It sounds like you're used to seeing anti-feminist chud screed all over the internet. Can't blame you. I'm attempting to critique the modern feminist movement as inherently limited because of class contradictions - not a dumb chud argument, but a Marxist one.
equal pay and women being able to work post-marriage kinda seems like a big deal to me, for women of all races
Those things would be a big deal - if you could realistically achieve them under capitalism.
When you see discussion about achieving equal pay come up, its usually in the context of a push for an updated version of equal pay legislation coming up in Congress. Yet, historically it is labor unions which have been most successful in achieving equality of pay regardless of gender, not legislation from the bourgeois state.
Let's drop the "equal pay for equal work" thing too, since that's a bourgeois construct used to defend the vast differences in pay between types of work. A lot of the work that women engage in is social work - either as caregivers to family and friends informally or as caregivers formally in jobs such as home health aides. If your goal is simply "equal pay for equal work" you'll still have jobs which have historically been performed by women which is either unpaid or paid very little compared to the tremendous social benefit that the work provides. No equal pay legislation is going to touch that.
Also the creation of women’s shelters for women fleeing domestic violence, and marital rape being recognised as criminal.
Again, good things. But even with the modicum of social protections offered today, women are still forced to stay in abusive relationships because of their financial circumstances - they can't make rent on their own or need health insurance. The experience of a woman from Highland Park leaving an abusive relationship is very different from the experience of a woman in east Houston leaving an abusive relationship. To actually make sure all women have the ability to enter and leave relationships free of economic demand, you would at least need a robust welfare state.
Are these not things that help all women?
Now here's the main point. My answer is no, at least not in equal measure. Especially if you account for the experiences of trans women, who often lack the same legal protections afforded to cis women.
I feel like I could go on for a while but I'm really repeating the arguments of others at this point. If you want a more fleshed out argument, there are great writers who will explain this much better than I can. Specifically Alexandra Kollontai. Haymarket released a copy of selected works that's pretty good a few years ago. Might even find it on libgen.
deleted by creator
No. lol. Where did you get that?
It sounds like you're used to seeing anti-feminist chud screed all over the internet. Can't blame you. I'm attempting to critique the modern feminist movement as inherently limited because of class contradictions - not a dumb chud argument, but a Marxist one.
Those things would be a big deal - if you could realistically achieve them under capitalism.
When you see discussion about achieving equal pay come up, its usually in the context of a push for an updated version of equal pay legislation coming up in Congress. Yet, historically it is labor unions which have been most successful in achieving equality of pay regardless of gender, not legislation from the bourgeois state.
Let's drop the "equal pay for equal work" thing too, since that's a bourgeois construct used to defend the vast differences in pay between types of work. A lot of the work that women engage in is social work - either as caregivers to family and friends informally or as caregivers formally in jobs such as home health aides. If your goal is simply "equal pay for equal work" you'll still have jobs which have historically been performed by women which is either unpaid or paid very little compared to the tremendous social benefit that the work provides. No equal pay legislation is going to touch that.
Again, good things. But even with the modicum of social protections offered today, women are still forced to stay in abusive relationships because of their financial circumstances - they can't make rent on their own or need health insurance. The experience of a woman from Highland Park leaving an abusive relationship is very different from the experience of a woman in east Houston leaving an abusive relationship. To actually make sure all women have the ability to enter and leave relationships free of economic demand, you would at least need a robust welfare state.
Now here's the main point. My answer is no, at least not in equal measure. Especially if you account for the experiences of trans women, who often lack the same legal protections afforded to cis women.
I feel like I could go on for a while but I'm really repeating the arguments of others at this point. If you want a more fleshed out argument, there are great writers who will explain this much better than I can. Specifically Alexandra Kollontai. Haymarket released a copy of selected works that's pretty good a few years ago. Might even find it on libgen.