Why is feminism still necessadu in the West? Women are undoubtedly given the same opportunities as men...

Why is feminism still necessadu in the West? Women are undoubtedly given the same opportunities as men, and Capital is totally behind the economic enfranchisement of women in order that the labour pool, including the pool of knowledge based labourers, can be expanded. That's why we have massive government drives for "women in STEM" and the like. Capital is deperately trying to further proletarianise women. It's worth noting that most liberal feminists are firmly behind Capital in this drive; "if only women can become as entrenched a part of economic life as men historically have been" they say, "then we will finally have equality".

However, as a Marxist why should I wish for women to become wage-labourers en masse?Why should I support their functioning as a new labour reserve to be fully tapped by Capital?

The only actual issue worthy of our attention is that of remuneration for housework, though even there I think much of the opinion voiced in favour of such an arrangement comes from a perverse demand-side Capitalism that seeks to further invade social life and labour.

Other urls found in this thread:

theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/
oecd.org/els/family/SF_2_2-Ideal-actual-number-children.pdf

Distinguish between bourgeois "feminism" and proletarian feminism.

Proletarian feminism is pretty irrelevant; once the class-based contradictions are resolved any residual inequalities between women and men will dissolve. Gender and racial bias constitutes the epiphenomena of class contradiction.

any what until then you meganigger ultrafaggot

Shut the fuck up

Until then any "feminism" will just be precisely what I've described; an offensive to force women firmly under the jackboot of Capital.

women are the ultimate porkies right now because they never learned to be anything else, I see a future where this is different, I hope for that future

capitalist 'feminism' is just another way to drill the workforce and encourage consumption. Being properly liberated and successful becomes a duty placed on the individual. The emphasis on muh female CEOs does nothing for the average woman, but does a lot to redeem CEOs and whitewash the corporate ideal of success as a whole. Corporations can no longer limit themselves to the simple production of commodities, they are agents of governance with the obligation to create a representation of themselves as agents of positive social change. That the reality drags far behind this representation is beyond the point.

...

Please reread Marx

Only insofar as they aid accumulation. That's why the Industrialists in the North often supported an end to southern Slavery and why modern movements are commodified and defanged.

However, Capital is happy to defer most of the costly aids to the state, and will for as long as the bourgeois state exists.

...

Women are different from men, they will always have different concerns and needs in certain respects. It's not a bad thing to have people who keep an eye on this.

...

for

Leftypol's new official brain genius namefag

Men are different from women, they will always have different concerns and needs in certain respects. It's not a bad thing to have people who keep an eye on this.

;)

Correct. When the men's rights movement focuses on ways men are unfairly shanked in family court for example, that is a good thing.

pffffffffffffff

...

I used to respect your posts

You left your flag on namefag

I'm not that guy you conspiracy nutjob

*quickly switches from sports talk radio to the classical station so the drivethru lady will hold me in higher esteem* yes, i would like four mcchickens, three mcdoubles, a four-piece mcnuggets,

Maybe a point of clarification: men aren't always disadvantaged in divorce proceedings, and not every claim of being so unfairly treated is legitimate. Likely most aren't, who knows. But if you look at the raw numbers of who on average gets custody etc., there does seem an unfair trend going on.

Thanks. I assure you that I think all women are blithering bitch harpies now.

Why are you ruining what I thought of your insight with this

There should be more attention paid to this issue, I agree. However, the fact is that women tend to be better carers of children on average, and as such it's natural for judges to unconsciously associate "mother" with "guardian".

we live in the age of social capital. just look at some of the most valued corporations in the world: Amazon, Google, Tesla, Uber they don't produce concrete commodities, they serve as middlemen, brokers and churn out upwards trending graphics to impress the stockholders. First world capitalism depends on great measure on the production and management of affect

And how many fathers leave their children as opposed to mothers lol

Oops

No, I'm fairly sure we still live in the age of regular capital.

Economics lie at the core of that issue. Regardless, when a father is seeking custody it's abundantly clear that they do indeed want the child.

It's more economically feasible to be a shit man and leave my family, oh gotcha

I think the fortunes of those companies speaks more to the increasing relevance of knowledge-based Capital, and in any case they're practically guaranteed success feeding at the trough of government subsidy.

In addition, Amazon, Google, even Tesla to an extent, serve a primary Capitalist want; to eliminate space through time and increase the rate of turnover.

...

It merits more study at least. Feminists and meninists should just form committees to churn out loads of rigorous research papers in lieu of fighting each other online and publishing baity think pieces.

I suspect that sentiments to the effect of "I can't afford to support this child" are the primary cause of child abandonment. I'm not saying it's a moral thing to do, but it's an inevitable outcome of the system as it currently is.

lmao

Americans trying to rationalize their behavior

How about you form a committee to churn out more useless effortposts. You're doing better and better every day

...

...

because Chads are still pumping and dumping and narcissistic 6/10s are angry about it, taking it out on soy boys, and soy boys are raping the the 5/10s
it's a vicious cycle of unsortedness

girl: c'mon let me sit on your fac:)

me: im throughing up..pure fun…can't breathe

Bruther, they will hate you for telling the truth…

Holy shit this thread is some real horseshoe shit. If I was a rad lib, I'd screenshot this for "muh sides".
It's not.
Well, as a person, you might just support it for equality, or just because you don't feel an incessant need to deny women opportunities, or because you aren't a control freak. Any of these things…
But as a Marxist, you realize the proletarian are the revolutionary force, correct? "Expanding the labor reserve" is expanding the number of people who actively have a reason to revolt. Not like women without jobs shouldn't revolt, they are pretty proletarian like in the way that they care for children and the house, but whatever.
This whole thread reeks. Be ashamed, please, for your own sake.

...

So women can also be turned into exploited wage-labourers? No thanks.
Strawman; I don't see women as being denied opportunities.
It also allows Capital to resolve the production-realisation crisis for a time by creating new effective demand.

They already are and have been you fucking idiot

Again I implore you to reread Marx, and go outside

I'm not sure about the 'epi-'.

It's almost as if there was, and is, a concerted campaign to effect this under the guise of "feminism"…

More like liberalism. If you think nations like Britain and America treat their working women fairly, and you work to protect that order of things, I'm sorry but you are a complete fucking idiot.

You're falling for liberalism more than most women, this "we need more women ceos" shit is a bunch of bollocks, because NOBODY is becoming a fucking CEO. You never think about anyone besides yourself and cloak yourself in rhetoric that appeals to the NEETs but ultimately is as distant from Marx as you can possibly ever get

You are not proposing anything radical, you're a culture warrior all the same if not more so.

...

The epi- is appropriate in that these biases are an effect of primary phenomena (the contradictions of class) but do not simultaneously constitute or influence them.

Here I depart with Marx.

NO SHIT?

Bye the doors right there

Nice tits.

Dumbass, you said "why should I wish for women to become wage laborers en masse". I know Western women have opportunities, and you know that too, but you asked why you should when it has already happened, so you are either talking in respect to the past or currently ongoing feminism. Jesus christ.
So women shouldn't be allowed to work because it will possibly extend Capitalism further? Thats hilarious.
Look, it is to their benefit to work, and I will continue to support it. Sure though, make your Socialist party against women's liberation. I am certain you will be wildly successful. There is no practical reason for Socialists to oppose currently working women OR to stop women that begin working.

This. All other things being equal, more production is an unironic good.

Fuck off and die at any point.

why are you so angry?

You're intentionally strawmanning the shit out of me. Nowhere did I say working women are treated "fairly", as if such a thing is even possible. There are all manner of discriminatory biases that can serve to hamper women; nowhere do I deny this. I also don't care about "women CEOs"; I merely see no good reason for any leftist to throw their lot in with a movement committed to facilitating Capital accumulation and co-opting whatever legitimate grievances there are. The "women in STEM" drive is the obvious example, but there are others; credit and household appliances being another example, here we see finance invading social reproduction in a way that disproportionately effects women.

I'm done here. You're dishonest and presumptuous.

This is the kind of strawmanning I'm talking about.

on the contrary, we should oppose work in all circumstances and we should fight to liberate humankind from all forms of toil. Most 'jobs' in the first world are nothing short of busywork thanks to late capitalist service/information economy. even if you manage to rise through the ranks of middle management or get a nice job as an engineer, you'll be in the minority. 'work' nowadays means lending your time and creative potentials to the endless reproduction of capitalism.

You also apparently misread Marx

Counterquestion: Why is feminism still necessary outside of the west? If feminism serves capitalism then wouldn't we want to prevent feminist movements in places like Saudi Arabia? SA is actually a good example of a place that is very patriarchal but also has a surging feminist tide that is extremely liberal and ideological in nature.

Go outside to your community.

*it isn't a farm job

DEFEND SAUDI ARABIA

...

Why do antifeminists always use what they read on the headline news as good fucking analysis lol

I'm not defending the House of Saud but liberal feminism doesn't suddenly become good when it crosses the hemisphere. The same applies to feminists in Korea, China, Africa etc.

'feminism' is just a cover for the class interests of the middle management bitch class.
theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/308135/

Name me two groups that only exist because of each other that this wouldnt apply to

And there lies the problem. Crossing liberalism and feminism as if the reproductive rights of women aren't the primary issue, and assuming in bad faith everyone who disagrees with you falls in the former

Fuck off or read

...

Yes, post more about Star Wars user


I'm going to need a better source than the fucking atlantic.

funny you should mention reproductive rights since most feminists outside the west are staunchly anti-abortion. Maybe you should listen to what these feminists you support are saying.

t. V.I. Lenin

Funny you should mention abortion, because you don't even know why they don't fucking support it. It too, has to do with reproductive rights. Maybe you should listen to what these feminists you support are saying..

Alright guys, last post in my own thread. The verdict?

While the constant pressure for women to be increasingly cajoled into the ranks of the wage-labourer does serve to reconcile the contradiction between production and realisation of value for a time, thus extending Capital's life all other things being equal, this does at least work to dampen various gender biases, both socialised and institutional (the two are, of course, mutually reinforcing and overdetermine eachother).

While this might cause Capital to extend its dominion further, and will inevitable and sadly lead to the further penetration of social reproduction by Capital (finance especially) and a decline in monopolisable skills (thus harming technical and knowledge based workers), hopefully it can also serve to ensure that when crises occur they can be seized upon by a more unified labour force.

I disagree with abortion for moral reasons; see Don Marquis' argument against abortion.

...

It's not just an American thing you dingus

Debates in the United States about what boundaries differentiate the truly rich from everyone else might seem quaint, if not outright ridiculous, to observers in most of the rest of the world. The reference to boots as a ‘luxury’ item by the Indian factory manager might seem outrageous, particularly for those who feel solidarity with people for whom work is considerably more difficult and less rewarding than ours, but the same comment can be read as a powerful statement about the extent to which, when viewed by the vast majority of the world, the amenities enjoyed by most living in the United States – even those who ‘slog’ to work – are no less than luxurious wealth by global standards.

The magnitude of global disparities can be illustrated by considering the life of dogs in the United States. According to a recent estimate by the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association…in 2016-2017 the average yearly expenses associated with owning a dog were $$1,744.97

Of course, these are average figures for the nation as a whole: in some areas, such as the wealthy Upper East Side of Manhattan, the costs of maintaining a dog can be considerably higher.

For the sake of argument, let us pretend that these dogs in the United States constitute their own nation, “Dogland,” with their average maintenance costs representing the average income of this nation of dogs. By such a standard, their income would place Dogland squarely as a middle-income nation, above countries such as Paraguay and Egypt. In fact, the income of Dogland, this nation of U.S. dogs, would place its canine inhabitants above more than 40 percent of the world population. (This figure was roughly 60 percent as recently as 2004, before high rates of growth allowed China and its large population to surpass the threshold; at $820, the average national income of India is still merely around 60 percent of the expenditure for U.S. dogs.) And if we were to focus exclusively on health care expenditures, the gap becomes monumental: the average yearly expenditures in Dogland,

would be higher than health care expenditures in countries that account for over 80 percent of the world population.

To such disparities we should add other important dimensions: even from the point of view of protection from violence, the life of urban dogs on the Upper East Side of Manhattan is considerably more protected than the lives of the majority of the world’s working poor.

And now realize what owning a dog compares to raising a human, and still you refuse to see the class issues women face and mock them as being purple hair stereotypes instead of the anger of having to even be forced to reproduce for this expense, to give up your entire life for expense men will never fully grasp, men like you.

Dogs are more protected than most of the fucking mothers of the world.

The health cost, labor cost, every cost. It should be you, who probably does not appreciate the immensity of what "womanhood" actually fucking means.

Nice spooks but abortion is necessary to reverse population growth.

On any given day in CANADA, more than 3,300 homeless women, particularly mothers, (along with their 3,000 children) are forced to sleep in an emergency shelter to escape domestic violence. Every night, about 200 women are turned away because the shelters are full. As of 2010, there were 582 known cases of missing or murdered Aboriginal women in Canada. Both Amnesty International and the United Nations have called upon the Canadian government to take action on this issue, without success…In a 2009 Canadian national survey, women reported 460,000 incidents of sexual assault in just one year.

What do you think that number in the US is like? Hm? Seven to nine years later?

Disney is the avant garde of capital, every aspect of their corporate culture is a work of technical wizardry. All their products are carefully group tested for max emotional appeal. Neoliberalism claims to be all about 'fairness', 'meritocracy' and 'sexual freedom' but in reality it is merely a technical form for controlling as many humans as possible. People of both genders are actually having less and worse sex than before and yet sexuality has become an omnipresent commodity, with even the most fucked up porn imaginable available one touch screen click away. the very concept of consent becomes meaningless when sex is stripped of its character as a social relationship between people and reduced to a mere contract. It isn't sexuality that's being repressed, it's everything else that is being repressed through sexuality. The focus on abortion is pretty telling of how much the horizon of politics has been reduced, it's down to 'my body, my choice' being the 'boss of one's body

Idealist non material rubbish obsessed with spectacle

...

Not those in the first world though. Where you live and are active and who reap the benefits of your activism.

The true crime is that first world dogs are more well off than 80% of humanity period.

i'm talking about stuff like this

Yes, even in the first world. Especially America. Dogs absolutely can have more rights than a fucking mother can. A bougie family's dog in Manhattan has more protection than most women in America, from a cost stand point of health insurance.

Being a mother is more perilous in America than owning a dog.

You're talking about liberalism, I am talking about material fact.

And all the costs associated with pregnancy, the fact you can't EVEN FUCKING TAKE MUCH WORK OFF, IF ANY, during late term pregnancy, can result in stilbirth in the US, more than any other Western Nation

That all the cost and emotional and physical labor can just amount to nothing, or even death, still in the United States, that this isn't bothersome tells more of the general reaction to what myths of what women want, what liberalism seeps into the minds of men who do not see much class issue with feminism, vs the material reality of it.

And the material reality is far worse than you think it is.

In America you are borderline forced to become a mother, a prospect that can lead to a wide variety of outcomes from abuse to homelessness and destitution. If we ignore these issues than what kind of world are we promising women if we throw around their worries as the nightmares of only silly purple haired freaks.

And this only touches on the US. Imagining women a class war without women's interests at heart is imagining liberal utopianism.

That's not a women's issue though, again, that's a class issue. A bourgie dog has more protection than most Americans, period. The points about women's shelters and reproductive issues are more on point.

How so? Agree on the fact that childbirth burdens women and in America they are not sufficiently protected, but how are they forced?
Do you mean the case where a low income would-be-mother lives in a state where abortion is restricted, and her lack of income constrains her mobility to have it done elsewhere? Or more of a cultural pressure?

My point was a comparison between that and women's reproductive health issues costing a fortune.

More or less. There's also a very TRAD Cultural issue about it. One that traces its roots to "the completion of womanhood is motherhood", a myth oozing with protestant christianity that infects most of American life.

Feminists overstate the degree of oppression Women face, for example calling our society a patriarchy is ridiculous. Regardless though Women definitely face a unique challenge their lives are generally worse than Men and they are unhappier. Imagine all the pressure you have now on you plus a residual concern about your biological clock running out before you have a chance to have children. A lot of the problem with liberal Feminist discourse is their desire to blame the problems Women face on sexism, or male prerogatives or whatever when in reality the unique hardships that Women face largely come from the fact that Capitalism (and especially Capitalism where Women are"liberated and empowered") is just uniquely poorly suited to fulfilling their emotional needs and is our of sync with their biological role. Obviously socialism not feminism is the solution to these problems as they will be largely solved by universal employment, childcare, and fulfillment of basic needs. Regardless I have no real problem with Women calling themselves feminists, there are genuine problems that Women face unrelated to Capitalism, sexual and domestic violence being the most prevalent.


Argue in good faith you punk.


The disparity in custody can largely be explained by factors unrelated to gender like who the primary caregiver is and who expresses more interest in caring for the child. If you want to end the disparity in custody than you have to destroy the gender roles surrounding childcare. Though honestly I don't think that is possible or even desirable.


Holy shit star wars has become cancerous. That Character is such a clear projection of who the writer wishes she was.

I fucking knew they were trying to sneak some kind of Hillary metaphor in with that bitch. Easily the worst part of that already bad movie.

Quite so. Properly, women should be paid for the vital work they do in renewing variable capital. But of course porky prefers to externalize that cost.

Tangent: I did a study of the child benefits system in my country once, and the gender and class dynamics are fascinating. When the child benefits system (regular payments per child plus lump sums for births) was first introduced, it was tied to employment and paid by the employer, first directly and later via mutual funds. It fits very neatly into the idea of the capitalist carrying part of the cost of renewing "his" work force.

The thing is, though, that those payments initially were paid out to… men! The male head of the household (even fathers or brothers in cases where no husband is present) is the bearer of the right to child benefits. This is patriarchy at its purest: the women bears the risks and labour costs of reproduction, and it is men related to her who receive monetary rewards!

Gradually though this system was reformed by socdems and other liberals into one where the mother is the one who receives the money, at about the same time as they started re-entering the workforce (remember that the nineteenth century actually saw a movement to push women out of the workforce under the aegis of protecting them - the laws regulating child and women labour).

Another trend has been the decoupling of child benefits from employment. Went from employment of the head of the household (men) -> any employment -> right for all women. But at the same time, those benefits have seen a leveling off and recently an attempt to cut them. A driving force for this is the racist boogeyman of immigrant women having more children and having her family live unemployed of the child benefits. The American trope of the welfare queen.

I think, purely from a medical health prospective, the gulf between men and women, especially in America, is enough to warrant the idea "Women are treated superior in the West compared to men, totally" into the trash. I think that's idpol on its own, it's a disconnectedness from family life that assumes all issues can go back to sex instead of realizing the consequences of sex. There is a real reason the free love movement was liberal nonsense that warped how family issues in America were dealt

Seeing sex as a passtime instead of something far greater didn't just erupt sexually transmitted diseases, but distanced how men interact with women who in their adult lives worry about their own health in faaaaaaaaar different ways than men do.

Not that men don't have their own medical issues, and I hope I am not just rambling here, I think capitalism has done its best to try to distance men and women in liberal gender strife to confuse the real material financial, class, emotional stresses of womanhood as largely irrelevant or equal to men. That way everything becomes easier to think about.

getting spooky here

That makes sense to me. Likely it also relates to how a lot of the messengers in the culture wars are from the bourgeois class or answer directly to them, so of course they will be blind to these concerns.

Women have to expend energy/time on pregnancy and the majority want children. I don't really see what is spooky about acknowledging that.

The fact that population growth stagnates and begins to decline as women become more educated and wealthy is actually proof they DONT want children. Or, at least, don't want to be pregnant.

The only problem is that this tends to coincide with neoliberal austerity reforms which punish people for having children. So you really cannot make such a claim without being a liberal shit.

You can keep the children/woman at 2.1 with enough family benefits, free crèches, etc. Sweden and France have done this. It clearly points to the weight of material constraints.

Why?

There were many other changes in our society over that period which contributed to the decline in birth rates, like a massive casualization of work, destruction of unions, and hollowing out of the welfare state.

The facts are objectively on my side, maybe do some research before spouting off these half-baked theories.

oecd.org/els/family/SF_2_2-Ideal-actual-number-children.pdf

No, when women make a career that is correlated with both partners working.

Hard to raise a lot of children if you're working.

You know that the birth rate will still drop if you have one kid, right? One kid is also the least amount of hassle for the careerist family of today.

I'm not interested in changing people's social attitudes. It is an obnoxious and unpleasant urge of feminists and other idpol movements to engage in these sorts of demands for behavioral conditioning. If you want to be a feminist or whatever, go and do that away from socialism.

Ideologue.

the ideal woman

your entire life is made up of 24/7 behavioral conditioning. That's essentially what social networks are, you are one of Pavlov's test subjects and you hate being reminded of it.

No, the ideal woman is one who isn't a pig. Fat "people" and their overconsumption disgust me, and they should disgust you too.

I think we both agree you disgust everyone

There's a reason the bourgers are depicted as slovenly, overweight, porcine fellows user.

You're both a bunch of dense cunts. "Body Positivity" shit promotes people being unhealthy and overweight as something positive, while those that impotently rage at fatties like worked up tards do nothing of the sort to address the problem, as they tend do it for the kicks more often than not

I'm calling you obese