Katy: Hating women for exercising their right to choose is an anachronistic reaction that no longer has a place in our society.
Neoliberalism shapes us as human capital, bringing market logic and result optimization into our emotional lives.
With women's financial independence, the criteria have changed; we look for emotional value, not just financial provision.
Calling this an excessive demand is, in reality, mourning the loss of patriarchal bargaining power.
William: Seeing hate in everything is a form of radicalism that shouldn't have a place in our society.
Just because someone makes a counterpoint, like being against abortion, does that mean they "hate" women?
Many women (maybe most) are against abortion, do they hate themselves?!
In a casual conversation, a man interrupting a woman is already labeled misogyny... But a woman can even tell a man to shut up, and that's perfectly fine...
(This simple observation on my part is already classified by many as HATE.)
Moving on to your point...
I don't see this man who wants to financially carry the whole family on his back 😂.
Maybe that was back in my grandfather's or great-grandfather's time.
My mother, aunts, neighbors... most of them worked.
Even in the upper-middle-class families I knew, the most common thing is for the woman to have her own money.
Here at home, my wife makes more than I do, and it's been that way for most of our relationship.
I deduce that you're further left just by bringing up something completely unrelated to the topic, like "neoliberalism."
Are the "rules of the game" any different in a socialist country?
Can you name one for us to analyze?
The greatest socialist experiment in human history so far was the USSR.
Does anyone have data proving that male/female relationships were much better in Russia than in the United States?
Russia was socialist for 74 years.
That's a long time; a child born after 1917 was raised and raised their own children under Socialism.
My point is that Russia should reflect (even after 1990) how Socialism "empowers" women more than traditionally capitalist nations like England (just as an example).
We know that deeply ingrained habits take time to change; they pass from generation to generation.
For educational purposes, let's consider a generation to be 40 years, the period spanning from early childhood to the stage that would statistically be "middle age."
Start of the Soviet Revolution: 1917 + 40 = 1957
End of the Soviet Revolution: 1990 + 40 = 2030
In other words, from 1957 to 2030, we should expect to see a much better situation for women (and relationships) in nations that attempted to implement "Marxist thought."
I saw a survey showing that women tend to lean more to the left than men.
If you, as a leftist woman, do some research, you'll easily see that Capitalism brought far more "empowerment" to women.
An easy example:
"East Germany (Socialist GDR) never had a woman govern the country with powers equivalent to those of Angela Merkel.
Throughout almost all of its history (1949–1989), East Germany was a one-party socialist regime.
Real political power didn't lie in the presidency or parliament, but in the position of General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party (SED), a role that was always held by men, like Walter Ulbricht and Erich Honecker.
Wikipedia
In capitalist England, we had the empowered Margaret Thatcher.
In Reunified Germany (Capitalist), we had the empowered Angela Merkel.
Anyone who knows history, man or woman, and makes a RATIONAL analysis is left with no arguments to defend Socialism.
✧✧✧
.
