Sidebar
Revolutionary Feminism
nymag.com
https://web.archive.org/web/20230624214433/https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/lynn-paltrow-pregnancy-justice-interview.html
Post your favorite Marxist-Feminist theory below
github.com
cross-posted from: https://lemmygrad.ml/post/506790 > This serves as a great introduction to Marxist Feminism.
While searching up why people abort their unborn kids I noticed a particular detail that caught my attention > The majority of women who choose to have an abortion are unmarried. According to data from 2019, 85.5% of those who had abortions were single women. For some of these women, the fact that they are unmarried contributes to their decision to seek an abortion. About 8% of those responding to the survey on reasons for having an abortion specifically note that they do not want to be a single parent. from the [Partner and Family Issues Section](https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589#toc-partner-and-family-issues) I'm starting to think there is institutionlized discrimination against single mothers. If there is, does it constitute misogyny?
www.cbsnews.com
Fucker has it coming. Here's hoping this doesn't just end up being a slap on the wrist.
There's this event that is starting to get traction in Europe (I don't know in the rest of the world), that on November 4th, at 9:10 am, women work for free for the rest of the year due to wage disparities between men and women. Clarification: women are not refusing pay, the event is that they (as well as men) are highlighting the fact that after that date, they are essentially working for free. Truthfully I'm not sure what to think of this or say about it. I mean, the purpose of noting this event is to bring awareness to wage disparities and inequality. But I can't help but feel it lacks revolutionary character. All wage labour is labour done for free, it is not unique to wage disparity among other lines. What are your thoughts? How do we repackage this into a revolutionary outlook?
yewtu.be
www.workers.org
>Survivors are punished for defending themselves and their children. They are criminalized because they have removed their children from abusive situations, have been coerced into criminal activity and have committed “crimes of survival” in order to live. Poverty makes women and gender-oppressed people more vulnerable to violence under capitalism, whether it is from the state or domestic partners.
blogs.worldbank.org
Went and dug a little deeper and it seems that for high-income nations, this trend of more women than men graduating in universities (as well as outperforming in school) has been going on for multiple decades now. Apart of me wants to think its just right-wing hysteria because this was brought to my attention by some random podcast clip using this example as somehow proof that patriarchy doesn't exist lol. Some articles I read did mention how other factors (particularly class and race) was a higher determinant of school/university success. And I particularly do not like biological explanations anyways (too essentialist to my taste, but I can't say for sure). I forgot which article in particular but it did argue it's because men used to be able find jobs in more traditional blue-collar industries, leading to this present day discrepancy. What do you all think?
# The Gender Accelerationist Manifesto [[Español]](https://libcom.org/article/el-manifesto-de-aceleracionismo-de-genero) [[Download]](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/vikky-storm-the-gender-accelerationist-manifesto) I expect this to be a bit controversial. I actually went into this article a bit skeptical of its scope. Intersectional feminism is already pretty heavily written about. But what our authors have done is figure out how to remove the liberalism. In removing liberalism, however, what remains is a proposition far more radical than most people would have ever conceived. We're going to take the *"abolish gender"* slogan seriously at face value, because doing so is the only way to alleviate the contradictions of gender norms under capitalism. Some choice quotes: > Material relations are relations of production. That is, they are the way we relate to the various ways we labor and produce things. All of society is based upon these relations of production and they produce all of our social systems. Gender is no different. > > So where does gender’s material base lie? Gender is produced primarily by the division of reproductive labor. Reproductive labor is any labor that helps to produce the next generation, including sex, birth, childcare, and homemaking, and gender is defined by how this labor is divided up, with the different genders being distinct classes which are expected to perform specific sorts of tasks regarding reproductive labor. > Gender is the earliest class systems and, as a result, it precedes the state, even in its earliest most basic form. This means that, unlike capitalism, race, neuronormativity, and the various other class systems, the state is not the primary means by which gender is imposed upon people. This isn’t to say that the state doesn’t impose gender, but it is supplementary, not primary. By the time states were cropping up, gender had already solidified itself and become quite adept at imposing itself upon others. > As has been referenced previously, gender is a system of class, and is one defined by the domination of manhood over society. This is why another name for the gender class system is patriarchy. Gender as a social system is patriarchy and patriarchy is the social class system of gender. Within this class system, we find three distinct classes, two accepted and one subversive. > This class dynamic of man over woman is the principal dynamic of patriarchy, but they do not comprise the only two classes. Instead, we find that some people relate to reproductive labor differently than how it’s imposed upon the population. This is especially the case with regards to sex, when someone engages in sexual relations that do not fit with the dynamics imposed by patriarchy. This includes people who are sexually attracted to people of the same gender (gay/lesbian people), of multiple genders (bisexual/pansexual people), or no gender (asexual people). In addition, people whose gender is different from the one patriarchy assigns to them can’t be classed as neatly as people who accept the assignment by gender. While they might be personally men or women, they aren’t treated by society in quite the same way so they comprise a distinct social class. Characteristic to this is the detachment of sex and romance from reproducing the next generation. While it’s still possible for all of these groups to reproduce the next generation, it is no longer a necessary part of sex and romance. > > Since this third class is defined by it’s difference from those of the first two classes, it is named queer. Queer people are all those who relate differently to the division of reproductive labor assigned to them by patriarchy. Because of the different relations, queer people are inherently subversive to the class system as a whole and constitute the revolutionary class under patriarchy. > Class, class, class. We are dominated and controlled. Sorted and divided. But where do we factor into all this? People see class like this as merely imposed, but that fails to account for the ways we actually interact with it. It isn’t simply imposed upon us. We are active participants within it, we perform it. > This is hardly done freely. The violence of the system is inherent and systemic. We perform these acts surrounded by the violence of gender. But we still perform them. Gender isn’t content with forcing itself upon us. Instead, it forces us to say “yes” to it. > > This serves as a method of control and reproduction. Gender isn’t inherent, but it spreads by assigning us to a class and forcing us to say yes to that class. “Yes, I am a man. It is who I am and who I always have been. I cannot escape it or deny it. I am a man.” This is nothing but a lie we are forced to repeat. But by repeating it enough, we come to believe it. Gender becomes natural, inescapable, eternal. It ceases to be an imposed identity and becomes an eternal part of who we are. By objecting to my gender, you are objecting to that which is inherently me. > > Here lies one of gender’s greatest defense mechanisms: Ourselves. We insist upon it and reject those who turn away from it. It becomes an unholy act for those who turn from the path. Indeed, it seems to us as if there’s no other option. We say yes because that’s all we can say. It is made inconceivable that it could be any other way.
Well...fuck...
Reactionary gender norms hurt men too. Supporting queer rights supports everyone. Thread: https://nitter.net/LGBTglitterati/status/1547205786601930752
www.youtube.com
Catcallers are such scum
www.vanityfair.com
I know, I know, it's an article by a lib published in a lib magazine but it's definitely worth a read. The online reactions to the trial are definitely indicative of a cultural backlash to the metoo movement and the effect of the verdict will be victims being more hesitant to come forward.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/236742 > This is nice. I didn't know about these women, other than Grace Hopper. > > Why are women so underrepresented in tech? There should be a [!technology@lemmygrad.ml](https://lemmygrad.ml/c/technology) community.
