Log in
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
Under feudalism, women were more or less property of men. Under capitalism, women were liberated from being forced into marriage, only to be forced to compete in the marketplace with men to survive. What remains unpaid in a cash society however is domestic labour. Capitalism assumes this labour is "free."
When most men work and most women stay at home performing domestic labour, and if the man's salary can pay enough to pay for everything, then it more or less works out; domestic labour is informally acknowledged in the man's salary. (50+ years ago, many workplace promotions were reserved for married men.) But then women are more or less dependent on their husbands who pay for everything and hold the monopoly on workplace experience and value. Additionally, and maybe more importantly, the careers of gay men may be limited under this arrangement.
With a variety of modern, liberal compensations and penalties on men, women can more or less get by about as well as men, with or without a husband or kids. Gay and single men are free to climb the corporate ladder alongside their married-with-children colleagues. But the workplace now eliminates the notion of paying for a family through a single breadwinner's salary; now everyone is atomized into individuals, with individual survival salaries. The cost of domestic labour is now completely forgotten, and the overall pressure on women to remain childless will increase as they are now required to fill 50% of the workplace.
Domestic labour is then outsourced overseas, to produce replacement labour.
If corporations could get away with paying a (female) employee less, they certainly would. The pay difference is a divisive myth.
See also:
https://Projex.Wiki/wiki/Feminism - Articles started by LarrySwinger
facts
Thanks ChatGPT
You're ChatGPT.
Cmon carswell can't you do better than that
It really isn't. I'm (attempting to) summarize a bit of Engels writing on the origin of the family, private property, the patriarchy, and extending those observations into the modern world.
Do you have a better explanation or model to describe where we're at?
It was easy to check. You didn't read it either did you? Or you think the most important thing is this hurts gay Mens careers? Engels said that?
Engels did not say that of course. He described how women are oppressed under the modes of production that developed with civilization.
I am adding modern elements to show additional pressures that only reinforce the system Engels described. In other words, this is not simply a brief regurgitation of Engels but my own thoughts.
If it hurts gay Mens careers that's good I guess. Are you saying that's good or bad? Engels was wrong about everything right? I mean if communism takes over they just sell out and nothing changes.
I wrote that in as some subtle sarcasm, but I think it's true. Gay men probably had more pull when it came to pushing modern "feminism" - for their own agenda, which was to put childless workers compensation on par with those supporting a family.
The overall point here being that capitalism can corrupt and distort just about anything for its own purposes. If your ultimate source of value in society is cash, then who cares about traditional families? Especially once capitalism learned it didn't need to spend money to raise new capitalists, it could just import them.
That's true like my ultimate goal isn't to just make money, it's to support family, but need money for that so it's the same.
Speaking of gay men, Engels and Marx were gay together, explaining a lot. So capitalism hurts the traditional family, but communism is worse for it.
What if the elites want to give you an illusion of choice but you're screwed either way.
Marx and Engels were most likely not gay lmao. Engels, although he was a great writer and thinker and an early "male feminist", was also a womanizing degenerate in his own way. Marx had 8 kids.
Look up what happened between Engels and Moses Hess sometime.
Hess probably gay too. I guess the point is capitalism and socialism both have problems.
I wasn't even advocating socialism. But Marx and Engels are good at explaining things without needing a lot of conspiracy theories. Conspiracies exist, for sure, but they're chaotic. Marx is showing us why overall, certain plots seem to win.