>>1905Idk why this reply when the first image explains that proletariat women are unequal to proletariat men.
Also your second post (
>>1906 ), is just highlighting liberals in the movement and the sway/leading it has.
The problem I had was simplifying the contradictions of the struggle to just purely proletariat vs bourgeois, when it's clear that, even if they're extensions of the first dialect, they still exist.
You're misunderstanding me in thinking that I'm arguing for the solution to be derived from that liberal-feminist framework, or that a communist movement should work part within in it to satisfy those liberals.
And confused when I'm using the modern (water down) definition of feminism of being:
> When you're for the liberation of women and men from the patriachy And saying that communism, a movement that logically incorporates it but to those less read in theory would not realize this (hence le "maga-communism"), would aim to liberate proletariat women more than just their status as a worker.