The breadwinner in a family is exploited by his/her employer

I'd call it "muh dick politik" since 99.8% percent of the time it comes from sexual insecurity

Partly, yes. It reduces wages by increasing the supply of labor. But the problem is since the invention of the dishwasher and other appliances there's just not enough work for a woman at home. Maybe a better solution would be for women to work part-time and stay with the kids most of the day.

...

naw, I honestly think it's just chan culture that seeps into posters just by inhabiting imageboards for so long. I mean, 90% of feminism ranges from useless to detrimental, but that's not new for any kind of identity based activism.

I am glad, however, that this thread gives me an opportunity to post pic related, which I saw earlier today. What does Holla Forums think of it? No kneejerk reactions or pure meming please. Give a thoughtful response if you choose to do so at all.

Its not totally wrong but it still feels like its placing too much importance on this spook.

If you allow identity analysis for one, and not the other, you are going to have a lot of white people pining for the day when white societies worked and zero minority societies did. They will then wonder why can't we have communism without minorities becoming majorities, and you will then have counter revolutionary, nationalist and Fascist revolts.

My thoughts as well. I think, under the left, the modern interpretation of identity must degrade. It's almost individualist and collectivist simultaneously, in that people use "identity" to define themselves as unique, while also tying a thousand unrelated special snowflakes under one umbrella, to whom the antagonist is the group with a more heterogeneous identity. They then pin the blame of their oppression on the hetero group, regardless of class.

The way I see it, is that all systemic exploitation/oppression is a result of the class division. Class division not being a mere identity, because class is determined by one's social/economic function, and not by what one identifies as, or how one is born. Anyone can be bourgeois, even a physically disabled transexual otherkin, and anyone can be a proletarian, including a cis male Ashkenazi jew from a wealthy family. Class is the axis upon which oppression occurs, identity is the way in which it is divided among the working class. Hillary Clinton is not oppressed, even if I went to every rally and called her a cunt to her face, Joe "Paleface" Schmo who works 3 part time jobs and can't afford electricity is. Redistribution of exploitation is not what I'd call social justice.

I don't think the guy is supporting analysis of one identity over another. But if I'm reading you correctly, you're claiming that if analysis is fixated on minority identity/exploitation, and the majority working class (white men) are ignored, they'll become alienated from the socialists who claim to support them and end up promoting their own idpol groups (nationalism and fascism).
Yeah, that's kinda already happening right now.

non whites get very angsty when you accuse them of engaging in "identity politics"

they claim race/gender don't exist but love to act arrogantly and flaunt their "blackness" or whatever

I can't say I've asked the former, or seen anyone say the latter. I'd say whites also get angsty when you accuse them of engaging in idpol though, and I don't just mean Holla Forums.

you've never seen people accuse race of being a social construct but identify as black nonetheless? i see it on twitter all the time

Except it partakes in the production of the labour of the breadwinner, she's exploited by the same boss.

Whoa, I'll be honest, i never thought of the division of labor between a household to be so lopsided till reading OP. Homemakers do indeed also take advantage of the bread winners. One has to deal with exploitation of porky, and the other simply takes from the laborer as well just because they are a sexual partner. Fuuuck..
O_O

This would be applicable to one partner staying home and not work int at all except to take care of the kids and the house NOWADAYS.
Historically, before vacuum cleaners, washing machines, dishwashers, and alot of other things, and only having two kids, that shit was much, MUCH more work.

You shouldn't let someone exploit you because of these memes, yes, but if someone just wants you to take care of them like royalty instead of working together with you to support each other mutually, you shouldnt want to be with them anyways.
For most of history, again, before modern conveniences, staying home to take care of domestic matters wouldnt eschew this at all.

The breadwinner is taken advantage of while the homemaker does all the unpaid work for the breadwinner? Are you dumb?

Jesus Christ. This really is a brosocialist board.

The ability to work and vote liberated women.

...

You are the one not thinking. Who shovels the snow off the driveway in winter? Fixes the car? Repairs home items like plumbing or carpentry? Cuts grass and other maintenence outside? For many decades it was and still is the guy. So yeah, the wife didn't and normally still doesn't do the heavy or dirty work.

I think people are annoyed it made every household require two wages more than anything.

Arbeit macht frei.

Notice how all of those are occasional, while the housewife works hard every day to keep the house running. Without the unpaid work of the housewife men couldn't work.

No you got the order wrong.

Households required two wages to maintain the same standard of living so women had to work.

You're deluding yourself if you're really trying to suggest that in the modern day, only having to do housework wouldn't be cushy and easy af. Women who stay at home and only do domestic are getting the easy life. That being the expected norm would be exploitative of men, even acknowledging that those roles give them less autonomy in their life.
That isn't most women nowadays. It isn't the expected norm. Doing away with the idea that one partner stays at home and deals with the domestic shit is just fair as domestic shit becomes less of a problem, and doing away with the idea that that has to be women gives girls more autonomy and freedom from coercive mandatory gender roles.
I dont really even see how this is a socialist issue. This would happen in a socialist society just as it would in a capitalist one.

Yes, and the dude works most of the week on top of the occasional work. Let's say he does construction or is a mechanic. Jesus that is fucked. Look all im saying, it's lopsided, and the breadwinner is fucked if he's a guy. Calling me dumb isn't going to change the fact.

I really didn't.

Lmao what? Being the legalized servant of the house that can be raped and beaten with no consequences isnt oppressive or exploitative?

Feminism is important and can exist in a capitalist or a socialist context, capitalist feminism just allows women to be exploited in similar ways as men, equal opportunity exploitation instead of traditional gender roles. Socialist feminism means that liberation from spooky traditions is necessary but must be accompanied by economic empowerment to be genuine liberatory. It's its own subset of socialism because the material exploitation of women is unique (read: not necessarily worse, there is no reason to try to quantify suffering for the oppression olympics) and should be addressed uniquely.

I swear sometimes you faggots take anti identity politics to mean "actually reactionary leftism". Racism and sexism are material attacks on people because of fictional identities, I know it's not edgy to oppose them and liberals have entirely coopted the struggle into a fight for the supremacy of oppressed identitarian categories instead of a fight for the abolishment of any enforcing of identitarian categories, i.e. abolishment of identity politics.

kys

I really, really dislike that image.

It does.

Not disputing, just pointing out an easy solution: don't get married. Problem averted.

we're just larping as usual fam

in most countries anyone here is posting from, there are absolutely consequences for those things, and being such a "house servant" involves less work thats less strenuous than wage work.
This wasn't so for most of the past, nor is it so everywhere, everything about this discussion is retarded. In europe and america OPs idea is retarded and would literally be exploiting men so women can live like teenage NEETs(which I say having been a teenage NEET), in other countries domestic work is actual fucking work as hard as wage work and they're obliged to do it by strict traditionalist shit, and have little protection from abuse in that work.
everything about this discussion is stupid.

Honestly this shit is a million times worse on the internet than irl.
I know some quite obnoxious feminist IRL but none of them are anywhere close to the type you see on twitter/tumblr.

I don't twit, and I communicate with only 2 people via facebook.

unless you're talking about the past, I'm gonna need a source on that.

Completely agree with it

Race is a social construct, in that what groups are considered as part of a certain race is entirely arbitrary. If you want to see proof, just look at any Holla Forums thread where Irishmen, Nords, and Germans all call each other non-white while trying to establish a white ethno-state. Or if you want a non-Holla Forums example: Irish people weren't white in this country for quite some time, and were literally a different category on the census.
Now there's obviously genetic similarities in various ethnic populations, but the "race" at large is arbitrarily determined.

You could say that she trades the products of her labor for her share of the breadwinner's meager wages, because he also benefits from the chores she does

This is a lot more complex then you are making it seem. The opportunity to work and acquire the economic and social benefits associated with a career allows women to have an independent existence.

The feminism which seems so obnoxious and pointless in the modern day is the empowerment through work idea being taken too far. Capitalist ideology is so pervasive that many women now see the only way to increase their chances of being in a exploiter or at least less exploited position. Hence all the clamoring for more Women in tech, CEO's, Board Members etc. Men understandable dont support this type of Bourgeois feminism because it is incredibly self-serving and shallow. I know personally I am pretty supportive of things like reproductive rights, maternity leave, protection from sexual violence etc. but but quotas/public pressure for more females in business/politics infuriates me.

The most toxic trends in modern day feminism result from Women jockying for position in the capitalist system rather than challenging the logic of that system. Than there is also the whole man hating trend which is a marginal force and just comes from Women who either have been mistreated by men in their life or are angry they don't get the same amount of attention the pretty girls do.

I mean tbf, most men (and people at large) are classcucks, so when they criticize bougie feminism, it's mostly due to misogny.
Like I completely agree with your points about this shallow brand of feminism, but let's not pretend that men who critique it, are doing it as some sort of radical class analysis.

Wait a minute, why? They do tend to vote for more socialist policies, politicians, programs and laws.

...

Also housewives may tend to be less socialist, generally speaking. Almost all homeschooling moms I've met they tend to be conservative.

I think he's talking about the people who voted for Hillary just because she was a woman, instead of looking at her actual policies

Maybe we could start calling them national-feminists or capital-feminists.

'FemCap' has a better ring to it, I think. Femen-capitalist or femena-capitalism.

K. But that has nothing to do with quotas. That's just a fanbase.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you.

If you're clear and use the word "bourgeoisie", then people probably won't call you woman hater.

No disagreement here.

You should listen to some of Dr. Hariett Fraad's lectures and interviews with Richard Wolff (her husband). She has, on numerous occasions, explained how the position of domestic labor is the most oppressive because the organizational structure of the nuclear family under such conditions are either feudal or fascist; therefore, the domestic laborer would be the serf or underclass to the "king of the castle", who is the commercial laborer ("breadwinner"). Whereas the commercial laborer partakes in the outer capitalist system and is exploited at their job, they come home to a feudal or fascist system wherein they have power over the domestic laborer. The domestic laborer's work thus serves as tribute to the "lord" in exchange for allowing them to subsist off the lord's assets—namely, the lord's wealth, land, domicile, and food.

Domestic laborer is the most degrading position one could hold because it implies that there is a class division within the domicile. Only in communist households, where domestic labor is democratically (even if unequally) shared, is the role of domestic laborer no longer degrading, and that is precisely because the class division within the household has dissolved.

So if they mutually agree to one doing all the domestic work, and one doing all the "real" work, is it still feudalism?

If you havent personally met at least a few women who have been abused you must be sheltered, bougie or a NEET. Ive lived in ghettos and trailer parks and it is still completely normal (in the US "first world") for men to push around their wives and abuse them, especially emotional abuse and physical abuse is overlooked easily. You think cops give a fuck about trash beating their wives? Cops have some of the highest rates of domestic abuse, no surprise there, what makes you think theyre really going to try and stop it in a community. Poor culture in the US is pretty much muh house muh rules.

Here's a really common scenario: husband and wife are both on pills, meth, alcoholism, etc. Husband works and gets money to feed that addiction and wife needs to take care of the kids and be available as a punching bag when husband needs to displace the abuse his boss puts on him onto someone less powerful. She cant just leave because she is dependent on him financially and besides has probably developed tons of delusions to cope with living in such shit conditions, so has to put up with that no matter what.

My coworkers junkie exwife was killed with a crossbow by her new boyfriend, they had exactly this set up. It made the news actually:

google.com/amp/www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Boyfriend-Shoots-Woman-With-Crossbow-Police-384472481.html?amp=y

And that's just the worst I've seen personally. I know anecdotal evidence is shit but I have seen at least as many abusive relationships as nonabusive ones so I feel confident saying that if you dont see this kind of thing at least semiregularly youre probably a sheltered NEET faggot.

here. Avoiding marriage solves nothing and that should be obvious, given that marriage is yet another spooky tradition whole function is as a legal and nominal classification. The development of feudal and fascist households, including ones wherein one or more members become domestic servants to the dominant members of the domicile, can occur irrespective of any legal and nominal classifications. The household could be composed of family members, an unmarried couple, multiple unmarried couples, or other forms of cohabitation. Similar to the capitalist system outside, what matters in the system within the household are the material and actual social relations between the agents, not their titles or legal or genetic ties to each other. Just because we now call the proletariat "workers" or "employees" and the bourgeoisie "capitalists" or "employers", that doesn't change the relations between those groups. Likewise, the marriage status between the people in a household are at best tangential.

Although I haven't seen abused women before, this comrade is absolutely right.

And as for the cops, at least 40% (theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/09/police-officers-who-hit-their-wives-or-girlfriends/380329/) are domestic abusers. It's laughable that we give them so much power in society.

there's nothing wrong with hating women

The relations would be different, so no. In a feudal household, the domestic laborer—the "serf—doesn't have a say in their position; there's no democracy in the decision-making, which is left to the household "lord". The serf can perhaps leave the arrangement, but that's not meaningfully different from a historical serf or slave running away from their lord or master, and oftentimes it actually isn't (as with battered wives and other such domestic abuse victims). In a communist household, meanwhile, the division of labor would be decided democratically. The outcome may indeed be superficially similar to a feudal one insofar as it may have the same person, or only one person, perform all the domestic labor; however, what's important is the voluntary and democratic nature of that decision, which fundamentally distinguishes it from the other systems.

In more Marxian terms, one could say that the difference between communist and feudal households is in the relations of production: do the members relate to each other and to production in a way that is communal and democratic (communist); or do they do so in a way that is rigidly hierarchical, autocratic, and predicated on rituals, customs, and traditions (feudal and fascist)? If the latter, is labor divided according to class (i.e., class-based division of labor, feudal) or according to power (i.e., the subordinate class does all the labor)?

As a minor addendum, a fascist household would be different from both insofar as the domestic laborer in a fascist household (assuming a heterosexual married couple, it's usually the woman) would also be the commercial laborer while maintaining the subordinate position. In other words, whereas in a communist household, all members divide their labor and surplus in an equal and democratic manner; and whereas in a feudal household, the "lord" would be the breadwinner consuming the "serf's" surplus while the "serf" would be the servant to the lord; in the fascist household, the "Duke/Führer" (I don't know of an apt term here) would simply be the empowered member while the servant both performs household duties and is the breadwinner.

There is one other type of household according to Fraad, called the ancient household, wherein it's essentially one personal living alone, trying to subsist by their self (which is usually not sustainable). I don't recall Fraad specifically talking about a slavery household, but I assume it would be more of a variation or blend of the feudal and fascist households rather than a distinct one.

This is all Fraad's theory, which I can only hope I'm relaying accurately. I haven't studied it much and have only listened to some of the lectures and interviews. I haven't read her book(s) on the subject yet.

It is a mistake to view the economic reality of a family in terms of individuals within that family (husband, wife, extended family) when the family itself is an economic unit. Both the man who goes to work and the woman who stays home (as well as every other permutation) are both receiving less than the value of their labor, since the prole's labor is the source of their combined income. Housework is not less exploitative that waged labor, but what feminists failed to understand is that waged labor is no more emancipatory than housework.

Ah, ok. Thanks for the explanation. Interesting stuff.

I wouldn't use the words 'reactionary reductionism' more like elementary or basic analysis but I generally can't disagree with it

If by idpol you mean "caring about specific groups' problems" this is true, but that's not how I take idpol to mean. I consider idpol to be not just "let's focus on this group's problems" but also "let's blame that group for these problems." It's pure reactionary garbage.

This guy thinks he's being smart here, but he's really being a radical centrist trying to find a compromise. Where he falls down completely is that us "brocialists" don't have a problem with the content of this quote. LMM confuses incorporating analysis of identity with pointing fingers and blaming one identity for another's struggles. The problem with idpol is that it is creating the "classes of their own" he describes here. Look at the progressive stack for a crystal clear example of this happening - it establishes an explicit hierarchy where before there wasn't one.

Idpol in the sense that I mean (group A suffers because of group B) exists principally to distract from class. In the sense that LMM means idpol, most people engaged in that kind of thing get on just fine without giving class a passing thought.

Except they don't. I could give this guy credit if he had said "Conversely, identity analysis elaborates on and extends class analysis," but he didn't. This just suggests to me that in playing up centrism, he's functionally being an entryist for supporting identities instead of criticizing them.

I never said domestic abuse doesn't real. I asked to provide a source to confirm that marriage legally binds a woman as a domestic servant and sex slave who can be beaten with no repercussions. No doubt life is shit for many, if not most women, in working class ghettos. I'm not defending abusive husbands or saying that police are friends to the public, I just don't get what you're saying about "legalized abuse" unless you mean "effectively" legalized, because bourgeois law does fuck all about it.

I'll add - the critical failing of identity politics as "group A is suffering because of group B" is idealism. Group A, just like any other identity, is suffering principally because of capitalism. The roles of other identities in their suffering is a product of how those identities fit into, and are oppressed by capitalism, i.e. material conditions.

This has been debunked so many times it's just outright propaganda at this point. I think feminists all know it's not true and keep talking about something they've never experienced as a means of retaining precious victim status.

No it can't, Feminism is superfluous because genders will be equal under communism. The only reason to continue using this liberal booj ideology is to afford women special muh privileges over men. Same thing it does under capitalism.

Feminism is undeniably identity politics, you're literally crying over the fact that people aren't interesting in your bigoted ideology. Like all dipshit reddit feminists, you demand feminism first, socialism later.

reddit needs to leave

Well yeah, like much of this board you just change the definition, and pretend that "oh well recognizing specific problems with a focus on class is fine". But that's just a smokescreen. Your silly paragraph long post shows that.

Where the fuck did he say that?

You sound like such a fucking retard. "Wahh, everything I don't like is Reddit."

That was my problem with it. Men are still going to get the shit jobs.

Uh dump their ass. I have never seen a modern family operating like the one you describe. Maybe in a third world or something. Most tend to be like the show Rosanne. Back and foward and argumentative for the sake of bitching just because, venting, and because they are comfortable with each other. Even married with children seems more likely than what you described as satirical as it is.

Point is have one foot out the door and be ready to leave at any time you feel it is getting feudal. Problem fixed.

Abusive marriages stay hidden because people don't like to talk about it. Often times you can't just leave due to some sort of dependence,fear or in some cases even things like Stockholm syndrome

m8 wut

It's only sane to gtfo of a bad relationship. How is this hard to understand?

Not that user.

No it hasn't. In fact, what you just said more closely resembles "outright propaganda" used by antifeminists to indirectly play victim of being oppressed by faux-victimized feminazis.

Gender equality is not a necessary consequence of communism. The only difference would be that in communism, the structural and institutional means of manifesting gender inequality in society via the economy would no longer be available. Nonetheless, one could easily conceive of a communist society wherein gender inequality and traditionalist gender roles are still culturally enforced such that women maintain a de facto subordinate class status despite being de jure equal. The same applies with sexism, racism, and other forms of discrimination and division. Just because these superstructural hierarchies are not reified through institutionalization in the base, that doesn't mean they magically no longer exist.

You have literally no argument except antifeminist buzzwords. You're a prime example of a reactionary identity politician (RIP).

And you're literally engaging in identity politics yourself with all that rabid identarian enmity toward that caricature of "feminists" you've conjured to fit your narrative. The fact that you bring up reddit only reinforces this fact; you're so steeped in identity politics that you can't even resist partaking in petty inter-site idpol squabbles! But since you like playing that game, then feel free to return to >>>Holla Forums, /r/the_donald, or whatever reactionary cesspit from which you came. Better yet, just kill yourself.

Also:

*dick partner
Fuuuuuuuck

This makes no god damn sense. The party that leaves the household to make money to support the household has a similar burden. The idea that the man being a feudal lord implies that he simply reaps the benefit of his wife's housework without providing any compensation. The comparison to feudalism is nuts. In feudalism the nobility had a role in strategy to protect their holdings, but they didn't work the land to produce value for anyone. The husband in the nuclear family is not just working "land" (to make someone else rich, like a serf), but he's working land that's not even really connected to his home. Labor in capital is more alienated than labor as a serf, because serfs at least lived on the land they worked usually and got to see the product of their labor. Housework doesn't have this problem. This shit analysis suffers from a very slanted view of social relationships.

You gonna address any of my arguments or handwave what I wrote because it's too long for you?

Monogamous life partnership is an ideal calculated to disappoint.

Liberals need to leave, period.

So both of you are making up alternative facts.

One can easily conceive of unstable conditions, such as isocyanates or space elevators or perpetual motion machines. They may or may not be realizable. You should kill yourself for promoting liberalism.

I think you were misunderstanding his post. He wasn't describing a literal feudal/slave/capitalist relationship. He's saying the dynamic is similar, and should change.

Leaving your partner over that is dumb, instead of just opening a dialogue.

Not that user.

The only level to which it has not been debunked is "prove me wrong" bullshit. That shit just plain is not the domant state of affairs. It's propaganda based on nothing.

Not without delving into idealism one can't. What conditions exactly would you imagine supporting gender domination in a classless, stateless, moneyless society? What would make that happen?

NO U

This nigger gets it.

Pick a fucking flag you useless sedditors.

Uhoh, they have finally learned to write "flag" instead of "flair."

Don't forget the same goes for childrearing with only one or two people. Raising a healthy child literally takes a village. Doing it with that small a number causes a permanent Autism Level drop due to the inability to get proper sleep.

...

Literally nothing he said is liberal, dipshit.

I already did. The crux of your post was based on you redefining what identity politics actually means, and then attacking that strawman even though you purported to agree with the beginning of the quote in principle. See: "I consider idpol to be not just "let's focus on this group's problems" but also "let's blame that group for these problems."

It's like when rightists say "communism is a shitty system because Stalin was repressive blablabla". It's a strawman considering the majority of socialists aren't tankie. And as an ancom, you'd take issue with that stupid argument, wouldn't you?

Wait… So is it, or it isn't? The hell are we supposed to take it if not literal or figurative?

Well, I didn't advocate the theory, but I interpret that user as speaking figuratively.

I mean, it'd be kinda weird to call a husband literally a lord to his "serf" wife.

Which is more of a "shit job", retard? Being a wage slave to a capitalist on the job, or being the basic bitch servant to the wage slave at his home? Because the latter is the position of the domestic laborer in feudal and fascist households.

Then you obviously have little experience with contemporary and unconventional living arrangements. The so-called "modern family" (the nuclear family) of the Modern Era is quickly dying out, as evidenced by a consistent trend of skyrocketing divorce rates and the rapid popularization of alternative household arrangements, most notably collective housing and non-marital cohabitation. More and more people nowadays are opting to live in communist households and in communal settings in a variety of different arrangements. Dr. Fraad has spoken extensively about this "silent revolution" of sorts occurring within the family structure for the past few decades, which is a very promising trend from which the radical left can benefit.

Those were sitcoms whose whole premise was as a parody of a dying family structure. Those particular sitcoms are moreover outdated by literal decades. Since then, the whole "nuclear family" model has largely fallen out of favor with the exception of shows like The Middle, which was also created as a parody of a struggling middle-class household (which is basically nonexistent nowadays) targeting middle-aged housewives as the audience.

Regardless, the statistical trends about divorce rates, income stagnation and decline, and growing interest in alternative cohabitation quickly refute any lingering notion that the nuclear family is still a viable family structure. Such feudal households only exist in the remnants of the suburban middle class, a demographic that is quickly becoming a strictly historical phenomenon in the United States.

The whole nuclear "modern family" you described literally is the fuedal household. The marriage vows, rituals, and tradition originated directly from the vows, rituals, and traditions that serfs and lords performed when pledging feilty to each other. The male breadwinner was colloquially known as the "king of the castle", a direct reference to the feudal structure. In the nuclear family, the husband provided the income to maintain the household economy whereas the wife served the "king of the castle" through the surplus labor she produced during household duties. At no point was it anything other than that, in part because the nuclear family structure first began appearing during feudalism (particularly among the affluent), mainly influenced by the European marriage system.

Right. So even if figuratively, just dump the prick and avoid marriage. Most women can get another cock under a week. Some in hours.

Wait, so how deep does this shit go? Like the wedding ceremony, rings, cake, etc. - that's all from feudalism?

Definitely the one I can stay home. Shit, I'll do yard work AND inside work if the woman wants to be the breadwinner. That's FULL spectrum housework which women generally don't do.

That much I agree with. In fact it even HELPS prove my point even further that there is no feudal system as described earlier. Even older sitcom shows in which there is a nuclear family are dated models that don't happen anymore. What was described is already alien to me.

Agreed. Infact, reinforcing my point further.

Yeah, and it pretty much doesn't exist in the US or most english speaking western nations. So again, if you are getting close to ending up in such a feudal situation, abandon ship. Women especially have far less difficulty in finding another partner.

Well no, most bougie libs would say that retard is ableist, you dumbass. Nothing I said is classist.

Whoops, meant the capitalist job is a shit job. I'd take the bitch servant at fucking home.

Not even going to most of it because this user
is right on all counts

I was here when it was first founded by halfchan /lit/ and had like 20 users, idk if youre reactionary shit is holdover from being a Holla Forumsfag or what but dont act like you represent the boards politics

Oh and what's the point of being insulting? Because I mostly agree with you, but see other things that aren't usually addressed and somehow paying attention to it makes me retarded?

Which part makes me retarded, the part where I AGREE WITH YOU, or the part where I said "hey here's something else about being the breadwinner that sucks that we don't normally consider"?

This

I don't like feminism because I don't trust or understand women

come on man, you made this too easy

Reddit has really picked up on 'idpol' as a catch all excuse for Feminism.

Either anti-idpol is reactionary or "you're actually idpol urself!!" because every dipshit knows that not being a feminist means you necessarily are a woman hater. This is a non-falsifiable argument used non-stop by weird twitter white knights and SJW redditors.

IQ is an actual thing, my dude. I'm not talking about race. The wordfilter for this seems to be on and off though.

Not an argument.

Then it's not really classless is it, so it's not communism. Your premise is wrong, your argument is wrong. Especially given that women are far more muh privileged in working class positions, have the least dangerous jobs, live longer lives and have better health care, take up the majority in higher education and in successful completion of higher education and more women overall belong to the luxury class of non-workers and socialite housewives it seems that even in our current society women are actually pulling ahead. meaning there's no reason to think whatever cultural benefits women receive now to be able to spend the majority of money and work the least amount won't transfer over to a 'communist' society where white women will continue to be the most muh privileged group on earth.

in other words, you're a liberal and communism has no value to you. Only hillary clinton can save the black people she despises with the welfare programs she destroyed.

Don't use terms you don't understand, and don't use it when you understand it either because it's pseudoscience.

Ah the 'kys' leftist with no theory, intelligence, interest in the working class but a butt full of a hurt and a twitter account.

JAAAYsus fuck feminists cannot handle anything short of being treated like royalty

Are there even non-breadwinners anymore. Almost everyone I've met (including myself) has both parents working, often fulltime. that is if they are a typical nuclear family unit at all and don't onlt have one parent.

The key distinction is that "class muh privilege" describes power and benefits that nobody should have - private property rights - while the other forms of "privilege" describe ways that some people lack problems which is a good thing. The problem with liberal muh privilege is that when someone gets shit on it points to the people who didn't get shit on and identifies that as the problem. This kind of shit is blatant controlled opposition for capitalism because it confirms to conservative types the notion that lefties just want to make everyone equally poor and miserable.

I'm not autistic

Historically there have been plenty of radical feminists but ok call it whatever the fuck you want, for people to live as equals class is by far the most important but it is not a catch all.

I think class is a far more essential social relation to determining your status and freedom or lack of, and that gets me banned from reddit and fedbook leftist groups and considered a brocialist sinner or whatever.

Then I'm here and people sperg the fuck out when I say that sexism is real and there's no reason to believe it will disappear as soon as proles control the means of production, and somehow this is identity politics, but people whining about muh bourgeois liberals every time someone suggests women arent perfectly equal is what, good pure holy dialectics?

Nobody is denying the burden of the breadwinner, but the point is in making the crucial distinction between the material and social relations of the breadwinner in the outside economy and those in the internal economy of the household. Whereas the breadwinner is an exploited wage slave in the external capitalist economy, he (using the traditional heterosexual marriage stereotype) becomes the exploiter in the internal domestic economy. This can either take the form of the feudal family structure (the traditional nuclear family) or the fascist family structure (the degenerated nuclear family). In the feudal household, the breadwinner is the "lord of the manor"—the "king of the castle"—and survives in the domestic economy off the surplus of his wife, the serf. In that capacity, the feudal family structure is similar to a master–slave structure. In the fascist household, meanwhile, the husband maintains his dominant position while relinquishing his labor as breadwinner to the wife, thus rendering her as producing a surplus both for her employer and for her husband. The similarity with a master–slave system here is that the wife, as the slave, performs all the labor for her master while the master's only duty is to live in leisure and luxury off the slave's surplus.

In feudalism, the feudal lord also compensated his serfs by providing them with plots of land off which they could live. Nevertheless, the surplus of the serf went to the lord. This is exactly how feudal households operate: the lord of the household compensates his serf wife by providing her with access to the land, resources, and shelter necessary to survive in exchange for her surplus domestic labor.

The only problem that seems to be occurring here is that you are refusing to separate external economics at the workplace from the internal economics of the household. By conflating the two, you're obscuring the fact that household economics function in a radically different way from capitalist economics. When your family asks you to take out the trash, you don't quip with "Sure, how much?". If capitalism is not the economic system of the household, then what is? Dr. Fraad's analysis provides the initial framework for a comprehensive answer.

Your bullshit is literally a staple non-argument from the so-called antifeminist "manosphere" blog circuit. What do you expect me to do? Provide citations to reputable sources confirming this general trend and attitude? It's not my responsibility to spoonfeed you common knowledge. Here, you can start the search yourself:

google.com/search?q=antifeminism feminists victim status
google.com/search?q=antifeminism feminists victimhood

Some randomly-selected results:
reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/41bdf4/modern_feminism_is_petty_victimhood_and_is/
thefederalist.com/2014/12/09/why-i-left-feminism-or-how-feminism-left-me/
spiked-online.com/newsite/article/how-i-became-a-feminist-victim/18018

Not an argument. Instead of projecting your own behavior (or maybe not, you seem like more of a reactionary than a liberal), perhaps you should follow your own advice.

Actually, I'd argue both: the dynamic is indeed similar, but the economic models of those respective household types are literally consistent with Marxian theory of each economic system per their relations of production. It's both an analogy and an application of Marxian economic theory to the household economy.

The debunk it. Demonstrate your proof that it is incontrovertibly debunked. Whereas treating one's wife as a literal servant who one can beat and rape with relative impunity is not as common as it once was, this is still a prevalent phenomenon. If it wasn't, domestic abuse and marital rape cases wouldn't still be a frequent issue across the world.

Of course one can. It's not idealistic to realize that the superstructure magically changes to conform to the base when the base changes. If anything, the idealism lies in exactly that sort of facile and dogmatic thinking. Superstructural hierarchies, traditions, norms, and values—remnants of antecedent ideology—can persist even without a corresponding base. The nuclear family as a concept steeped in feudal ideology, the persistent master–slave narrative being used to describe unequal power relations from slavery ideology, and the notion of self-subsistence from ancient ideology are all glaring examples of persistent remnants previous ideology in the current superstructure, despite how the bases which formed those ideologies are hundreds if not thousands of years old.

To say that it is "idealistic" to believe that ideological developments like racism, sexism, gender inequality, etc. might persist beyond their base necessity is absurd as saying that it is "idealistic" to have a nuclear family in a capitalist system The fact that remnant ideological beliefs, traditions, values, and attitudes can outlive the base which produced them is sufficient to conclude that even in a communist society, something like gender inequality may remain a cultural vestige until it's deliberately removed.

What do you mean? The fact that any communist or anarchist society that might develop in the future will probably follow the overthrow of capitalism ought to clearly be a sufficient condition for the ideological vestiges of that former capitalist system to persist in the new system. Quite frankly, it would be rather strange to conclude anything else.

Obviously I'm engaging in identity politics and I have no problem with that. It was the other user who was whining about idpol, not me. I personally consider identity politics to be an important dimension to political analysis and action, second only to class politics. As much as Holla Forums might hate to admit it, identity politics has a legitimate place in political discourse and it can indeed contribute to social progress by identifying the intersectional nature of oppression and clarifying the role that identity plays (as it always did) in politics.

I'm posting through Tor, so I can't. I'm an ancom / ansyn with an emphasis on ecology and environmentalism. Perhaps you could shill your reddit bogeyman elsewhere?

I would personally interpret Fraad's theory to suggest that in feudal households, the husband (if he is the breadwinner and not a househusband) is functionally the feudal lord in the household, and some even refer to themselves as such. Is he literally a lord in Medieval England with a land tilled by serfs? Of course not, but he is functionally a lord in the household economy such that I don't see it as necessarily incorrect to say that, in that respect, he is literally a lord and his wife is a serf. If the productive relations are the same, how is he not? The fact that the whole feudal family structure is riddled with feudal rituals, symbolism, and phraseology befitting the relationship of a lord to his serf only reinforces that.

One of the main arguments I see is that a larger workforce lowers wages, and if a bunch of men or women were taken out then they'd increase. Only problem with this is that such an increase would inevitably taper off and level out, not increase forever. Besides, even if millions of people left the workforce, we're still stuck with automation and housework becoming less and less of a chore as time goes on. Shit, what are housewives/househusbands going to do when the literal self-cleaning house is invented? And there are less jobs to go around?

De-population, Socialism or bust, famalams.

As neoliberal bourgs, why wouldn't they falsely self-promote themselves to their personal and class interests? I just don't understand why you believe they would act in the public interest when post-wave feminism does little to hide its neoliberal morality.

Sure. I don't see where the problem is, there. Growth is neither inevitable, necessary nor desirable without compound interest holding the lash.
Technology, at least of the semiconductor and web sort, is driven by the need for tool vendors to sell whole new production lines to their customers every few years. I don't think that there'd be any real impetus to produce such a thing, aside from the Western tradition of labor being for other people. This advancement yields great benefits and cost reductions yet incurs its own poorly-considered costs elsewhere.
Regardless of that, human homemakers still have the muh privilege of evaluating and creating the home's use value and discerning its aesthetic suitability.
That's checked.

It's difficult to find sources about these specific and obscure rituals (I wish I had saved them), but here's a brief description of the process of becoming a serf on Wikipedia, which corresponds generally to what I recall hearing and reading. Basically, the whole ceremonies of bondage between a lord and serf, and lord and vassal, were like a marriage in that one pledged love, loyalty, and devotion unto the other and promised to serve him, God as their witness, until death or freedom (sc. divorce).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom#Becoming_a_serf

The saying of vows and the holding of hands (and head) come from this, I believe, but not the other stuff you mentioned. That came from the developing traditions around marriage at the time. I do believe the lord would place his sword on the serf's shoulders, like a knight, as part of the ritual; I suppose that could be interpreted as the exchanging of rings, in a sense. As for the cake and celebration, I have no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some celebration.

So you'd rather be dependent in full on the breadwinner, who is themselves dependent on their employer? Unlike the breadwinner, you'd have no income and thus no autonomy or control over what limited control of one's life that one could have in capitalism. You wouldn't just be a (wage) slave; you'd be the slave's slave. If you consider that to be a better position—being the slave to the slave and taking orders from a slave, having second-order dependency, and providing a surplus to the slave—then feel free to continue licking that boot on the bottom rung of the ladder. I'd prefer to be as far removed from a position of dependency, servitude, and relinquishing my surplus to anyone, though, and I suspect most other radical leftists would concur with me.

There are still functioning feudal households because people still attempt such arrangements, and some still exist from before. Just because it's dying out, that doesn't mean it'll simply stop existing as a possible household economic system once it does. Even in the far future, once feudal households are probably ancient history, the system of household feudalism would still exist, just like feudalism as an economic system still exists today as a system despite there being no contemporary functioning feudal societies (to my knowledge).

Maybe I misunderstood you before. If you mean that, despite the feudal household being a possible household arrangement, such arrangements are neither necessary nor unavoidable nor even viable, so anyone presented with such an arrangement can and should refuse, then I agree. I was under the impression that you were denying the existence of the feudal family structure itself, either as a literal phenomenon or analogous description thereof, which is what I found objectionable.

I was irritated by the fact that you had the audacity to suggest that men have it bad as wage slaves when, in such stereotypical settings, the woman is the slave of the wage slave. To me, it's absurd to consider the more subservient position as preferable because any purportedly beneficial changes in labor activity or intensity would be completely negated and dwarfed by the massive loss in power. Being the slave of a wage slave is even further removed from liberty, autonomy, and any semblance of effectively asserting one's will than being merely a wage slave. At least in the latter position, one has relative financial control and autonomy; meanwhile, his wife would not even have control over her finances, let alone his. How would you feel if you did not decide which purchases were made and you were given what basically amounted to an allowance as arbitrarily determined by your wife for personal expenditures? I'd feel pretty damn powerless, unfree, and oppressed. I know because I've been in a similar position before.

Maybe I'm just not understanding your perspective on it, but your position is the equivalent, to me, of saying that you prefer to be the lowly employee rather than middle management because it doesn't seem so hard, despite how you would have less power, autonomy, and security in the lower position. It seems callously nonsensical or perhaps not well-considered, which induced me to respond with an insult questioning your intelligence.

Is that a satisfactory explanation?

The economic end-product of domestic child care (which ends up being most domestic work) is taken from parents when their kids grow up and enter the workforce. >10,000 hours go into raising a kid to the point that he or she can get a job and then not actually get paid enough to survive.

One wasn't presented in the first place. Do you seriously expect me to provide a rebuttal argument to a nonexistent argument?

A class, at least in Marxian terms (which is basically how communism is defined), is an objective material relationship to the means of production which causes the development of a shared consciousness and set of distinct economic interests among its members, and not merely a division in society according to some arbitrary or conceptually distinct lines. I interpret "classless" in the definition of communism as meaning what I assume is the meaning generally assigned to it, namely a conditional state without any class-based division of labor in production. Even in a classless society thus defined, however, discrimination and inequality can still occur.

For example, in Worker Cooperative A at Communist Community X, the male members consider the female members to be inferior or otherwise inept at certain positions simply due to their sex and the vestigial notions associated with it which still persist from the remnant ideologies of antecedent systems (like capitalism). As a result of this discriminations, the male members use their majority status to actively impede and prevent female workers from occupying those positions. Alternatively, a majority of the members of Communist Community X still subscribe to ancient notions of binary gender and sex–gender identification. As a consequence of this, democratically elected politics of Community X discriminate against those who identify as gender non-binary, up to and including turning a blind eye to hate crimes committed against them and openly refusing accommodations.

At no point in either of the two examples provided above was there any violation of the basic criteria for a communist society (statelesness, classlessness, and propertylessness). Completely within the internal dynamics of the communist society, discrimination and inequality can manifest. These phenomena can then lead to the development of more rigid superstructural hierarchies, which in turn have the potential to eventually reify into the base. Once those hierarchies are institutionalized in the base, the system would no longer be communist—it probably regressed to a previous system—and thus the attempt at a communist society ultimately failed due to superstructural flaws which were left unaddressed.

Again with this antifeminist screed? The statistical differences you listed are not a consequence of being more "privileged"; it's a consequence of the traditional patriarchal structure coming back to bite men in the ass. Women work in less dangerous jobs because patriarchal notions of masculinity and gender norms demanded that men perform the (dangerous) work. Women generally live longer for a multiplex of reasons, which are more directly related to lifestyle habits than they are to any "privilege".

It's obvious that you're either envious or bitter about the perceived "privileges" women get over men, despite how that is about 95% slant. Come back when you have something original to say; otherwise, just post your retyped copypasta on a blog.

100% wrong on all accounts. I can guarantee you that I'm more literate in Marxist theory than you, and I'm more leftist than you. (Translation: I'm better than you.) Not that I care what reactionary dumbshits like you think, though, but I'll still take the opportunity to brag.

Yes, reify. It's a Marxist term.

Hello, fellow leftist!

I'd tell you to go back to >>>Holla Forums, but unfortunately you pseudo-leftist imbeciles are common here.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If you're saying that the constituents of the antifeminist "manosphere" are simply acting to promote the interests of their shared identity as men, then I of course agree. That's identity politics in it's most reactionary and toxic form, however, which is why I oppose it. Identity politics should be a matter of determining the differences in power, status, and muh privilege between identity groups in order to overcome these divisions, not in order to promote the interests of one's identity group(s). The latter is what liberals do, which has (perhaps rightly so) caused idpol to be demonized, and I agree that the latter is the bad kind of idpol. The former, however, is what radical leftists should be doing, since it facilitates our goals and helps direct workers toward their shared class interests as both a materal relationship to the means of production and as an identity group. This good kind of identity politics is shunned, denied, and ignored on Holla Forums, oftentimes using the same tactics that liberals use to engage in bad idpol to do so.

How? The internal domestic economy is propped up by the wage earned by the breadwinner. Exploitation would be if the breadwinner took the product of housework as a right, rather than having to get a woman to marry him first by showing he can be a good provider. The whole arrangement is based around the wage labor of the breadwinner. You don't get to just ignore that because it's convenient to your point.

Whoops, I meant: It's not idealistic to realize that the superstructure does not magically change to conform to the base when the base changes.

36 hours awake and counting.

Only when considering the relationship between the outside economy and household economy. When strictly analyzing the feudal household economy, however, the breadwinner functions as a lord whose ownership of the land, resources, and shelter is not questioned. Perhaps he got it in a previous arrangement or system, who cares? What matters are the material relations in the production process and how they translate into class divisions within the economy.

Exploitation is, simply defined by Marxist terms, "the forced appropriation of unpaid labor by workers". Source: socialistworker.org/2011/09/28/what-do-we-mean-exploitation

Per that definition, the breadwinner would be exploiting his wife in the functional role of lord to his serf because he is forcibly appropriating her surplus labor in the form of receiving her services. In the capacity as lord, he probably would see the product of housework as a right, as many men in such positions historically have and expect from their housewives. The marriage would simply be the equivalent of the bondage ceremony that the free person performed with the lord to become a serf: a prior legal arrangement which establishes the formal relationship already manifest in the base.

Again, only in relation to the outside economy. That can be safely ignored, however, when analyzing the internal household economy. Similarly, if one were to analyze the internal economy of, say, a commune (or even communist territory), one would treat it in isolation to determine how it functions as an economic system. Identifying the relationship of that internal system with the outside system is useful, but not relevant to determining the commune's internal structure. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate, I think, to say that said commune therefore cannot by definition operate along communist principles or isn't functionally a communist system simply because it interacts and exists within a larger capitalist system. Similarly, it would be inappropriate to thus say that the feudal household is not really feudal simply because it is embedded in, and interacts with, a larger economic system, even though it does function as a feudal economy when analyzed and treated as an isolated system.

Misquoted, meant "the forced appropriation of unpaid labor of workers".

Historically, before drills, tractors, bandsaws and alot of other things, labor was much, MUCH more work.

Hurr.

How the fuck do you justify ignoring wage labor to support a household for being "external" to the household? The household isn't the literal brick and mortar house you bell-end. It's the relationship between the people, the family structure, including obligations to each other. In a traditional household a man was required, often by law, to provide enough for his family to live on. The fact that you actually cite the "man's home is his castle" meme betrays you. That shit was propaganda put out by the ruling class to make a man think that he was getting a reward for being a wage slave, just like honor is propaganda to make a man think taking wounds or dying for the country is greatly rewarding.

Go fuck yourself tbh.

All you wrote is because of feminism.

Because the topic of discussion is the internal household economics and not its relationship to the external economy? You're trying to shoehorn in the latter with no good reason, even though it has already been established that the breadwinner is a wage slave to the external economy. That has no impact whatsoever on the material conditions of the household economy, however, and is only relevant when discussing how the household economy interacts with the external economy and how the latter can affect social relations in the former.

No shit, retard. Are you done pointing out the obvious as if it somehow refutes my points or was not considered by me?

Completely false. There is no legal requirement, to my knowledge, specifying the man as the caretaker of a family or necessitating him as its provider. I'm not familiar with more obscure marriage laws, such as those in parts of Europe, in Africa, and in Asia, but I seriously doubt they do either.

No, it doesn't.

And where is your evidence for that? Even if true, that doesn't mean that those ideas don't have feudal origins. The only reason why people even took to such language, and why it even works as descriptors of family life, is because of the feudal (and fascist) structure of the family. If the family structure was, say, communist, it would be absurd to say that any given member therein was the "king of the castle" or "lord of the manor". Such language would make no sense in communist households and thus it would have never been adopted.

Grow a brain, double nigger.

Small correction: I suppose the external economy could, hypothetically, have a tangential impact on the household economy insofar as a communist external economy would apply some pressure for change in the household economy. A communist household is not a necessary consequence of a communist external economy or society, however, as evidenced by the existence of feudal and fascist households in capitalist systems and societies. For the purposes of this discussion, such minor influences can be safely ignored as insufficient, inessential, and largely inconsequential factors in the function and material conditions of the household economy.

Hey, least I can literally fuck the boss. Sounds like a sweet deal tbh. No having to put in hours, work slowly and comfy. See the kids, hell can even HOMESCHOOL them and get them to help around the house. Your trying to go full draconian, but it'd be only draconian if the waifu is draconian. Hence leave if is a bad relationship.

Nope. Just gtfo of dodge if it's a shit relationship.

Simple solution. The free time that waifu is working, just do an at home project you can sell. Like gardening and selling the produce, wood working and making furniture and toys you can sell. Money isn't hard to get when you have someone to make the house money for you.

Nah, I just work for a living. It sucks. If I had a wife that was the breadwinner, that'd be fine with me.

What makes you think drawing the boundary on what defines the "internal" household's economy such that it excludes the labor that provides the resources allowing that economy to exist? The household's economy makes no sense in that context; where do you get the idea that this is a legitimate basis for analysis of the household's dynamics?

An ideology having feudal origins doesn't mean that it describes a feudal system at present.
People took to it because of nostalgia for feudalism. Capitalist ideology is full of nostalgia for feudalism. That doesn't make it an accurate reflection of reality you turbo autist.

So far leftypol agrees with rightypol
unfortunately the polyps think the micks did it all with their clover magic