MadoHomu Exedra edition
Previous Thread:
>>618934
205 posts and 34 image replies omitted.>>1672No???????? On the complete opposite we love Women, sounds like hetero moid projecting
The vast majority of hetero men are misogynists, homophobes and general reactoid subhumans
>>1675It's straight guys who invalidate, and verbally and physically harass us, who dehumanize us and have been the sole responsible for all our miseries since inmemorable times, it's straight guys the sole responsibles for women oppression
If you fail to see why feminists (and I dare to say even women in general) are natural allies of the gays then nothing can
(USER WAS WARNED FOR LACK OF HISTORICAL AND CLASS ANALYSIS) >>1671Hetero males now.
Hatred towards men is a crack that leads to other bigotry and reactionary thinking – this is why we have terfs for instance, or white supremacist feminism.
>>1681>>1682Take a look at these 2 posters for instance.
It's one they overly represented reactionary ideology, but it's a lie to say vast majority.
This conflation is what feminists do with crime statistics, arguing unironic post-911 cult of fear crap, despite its massive drop and clear understanding in material conditions.
It's that thinking is why the perfect loveable women feminists were arguing that black men would vote for Donald Trump – then after election would be mixed on if to add women to the "rather go with the bear" list.
>>1696im not the same person you dumb fucking retard
>You come into a thread about LGBTmaybe because im trans
>>1706No,
I know
you are, but what am
I?
>>1682>>1721Wanna explain women working in the state and even had detrimental leader ship positions (like thatcher)?
Want to explain why bourgeosis women are fine with the system and exploit?
Want to explain why the exploitation occurs even despite the race or religion or whatever?
You want to explain it?
No, you're a feminist that desires nothing but subjugation.
Liberal feminists, the dominant feminism, contains no natural allys – kill your self, and get the fuck out of this general.
>>1723>Wanna explain women working in the state and even had detrimental leader ship positions (like thatcher)?The system can absorb individuals from time to time
Also you're talking about class, which is a more complicated issue
The point is that feminism is gonna be aligned with LGBT rights most of the time, which is, like, an almost banal observation, tbh
>>1726Different poster.
The issue is exactly that feminism, regardless of its allegiance to queer politics, is bourgeois. If it aligns with queer politics in anyway, it is through the consciousness of the proprietor, the general, and the exploiter.
Your detachment from class makes you falsely believe that ALL queer politics is ALWAYS worth championing, while the opposite is true. Pure, liberal idealism.
>>1734We don't need to speculate. We have the historic record. Same with social democracy and Proudhons anarchism
or indeed all anarchism.
>>1735Marxism-Leninism is not communism (little, or big 'c').
>>1726> More complicated issueIt's literally tied to how we've had this society.
What the fuck do you think came first, general slavery or slavery of women?
There's a reason why racism was only invented like 400 years ago by the spaniards.
>>1733The issue is that it's a broad movement that here has turned liberal, plus has had a history of being white supremacist.
Feminists instead of recognizing limits just go
> We define!!!!!!!!Like fuck off, no matter what bullshit you spew you can't argue that terfs cant be categorized under feminism – your rapey definition changing doesnt change that.
>>1737>>1733go back to your lgbt genocide country
>>>/latam/ >>>/latam
>>1740Please explain the surge of feminists arguing to bring 4b because Kamala (blue Hitler), lost to Donald Trump (red Hitler).
>emancipating women in the abstract is liberal from the get-goEmancipation isn't inherently liberal.
100% you were the type of person to see Chairman Mao's:
> Combat liberalismAnd thought that meant being a combative liberal.
>>1748This is the worst reply to already terrible post.
You should've just went full mask off and say
>>>/hamas/ >>1765>Emancipation isn't inherently liberal.have you tried reading the following words retard. not even the most prominent marxist women were for feminism because its interclassist by definition
communism is the emancipation of the proletariat, no more no less, any consequence of the abolition of class society is a happy accident
>>1767I read read your words and their moronic.
Women need a unique liberation tied to their identity of being a woman along side their identity of being a proletariat.
Saying
> communism is the emancipation of the proletariat, no more no less<(which isn't entirely true since it's about establishment of private property), Doesn't counter the fact that part of that liberation is all the spooks and crap put onto the workers. Like why do you think successful communist movements were anti-racism for instance?
>>1791Posting on the board is unappealing.
I still don't see why it's a whole board, it's insanely overkill.
It's like they saw leftychan with like 20 dead boards and went
>Hold up they're cookn >>1870>>1765Middle class women and bourgeois are privileged and aren't exploited for their labor with no reserves under this society. I'm not even talking about work at home, of which the dynamic isn't like 20 years ago, I mean productive labor. So there's no way one can speak of a universal exploitation of women as its own social category with unanimous conditions under which compels them to have shared interests to struggle for. One is wealthy and commands over labor power and politics, the other is trying to survive. That's the issue I'm contesting here.
Working class women don't struggle and get exploited under capitalism as women, they do so as proletarians and communism isn't a movement to emancipate 'humanity' or whatever the fuck. People like Rosa simply said that the emancipation of women is in lieu with the overall goals of socialism, not by bandaging 'marxist' to bourgeois rights. That takes away from the class struggle and its ends of abolishing such social categories as they emerged in class society, along with class society itself. Feminism is inherently an interclass movement and applying it or other ones like equality and rights of races, nations, claims for liberty, justice, etc. to the proletarian movement doesn't make them any less anti-communist.
><(which isn't entirely true since it's about establishment of private property), The abolition of class society and property emancipates the proletariat, genius.
>>1873>>1872Proletariat women are not only oppressed for being proletarians, but also receive unique oppression in stuff like lower wages despite being in the same field – this is just material reality.
Recognizing their unique additional oppression is necessary since capital in general will exploit one sub group over the other to bribe the other, with an additional demonizing of each other – racism is a famous example.
This isn't to say that bourgeosis women are oppressed because they're women, they're so benefiting of their class that it overrides that – both of these things work together.
>The abolition of class society and property emancipates the proletariat, genius.If you're going to be snarky, you need to do it right.
(Unlike me which forgets to add words).
>>1874Thread sucks because it's a dead board, not because a "chud" doesn't get a now liberal movement that's constantly white washed.
>>1896>>1900>>1874>>1905This is Eleanor Marx about women workers, highlighting how middle-class women's interests diverge from those of working class women, and how feminists (women's rights-ers) differ from working class women.
Luxemburg's stance on feminism is well-known enough so not gonna bother posting that one.
>>1905>Women's oppression serves to divide the proletariat.>Emancipation within the capitalist framework leaves women in a class position.>Proletarian women have more to gain from organizing with men than to fight an inter-class struggle.While i think this analysis largely holds up, i find the wholesale dismissal of engaging with this intra-class competition very short-sighted. Is the economic discrimination of women, like those of racial minorities, not a very visible head of the capitalist hydra that can spur organization? Likewise the eventual disappearance of the need for such underclasses does not automatically result in the disappearance of related ressentiments. Need i remind you the emancipation from the family structure was fought for in the USSR, unsuccesfully. Feminism is a valuable tool for marxists, to a point.
Yet there is also another side to the issue, besides how women should organize with respect to their class. Gender ideology necessarily pervades every aspect of society and most apparently can lead to the trivialization of uniquely women's issues. I would argue bourgeois feminism is pretty transparent in every one of its incarnations. Proletarian women's economic marginalization and the gendered burden of childcare are a part of the wider proletarian struggle, as much as the working conditions of amazon warehouse employees or price gouging in healthcare, and, in addition to present economic conditions, they are both enforced by patriarchal notions of women's inferiority and predisposition towards mother roles. The enduring prevalence of such notions even among the working class is the reason women need to loudly advocate for their own issues, or risk being brushed aside.
>>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.
Unique IPs: 30