LWDT V: Completing the Five Thread Plan

[United Muscovite Nations]

Just bought Khrushchev Remembers and Inside Gorbachev's Kremlin, both memoirs of members of the Soviet Politburo. I especially look forward to the latter because it's an ideological autopsy of the fall of the USSR through the eyes of Second-Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Yegor Ligachev, who was a major critic of Perestroika and Glasnost, as well as a very avowed Marxist. Both books are available on Amazon for under US$10.

[West Leas Oros]

Wtf is emotional labor?

Feminism is in opposition to the nature of socialism, which is egalitarian, which feminism is not.....as its name suggests. The family as a unit of society, and the strengthening of that unit, is one of the best ways to weaken the dependence on states and increase the support system of the individual.


Feminism isn't egalitarian, it is female supremacist. It is also terrible for men and
women.


Feminism doesn't liberate anyone from anything.

Emotional labor is labor which capitalist ideology divorces from productive labor. It entails the expectation that women do the cooking, cleaning, tend to the emotional needs of men, and care much more for the emotional needs of their family overall than a man should. Its the expectation that women and girls constantly work to make themselves more presentable to men and to comfort men in daily interactions. It is a stranger demanding that you smile, because the act of simply existing in your own headspace without directly working to create a presentable form to men is interpreted as an act of aggression for which you will be labeled "cold", "harpy", or "bitch".

The patriarchal family unit is indispensable to capitalism. It operates as a means of organizing workers in means suitable for productive, reproductive, and consumptive purposes while weakening social bonds with those outside the family unit. It operates a chief mechanism for producing the sort of individualist and consumption based mentality that is needed within a capitalist system. Michel Foucault outlined the ways in which capitalist alongside clergy, state bureaucrats, and scientists worked to construct a scienta sexualis, a science of sexuality for which the state could construct and limit discourses on sexuality to align them with the interests of the state and the capitalist system while limiting those which may be seen to subvert it. As such, the early sexual sciences became chiefly concerned with demographics, and the organization of workers into units designed to maximize reproductive potential while also aligning reproductive units along lines of gender hierarchy, private property ownership, and necessary functions of consumption. It is this early focus on reproduction within a family unit that led for the first time of the construction of the homosexual as distinct category of person, whereas previously homosexuality was seen simply a form of sexual behavior that some people engaged in, whilst not being the defining attribute of that person. It was through this science of sexuality that homosexuality and other sexual expressions categorized as non-normative were no longer simply decried as "sinful", but were pathologized as mental disorders.

Beyond the role in the regulation of sexual behavior. The family unit and the entrenchment of gender roles worked to assign women the labor function of maintaining the home environment for its continued productive functioning. This demand of women to engage in constant emotional labor whilst creating the ideological separation between it and 'productive labor' underscored why it would remain unpaid, as it was not accepted as labor at all, merely something that women were expected to do as an inherent aspect of their femininity. However, it must be noted that proletariat women still regularly engaged in productive labor as well as emotional labor, and through the demand of them to do so while absolving men of the same obligation, it served to trap women in positions where they effectively were having to work both within market settings and within the home. This notion of the additional labor required by women has come to be known as "the second shift". The second shift endures to the present day. Just think about the types of chores normally relegated to women and those relegated to men. Men are expected to take out the trash and perhaps mow the grass if they have a large enough yard, or occasionally repair things that are broken. Yet you do not have to take out the trash every day, and you can regularly go weeks without mowing the lawn, and sometimes months between repairs. Most housework as a whole has been feminized. Cooking, cleaning, getting kids ready, planning family events. Women are expected to do a far wider range of chores and to do them every day. If a man volunteers to do some of those chores, he is praised as a caring husband or father. When a woman does them; that's simply her job. Only when she fails to do them are her actions noticed.

Another function of the patriarchal family structure was in the maintenance of an essential gender hierarchy. The additional toll placed upon women placed them in a lesser position to challenge oppression or exploitation in other spheres. The wage gap exists both because the labor of women is less valued and because women have long been in a lesser position to adequately challenge them. Women formed the backbone of labor organization. regularly caring for strikers, feeding them, organizing events by local labor unions, and even standing on the front lines and engaging in militant action, yet they seldom rose to leadership positions within these, and their work regularly goes unrecognized. Attempts to focus on the challenges they face were and still are regularly rejected as divisive from the "true struggle". Women's issues were always secondary to the class struggle, even though women face far higher poverty rates than men and face unique problems through poverty that men regularly do not have to face. The maintenance of a gender hierarchy and gendered violence also operates as a safety valve for the capitalists to redirect the anger and sense of powerlessness of working class men towards their wives and children. A man may be abused by the boss at work, but at home he becomes the master of his house. Gendered patterns of violence are systemically useful for having the oppressed punch down at those directly beneath them, rather than uniting to fight against those above. In fact, toxic masculinity is often enhanced by men who feel they are otherwise powerless or alienated, as even other identities they hold such as their class or race may be socially negative, their status as men can offer them at least some degree of prestige, and heightening it to exaggerated degrees operates to relieve them of the stress and shame they otherwise experience.

So yes, feminism is indispensable to equality and it is indispensable to socialism, as it understands the relation gender roles and the patriarchy hold to the maintenance of capitalism, white supremacy, colonialism, cissexism, heterosexism, and ableism, and that one cannot be challenged without challenging the others.

This is a well written post. Shame it’s not true. You people always act like you actually uphold actual equality. What a joke. Also, you can’t challenge one without challenging the others? Akshully, it would seem like the SJWs are the ones who won’t challenge capitalism.

[Aillyria]

Wtf is emotional labor?

Feminism is in opposition to the nature of socialism, which is egalitarian, which feminism is not.....as its name suggests. The family as a unit of society, and the strengthening of that unit, is one of the best ways to weaken the dependence on states and increase the support system of the individual.


Feminism isn't egalitarian, it is female supremacist. It is also terrible for men and
women.


Feminism doesn't liberate anyone from anything.

[1.]Emotional labor is labor which capitalist ideology divorces from productive labor. It entails the expectation that women do the cooking, cleaning, tend to the emotional needs of men, and care much more for the emotional needs of their family overall than a man should. Its the expectation that women and girls constantly work to make themselves more presentable to men and to comfort men in daily interactions. It is a stranger demanding that you smile, because the act of simply existing in your own headspace without directly working to create a presentable form to men is interpreted as an act of aggression for which you will be labeled "cold", "harpy", or "bitch".

[2.]The patriarchal family unit is indispensable to capitalism. It operates as a means of organizing workers in means suitable for productive, reproductive, and consumptive purposes while weakening social bonds with those outside the family unit. It operates a chief mechanism for producing the sort of individualist and consumption based mentality that is needed within a capitalist system. Michel Foucault outlined the ways in which capitalist alongside clergy, state bureaucrats, and scientists worked to construct a scienta sexualis, a science of sexuality for which the state could construct and limit discourses on sexuality to align them with the interests of the state and the capitalist system while limiting those which may be seen to subvert it. As such, the early sexual sciences became chiefly concerned with demographics, and the organization of workers into units designed to maximize reproductive potential while also aligning reproductive units along lines of gender hierarchy, private property ownership, and necessary functions of consumption. It is this early focus on reproduction within a family unit that led for the first time of the construction of the homosexual as distinct category of person, whereas previously homosexuality was seen simply a form of sexual behavior that some people engaged in, whilst not being the defining attribute of that person. It was through this science of sexuality that homosexuality and other sexual expressions categorized as non-normative were no longer simply decried as "sinful", but were pathologized as mental disorders.

[3.]Beyond the role in the regulation of sexual behavior. The family unit and the entrenchment of gender roles worked to assign women the labor function of maintaining the home environment for its continued productive functioning. This demand of women to engage in constant emotional labor whilst creating the ideological separation between it and 'productive labor' underscored why it would remain unpaid, as it was not accepted as labor at all, merely something that women were expected to do as an inherent aspect of their femininity. However, it must be noted that proletariat women still regularly engaged in productive labor as well as emotional labor, and through the demand of them to do so while absolving men of the same obligation, it served to trap women in positions where they effectively were having to work both within market settings and within the home. This notion of the additional labor required by women has come to be known as "the second shift". The second shift endures to the present day. Just think about the types of chores normally relegated to women and those relegated to men. Men are expected to take out the trash and perhaps mow the grass if they have a large enough yard, or occasionally repair things that are broken. Yet you do not have to take out the trash every day, and you can regularly go weeks without mowing the lawn, and sometimes months between repairs. Most housework as a whole has been feminized. Cooking, cleaning, getting kids ready, planning family events. Women are expected to do a far wider range of chores and to do them every day. If a man volunteers to do some of those chores, he is praised as a caring husband or father. When a woman does them; that's simply her job. Only when she fails to do them are her actions noticed.

[4.]Another function of the patriarchal family structure was in the maintenance of an essential gender hierarchy. The additional toll placed upon women placed them in a lesser position to challenge oppression or exploitation in other spheres. The wage gap exists both because the labor of women is less valued and because women have long been in a lesser position to adequately challenge them. Women formed the backbone of labor organization. regularly caring for strikers, feeding them, organizing events by local labor unions, and even standing on the front lines and engaging in militant action, yet they seldom rose to leadership positions within these, and their work regularly goes unrecognized. Attempts to focus on the challenges they face were and still are regularly rejected as divisive from the "true struggle". Women's issues were always secondary to the class struggle, even though women face far higher poverty rates than men and face unique problems through poverty that men regularly do not have to face. The maintenance of a gender hierarchy and gendered violence also operates as a safety valve for the capitalists to redirect the anger and sense of powerlessness of working class men towards their wives and children. A man may be abused by the boss at work, but at home he becomes the master of his house. Gendered patterns of violence are systemically useful for having the oppressed punch down at those directly beneath them, rather than uniting to fight against those above. In fact, toxic masculinity is often enhanced by men who feel they are otherwise powerless or alienated, as even other identities they hold such as their class or race may be socially negative, their status as men can offer them at least some degree of prestige, and heightening it to exaggerated degrees operates to relieve them of the stress and shame they otherwise experience.

So yes, feminism is indispensable to equality and it is indispensable to socialism, as it understands the relation gender roles and the patriarchy hold to the maintenance of capitalism, white supremacy, colonialism, cissexism, heterosexism, and ableism, and that one cannot be challenged without challenging the others.

1.) The traditional gender "chores" of females is derived from the division of labor between men and women since prehistory. Men were the defenders and laborers, and women were the teachers and housekeepers. On the subject of "presentation", women this days shirk femininity, but then complain when men aren't interested in them. Men generally want a feminine woman, and women want masculine men.

2.) I find that advanced capitalism doesn't facilitate conditions favorable to the family unit, in fact, it actively destroys it in an attempt to break the stablity of family life of the youth, and replace it with dependence on the State apparatus. This can be seen in the aftermath of the Black Civil Rights Movement and its destruction of the black family and substitution by state parentage via the welfare state.

3.) So, you believe women should be paid for housework? That's ridiculous,

4.) The wage gap is false, it has been debunked and ran into the ground. Women don't do, aren't as willing to do, and aren't interested in the same fields and occupations as men in general. "Toxic masculinity" doesn't exist either, that is simply feminist jargon for "stop being a male".

[New Emeline]

Emotional labor is labor which capitalist ideology divorces from productive labor. It entails the expectation that women do the cooking, cleaning, tend to the emotional needs of men, and care much more for the emotional needs of their family overall than a man should. Its the expectation that women and girls constantly work to make themselves more presentable to men and to comfort men in daily interactions. It is a stranger demanding that you smile, because the act of simply existing in your own headspace without directly working to create a presentable form to men is interpreted as an act of aggression for which you will be labeled "cold", "harpy", or "bitch".

The patriarchal family unit is indispensable to capitalism. It operates as a means of organizing workers in means suitable for productive, reproductive, and consumptive purposes while weakening social bonds with those outside the family unit. It operates a chief mechanism for producing the sort of individualist and consumption based mentality that is needed within a capitalist system. Michel Foucault outlined the ways in which capitalist alongside clergy, state bureaucrats, and scientists worked to construct a scienta sexualis, a science of sexuality for which the state could construct and limit discourses on sexuality to align them with the interests of the state and the capitalist system while limiting those which may be seen to subvert it. As such, the early sexual sciences became chiefly concerned with demographics, and the organization of workers into units designed to maximize reproductive potential while also aligning reproductive units along lines of gender hierarchy, private property ownership, and necessary functions of consumption. It is this early focus on reproduction within a family unit that led for the first time of the construction of the homosexual as distinct category of person, whereas previously homosexuality was seen simply a form of sexual behavior that some people engaged in, whilst not being the defining attribute of that person. It was through this science of sexuality that homosexuality and other sexual expressions categorized as non-normative were no longer simply decried as "sinful", but were pathologized as mental disorders.

Beyond the role in the regulation of sexual behavior. The family unit and the entrenchment of gender roles worked to assign women the labor function of maintaining the home environment for its continued productive functioning. This demand of women to engage in constant emotional labor whilst creating the ideological separation between it and 'productive labor' underscored why it would remain unpaid, as it was not accepted as labor at all, merely something that women were expected to do as an inherent aspect of their femininity. However, it must be noted that proletariat women still regularly engaged in productive labor as well as emotional labor, and through the demand of them to do so while absolving men of the same obligation, it served to trap women in positions where they effectively were having to work both within market settings and within the home. This notion of the additional labor required by women has come to be known as "the second shift". The second shift endures to the present day. Just think about the types of chores normally relegated to women and those relegated to men. Men are expected to take out the trash and perhaps mow the grass if they have a large enough yard, or occasionally repair things that are broken. Yet you do not have to take out the trash every day, and you can regularly go weeks without mowing the lawn, and sometimes months between repairs. Most housework as a whole has been feminized. Cooking, cleaning, getting kids ready, planning family events. Women are expected to do a far wider range of chores and to do them every day. If a man volunteers to do some of those chores, he is praised as a caring husband or father. When a woman does them; that's simply her job. Only when she fails to do them are her actions noticed.

Another function of the patriarchal family structure was in the maintenance of an essential gender hierarchy. The additional toll placed upon women placed them in a lesser position to challenge oppression or exploitation in other spheres. The wage gap exists both because the labor of women is less valued and because women have long been in a lesser position to adequately challenge them. Women formed the backbone of labor organization. regularly caring for strikers, feeding them, organizing events by local labor unions, and even standing on the front lines and engaging in militant action, yet they seldom rose to leadership positions within these, and their work regularly goes unrecognized. Attempts to focus on the challenges they face were and still are regularly rejected as divisive from the "true struggle". Women's issues were always secondary to the class struggle, even though women face far higher poverty rates than men and face unique problems through poverty that men regularly do not have to face. The maintenance of a gender hierarchy and gendered violence also operates as a safety valve for the capitalists to redirect the anger and sense of powerlessness of working class men towards their wives and children. A man may be abused by the boss at work, but at home he becomes the master of his house. Gendered patterns of violence are systemically useful for having the oppressed punch down at those directly beneath them, rather than uniting to fight against those above. In fact, toxic masculinity is often enhanced by men who feel they are otherwise powerless or alienated, as even other identities they hold such as their class or race may be socially negative, their status as men can offer them at least some degree of prestige, and heightening it to exaggerated degrees operates to relieve them of the stress and shame they otherwise experience.

So yes, feminism is indispensable to equality and it is indispensable to socialism, as it understands the relation gender roles and the patriarchy hold to the maintenance of capitalism, white supremacy, colonialism, cissexism, heterosexism, and ableism, and that one cannot be challenged without challenging the others.

This is a well written post. Shame it’s not true. You people always act like you actually uphold actual equality. What a joke. Also, you can’t challenge one without challenging the others? Akshully, it would seem like the SJWs are the ones who won’t challenge capitalism.

Are you going to address their points? I don't necessarily agree with them, but I'd like to understand why you don't.

[New Emeline]

1.) The traditional gender "chores" of females is derived from the division of labor between men and women since prehistory. Men were the defenders and laborers, and women were the teachers and housekeepers. On the subject of "presentation", women this days shirk femininity, but then complain when men aren't interested in them. Men generally want a feminine woman, and women want masculine men.

Depends on what you mean by labor.

[The Parkus Empire]

1.) The traditional gender "chores" of females is derived from the division of labor between men and women since prehistory. Men were the defenders and laborers, and women were the teachers and housekeepers. On the subject of "presentation", women this days shirk femininity, but then complain when men aren't interested in them. Men generally want a feminine woman, and women want masculine men.

Depends on what you mean by labor.

Housekeeping is definitely labor, quite intensive labor too prior to things like washing machines and dishwashers and vacuums.

[New Emeline]

Depends on what you mean by labor.

Housekeeping is definitely labor, quite intensive labor too prior to things like washing machines and dishwashers and vacuums.

I'm talking about prehistory but that too. Technically any sort of work is labor.

[West Leas Oros]

This is a well written post. Shame it’s not true. You people always act like you actually uphold actual equality. What a joke. Also, you can’t challenge one without challenging the others? Akshully, it would seem like the SJWs are the ones who won’t challenge capitalism.

Are you going to address their points? I don't necessarily agree with them, but I'd like to understand why you don't.

First of all, this emotional labor thing sounds like BS pseudoscience. Just saying. Second, if intersectionality was actually true, SJWs would actually give a shit about the proletariat. They don’t. It’s easy to say that it’s the socialists who aren’t accepting these ideas of unified struggle, but it’s actually the other way around. To an SJW, rich or poor, a white man is a white man, and therefore evil. Also, I disagree with the whole spiel about equality. If this were really about equality, they’d give a shit about stopping capitalism.

[The Parkus Empire]

Housekeeping is definitely labor, quite intensive labor too prior to things like washing machines and dishwashers and vacuums.

I'm talking about prehistory but that too. Technically any sort of work is labor.

Yes, but in peasant economies there obviously is no distinction between "productive" labor and "unproductive labor," a distinction that really only comes about through capitalism, which marginalizes housekeeping and childrearing as unproductive (i.e., unprofitable--a capitalist would never call the labor of a broker or a lawyer or a doctor "unproductive," even though it doesn't produce anything materially).

[New Emeline]

Are you going to address their points? I don't necessarily agree with them, but I'd like to understand why you don't.

First of all, this emotional labor thing sounds like BS pseudoscience. Just saying. Second, if intersectionality was actually true, SJWs would actually give a shit about the proletariat. They don’t. It’s easy to say that it’s the socialists who aren’t accepting these ideas of unified struggle, but it’s actually the other way around. To an SJW, rich or poor, a white man is a white man, and therefore evil. Also, I disagree with the whole spiel about equality. If this were really about equality, they’d give a shit about stopping capitalism.

Those weren't exactly the points they made. Or maybe I misread.

[The Parkus Empire]

Are you going to address their points? I don't necessarily agree with them, but I'd like to understand why you don't.

First of all, this emotional labor thing sounds like BS pseudoscience. Just saying. Second, if intersectionality was actually true, SJWs would actually give a shit about the proletariat. They don’t. It’s easy to say that it’s the socialists who aren’t accepting these ideas of unified struggle, but it’s actually the other way around. To an SJW, rich or poor, a white man is a white man, and therefore evil. Also, I disagree with the whole spiel about equality. If this were really about equality, they’d give a shit about stopping capitalism.

"Emotional labor" has value, but trying to convert all value into fungible, economic terms is not something I particularly care for.

[New Emeline]

First of all, this emotional labor thing sounds like BS pseudoscience. Just saying. Second, if intersectionality was actually true, SJWs would actually give a shit about the proletariat. They don’t. It’s easy to say that it’s the socialists who aren’t accepting these ideas of unified struggle, but it’s actually the other way around. To an SJW, rich or poor, a white man is a white man, and therefore evil. Also, I disagree with the whole spiel about equality. If this were really about equality, they’d give a shit about stopping capitalism.

"Emotional labor" has value, but trying to convert all value into fungible, economic terms is not something I particularly care for.

I agree with you on that.

hmm, that's a first

[Aillyria]

Depends on what you mean by labor.

Housekeeping is definitely labor, quite intensive labor too prior to things like washing machines and dishwashers and vacuums.

I find it telling that she didn't imply men should be paid for their "emotional labor" at home. Men do the heavy lifting at home, repairs of automobiles or/and house structures, yard work/landscaping. Also in most couples men bare the brunt of financial responsibilities, women drive the vehicles paid for by their partner, live in the houses paid for by their partner...etc.

[New Emeline]

Housekeeping is definitely labor, quite intensive labor too prior to things like washing machines and dishwashers and vacuums.

I find it telling that she didn't imply men should be paid for their "emotional labor" at home. Men do the heavy lifting at home, repairs of automobiles or/and house structures, yard work/landscaping. Also in most couples men bare the brunt of financial responsibilities, women drive the vehicles paid for by their partner, live in the houses paid for by their partner...etc.

just to be annoying and pedantic, stuff like fixing cars isn't emotional labor

neither is housework

[The Parkus Empire]

"Emotional labor" has value, but trying to convert all value into fungible, economic terms is not something I particularly care for.

I agree with you on that.

hmm, that's a first

Be careful, you are skirting the border of metaphysics.

[Aillyria]

I find it telling that she didn't imply men should be paid for their "emotional labor" at home. Men do the heavy lifting at home, repairs of automobiles or/and house structures, yard work/landscaping. Also in most couples men bare the brunt of financial responsibilities, women drive the vehicles paid for by their partner, live in the houses paid for by their partner...etc.

just to be annoying and pedantic, stuff like fixing cars isn't emotional labor

neither is housework

I'm just using the vocabulary on the playing field.

[New Emeline]

I agree with you on that.

hmm, that's a first

Be careful, you are skirting the border of metaphysics.

fool, the metaphysical realm is already my place of dwelling

[The Parkus Empire]

Be careful, you are skirting the border of metaphysics.

fool, the metaphysical realm is already my place of dwelling

That explains why you're a communist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWjLjPqwtk8

[Reikoku]

Be careful, you are skirting the border of metaphysics.

fool, the metaphysical realm is already my place of dwelling

ニユエメリネのみこと, I didn't meet you at Izumo last gathering of the gods.

[Dumb Ideologies]

"Emotional labor" has value, but trying to convert all value into fungible, economic terms is not something I particularly care for.

I agree with you on that.

hmm, that's a first

But what if you could signal the extent of your agreement in concrete monetary terms through microtransactions?!

[El Hamidah]

Be careful, you are skirting the border of metaphysics.

fool, the metaphysical realm is already my place of dwelling

Shitposting from Nirvana is also my favorite pastime

[West Leas Oros]

fool, the metaphysical realm is already my place of dwelling

Shitposting from Nirvana is also my favorite pastime

I shitpost from the Nth dimension, where dividing by zero doesn’t destroy the world.

[Chestaan]

I agree with you on that.

hmm, that's a first

But what if you could signal the extent of your agreement in concrete monetary terms through microtransactions?!

Please don't bring him to this thread

[Dumb Ideologies]

Shitposting from Nirvana is also my favorite pastime

I shitpost from the Nth dimension, where dividing by zero doesn’t destroy the world.

Spoilers: both the division and the zeroic void were within each of us all along.

[Democratic Communist Federation]

So yes, feminism is indispensable to equality and it is indispensable to socialism, as it understands the relation gender roles and the patriarchy hold to the maintenance of capitalism, white supremacy, colonialism, cissexism, heterosexism, and ableism, and that one cannot be challenged without challenging the others.

Yep, and Michel Foucault, who began as a Marxist and then moved to social semiotics (poststructuralism), understood these relations better than most. You presented a brilliant intersectional analysis.

I think that we need to appreciate, in this thread, that we have people here from a variety of positions. Some are Leftists. Some are not. However, even among us Leftists, in the real communist world, most of us would be divided into tendencies or currents that hardly, if ever, even speak with each other.

Rather than expecting agreement (because that simply won't happen here), I think it is better to try to respectfully appreciate the perspectives of others without becoming aggressive or insulting.