created by savetruman333 on 28/03/2024 at 02:02 UTC
433 upvotes, 14 top-level comments (showing 14)
I'm very open to discussion on this point but I want to state my case on this:
The origins of capitalism as an economic system can be placed in the **16th century** (source: Britannica). As we all know, misogyny is not only 500 years old.
My grandfather grew up in soviet Hungary. To say women were free is an insult. Of course, I don't think anyone is claiming that women in the USSR were free; however, the argument that the abolition of capitalism will liberate women is, in my opinion, a blind take, one that seems more male-leftist than anything else to me lol.
I feel it is also a very Western take. Not every country is capitalist, yet to say misogyny doesn't exist there is objectively incorrect.
Capitalism did not start female oppression. Its demolition will not end it.
Let me know what you all think!
Comment by astrofeme at 28/03/2024 at 13:20 UTC
139 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Systemic misogyny has existed since long before capitalism. It can sadly, but surely outlast capitalism.
Comment by glossedrock at 28/03/2024 at 14:48 UTC
115 upvotes, 0 direct replies
That’s because MEN are the cause of misogyny. Woke marxist bros just deflecting the blame from men to “class” so they can feel as oppressed.
Comment by DivineGoddess1111111 at 28/03/2024 at 11:32 UTC
239 upvotes, 2 direct replies
It doesn't matter what system a society is run under. If men are running it, then women will be oppressed.
Nothing will change until women are in at least 50 percent of positions of power. Also, women rejecting marriage, relationships and having children with men will also change things.
Marriage, heterosexual relationships and child bearing make women into indentured servants. Until society can support mothers and pay us equally, we should work towards making society extinct.
Comment by lyrall67 at 28/03/2024 at 21:19 UTC
31 upvotes, 0 direct replies
CAPITALISM specifically is not the root of misogyny, but in my eyes, misogyny is still the direct result of "financial issues" or maybe "class conflict". idk how to label it but lemme explain.
it's my understanding that men started oppressing women by taking them as property, around the same time PROPERTY at all became a thing. the agricultural revolution hit, owning land and crops became extremely important, and boom. humans now have 2 groups: the haves, and the have nots. those with wealth and those without. but how will I, a post-caveman era wealthy land-owning man maintain this property and keep it within my family? I need to make sure that any women I have sex with, ARE ONLY HAVING SEX WITH ME, and ensure my lineage. women became like slaves, property not unlike cattle. to uphold and justify this cruel system, a lot of cultural baggage has been associated with this relationship. and thus why misogyny prevails fair past the days where women are owned at chattel.
in my eyes, if it's possible that things will change, it'll have to take time. culture takes A LONG TIME to change
Comment by gabslen at 28/03/2024 at 21:54 UTC*
19 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Yesterday I read something about it, and as much as I am inclined towards the abolition of capitalism, I agree:
“It was evident that the "women issue" was more complex than classical Marxists had acknowledged. Simply attributing women's oppression to the capitalist system, as Marx and Engels did, neither addressed the core issue nor resolved anything. Moreover, socialist women grappled with allegiance conflicts between their party's orthodoxy and women's specific interests. […] Women remained the "postponed cause," even among Marxists, who prioritized the proletariat revolution over women's liberation. They assumed that achieving the former would naturally lead to the latter, but many women doubted this given the history of accumulated betrayals. Time would prove them right.”
Comment by TeenyZoe at 29/03/2024 at 01:28 UTC
19 upvotes, 1 direct replies
One of the things that radicalized me was a history course on Mao’s China that I took during university. We read journals of men and women alive at the time, and the women had to work double shifts both for the party (farming, mining, etc) and childcare. Even in a “worker’s paradise”, no one in charge thought about domestic work, leaving women chained to their kitchens. It’s so frustrating. Without equal representation of women in leadership, we’ll never be free even if capitalism is overthrown.
Comment by Shadowgirl7 at 28/03/2024 at 12:39 UTC
39 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The demotion of capitalism by itself won't be enough. It depends on the system that will replace it.
In collectivist societies you have to forego of your individual need to serve the collective. Example if the collective need babies women will have to serve the collective and have babies. I am socialist, but left wing is not a guarantee of freedom for women, you have also the left wing bros.
Comment by Careful_Truth_6689 at 28/03/2024 at 13:33 UTC
44 upvotes, 3 direct replies
The end of capitalism is necessary, but not sufficient for the liberation of women. We need a global matriarchy.
Comment by MayaMiaMe at 28/03/2024 at 21:33 UTC
7 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I agree with you 100% in fact if we are smart as women we can actually be in charge of our own lives under capitalism, I would prefer a government that is something like Norway or Denmark but that is a dream in the USA I know
Comment by [deleted] at 29/03/2024 at 00:41 UTC
6 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Until we are literally matriarchal, we will never be free because men will always try to dominate us. We will never do anything more to them than is necessary for their and our best interests. Matriarchy is the way to go.... I have a son who I love so much. But the best things would be to selectively abort male fetuses as much as possible, for the entire world's sake. My son is beautiful, but it is such a struggle raising sweet baby boys into decent men with all the shit men around fucking them up. I think the only thing to be done is to jus drastically reduce the percentage of men around the world as gently as we can.
Comment by [deleted] at 01/04/2024 at 20:15 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I was just in Eastern Europe visiting a friend and was struck by it seeming like a more equal place. Many men carrying babies and so on. Of course there was oppression under soviet rule and still a lack of equality, but I think some of the strides of feminism from that point of history are underappreciated. Every point in history has parts to learn from.
Comment by corduroystrafe at 28/03/2024 at 12:03 UTC
-26 upvotes, 3 direct replies
This reads to me a lot like a liberal/radical feminist take. My take is that the major issues that divide us today (of all sexes) are in fact material and class, which then exacerbate gender and misogynistic tendancies. The worst victims of male violence or prostitution are nearly always poorer women, and they are less likely to be able to escape these situations (because housing is expensive, because they have no money or a myriad of reasons).
If we did away (as much as possible, I’m not utopian) with class differences it most likely wouldn’t end misogyny but it would curb heavily its worse excesses. Take the examples above. Men would find it harder to exploit women because they would have material equality, they could access justice, escape when necessary, end marriages and find safe and secure housing.
You could have a UN parliament made up of women under capitalism and all that would happen would be the same- the poorer, easily exploited women would still be raped and abused.
Comment by [deleted] at 28/03/2024 at 18:00 UTC
-2 upvotes, 2 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by saturn553 at 30/03/2024 at 00:15 UTC
0 upvotes, 0 direct replies
for sure it won't/wouldn't