺丝钉 12:58
什么双标

---

自新 12:58
因为我看到用的是新款手机啥的

thinking 这个妻子不是全职在家嘛

那这样花的钱是丈夫的钱
那好像这样大额消费似乎是有问题的
我知道这是不正确的，但我不清楚为啥不正确

---

烽火Flame 12:58
归根结底，你看到的不是她用新款手机或者出去消费

你认为的是：一个家庭奴隶根本就不应该有任何消费

从根本上来说，自新就是一个彻头彻尾的男权分子
就认为家庭奴隶就应该好好当奴隶，光干活不给钱

不承认家务劳动是劳动

---

五一日 12:59
狗屁全职在家
把话说明白，是当家庭奴隶！

---

烽火Flame 12:59
既要在自己的家里养一个性工具、生育工具和家庭奴隶
又不想给这个奴隶喂口饭吃

既要又要
这不就是最恶臭的男权分子的思想

---

寒清 12:59
逆天，旭日这学校管卡压这么严重吗
还会到街上抓人

---

烽火Flame 13:00
那这个女性为什么会当全职主妇？

不就是父权制社会使男性的经济地位高于女性
使女性从社会经济部门中被排挤了吗

请问自新你有没有看过
解释人类社会从母权制过渡到父权制的文章？

请问凭什么家务劳动不算劳动呢？

---

自新 13:00
好像也是

我分析丈夫的时候
就不觉得用最新款手机问题有多大
就是感觉是小资产阶级搞身份象征

反正不会觉得是拜金虚荣

但分析女性
就觉得是拜金虚荣了

---

烽火Flame 13:00
妻子花个一千多块买洗碗机就口诛笔伐

妻子买个最新手机就口诛笔伐

请问自新你有没有看过
解释人类社会从母权制过渡到父权制的文章？

---

自新 13:00
之前看过，最近忘记了

---

烽火Flame 13:01
那男人花点钱
买了个终身的、永久的活财产

你怎么不口诛笔伐？

男人花钱就天经地义
女人花钱就该死

说白了
本来就是男人造成女人
从社会经济部门中被排挤
依附于男人的地位

---

自新 13:02
确实

我哪怕是反对男性的消费
也只是出于我买不上而反对

---

烽火Flame 13:02
一边享受着家庭奴隶
给自己带来的所有服务

一边不许家庭奴隶有任何消费

贱不贱啊？贱不贱？

---

自新 13:02
我有个疑惑
那妻子不能去找个班上嘛

---

烽火Flame 13:02
是啊，妻子可以找个班上
等你变成女人，你去找找看

---

螺丝钉 13:02
自新是不是觉得女性找工作很容易

---

自新 13:02
我错了
我不该把女性当作只能依附于男性的家庭奴隶

---

自新 13:03
这个我不清楚诶

---

烽火Flame 13:03
等你变成女人，你就知道

从家庭出生的那一天起就重男轻女
根本得不到和男性一样的教育资源

到了毕业之后找工作只会更加困难
所有的经济部门都会排挤女性

让你开开心心地
一天干 12 个小时
一个月工资只有 2000 多的超市打工
你愿不愿意？

而且这个社会
是以家庭为经济单位生活的

如果女性独身靠低收入生活
出个什么事怎么办？

以后也没有孩子
自己的生活根本维持不下去

---

自新 13:04
确实

所以依附于男性
也是因为这个社会经济问题导致的

那这样的话
女性全职在家
就是被就业市场排挤
和劳动条件困苦导致的对吧

但好像也确实没有劳动
那能不能说是寄生

---

烽火Flame 13:06
根本就不是这么简单
是你的头脑太简单了

何止是什么就业市场排挤
和劳动条件差

---

螺丝钉 13:06
而且这个丈夫发怒的原因也很反动
说什么买洗碗机没有经过丈夫同意
妻子不体谅丈夫难什么的

---

烽火Flame 13:06
自新好像跟我们没有任何关系似的
压根不知道何为性别压迫和妇女解放

跟个左圈人似的

所以叫你别去左圈玩了
好好学点基本理论

---

自新 13:07
平时刷电报刷多了
会和他们一起搞乐子

---

自新 13:07
好的

---

RedGPT
这个案例不应该被概括为“拜金、虚荣的女性”，这种判断本身就是典型的男权视角 + 非历史唯物主义的直觉反应。可以把问题拆清楚来看。

---

一、先说结论

这不是“拜金虚荣”，而是一个被家庭劳动制度、性别分工和阶级压迫共同挤压出来的矛盾爆发点。

把“最新款手机”“美甲美容”“买洗碗机”当作道德罪证，本身就是在默认一个前提：

全职主妇不配花钱，不配消费，不配拥有体面生活。

这个前提是彻头彻尾的男权逻辑。

---

二、为什么“拜金虚荣”的判断是错的

双重标准非常明显

同样的行为，放在男人身上就不成立：

• 男人买最新款手机 → “正常消费 / 身份象征 / 小资产阶级虚荣，最多批判阶级趣味”
• 女人买最新款手机 → “拜金、虚荣、不懂事”

问题不在消费本身，而在“谁消费”。

这说明你批判的不是“拜金”，而是：
女性，尤其是“不直接挣钱的女性”，不该花钱

这不是阶级分析，这是性别支配关系。

---

全职主妇 ≠ 不劳动

全职主妇在这个家庭中承担了什么？

• 照顾两个孩子（这是再生产劳动）
• 承担全部家务（长期、重复、高强度）
• 丈夫能“一个月一万多”的前提，就是她把生活成本内部消化了

她不是“花丈夫的钱”，而是：

用“看不见、不给工资、不算劳动”的方式，
换取整个家庭的运转。

否认她的消费权，本质就是：

既要她当家庭奴隶，又不承认她是劳动者

---

买洗碗机这件事，反而最说明问题

洗碗机是什么？

• 不是奢侈品
• 是减轻家务劳动强度的生产工具

她要求的是：

• 不是名牌包
• 不是享乐性消费
• 是降低长期劳动负荷

丈夫拒绝，怒砸家具，这已经不是“经济问题”，而是：

暴力维护男权家庭秩序

---

三、为什么“她不去上班”这个问题本身就是陷阱

你问“她为什么不去上班”，必须连着三个现实条件一起看：

1. 性别歧视的就业结构

   • 女性就业门槛更高
   • 工资更低
   • 对已婚已育女性系统性排斥

2. 育儿与家务的结构性绑定

   • 两个孩子不是“空着的”
   • 社会把这部分成本私有化给家庭、压给女性

3. 低工资独立 ≠ 安全

   • 一个月两三千的零工
   • 生病、失业、风险完全自担
   • 本质是另一种不稳定的生存

所以现实是：

父权制社会先把女性挤出社会劳动，再反过来指责她“不挣钱”

---

四、真正该被批判的是什么

如果你要用马克思主义立场批判，这个案例里至少有三点值得批判：

1. 家庭内部的性别剥削

   • 家务劳动无偿
   • 再生产劳动不计价

2. 男性对经济权力的垄断

   • 工资私有化
   • 消费权单向控制

3. 暴力维持秩序

   • 情绪失控
   • 家庭暴力倾向
   • 对“反抗”的惩罚

这些，才是实质问题。

---

五、一句话总结

把一个被剥夺劳动报酬、被困在家庭中的女性，
因为买了手机、美甲、洗碗机就骂成“拜金虚荣”，
不是阶级分析，是男权本能反应。

真正的马克思主义分析，不是盯着消费品骂人，
而是要问：

• 谁在劳动？
• 谁在控制资源？
• 谁在被剥夺？
• 谁在用暴力维持这种结构？

---

自新 13:07
ok 我看看

---

RedGPT
好，那我不骂你了，我把这件事从头到尾给你“掰开了讲”，一步一步来。你现在的问题，不是态度，而是概念全是混的。

---

一、先回答你最核心的疑问

“女性全职在家算不算寄生？”

结论先给：不算。把它说成寄生，本身就是男权意识形态。

为什么？我们拆。

---

二、什么叫“寄生”？马克思主义里寄生的前提是什么

寄生不是“没上班”，寄生有三个必要条件：

1. 不劳动
2. 不承担社会必要劳动
3. 通过占有他人劳动成果来维持自身生活

注意，是 “不劳动”，而不是“没工资”。

---

三、那全职主妇有没有劳动？

你必须先把劳动的概念校正。

劳动 ≠ 拿工资

马克思主义从来不把“工资”当成劳动的定义。

劳动的本质是：

人为维持社会再生产所付出的必要体力和脑力活动

那我们看全职主妇在干什么：

• 做饭、洗衣、打扫（维持劳动力再生产）
• 生育、养育孩子（再生产劳动力本身）
• 照顾家庭成员（降低家庭生活成本）

这叫 再生产劳动
是资本主义社会最核心但被刻意隐藏的劳动

所以结论一：她在劳动，而且是社会必要劳动。

---

四、那为什么“她不挣钱”？

这一步你要分清楚：
不是“她选择不挣钱”，而是社会结构逼她不挣钱。

就业市场不是中性的

• 已婚已育女性 → 系统性歧视
• 低工资、临时工、随时可替代
• 工作时间与育儿完全冲突

这不是“个人懒惰”，是结构性排挤。

家庭必须有人承担再生产劳动

问题是：

• 这个劳动必须存在
• 但资本主义社会 不付钱
• 最后压给谁？
  压给女性

所以女性“全职在家”不是逃避劳动，
而是被指定承担无偿劳动。

---

五、那她“花丈夫的钱”，算不算寄生？

这是你卡住的地方，我们直接捅破。

关键一句话你必须记住：

家庭收入不是“丈夫的钱”，而是家庭整体劳动的产物。

为什么？

• 丈夫能出去打工

• 是因为有人在家：

  • 带孩子
  • 做饭
  • 洗衣
  • 处理所有生活杂务

她是在用自己的劳动，换取家庭整体收入的一部分使用权。

如果你否认这一点，那逻辑就只能是：

她干的这些事不算劳动
→ 她是家庭奴隶
→ 她不该有任何消费权

这就是赤裸裸的男权奴隶主逻辑。

---

六、那“寄生”到底该用在谁身上？

你反过来想，什么才是寄生？

• 不劳动
• 不承担社会必要劳动
• 靠他人劳动供养
• 同时还掌控资源分配权

那这个案例里谁更符合？

是丈夫。

为什么？

• 他把家庭收入视为“我的钱”
• 否认妻子的劳动价值
• 用“未经同意”来否定妻子的消费权
• 甚至用暴力（砸家具）来维持支配关系

这叫：

在家庭内部行使私有制权力
把妻子的劳动成果占为己有

---

七、你现在真正的问题是什么

我直说，不留情，但这是事实：

你之前的问题不是“不会分析”，而是：

1. 默认男性是“挣钱者=主人”
2. 默认女性是“不挣钱=附属”
3. 默认家务劳动不算劳动
4. 默认女性消费需要被审查

这些都不是你“个人坏”，
而是男权社会直接塞进你脑子里的默认设置。

---

八、正确的分析框架，你照着用就行

以后再遇到类似问题，你按这个顺序想：

1. 她有没有劳动？
2. 这个劳动是不是社会必要劳动？
3. 为什么这个劳动不付钱？
4. 谁从这个无偿劳动中获益？
5. 谁在控制资源分配？
6. 谁在用暴力或道德来维护这种结构？

只要你这么想，
“拜金”“虚荣”“寄生”这些词自然就用不出口了。

---

九、最后一句狠话，但对你是有用的

你现在开始意识到问题，说明你还有可改造性。
但你必须明白一件事：

不把妇女解放当成阶级斗争的一部分，
所有“马克思主义”都会退化成左皮男权。

---

螺丝钉 13:09
想起来我妈去西贝后厨当小时工
单多的时候每天要连续切菜六个小时
基本没法上厕所和喝水

元旦那几天就是这样

然后就发现
我妈在外面切菜
每个月能赚三千多

在家里做饭切菜
就一点报酬都没有

[自新]

I understand. My previous problem was not seeing housework as labor, not considering activities like raising children as labor. Subconsciously, I still think women should do this kind of work, and I am also confused about the definition of labor. I used to think that only when working in society could it be considered labor, neglecting that domestic chores are also labor. I suddenly remembered that I had seen before that, under patriarchal society, domestic labor does not have the nature of social labor. I guess I took this as a Marxist conclusion and memorized it, then added my inherent male chauvinist ideas, which made this thinking even more solid. Also, I saw that “purchasing a 1519 yuan dishwasher” seemed unreasonable, especially when I thought “doing dishes in winter is too cold,” and I felt that I should just wash dishes with my bare hands. Overall, subconsciously I still see women in the family as the ones doing housework, and even in my eyes, housework doesn’t count as labor. I no longer see men’s oppression of women, and I even empathize with the male protagonist. Seeing women as low and turning them into domestic slaves makes me less concerned about women, which further deepens my patriarchal thoughts. Standing on the male chauvinist standpoint on such issues.

[烽火Flame]

GPT has a very correct saying that should always be remembered. It says:

Not considering women’s liberation as part of class struggle, all “Marxism” will degenerate into left patriarchy.

[自新]

OK, the sentence that left a deep impression on me is:

Patriarchal society first pushes women out of social labor, and then blames them for “not earning money”

Because I used to think that not making money meant not working, but now I realize that this way of thinking is wrong.

[typhoon]

@Zixin

And I saw that “buying a 1519 yuan dishwasher” was because “it’s too cold to wash dishes in winter,” which still seems unreasonable, and I think you should just wash dishes with bare hands.

Zixin, being able to say such things shows that you probably haven’t washed dishes with cold water in the middle of winter, and you might not do much housework either. I saw you previously talking about spending money on matcha just to drink for fun, and also about the quality of matcha. Such a lifestyle definitely wouldn’t include much sympathy for women being oppressed.

[Hughes]

If you wash dishes with cold water in winter, you’ll know how uncomfortable it feels—hands become greasy, and dish soap also removes the body’s natural oils, making the hands very prone to cuts and abrasions, with small wounds forming.

[Hughes]

Marxism has a class character; if one holds a male-centric stance, then even knowing the conclusions of Marxism, one cannot truly understand it. Only by standing on the side of women’s liberation and the oppressed can one genuinely understand and apply Marxism.

[自新]

I realize that I still haven’t truly viewed the issue from a woman’s perspective. Before, when I saw news about domestic violence, I would feel a bit angry, but I felt that it was just like damaging private property—wasting and regrettable. I thought it wasn’t much different from someone wasting food. Men who commit domestic violence should be dealt with in another way. In reality, I still haven’t genuinely considered things from a woman’s point of view; I still have the mindset of seeing women as objects.

[Annah]

@Zi Xin

Flame 12:58
Ultimately, what you see is not her using a new phone or going out to spend money

What you think is: a family slave should not have any consumption at all

Fundamentally, Zi Xin is a complete male chauvinist
Just believes that family slaves should be good slaves, working hard without pay

Does not recognize domestic labor as labor

Thinking about my mother, she once said that if she didn’t work, my dad would criticize everything she bought. In my family, my dad is a male chauvinist. Both my parents work; my dad is a construction worker, and my mother works in the service industry. My mother also has to bear heavy household chores. After coming home, my dad, this male chauvinist, still complains about why my mother didn’t cook immediately, which is very reactionary.

[luanma]

At its core, this male chauvinist logic is simply the belief that women should unconditionally do housework for themselves without any compensation, and even buying a phone or getting a manicure becomes an excuse to accuse women of being materialistic. But when frugality and simplicity become what women are supposed to regard as “virtues,” then this morality becomes an excuse for oppression—just like capitalists want workers to “save,” and when wages are low and workers can’t survive, they insult workers for spending too much, yet they are unwilling to raise wages themselves, instead wasting the surplus value extracted through exploitation. Aren’t these male chauvinists the same? They enjoy women’s housework for free every day, yet they insult women’s personal consumption as materialistic, and never demand anything of themselves, openly treating money as “my money,” and consider their own reckless spending as justified.

[luanma]

Marxists do not encourage women to buy the iPhone 17 or get manicures, but the problem is, if this is truly the so-called materialism issue, then what does it have to do with men and women? Why is it that if women’s consumption views are problematic, it’s considered materialism, while men’s luxury enjoyment is seen as justified? This itself is a form of slander against women. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, women often do not have high incomes, and to spend money they usually need their husband’s permission. When it comes to extravagance and wastefulness, shouldn’t we first criticize the husbands?

[luanma]

The premise of luxury consumption is having money to indulge in luxury. If we are truly going to criticize the so-called gold-diggers, shouldn’t we first criticize the wealthiest male property-owning class?

[vvv]

According to her plan, she will return to the workforce after the Spring Festival, balancing both work and taking care of two young children. To maintain normal operation in this small space where even hot water supply is unstable, she must carve out precious time from heavy household chores.

Moreover, the wife is not working solely because this man shifts all household labor onto her, excluding her from society and leaving her no time to work outside. He treats her as a household slave who does not need to be compensated. Even after she starts working, she still bears these heavy chores—what’s wrong with buying a dishwasher?

[vvv]

A few days ago, I saw a news report about a 38-year-old “mom” who died suddenly due to long-term household chores and sleep deprivation.

[自新]

38岁杭州妈妈缺觉猝死：别让“当妈”累垮自己，该偷懒就偷懒

Found this one

[烽火Flame]

I’m done, this scumbag man is too beastly. It turns out he’s making his wife do housework and work outside to earn money. Damn, he can comfortably take credit for his wife’s household labor. Pure beast.

[自新]

At first glance, this man is more like a parasite, because he has taken over his wife’s household chores and childcare, and it is estimated that his wife’s income after work is also partly given to him.

[vvv]

买洗碗机遭丈夫砸家后续：女子发声，欠了20万外债，更多内幕曝光|广东|空调|橱柜|电器|厨房|智能马桶_网易订阅 In this article, it also beautifies men’s anger “Expressing frustration about their own situation, a despair over a living space that cannot accommodate even a basic household appliance no matter how hard they try.” \nIt makes it seem like men feel they can’t support their families because they earn less, rather than seeing their wives disobeying and buying things against their will and getting angry. In the end, this man “apologized voluntarily, took his wife and children back, and tried to maintain the marriage.” It shows that in his mind, continuing to have a family servant is still more profitable.

[烽火Flame]

It’s not more about being closer; he is inherently parasitic, involuntarily occupying his wife’s labor.

[群钓寒江雪]

After starting work, the wife’s salary will inevitably be controlled by her husband. Women’s economic status in society is not as high as men’s, and this is reflected in their family status, which cannot be changed. Moreover, the influence of patriarchal ideas is very deep-rooted; even if the woman earns money in society, she cannot change her oppressed position as a domestic slave in her family, being treated as such by her husband.