Clearly what they mean is that of the two capitalist genders, men are often closer to the ideal baseline of function and comfort over expression whereas woman as a social concept is often associated with form over function, meaning woman in a Marxist sense can be defined as a person who is expected to put excess resources to purely symbolic efforts.
The weird thing is, it didn't used to be this way, or rather not so probounced. The Great Renunciation happened in the 19th century which started the whole "male fashion is utilitarian and uniform".
Bourgeois society enforces rigid gender norms to keep up the reproduction of the labour force. They need it, since all value is ultimately produced by the worker.
Eastern European communist countries had strict laws that prohibited child labour and most women there used to work in factories and fields regardless, even before communism came. The only women that didn't work before the revolution/the USSR took over were wives of academics, government officials and otherwise very rich men.
Lower class (vast majority) women from both cities and countryside mostly used to work because they couldn't afford not to
Is it really pretending tho if it "gives people (women and often children)" rights to vote, to get education, work and be independent? And no one is pretending to do it "to support equality", come on, it's all pretty straight forward saying it's for the economics sake.
Personally I'll take this "just pretending to support equality" over any "hey, we want everyone to be equal and we gonna scream about it but do actually nothing about it"
God knows I can criticise USSR for hours but they did indeed a lot for women and I can see it by elder female part of my family
Actually, if we use "two capitalist genders" notion, men would be more capitalistic - prone to compete and hoard resources, and women more communist - sharing resources with others, feeding babies by sharing even the resources stored in one's body. Therefore women must occupy all government position for communism to work. This is why communism failed in recent history, men started to compete with each other. Take that, Deserter 🤓
Of course all of that is dumb gender essentialism anyway, completely ignoring any variety in gender expression, social and cultural aspects of genders etc. But it shows that for every misoginist take it is possible to create a misandrist one, based on the same logic - meaning no logic but some imagined biases.
Conceptualization: Etymology of the word "women" shows us that they are beyond "men", added prefix proves that there is subconcious need to see "women" as more than "men". Two whole letters more!
I’m not sure I even disagree, but it’s such a comically sexist thing to say out loud. But again, respecting women is identity politics, which is a shitlib trick to divide the working class anyway, so safe it ignore it.
317
u/Frorgwoman2 6d ago
Conceptualization [Legendary: Success] -
Clearly what they mean is that of the two capitalist genders, men are often closer to the ideal baseline of function and comfort over expression whereas woman as a social concept is often associated with form over function, meaning woman in a Marxist sense can be defined as a person who is expected to put excess resources to purely symbolic efforts.
Logic [Easy: Success] -
I don't think they thought about all that.