3rd richest woman

We did it Reddit!

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (636x262, 36.46K)

Capitalism concentrates capital in the hands of those who are most capable to direct it. Truly a victory for us all.

Yaaasssss slay queen

Bourgeois feminism is feminism only for the bourgeoisie. Reject the fake feminism of Hillary Clinton.

Attached: smug_1503100153195.jpg (1100x738, 156.81K)

Feminism has always been in service of the bourgeoisie and the petite bourgeoise, granted most of the time unknowingly. Their goals have crossed paths with Marxist, but it’s never really had a distinctly leftist bent or been a real threat to the established order of things. Yes, a utopian socialist coined the term, but it was describing the character of a movement rather than a theory itself. Movements that originally defined themselves feminist had no real class character, which made it very easy for them to be subsumed by capitalism. Expanding the liberties of women under capitalism, which Marxist argued for on their own terms, did not change the structure of class since capitalism was able to accommodate. It wasn’t until the early second wave that you had Marxist calling themselves feminists, which really was a misnomer as they were indistinguishable from regular Marxist in theory, but as feminist claimed those early Marxist as their own, they also adopted the label to conform to the established order. The addition of feminism to Marxism was really just putting legs on a snake. Anarchist may have a different view from me, though, as I’m not really sure if anarchist like Emma Goldman carried the feminist banner.

What happens when the majority of the wealth is concentrated and it starts being split up among the children of the superbourgs? Does it make much difference or will it just lead to some entertaining side feuds?

The designated heir gets most and the become regular upper class, you know like under feudalism.

Feminism is itself bourgeois.

They had bourgeois class character, and this can be seen even in "marxist feminism" where the analysis of gender roles are based on bourgeois nuclear families, projecting that structure onto working class families and traditional families.
"Marxist feminist" theory has serious problems with it, including a monolithic view of family structure based on the experiences of bourgeois women. The big problem with it is the notion that men-as-wagies don't contribute to the household, merely leeching off the woman-as-housewife's unpaid domestic labor (chores).
t. anarchist
Goldman outright criticized the feminism of her time. Anarcha-feminists claiming her as their founder are like people who sell Che shirts.

"Social progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex" - Karl Marx.

You sure about that?

The people you are referring to are petite-bourgeois feminists.

Attached: MARX IS ANTIFEMINIST GANG.png (815x1462, 1.29M)

Karl and Engles where whipped. Its there one major flaw. I don't take anything those two have to say about women seriously.

Woodhull's feminism included advocacy of "free love" and other fringe positions, and she absolutely did try to place this above working-class struggles. Hence why she was opposed.

Also, to quote myself in an earlier post:

In other words, equating Woodhull with all feminists everywhere, including various feminists in the 20th century who were influenced by Marxism, is silly.

Feminism doesn't get to have a monopoly on analyzing gender roles or solving related problems. This is evidenced by the fact that feminism didn't exist when Marx said that. I also happen to disagree with the statement, considering that the societies where women have the highest relative position include hunter gather tribes. Quotes like that are an example of trying to score good boy points. The better version is to simply state that you judge a society by how it treats its lowest people. I challenge you to present any society in the history of the world where the most "oppressed" group was the fairer sex.

Richard Wolff is married to someone who has this take and calls herself a Marxist feminist. When I have asked self-described Marxist feminists about their take and this is the description I got. If you have some counter examples I'd love to read them.

That's not exactly fringe for feminism. If you want examples why she sucks that aren't related to feminism, see pic 2.

Attached: victoria woodhull.png (367x381 195.17 KB, 5.48K)

I should correct myself - this is a sentiment older than Marx, and it predates feminism. I missed this when proofreading.

It clearly isn't inherent in feminism though, and by the standards of the 1860s-70s "free love" was absolutely scandalous in American society, which is why Marxists in the First International's American sections were so annoyed by Woodhull's open espousal of it and other doctrines, which (as I said) she was placing above the working-class movement.

The feminism which is promoted by 99% of feminists isn't real feminism?

Feminism is an amorphous blob of an ideology, so people like Woodhull will always be inherent to it as long as it remains that.

I think I’ve seen them use that as analysis of the of the middle class nuclear family in the 50 and 60s, but I’ve never seen them generalize it to today. I do see other feminist try to.


the liberation of women from patriarchy is not incompatible with the liberation of the working class from capitalism.

Yet another reason to bash hedonists claiming to be marxists or socialists.


Read the quote again please, if the position of women are above men then that would mean social progress has not gone past the matriarchal clan.

Also all societies after the matriarchal clan and before full communism have sexism.

Lol, you think Marx was trying to look good for women? Marx roasted plenty of bourgeois/petty-bourgeois feminists in his lifetime

It does exist, although to a relatively limited state in imperialist countries, but still existent.

Sex roles are still omnipresent, sexual assault, the pay gap (and yes this is real, because even if women get less pay because of their jobs, why do jobs mostly filled by women get paid less?), street prostitution, etc.


Define the patriarchy, first off.
Also, how are issues related to prostitution related to the patriarchy over the commodification of sex itself. Even rape or sexual abuse has more of a class dynamic to it over gender. For instance, false rape accusations were often weaponized against poor blacks to justify lynchings, and I’m sure even today that poorer people end up going to prison for rape over the rich. The pay gap thing I’m probably going to need more details on why exactly it has to do with it being female oriented. Also, if we’re going to start admitting gender is an arbitrary construct that ebbs and flows like the wind, why is it all these societal detriments are inherently masculine in character and therefore patriarchal? Seems to me that the mentality that perpetuates all these grievances doesn’t really care about gender, but stems from certain elements of the upper class and it’s reactionary foot soldiers.

You're using a pretty charitable interpretation of the quote, and those societies weren't "matriarchal." Anthropologists tend to argue there's no such thing.
A matriarchy would be sexism too you mong.

I can't find the quote (thanks to all the galaxy brain think pieces hogging search engine optimization), but Marx argued that capitalism ended patriarchy, which is quite a bit more specific than gender roles. It's a whole form of property relations centered around inheritance through a male line.

Bunkerposter is using it as a catch-all buzzword for "sexism that hurts women" but sounds academic.
I'm not seeing that tbh.
Yeah, reminder that if you account for prisons (don't know why you wouldn't), men get raped significantly more than women.
I know right? It's really fucking funny how people meme about The Rapist Brock "The Rapist" Turner, who rapes but they focus entirely on how he's a huwite mayle and ignore that the justification cited by the judge for a slap on the wrist was that conviction would boot him out of his class position.
"women's work" does tend to get paid less. Not so much because of sexist bosses though, but because traditionally that work is more maintenance-oriented, and thus harder to profit from. You have to pay those people less in order for necessary caring and maintenance work to be viable for profit since it's not directly producing commodities.
cuz men bad
Yeah, it's pretty equal-opportunity when shitting on people and you get just as many women espousing garbage ideology.
You want to make a liberal's head explode, point out that there's pretty much zero correlation between gender and a person's opinion on abortion.

its almost like the majority of them are dogshit "jobs" that have minimal market value, and the habits of women not chasing promotions and relying on bonuses not proactively seeking higher pay despite literally being payed to occupy space for hours as 80% of "jobs" go, sticking their money in savings accounts and 401ks which are literally broke fuck habits, broke fucks rely on "jobs" where they literally do nothing all day to magically make them rich

Jobs that are mostly "women's work" are distinct in that they're overwhelmingly not "productive" in the sense of making a commodity. Instead they're things like care work or maintenance. This is what you could consider "reproductive" as a support role to production. If you don't produce a commodity, your labor doesn't (directly) produce value, since value is realized in the sale of a commodity. This means that these jobs are considered a "necessary evil" by the capitalist system, and unlike productive labor which generates a profit, this labor is seen as a net loss no matter what, so there's more pressure to minimize the cost (wages). Now, as to why these jobs tend to be dominated by women, that's another question.

That back when computers were big iron programming was a woman dominated profession, and before mechanical computers when computing itself was a role so also might help answer this one

Class always comes first. Bourgeois feminists are bourgeoisie first and feminist later

no, statistically they stay clear of high skilled labor, the only ones with significant numbers of high skill and high cert are asians, jobs are for people like you who think money magically falls out of sky

money is created by somebody typing on a computer

there are people who get money solely because their name is in a database entry in a computer that is then called passive income from capital.

You don't make money by working hard, this is empirically verifiable, just have a look at sweatshop workers, they work hard and make next to nothing.

Woah didn't know Lenin, Stalin and Hoxha were bourgeois.

Attached: hoxha women.jpg (850x400, 66.58K)

Maybe we should change these backward laws that treat women like little more than cattle, incapable of making their own capital or, with alimony, providing any prosocial service to society at all.
Fat kek

Attached: 238EF188-D75D-4262-A9A6-26C31E2C5303.gif (540x304, 1.34M)