The case for love socialism

lovesocialism

A friend of mine on Facebook has indirectly turned my attention to this Medium piece from a few years back, which summarises the results of a not very scientific but nevertheless quite indicative experiment in online dating:

The average female “likes” 12% of men on Tinder. This doesn’t mean though that most males will get “liked” back by 12% of all the women they “like” on Tinder. This would only be the case if “likes” were equally distributed. In reality, the bottom 80% of men are fighting over the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are fighting over the top 20% of men…

The Gini coefficient is a number between 0 and 1, where 0 corresponds with perfect equality where everyone has the same income (damn commies) and 1 corresponds with perfect inequality where one person has all the income and everyone else has zero income (let them eat cake). The United States currently has one of the higher Gini coefficients (most income inequality) of all of the world’s biggest economies at a value of 0.41. The Tinder Gini coefficient is even higher at 0.58. This may not seem like a big difference but it is actually huge… The United States Gini coefficient is higher than 62% of the world’s countries. The Tinder economy has a higher Gini coefficient than 95.1% of the countries in the world. The only countries that have a higher Gini coefficient than Tinder are Angola, Haiti, Botswana, Namibia, Comoros, South Africa, Equatorial Guinea, and Seychelles.

I always suspected that I was stuck in an online dating version of Angola, but now I know for sure. It’s a harsh harsh world out there, as the author concludes:

According to my last post, the most attractive men will be liked by only approximately 20% of all the females on Tinder. This number is low due to a combination of factors including females that don’t regularly use the site, fake profiles, intimidation, and some variation in what the pickiest women find attractive. In the grand scheme of things, a 20% success rate can actually lead to a large number of matches very quickly. So attractive guys can do pretty well using Tinder (congratulations).

Unfortunately, this percentage decreases rapidly as you go down the attractiveness scale. According to this analysis a man of average attractiveness can only expect to be liked by slightly less than 1% of females (0.87%). This equates to 1 “like” for every 115 females. The good news is that if you are only getting liked by a few girls on Tinder you shouldn’t take it personally. You aren’t necessarily unattractive. You can be of above average attractiveness and still only get liked by a few percent of women on Tinder. The bad news is that if you aren’t in the very upper echelons of Tinder wealth (i.e. attractiveness) you aren’t likely to have much success using Tinder. You would probably be better off just going to a bar or joining some coed recreational sports team.

I have not conducted any similar experiments so I have nothing to add, except that from an anecdotal point of view it all rings very true.

And if it is indeed true, it paints a grim picture of vast social inequalities not seen since the days when Karl Marx had written “Das Kapital”. Since then, generations of radicals, socialists and progressives inspired by his vision have fought for a better world animated by egalitarian values; a classless world without the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, where from each it is taken according to their ability and to each given according to their needs. Not only hasn’t this utopia been yet achieved, but in its pursuit the Marxists have seemingly overlooked and done nothing about the even more glaring inequalities between men and women and the hot and the not. Sure, the control of the means of production is important, but what about the means of reproduction? The much oppressed uglytariat yearns to lose its chains and gain more Tinder likes.

Shall we tolerate this outrageous situation where some people monopolise the attention and attraction of the opposite sex (or the same sex – we, progressives, don’t judge) while the great majority fight for scraps? Surely, it is not just and it is not equitable that a small minority of those with an unearned privilege (the good looks) should lord it over the aesthetically poor masses. The tiny rooting class greedily takes the lot, while the wanking classes are consigned to… well, you get the picture.

And as the study above shows, men are at an even greater disadvantage – while the great majority of women chase after the few good (looking) men, the great majority of men are left to chase after the female very lumpen-uglytariat.

Like the bearded Karl and the almost as bearded Frederick have called for in their Manifesto over 170 years ago, I now call for the redistribution from the few to the many. In the coming Chrenkxist utopia, the distinctions between the attractive and those less so will be abolished forever. Everyone will have an equal access to attention and love and everyone will be expected to be attracted to everyone else, without distinctions and discrimination. To get there, we need to first go through the inevitable stage of the dictatorship of Tinder, where you don’t swipe – Tinder swipes you – before finally reaching the full love communism, where Tinder withers and Gini coefficient is zero, which is coincidentally the number of matches I currently have on Tinder.

Abolish the hotness privilege. Matches for all, not just the looks-rich!

Comments

comments