💬 Off-Topic Let's talk about second-wave radical feminism - Dynastia's Daycare for the emotionally troubled.

[SourDiesel]

For any interested parties, check out these articles on surrogacy in Ukraine, in Ukraine again, and again in Ukraine. Pay attention to the way these surrogate mothers talk about their choice to offer surrogacy. "I didn't have another choice." 'I can't make this money any other way." Do they sound like organ donors or do they sound like sex workers? They are not happy, generous ladies who just love being pregnant. They are raising their own children, often solo, and cannot get $30,000 any other way. This is why coercion matters in markets like these and it's exactly why it is illegal to pay for organ donation.







Let's look at the purchasers of surrogates:

Oh hey Bec you fucking mong do you think the war might have something to do with women being desperate enough to sell a baby for money? Multiple women interviewed bring up IVF being "expensive" as a reason to rent someone else's uterus.

TFW it's cheaper to buy an entire Ukrainian woman than it is to get IVF.

Interestingly enough, it seems when supply is low in first world countries because first world women have enough resources that they need to be REALLY coerced with $$$$$, the market moves to war-torn countries with way more desperate women who I'll do it for $$ because they have to. It's almost like the sellers don't set the terms even though supply is low. Interesting.

 

[Ashenthorn]

Ok we aren't getting anywhere because you fundamentally believe money doesn't coerce people and I do. So I'm not going to continue to debate this specific topic after this.

That's fine, and probly for the best.

Sure, you like your job but you didn't answer the question: if they weren't paying you AT ALL would you still choose to do it 8 hours a day, five days a week? I think we both know the answer is no. I can't debate this with people who are not honest about the situation. Dude.

Honestly? I started my own business to do exactly this and I'm lucky to break even. And obviously I feel that providing someone a service that they are willing to pay for is definitely not coercion of any kind on my part, or on theirs. You're right that we'll never agree on that, I guess.

Some things like surrogacy or prostitution are so terrible to do that no one fucking chooses freely to do them.
Who the hell wouldn't take free money for doing something they were gonna do anyway like your example of the altruistic surrogate who just "wouldn't mind some money"?

My example? Look, I'm not the one who brought up "altruistic surrogacy" saying that it was fine if women chose to do it. That was you:

Surrogacy is legal in a lot of places if no money is exchanged. Altruistic surrogacy is fine.

Do you seriously think that if someone who needed a surrogate and found a woman willing lto do it for free would choose to just give her a bunch of money when they didn't have to? So you routinely pay people for free shit? Most people don't pay for anything they don't have to because money is a finite resource. You're trying to "sweeten the deal" for the woman by offering money to get her to do something she otherwise wouldn't - aka coercion.

I can certainly imagine a grateful couple wanting to do something nice for their surrogate (even after the fact) without any ulterior or coercive motives. I get it, you think all people are inherently evil. Maybe they are.. but I deal with a lot of people who are willing to help others out with no expectations.

You keep changing the rules to fit into your assumed reality when that reality doesn't exist and we both know that. No one is out here going to work without being coerced by a paycheck and no one is out here spending those hard earned paychecks on shit they could get for free. If women were out here offering surrogacy for free in numbers, a paid industry wouldn't exist because people would be getting this shit for free. Russel Greer wouldn't go to brothels if he could get sex for free. He has to coerce women into doing it by venmoing a dollar. Do you understand?

I haven't changed any rules. Things were brought up, and I questioned them and asked questions in order to understand. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[SourDiesel]

That's fine, and probly for the best.

Honestly? I started my own business to do exactly this and I'm lucky to break even. And obviously I feel that providing someone a service that they are willing to pay for is definitely not coercion of any kind on my part, or on theirs. You're right that we'll never agree on that, I guess.

My example? Look, I'm not the one who brought up "altruistic surrogacy" saying that it was fine if women chose to do it. That was you:


I can certainly imagine a grateful couple wanting to do something nice for their surrogate (even after the fact) without any ulterior or coercive motives. I get it, you think all people are inherently evil. Maybe they are.. but I deal with a lot of people who are willing to help others out with no expectations.

I haven't changed any rules. Things were brought up, and I questioned them and asked questions in order to understand. Thanks for the conversation.

You own and run a business because you need to make money. Otherwise you would spend that time on your hobbies. And if that business failed to make you money, you would go do a job you didn't want to do because you need the money. The coercion isn't about having a boss vs working for yourself. It's about NEEDING MONEY. You're skirting the question yet again. This is why I say you keep changing the rules. You'll start by talking about one thing and then pretend it's something else when someone refutes you. You don't actually engage with the arguments put forth, you simply argue against the strawman you've put up.

Honestly, if money didn't coerce people to do nasty shit, no buildings would have clean toilets and if the less attractive any given job was caused an increase in compensation to attract the people that didn't want to do it, cleaning toilets would be a very high paying gig. But it isn't. Because the real world doesn't work that way. And that's setting aside the inherent contradiction in arguing that money can't coerce people while simultaneously arguing that if worker supply is low for any given service, compensation would increase to attract workers. You've argued both at various points here btw. These positions are mutually exclusive.

My first paragraph applies to this entire debate in this entire thread though so I'm glad you agree. Those of you who came here to "debate" know very well that you will never agree with the feminists in this thread. You say you came to ask questions but like the others, you feel the need to endlessly debate the answers you recieve. I feel you knew that you would never agree before you came in here to ask questions. But thank you for not being a complete dick about it.

 

[Cryin RN]

Interestingly enough, it seems when supply is low in first world countries because first world women have enough resources that they need to be REALLY coerced with $$$$$, the market moves to war-torn countries with way more desperate women who I'll do it for $$ because they have to. It's almost like the sellers don't set the terms even though supply is low. Interesting.

That's exactly what's happened, and it's really heartwarming to note that almost every country in the world has banned it for that exact reason (except Ukraine, India, Thailand, and some US states). It requires a global ban because the purchasing of children is a global market, whether it's through adoption or otherwise - there's a reason that many countries have moved to severely restrict overseas adoptions, too. If I was being realllllly shady I'd wonder if the booming interest in Ukraine is also because those nice generous formerly homeless single moms of three living in a warzone are white.

 

[Caesare]

What I'M saying is that we'll never know how women would fare at high paying male dominated careers because they are literally screwed out of the opportunity to try in the first place.

The type of careers you're talking about (high pay, good benefits, no advanced college degree required) are hard to get. If you were to ask ten different people who work offshore or in a plant how they got the job, nine of them would tell you they have a relative that works there and put in a good word for them or they knew someone who got them the job.

It's very rare that anyone gets those type of jobs without having good connections. A lot of those places don't even directly hire their employees, they use a recruiter who will get them temporary employees that will work there for a short period, usually 3 months, for a rate quite a bit lower than what they pay their actual employees. If they like you and see that you might turn out to be a good, longterm worker, they might hire you on as a regular employee. They do those 90 day temporary contracts because they want to make sure you're worth that high pay and those great benefits.

I assure you that the "oil rig" type jobs that require a muscle bound tweaker to accomplish are few and far between. Most of these jobs are doable by women or even in fact, that large number of fat lazy fucks that actually get these jobs.

How can you assure us that? Have you ever worked offshore or in a plant? Have you ever even been inside of one of these places? If you had, you'd know that they have women working in them, albeit extremely few, that is why your point that we wouldn't know if women can handle these jobs because they aren't given the opportunity is bullshit, some can and do though the number is minuscule.

Most men can't even handle these jobs, they're laborious, tiresome, hot, uncomfortable, and often tedious. You work long hours and sometimes go weeks without a day off.

And what are you getting upset about? Why are you calling people lazy, fat fucks? You can't be lazy at these places if you wanna keep your job. There's too much going on. These plants are so huge that the workers ride bicycles with baskets on them to hold their tools just to get around in a reasonable amount of time.

So yeah we do know that some women can handle this type of work, especially certain kinds of jobs, but most can't and probably wouldn't want to once they knew what was required of them. There's a reason why these are male dominated careers that goes beyond sexism. They're hard, too hard for most men. Only a specific type of person can last long in these fields.

 

[SourDiesel]

The type of careers you're talking about (high pay, good benefits, no advanced college degree required) are hard to get. If you were to ask ten different people who work offshore or in a plant how they got the job, nine of them would tell you they have a relative that works there and put in a good word for them or they knew someone who got them the job.

It's very rare that anyone gets those type of jobs without having good connections. A lot of those places don't even directly hire their employees, they use a recruiter who will get them temporary employees that will work there for a short period, usually 3 months, for a rate quite a bit lower than what they pay their actual employees. If they like you and see that you might turn out to be a good, longterm worker, they might hire you on as a regular employee. They do those 90 day temporary contracts because they want to make sure you're worth that high pay and those great benefits.

So what you're saying is that it's hard for women to get into jobs that historically are very male dominated because men engage in nepotism? We agree. I don't see what the issue is here. We have heard in this thread from recruiters who say that often in recruiting it is encouraged to ignore women's applications also so it seems we're simply in agreement that it's hard for women to break into these industries. What you ignore here however, are the reasons men do not want to give women a chance.

How can you assure us that? Have you ever worked offshore or in a plant? Have you ever even been inside of one of these places? If you had, you'd know that they have women working in them, albeit extremely few, that is why your point that we wouldn't know if women can handle these jobs because they aren't given the opportunity is bullshit, some can and do though the number is minuscule.

Most men can't even handle these jobs, they're laborious, tiresome, hot, uncomfortable, and often tedious. You work long hours and sometimes go weeks without a day off.

And what are you getting upset about? Why are you calling people lazy, fat fucks? You can't be lazy at these places if you wanna keep your job. There's too much going on. These plants are so huge that the workers ride bicycles with baskets on them to hold their tools just to get around in a reasonable amount of time.

So yeah we do know that some women can handle this type of work, especially certain kinds of jobs, but most can't and probably wouldn't want to once they knew what was required of them. There's a reason why these are male dominated careers that goes beyond sexism. They're hard, too hard for most men. Only a specific type of person can last long in these fields.

I know plenty of men who work in oil rigs. It's a huge industry in Alberta although the pay rates are starting to decrease. Oil work is an extreme in terms of of necessary physical requirements. It's an outlier in that sense in the realm of "highly paid male dominated work". That's why I bring it up. I'm admitting the reality that there do exist some jobs that will simply be too physically demanding for most women compared to most men. That's just a fact. The point I'm trying to make is that those types of jobs are the outliers. Far more likely are the numerous construction jobs that exist in any given city, for example. The difficulty level in getting these jobs if you don't have a buddy around to get you in is, as you say, quite high. In this we agree. And yes, my dude there are an incredible amount of lazy, high school dropouts making $20/hr to run the elevators and stupid shit like that. There really are. Nepotism doesn't generally wind up hiring the very best and brightest workforce.

Literally no one said sexism was the *only* reason women don't do these jobs but I don't see how you can disagree when I say that there is not equality of opportunity when you open by saying it's hard to get these jobs because of nepotism. Nepotism is the epitome of an unequal playing field. We don't disagree except that you don't think men have a specific advantage beyond physical ability. They do though.

I've been in my industry for 25 years, some in consulting my same industry. I can assure you because I have the experience to have heard every excuse from men in the book about why they don't want to hire any given woman regardless of experience. Like, I don't think you understand: men will quite literally say this to your face. I'm not speaking theoretically. That's how I'm able to assure you.

I honestly don't know how all the dudes in this thread get through life with these naive ideas that money doesn't coerce people and no bad misogynists exist in real life, etc. everything would be great if women just stopped bitching for no reason. There is a reason.

 

[Ashenthorn]

Those of you who came here to "debate" know very well that you will never agree with the feminists in this thread. You say you came to ask questions but like the others, you feel the need to endlessly debate the answers you recieve. I feel you knew that you would never agree before you came in here to ask questions. But thank you for not being a complete dick about it.

I didn't come here to "debate", I came here to gain insight and understanding by asking questions related to the topic. Which is all that I've done.
I had no preconceived notions about 2W or subsequent and current feminist schools of thought.
I was specifically curious about the dichotomy in thought as regards to women's agency.

"Those of you who came here to "debate" know very well that you will never agree with the feminists in this thread."
I thought that perhaps I WOULD have some commonality/agreement with feminists especially regarding the fact that women can do any fucking thing that they want to do without being told that they can't... whether by the patriarchy, or the nanny state, or by the various outgroups of feminism.

Apparently I was mistaken.

Coming into this, I did not realize that people thought that the concept of barter was actually ALWAYS coercion, and that they can use this idea as a way to condemn pretty much anything by imputing this as a nefarious motive, as opposed to a mutually beneficial exchange. Now I know.

fwiw, If I had a million dollars, I would still be doing what I do now for "work" as a hobby, and plan to continue doing it after I "retire". Before I started my business I was doing it as a hobby. And I regularly do this for friends, family, and total strangers for no compensation at all (on my own time). I certainly don't claim that everyone is able to do this, but I also don't believe that every human exchange is based on coercion. I've answered your question, now I'll leave.

I've learned a lot from this thread...
Thanks, and take care.

 

[Caesare]

So what you're saying is that it's hard for women to get into jobs that historically are very male dominated because men engage in nepotism?

Everyone engages in nepotism, that's what I'm saying. It's no different for the women that get into these jobs. They had to know somebody to get their foot in the door too.

Nepotism doesn't generally wind up hiring the very best and brightest workforce.

I would tend to agree, but when someone puts in a good word to get someone hired at these places, they usually won't do it for a screwup because that makes them look bad to whoever got their acquaintance the job. And a screwup isn't going to last in a rigorous, highly competitive position anyway so if you have that kind of influence, typically you want to use it on someone who you think has a chance to work out.

That doesn't always happen, of course. Occasionally some generous soul will help out an undeserving jerkoff who will assuredly blow the opportunity.

 

[SourDiesel]

I didn't come here to "debate", I came here to gain insight and understanding by asking questions related to the topic. Which is all that I've done.
I had no preconceived notions about 2W or subsequent and current feminist schools of thought.
I was specifically curious about the dichotomy in thought as regards to women's agency.

"Those of you who came here to "debate" know very well that you will never agree with the feminists in this thread."
I thought that perhaps I WOULD have some commonality/agreement with feminists especially regarding the fact that women can do any fucking thing that they want to do without being told that they can't... whether by the patriarchy, or the nanny state, or by the various outgroups of feminism.

Apparently I was mistaken.

Coming into this, I did not realize that people thought that the concept of barter was actually ALWAYS coercion, and that they can use this idea as a way to condemn pretty much anything by imputing this as a nefarious motive, as opposed to a mutually beneficial exchange. Now I know.

fwiw, If I had a million dollars, I would still be doing what I do now for "work" as a hobby, and plan to continue doing it after I "retire". Before I started my business I was doing it as a hobby. And I regularly do this for friends, family, and total strangers for no compensation at all (on my own time). I certainly don't claim that everyone is able to do this, but I also don't believe that every human exchange is based on coercion. I've answered your question, now I'll leave.

I've learned a lot from this thread...
Thanks, and take care.

I really did mean it when I thanked you for not being a dick about it btw. I'm not trying to be dick either tbh. I'm just straight to the point. I'm glad you personally are able to do what you love, if you are in fact able to make your hobby your work but you seriously must realize that that is not possible for the vast majority of people. Capitalism involves coercion for money. It just does. The pay doesn't increase because people don't want to do a shitty job. The job just winds up being done by more desperate people. The shittier the job, the more desperate people have to be to agree to do it. It's hard not to get frustrated by your arguments because that's just a fact. It's baffling to me that it even has to be debated.

Is it that some people cannot fathom being that desperate? If so, I honestly hope you are grateful for the privileges you've been afforded in life. I really do. Most people do not like their work and most people's hobbies could never make them money. Most do thier jobs because they have to and if it came down to being homeless or cleaning toilets for minimum wage, they would "choose" to clean toilets.

No one ever said that those who pay for services are inherently nefarious. That's far from the case obviously. You're projecting that, you really are. But much like the self-id laws that allow a Yaniv to sue immigrant women for refusing to wax his balls, most trans people aren't willing to go that far and aren't that psychotic and racist. But crucially: some very much are. So we need to create laws that safeguard against the bad actors. There are absolutely bad actors in the capitalism game and it's naive to pretend otherwise and let it be a free for all.

 

[2nd_time_user]

fwiw, If I had a million dollars, I would still be doing what I do now for "work" as a hobby, and plan to continue doing it after I "retire". Before I started my business I was doing it as a hobby. And I regularly do this for friends, family, and total strangers for no compensation at all (on my own time).

I bet whatever you do isn't sex work.

 

[SourDiesel]

Everyone engages in nepotism, that's what I'm saying. It's no different for the women that get into these jobs. They had to know somebody to get their foot in the door too.



I would tend to agree, but when someone puts in a good word to get someone hired at these places, they usually won't do it for a screwup because that makes them look bad to whoever got their acquaintance the job. And a screwup isn't going to last in a rigorous, highly competitive position anyway so if you have that kind of influence, typically you want to use it on someone who you think has a chance to work out.

That doesn't always happen, of course. Occasionally some generous soul will help out an undeserving jerkoff who will assuredly blow the opportunity.

Honestly it's this shit that makes it hard to debate this stuff. Why did you completely ignore everything I've said in my comments about my experience just to again naively pretend there's no sexism in the world? Dude. I have literally heard every excuse in the book. Why is it so hard to believe that men in male dominated fields may have some shitty views that cause them to believe women are an inferior choice of hire? There are entire sections of this very website dedicated to men who have shitty misogynist views on how the world works. Is it so hard to believe that some of them might be involved in work that doesn't require a high school education?

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

You own and run a business because you need to make money. Otherwise you would spend that time on your hobbies. And if that business failed to make you money, you would go do a job you didn't want to do because you need the money. The coercion isn't about having a boss vs working for yourself. It's about NEEDING MONEY. You're skirting the question yet again. This is why I say you keep changing the rules. You'll start by talking about one thing and then pretend it's something else when someone refutes you. You don't actually engage with the arguments put forth, you simply argue against the strawman you've put up.

Honestly, if money didn't coerce people to do nasty shit, no buildings would have clean toilets and if the less attractive any given job was caused an increase in compensation to attract the people that didn't want to do it, cleaning toilets would be a very high paying gig. But it isn't. Because the real world doesn't work that way. And that's setting aside the inherent contradiction in arguing that money can't coerce people while simultaneously arguing that if worker supply is low for any given service, compensation would increase to attract workers. You've argued both at various points here btw. These positions are mutually exclusive.

My first paragraph applies to this entire debate in this entire thread though so I'm glad you agree. Those of you who came here to "debate" know very well that you will never agree with the feminists in this thread. You say you came to ask questions but like the others, you feel the need to endlessly debate the answers you recieve. I feel you knew that you would never agree before you came in here to ask questions. But thank you for not being a complete dick about it.

Your overarching point seems to be about people working due to needing money. But you're skipping a step. Why do people need money? It's because they have certain unavoidable needs to survive, along with a very strong drive to survive.

Would a person living off subsistence farming stop doing all that backbreaking labor if they could get the food without it? Of fucking course they would. Does that make farming evil?

@TerribleIdeas™ is threadbanned for seven days, it's getting old. If this continues when or if he returns, please alert me. Back to your regularly scheduled autism, guys.

WTF was this for? He was engaged in good faith debate, what, he didn't agree with you so out of the hugbox?
For fucking negrating? Are you fucking serious?

Let's talk about the fact that discussions of anything to do with feminism need a heavy hand from the moderation to make sure the correct opinions are highlighted.

Surrogacy is something some women do voluntarily. Some women do it for money where it's allowed. Like ANY labor at all, it has permanent consequences. Do you think farmers are born with bent spines and aching knees?

Also, WTF is with the fact that @Terribleideas got threadbanned for "derailing and negrating", look at fucking @SourDiesel jumping all over the place and trying to completely control the entire conversation.

Also, not for nothing, this is a fucking bait thread started by Dynastia for bait purposes.

 

[Ashenthorn]

I bet whatever you do isn't sex work.

TBF, everything I wrote could have applied to being a camwhore (except the family part).
.. but that's not my "main" job, no.

 

[NyQuilninja]

I have dream one day woman will just accept being woman,
With all the ups and downs that come with being a woman.
I’m bored with woman wanting to men.
The above statement applies to men as well.
Just because you mutilate your
body,
dress up like the opposite biology sex you were born with
and pretend your something your not. Doesn’t make it true

 

[SourDiesel]

Ok apparently this needs to be said. No one in this thread has stated or implied that literally everyone who exchanges money for goods and services is evil. No one. This is not an antifa commie anti-capitalism thread. What is being said is that capitalism comes with an inherent power imbalance that can be used by those with bad intent to do harm. Some people are not nice and don't actually wish the best for you, you guys (I know right? Who knew?) and so we need laws to protect us from those people.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Ok apparently this needs to be said. No one in this thread has stated or implied that literally everyone who exchanges money for goods and services is evil. No one. This is not an antifa commie anti-capitalism thread. What is being said is that capitalism comes with an inherent power imbalance that can be used by those with bad intent to do harm. Some people are not nice and don't actually wish the best for you, you guys (I know right? Who knew?) and so we need laws to protect us from those people.

Sure, you like your job but you didn't answer the question: if they weren't paying you AT ALL would you still choose to do it 8 hours a day, five days a week? I think we both know the answer is no. I can't debate this with people who are not honest about the situation. Dude. Some things like surrogacy or prostitution are so terrible to do that no one fucking chooses freely to do them.

Perhaps you didn't directly state it, but yeah, you very strongly implied money is used to force people to do things they don't want to. Including surrogacy or prostitution. Even though you elsewhere admitted some people do surrogacy for free so... apparently you don't even believe it.

Don't play the "Nobody said" fucking gaslighting game.

So, sure, many people wouldn't be prostitutes for free. Many people wouldn't be farmers for free. Both those statements are equally true, so the fact that you don't intend your statements to apply to the farmers mean you have made a poor argument. Your argument doesn't support the conclusion you claim it does.

 

[SourDiesel]

Perhaps you didn't directly state it, but yeah, you very strongly implied money is used to force people to do things they don't want to. Including surrogacy or prostitution. Even though you elsewhere admitted some people do surrogacy for free so... apparently you don't even believe it.

Don't play the "Nobody said" fucking gaslighting game.

So, sure, many people wouldn't be prostitutes for free. Many people wouldn't be farmers for free. Both those statements are equally true, so the fact that you don't intend your statements to apply to the farmers mean you have made a poor argument. Your argument doesn't support the conclusion you claim it does.

Admitting that the structure of capitalism allows for people with more money to coerce those with less into doing things they wouldn't normally do is not anti-capitalist. It's just reality. That's not equivalent to saying that everyone that participates in capitalism is inherently evil. Most people are trying to bargain/trade with each other in good faith. Some are not though and we need to safeguard against that. There's nothing contradictory there.

But I didn't imply money can be used to coerce people into doing things they don't want to do. I directly stated it. Money can be easily used to coerce desperate people to do gross things they wouldn't otherwise do. What I didn't imply is that everyone who participates in capitalism is inherently evil or trying to coerce people. They aren't and no one said that. Whats happening here is people seem to be assigning a massive negative value judgement to the word "coerce" and getting mad about it. What if I instead used the word "convince"? Would you suck my dick and let me punch you in the mouth after? No? Would a million dollars "convince" you? How desperate are you?

Farmers and prostitutes are not even remotely equivalent industries that don't have even remotely the same issues involved. It is a false equivalence.

 

[Munchma Quchi]

I have dream one day woman will just accept being woman,
With all the ups and downs that come with being a woman.
I’m bored with woman wanting to men.
The above statement applies to men as well.
Just because you mutilate your
body,
dress up like the opposite biology sex you were born with
and pretend your something your not. Doesn’t make it true

I read this like an Ani Difranco spoken word poem and now I'm imagining you as a 45 year old lesbian in a floral skirt.

 

[NyQuilninja]

I read this like an Ani Difranco spoken word poem and now I'm imagining you as a 45 year old lesbian in a floral skirt.

I honestly didn’t know who she was till now
Nope I’m just a bottle of night time cold relief

 

[Recoil]

For everyone arguing that women's sexual and reproductive autonomy should be recognized for abortion, birth control, personal desire to be promiscuous (or not), but that same autonomy should be restricted in the cases of sex-work, prostitution, and surrogacy -

- Women have been coerced (by money and threat of force) into having abortions, but feminists aren't calling for that to be be banned.
- Money isn't the only method of coercion available, and coercion of the types they're talking about are already illegal.
- Prohibition of any phenomena has never reduced harms more than legalization and regulation of said phenomena - see pot, drugs in Portugal, guns in Chicago/Cali, Nordic Model, alcohol.
- It is absolutely exceptional to argue that women should have sexual & reproductive autonomy recognized for FGM, abortion, personal promiscuity, but their sexual & reproductive autonomy for sex work, prostitution, porn, and surrogacy is something that should be denied.
- It is definitely exceptional as hell to argue for womens' liberation from a Marxist viewpoint, since no women are liberated under Marxism, they are compelled, coerced and exploited by the authoritarian Marxists that always seem to "lead the revolution", but never seem to "step back into the proletariat, to labour amongst their peers", in every single Marxist societal experiment ever conducted.