Women and socialism?

Wanted leftypols hot takes on why women should support socialism and how they would be brought into the movement. A lot of the women I talk too support progressive policies at the very least. Most are managing the household on top of financial obligations.They are hunger for basic shit like paternity leave(I'm a burger) and higher wages. Not saying those things are socialist, but when I talk politics women seem far more open to left wings Ideas than most of the guys I shoot the shit with. Also attracting more women to the cause would help enforce the Virgin NEET stereotype of the right wing.

Oh yeah sauce for pic: nytimes.com/2017/08/12/opinion/why-women-had-better-sex-under-socialism.html

Other urls found in this thread:


When relationships aren't based around income and property acquisition, people tend to actually want to fuck and be with others they genuinely like. Also under socialism, ideally anyway, both parents could work and still have more than enough time for children. A mom or dad won't have to spend 40+ hours of their week making someone else richer away from their kids anymore.

IMO it depends on how you'd define a woman's QoL. RadLibs tend to look only at figures such as the number of female CEOs and the like, as if that helps poor Emma who scrounges for food in back-alley dumpsters. However, I feel as if these people are swiftly becoming the vocal minority even among the liberal "left". As more female authority figures do enter the industry, people (particularly my female friends) have started to realize that a shitty boss is a shitty boss, regardless of if she wears skirts or pants.

As Socialists, we ought to aim to provide a staunch riposte to these ideals.
< Whereas Libs advocate for gender equality in the professional world, we ought to push for "Woman's Choice", or the ability for a woman to have complete control of what she wishes to do with her life.
< Whereas Liberals point to the Gender Pay Gap (whether it exists is irrelevant), we may counter by showing our system compensates the hours worked, not a fraction of the money generated by an individual for some Wall Street fat-cat. If one works just as hard as her colleagues (as I'm sure she does), how can one be improperly compensated then?
< We also ought to point out that this is not a cold and unfeeling system.
Paid Maternity and Paternity Leave is guaranteed, and comprehensive social services mean that your child will have ample enrichment opportunities during the formative years of his/her life.
< Some Liberals say that minorities and/or women are not properly represented in popular media. Perhaps this is true; it is up to the individual to decide. But would not women and minorities be better-represented if we allowed more time for people to enrich themselves? For all we know, the next masterpiece of woman's literature may be locked inside the mind of someone who never had time to write between three jobs.
< Workplace democracy is a major point that Socialist oftentimes seem to forget about. It's easy for even poor people to ignore the plight of those less fortunate than them, but almost everyone has a shitty boss. Under Socialism, this would give way to a democratic system, and for women this would mean that they would finally be properly represented in the workplace.
< Furthermore, as it's become a hotbed issue as of late, we ought to stress that individuals would have universal access to hormones and counseling services should they feel truly uncomfortable in their current body. The finer points of this subject are the domain of mental and physical health professionals, but the logistics of HRT wouldn't be expensive at all under a Socialist system.
< Finally we must argue that simple Social Democracy is not enough, as that system only skims a little of everyone's collective income off the top and redistributes them as trinkets to the needy. And as soon as the economy shrinks, those services are the first that lobbyists point at as "wasteful spending".

All throughout these examples, I've made a point of treading lightly upon the beliefs of the average Liberal American. In converting them to Socialists, we ought to flatter them by praising their spirit, but argue that they don't go far enough, as well as charismatically present reasonable-sounding alternatives to the Capitalist economic system. It worked for me - I used to be a Social Democrat till I read the first chapters of Towards a New Socialism - it can work for others.

In my honest opinion, i'm all in favor of ending some of the gynocentric traditionalist shit. True, women should be able to reap the benefits of socialism, as should everyone, but i think liberal ways of thinking about gender should be challenged. The idea of stronk independent womyn is great, until people vote for other people based on whether or not they have a vagina. I still support paid maternity leave though. Women should be able to focus on family if they so choose. Shit like that is fine with me. To be fair, gender inequality doesn't even seem like more of an issue compared to class. Everyone has to deal with a certain amount of shit. Emma being homeless is no different to Bill losing his home and being forced to live in a box. I'd give them both food out of generosity, and perhaps other shit too depending on how bad they need it.

one q regarding m/p leave: how do people be deterred from abusing the system? for example, what about people who just keep "having kids" so they don't have to work? I would hope there is some crafty lregislation around that or it very well could just become the new welfare queen meme

other than that i think m/p leave is a great idea.

true, and i wanted to point out that emma usually sucks dick for money and crack. the whole "homeless and helpless" thing gets me a bit with commies sometimes because they make it seem like poverty is the only issue.

being homeless sucks, yeah, but some people really have more problems than just that. i would wager that a sizeable portion of the homeless would retaliate or retreat to their "old ways" even if given a house and decent situation. there is other issues to be dealt with. not saying this doesn't entitle them to housing and the help they need, but eh,… i dunno, these things get complicated pretty fucking fast.

they might have drug problems or think fucking for money is easier than other work because of some child abuse or some shit. and that's where all the crazy feminist shit comes in i think. there's people who take these absolutist stances like "sex = bad" "masculinity = bad" and end up with these horribly liberal conclusions

For a woman to have a baby it is usually really physically demanding.

Only in cases where a physically demanding pregnancy is less demanding than the job they usually have, you get a woman preferring to have a baby and becoming a welfare queen.
Or when the job security is really low.

Also with the lessening of the labour time due to more efficient labour allocation, it would be easier to have a job instead of taking care of the baby 24/7.

People still want to have children.

My argument is when the actual job stops being so undesirable, the desirability of being a welfare queen also drops. Also job security helps.

Women have the same reasons to support socialism as men.

Although specialized benefits could be added, like less domestic abuse (often aggravated by poverty), better education for their children, and an adequate minimum maternity leave.

t. cis woman

But that's not what this is about.
Oh well if you can't beat them join them, I personally say abolish marriage and have a sexually free society under communism.

Free makeup and tampons.

That makes no sense, trust fund kids(the ultimate parasites) who have total financial security often have fewer kids. They aren't having kids because it makes more sense because they don't give a fuck, decadence creates existentialism or hedonism.

"I don't need kids because my art will transcend genetics and my legacy will shape humanity more than my seed ever could" or "Live is a meaningless, lets pop another molly and go to the orgy on 5th"

Also People are never going to squirt out kids for the benefits. You squirt out kids because you're nothing special and you need a do over. Or you're a crazy person and looked around at our planet and said "You know what this place needs? More fucking people"

Lastly, if parents dies and leaves a kid behind. Do we just go "sorry timmy, you got to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. It sucks your mom was a such a welfare queen being dead and all". No we take the kid in, we have a responsibility to our fellow humans.

women are naturally socialistic because it is in their best interest from birth and they can see it in their interpersonal relationships

Any time there's a socialist program without feminism lately it's 5:1 men to women. But that's true with most politics. And no I don't care that we are just as virgin NEETy as the right wing. Nor do we need to hide it. Nor would becoming chads do anything

I'm still trying to understand how (liberal or not) psychology of NA women works when it comes to gender equality of workspaces. With all the higher education they spent time partying, what prevents them from understanding employers would prefer men over women under capitalism most of the time due to biological trait? Men does not have to unfuck their hormone system once a month, they do not have to give birth to newborns, and most importantly they are more likely to be autistic due to missing one X chromosome that could repair another damaged X .

Do liberal feminists seriously believe rectifying legal system and governmental funding to compensate those disadvantages correct this bias and de-construct traditional gender norms? mb I'm missing something

Hottest Scorching Nobody Will Accept Because it causes third degree burns but its true, take:

Human society before the advent of agriculture, is universally similar to that of Bonobos; whose social structure revolves around women being in troop culture for a number of reasons gained over time. It's not coincidence, Bonobos are our last living direct ancestor. Paleolithic artistic and cultural history/expression more or less proves this; and our social reaction to everything about women is so sudden and violent that it seems to be insecurity similar to how Bonobo males react to loss of feminine power.

Since Bonobos are our closest living relative, and our past really suggests we lived quite similarly to them, that masculinity and its reaction to femininity is a facade to the anxiety and stress human beings face when in the presence of women. The immediate reaction is to "SHUT UP, JUST SHUT UP", but it all traces back to how agriculture effectively changed our behavior contrary to what it was previous, as Engels predicted and the archaeological record indicates from that time in the late paleolithic.

Masculinity is reaction to the loss of femininity in social structure, and it is self perpetuating. A socialist society would, or should, research our closest living relative before they go extinct to find indications in just how the base of human interaction might be. The absolute base of all of us that we react to, in this very oddly counter intuitively designed society.

Bonobo research is the key to understanding much of humanity. Men's obsession with women is not coincidence nor is it about reproduction, it is something far greater in our certain primate instinct repressed for so long since the birth of agriculture; that men react to it in anxiety, anger, refusal, fear, and bound by insecurity.

Men are living a long standing lie that goes against their instinct leading to insecurity leading to instability of individuals and society.

There's literally no evidence of any of this. Humans also seem way more violent than bonobos.

It'd probably be much easier to convince women than men

It depends on which point in history you're speaking, and where. I find no reason not to relate our closest living relative's instincts on social grouping than to ours. It couldn't have suddenly just, vanished.

Your arguments underlying premise is thst welfare queens exist or are a serious social problem, which is false.

Haven't we LITERALLY had this exact thread before? Stop posting this, I'm not even sure if it has any variations from before.

Are we inherently violent or does our violent behaviour arise from material conditions? Since when did we start bending over to the right wing's cries of muh hooman nature?

Chimpanzees are violent. The only other great ape known to exert as much or more violence than the chimpanzee is the human. Yet when the Congo River formed and geographically a chimpanzee population in an area with virtually no scarcity of natural resources, they evolved to become bonobos who never display the violent, territorial behaviour of their cousins on other side of the river with resource scarcity. These creatures are our closest genetic relatives, and the elimination of scarcity quite radically eliminated violence. Really gets the noggin joggin'.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking this. It is exceedingly annoying when idpols demand reasons that pander to their idpol.

#TimeUp is reformist bullshit
#MeToo is reformist bullshit
The vestiges of tradition have yet to be removed from the modern woman and progressives are not doing anything to reject it because they know if they did women (insomuch as most of the traditional vestiges which stop a socialist country from operating in a healthy and optimal way would be knocked down and all vestiges of capitalism within them would be too) would just become indistinguishable to men, as they were in the height of most of the world's greatest and most powerful socialist societies. Even in these societies, the capitalist and traditionalist urges of femininity were not entirely purged.
You must understand that femininity in itself, as a concept is a work of hundreds of thousands of years of traditionalist conditioning.
Masculinity as a concept is as well, however, because masculinity is representative of domination and action (implying progress and construction) instead of docility and submission(femininity), this is why femininity should be destroyed and replaced by masculinity in order to construct socialism. Instead of being the masters of women, both the man and the woman will become the masters of the world.
The maternal values of femininity, however, are something inseparable, which is something that should be kept because it represents growth of socialist youth.

Can you provide a source? I'd like to use this as evidence but I need some sort of evidence in case I'm asked for some

They don't have species being. You cannot compare humans to animals except on a biological level. Their behaviour just isn't comparable.

Get out liberal

The behavior between Homo Sapiens and our last living direct ancestor (The Bonobo) don't have much in common…..right….

Literally any study on bonobo-chimp evolution will show the same results. In fact, if you study evolutionary biology, the divergence of chimps into bonobos is a classic example of allopatric speciation (speciation caused by a geographic barrier, in this case a river, preventing gene flow between populations). You can take your pick for the source, but here's a short and sweet PBS piece:

They're not our ancestor; we share a common ancestor with them. There was something - we think it's in the genus Australopithecus but there's still debate over this - that was the ancestor to what would become the genus Pan (chimps and bonobos) and the genus Homo (us and various extinct relatives). The interesting thing about bonobos as they relate to humans is that their speciation from the chimp happened after the Pan-Homo divergence from our common ancestor already happened, so what would become humans was already on its own by the time the bonobos started becoming a thing, yet the genome of the bonobo has more genes in common with the human genome than the chimp has with humans. So we are evolutionarily closer to chimpanzees, but genetically closer to bonobos. Which is fucking rad as hell.

Biologically ignorant anthropocentrists belong in gulag. Anthropocentrism is the one of mindsets that allowed humans to think the notion that property could be privately owned wasn't fucking absurd.

But comrade, science is reactionary and shit. Only philosophers are allowed to lead the revolution.

Thank you