Exh my4gutghu

Marxism Leninism -Equity feminism-Post colonial feminism-Fourth Wave feminism intersection

It is true that human societies for the most part unfortunately and horribly have patriarchs and shove men down our throats politically and socially (which creates this make patriarchal animal we are up against). However, acting as though this is not something that can be changed like the tides cannot be changed is very defeatist and conservative.

That women give birth and historically have had to rear kids has lead to societies where men partake in other roles. 

The socialital formation of the family unit is connected to very archaic social formations around agricultural production, where women fit into a specified role. They ended up in that role due to their biology, in particular their ability to give birth and nurture a kid, yes. Yet those roles are social and can be transformed

Since biology is also oppressing women, then we need to end that biological oppression via transhumanism . 

Patriarchy has to be understood by performing a materialist analysis of it

We must look for the material conditions that have led humans into act in specific ways in relationship to the our planet and therefore to each other. 

The beginnings of women’s oppression have to be sought in these, also like the beginnings of any other social phenomenon. Then we could understand the method in which the notions that condone or rationalize that oppression have taken shape and engage in a meaningful fightback.

Some Liberal 2.0 feminism conceptions of patriarchy are not really theories of women’s liberation. 

Instead of beginning with an assessment of women’s material position in capitalist society, both Liberal 2.0 feminism and Radical Feminism especially begin with crude biological assessments of the men and women’s power positions

They lead to no way forward for women’s liberation. So how come they’re are so popular? Here we have to find very quickly at how the women’s movement has grown into what it is today since the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The inkling is that not a hell of a lot can be done, so all that can be done is to sort out ideas. Consequently, debate points about changing the totality of society are supplanted by exhortations to change our own ways of life. 

Instead of activity people are presented with an abstract moralism which pushes for that number of us who accept the ideas of women’s liberation to purge ourselves of ‘deviations’ as a adjacent replacement for changing our society. 

The rationale is that if we are able to fix the attitudes of men we would be able to change the world – as if it were men only, and not capitalism (to a lesser but capitalism is harshly oppressive against women in its own right), which is the issue. 

But the truth is that capitalism is a male chauvinist system that tries to keep women in inferior positions in comparison to men . So we must defeat capitalism to defeat male chauvinism and to give women true equality and to be in ferior positions in comparison to men

It is from these conceptions that the theory of patriarchy has flourished and which currently in turn reinforces such ideas.

There is too little understanding of how women’s oppression and the nature of the family have changed historically. There is widely differing oppression of women from class to class.

We have to defeat patriarchy so its not an eternal truth.  

The patriarchy concept can be all things to all people (including some who people who say that patriarchy is really the concept of male chauvinists running the world) and I admit there is some vagueness in it and defining that vagueness can be difficult since patriarchy has so many to choose definitions attached to it.

It is also wrong to have male patriarchs in families

But some Liberal 2.0 feminists pitch a conspiracy theory that claims literally every man worldwide profits from a secret pact of being male misogynists who work to subdue all women. 

This like all conspiracy theories is unproven and any criticism of it is to them ‘proof’ of the conspiracy via their circular reasoning

Such a conspiracy theory is an anti-marxist/anti-marxian, class collaborationist theory that truly, affluence and capital never ruled anything - Men however did, together.

The way that the Liberal 2.0 feminists like Madonna and NARAL conceive of the 'patriarchy' and connect their conception of it it to their image of ruling class is an apex fallacy that sets a muddied standard that doesn’t make into account concepts such as maternalism feminism and equity feminism 

Men get longer prison sentences due to the fact that men also commit 95 percent of violent crimes. 

Clearly, we basically shouldn’t really be punishing men harsher for similar crimes as women, though there’s likely a slight bias against men in the legal system due to loopholes for this very reason. 

I don’t think that men should be punished more merely because they commit more crime as a whole than women. That would be as discriminatory as any other forms of id based discrimination. This though is why more men get statistically murdered.

Men are way more likely to commit violent crime, so they’re also likely more to be victims of violent crime. It’s live by the sword, die by the sword mantra. 

Anti-male ‘bias’ in the criminal justice system is real to some people who don’t know better. One study even claimed that men get 200-300% longer sentences than women. However, disproportionate outcomes lead to biases, that's how it works and is a fact of life.

Women may get off with lighter sentences in the Western world, but who would give men harsher sentencing? Judges of course, who are other men. 

So men should stop being misandrists then, if this is the case. And let me be clear, this actually doesn’t apply to the non-Western world. 

Honor murders in the Middle East and Western Asia are almost never prosecuted, and violence toward women is typical enough that legislation is not commonly enforced in a lot of areas

Men are statistically way more likely to do jobs in physically dangerous fields. That should change

Men usually kms using more lethal methods (guns, knives or hanging), so men have a higher success rate at it than women.

Women are still extremely disadvantaged in a lot of countries, and they don’t benefit from the “patriarchy” in Iraq or Pakistan as such a statement is absurd.

Pointing our that women have historically been oppressed by men because to their reproductive status and that is not anti-Marxist per say as many forms of Marxism agree with that fact

It really ties fairly well into class dynamics, and Frederich Engels and other Classical Marxists admitted that women have been historically subjugated for capitalist and yes reproductive reasons. This essay’s a great little overview if you’re interested

Women are also infantilized and that too is a form of oppression they face and that must be stopped. Systematically women being denied agency and being treated like a child is oppression

The rates of child marriage, infanticide, and the lack of literacy that are each way more prominent around the globe for girls is a prime example of how women being systematically disadvantaged on a global scale. Read some Friedrich Engels for more.

Infantilizing adult women is degrading, they are not children. Women are adults with agency all of their own.

Men do way more risky jobs (like many jobs women can’t do, due to them not being able to pass the physical tests, or worse yet being barred from them), usually have worse cardio health, and are far more likely to be drinkers (i.e Russia). It’s also a poverty situation, the male life expectancy was higher before the USSR collapsed 

Yes, Russia is clearly patriarchal. Russia too has practically zero protections for domestic abuse against women, and has among the biggest sex trafficking industries in the whole world.

Women might even not be hired to extremely laborious jobs, specifically in much of the countries in Asia. 

Woman in India are not as able to get jobs like in shipbreaking

They tend to resort to prostitution or harsh sweatshop jobs. Poor men do backbreaking jobs or violent crime, poor women cannot do as much due to oppression and bias.

Even though infanticide might usually be done by women, it very oftentimes is at the urgings of their husbands. And why do infanticide happen? It’s due to much of the third-world girls being much less valued than the males.

720 million women married as children is a big issue. The enormous sex imbalance happening in India and China is understates issue

Men are clearly more likely to be murdered or to prison time than women: men commit around 95 percent of violent crimes. Deniers of this need critical thinking skills to link these two occurrences together.

A child is not a burden, boys are prized in India

In India, literally all anthropologists covering India will give the reason that girls are not desirable as due to the dowry system ,persons wanting a boy to carry on the family lineage.

Male leaders started most wars. Women aren’t even allowed to have such roles in most countries

This is a another example of women being denied their rightful opportunities. Civilians on average make up a huge bulk of wartime deaths, and women are possibly worse effected than men . Mass rape too has occurred on a gigantic scale in some past wars, which also affects nearly always women.

Women’s current rights and protections are due to years of feminist activism to literally force such changes. Marital rape wasn’t a crime in the US in all states until the mid 1990’s. A woman couldn’t open her own bank account until the 1970s etc