Let's talk about women in powerplay

Themis said:
What you exactly wrote is socialism. Everybody the same rights, total equality
Click to expand...
That's not true because Marx defines socialism as an intermediary step towards Communism (a classless moneyless society).

Whose definition of socialism are you referring to? Have you read Marx?
 
People forget that women as a group only achieved labour parity post industrial revolution outside of certain niche inroads like teaching, &c.

Before that, their economic disadvantage was justified under 'capitalism' because men were simply much more productive workers.

Capitalism has nothing to do with female emancipation one way or another, but machines, on the other hand, have played the mightier role by far. Wollstonecraft and all that crowd are causal minnows by comparison.
 
Pin said:
You lost me.
Click to expand...
I'm talking to myself but using you as a mirror. :tongueout:

Deleted member 16771 said:
because men were simply much more productive workers.
Click to expand...
Yup because then they defined work as testosterone intensive activities

Now, for example, I'm fluffing my own feathers here but I'm willing to bet I'm the most productive individual in my department. And I work with men. ┐(´ー｀)┌
 
Socialism was equalitarian from the start in terms of gender (which isn't to say that this is how the various labour movements operated in practice), but... that's because it's socialism.

I don't see how relevant it is to attempt to attach gender to different economic models, unless you simply wish to tar something by association.
 
Pin said:
That's not true because Marx defines socialism as an intermediary step towards Communism (a classless moneyless society).

Whose definition of socialism are you referring to? Have you read Marx?
Click to expand...
You are right, but it never worked.
Socialism is not only what marx wrote, in praxis for example in east socialistik Germany, women had a whole bunch of rights, things that the west haven't seeing.
After a few years the divorces sky rocket, because women had the state in their back, free apartment, money every month with out working,money for the child and so on. The majority of women, were making children to live from the state.
The same happened in England when Margaret Thatcher announced, all single mothers will get a free apartment and a monthly payment, after a couple of years most of the single mothers were 14 years old girls who wanted to leave the house
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pin
mintoots said:
Yup because then they defined work as testosterone intensive activities
Click to expand...
Well... if you employed women at the same rates as men, you'd simply lose money.

I don't think you can say 'they defined work as' and imply that it was an ideological move, when the whole structure was based simply upon economic logic.
 
Themis said:
You are right, but it never worked.
Socialism is not only what marx wrote, in praxis for example in east socialistik Germany, women had a whole bunch of rights, things that the west haven't seeing.
After a few years the divorces sky rocket, because women had the state in their back, free apartment, money every month with out working,money for the child and so on. The majority of women, were making children to live from the state.
The same happened in England when Margaret Thatcher announced, all single mothers will get a free apartment and a monthly payment, after a couple of years most of the single mothers were 14 years old girls who wanted to leave the house
Click to expand...
That speaks about how badly oppressed women must have been.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
Well... if you employed women at the same rates as men, you'd simply lose money.

I don't think you can say 'they defined work as' and imply that it was an ideological move, when the whole structure was based simply upon economic logic.
Click to expand...
Well, yes. Let's rephrase. By "defined work as", I was trying to inject humor in what I actually meant as: the economic models of this period were based mostly on physical work. If we're going to enter this discussion in this manner, then we have to depict the trade market at this time. However, I still think this is widely unfair because for starters, society then failed to perceive child bearing and child raising as some form of work, hardships of which barely quantifiable. We have to define "work" at this point.
 
mintoots said:
Well, yes. Let's rephrase. By "defined work as", I was trying to inject humor in what I actually meant as: the economic models of this period were based mostly on physical work. If we're going to enter this discussion in this manner, then we have to depict the trade market at this time. However, I still think this is widely unfair because for starters, society then failed to perceive child bearing and child raising as some form of work, hardships of which barely quantifiable. We have to define "work" at this point.
Click to expand...
I still don't think anyone has really figured out where childrearing belongs in the female life cycle.

Women have evolved to be entirely dependent upon men during this period, and men have evolved to be entirely devoted to them.

This hasn't been the case for about a century and we're losing our minds over it.
 
mintoots said:
LMAO. Yeah? How so?

P.S. I am educating myself.
Click to expand...

Did anybody oppressed you not to educate your self??

In the video its much more explained about the relationship between socialism and feminism.
I have the feeling that americans are a bit confused on this matter

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top