Why don't women seize the power through revolution?

TheGreasyPole · 2017-05-09T11:42:39+00:00

Have you never studied the revolutions of which you speak ?

Women were ALL OVER them. In most cases, the critical turning point was "When the women changed sides" or "When the women joined the men in fighting for the revolution, taking all the wind out of the status quo's sails".

The big turning point in the French Revolution ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_March_on_Versailles

Thats where they took Citizen Louis Capet (previously King Louis XIV) a prisoner of the revolution.

Same in russia...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Russian_Revolution#The_February_Revolution_and_its_impact_on_the_Bolshevik_party

The women who wanted hubbys/sons/brothers back from The Great War in one piece were very much the precipitating cause that Lenin took advantage of to get Bolshevism off the ground.

Hell, even though Germany didn't have a revolution... Many of the notable people at the front trying to lead it into one, were women... Rosa Luxumberg springs to mind. As does Mdme Roland (for the French).

The political assassin that shot and killed Marat, and so diverted the french revolution onto another course, was a woman too.

Any understanding of the revolutions that starts from "Where were all the women at ?" reveals itself as not understanding a lot about revolutions.

The part of the revolution "Where the women march against the governments guns" and then "The soldiers refuse to fire on their wives and mothers" and then "The soldiers start swapping sides and standing with the women in the crowd and pointing their guns back at the government troops" is pretty much the sine qua non of the revolution.

If that DOESN'T happen... Your revolution is pretty much fucked.... Because the soliders WILL fire upon a group of rowdy looking males heading towards them chanting "Vive La Revolution" and then you don't GET a revolution... just a load of the best, brightest, bravest of the revolution dead on the cobbles of the Capital's big square.

[deleted] · 2017-05-09T11:23:13+00:00

stop reading so many anger phase radfems, you're getting way too worked up

BiggerDthanYou · 2017-05-09T12:00:08+00:00

We aren't in the 70s anymore. Angry radfems aren't the face of mainstream feminism anymore even though the manosphere still presents them as that.

Patriarchy is gender neutral nowadays. While radfems talk about it as if all men are oppressing all women modern feminism is much more nuanced and doesn't put the blame on men, but on cultural and societal attitudes. Both men and women are oppressed in some ways and both men and women are privileged in other ways. Patriarchy hurts everyone; not just women.

Intersectionality has entered mainstream feminism and that's all about recognizing that no one is either oppressed or privileged, but always both.

Race, gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, physical and mental ability, religion, language, age, physical attractiveness, occupation, education are just some of the categories of intersectionality.

It's not that men are oppressing women. It's that society favors masculinity over feminity. Or rather that society sees women as inherently weak, illogical, vain, childlike and without any agency.

One way to smash patriarchy is to change those gendered expectations i.e. a woman shouldn't have to act like a child in order to be considered feminine. She can be feminine while being strong, mature and responsible. By broadening the definition of what it means to be a man or a woman and by getting rid of strict gender roles we smash patriarchy piece by piece. Every woman that is supporting herself or that is getting educated is smashing patriarchy, all female politicians are doing their part, women having more roles in movies than just sexy side pieces are helping getting rid of gendered stereotypes, etc

50 years ago if you told me about a doctor or a lawyer I would have pictured a straight white man. Nowadays even black lesbian women can have those jobs and those jobs are no longer linked to a gender.

The full blown patriarchy is dead, but not yet buried. There are still remnants of it around (just like racism is still a thing even though we don't have racist laws anymore), but people in general have much more personal freedom.

Men no longer have to be hypermasculine straight stoic rocks who's only emotions are anger and women no longer have to be meek, submissive housewives. People can chose those roles if they want to, but gays can now come out of the closets, women can be CEOs, men can go to therapy, women can be the breadwinner and men can be cucks.

NameOfAction · 2017-05-09T11:34:12+00:00

Because then they would have nothing to complain about

ThrowawayCactus6012 · 2017-05-09T12:17:27+00:00

It takes a majority of people to successfully start a revolution. People who identify as feminists are actually a minority. Feminists who care enough to want to start a revolution are an extremely small minority of a group that's already a small minority. There just aren't enough women who care for it to make a difference.

Most women think radfems are full of shit, so if they would start a revolution they'd have very little support. What would be the point in trying anyway if over 90% of women and most men would just watch and silently judge then and then move on with their life?

[deleted] · 2017-05-09T12:33:17+00:00

So why don't Proletarians of all countries unite and smash the patriarchy?

Every military guy, ex military, police, 90% of gun owners, 99% of people with tactical training are right wing. All the Marxist LARPers know if shit ever really hits the fan they're going to be pumped full of right wing safety squad lead

flyingwaterlilly · 2017-05-09T12:45:43+00:00

You might want to watch this: https://youtu.be/dm3FlbUf5gA

ifelsedowhile · 2017-05-09T15:34:27+00:00

Violence is always the first option with you guys.

Thankfully not everyone agrees.

reepbot · 2017-05-09T15:59:25+00:00

I believe that if women seized power that those of them that relied completely on their looks would be completely and utterly fucked.

Such as it is they live in a horny white man's world so they are fine.

ThrowawayCactus6012 · 2017-05-09T16:00:37+00:00

So why don't Proletarians of all countries unite and smash the patriarchy?

Interestingly, I encounter very few feminists whom I would consider to be "proletarian." Most of them are extremely bourgeois, and more than a few come from wealthy, privileged backgrounds and have never had to do a hard day's work in their lives. There are a few Marxist feminists here and there, but they don't appear to have much influence among the mainstream feminists who fell into Hillary's camp.

This is the main reason why the Democrats lost the last election, since those who embrace identity politics (mainly feminists and minority activists) all but totally abandoned the economic positions once held by Democrats back in the 30s through 60s. Sanders was a breath of fresh air, but he got railroaded.

Feminists and their fellow travelers just never really get it. Essentially, they sold out when they became "career women" entering the corporate world. It wasn't that much different for the minority groups either. Once they got their "tokens" in positions of power at or near the top, then they think "now it's OUR turn." What are these people smoking?

To be fair, I don't really blame "feminists" as such, since it seems to be a generational issue as much as anything else. The closest we might have come to some sort of "revolution" (and it wasn't really close at all) was back in the late 60s/early 70s.

A lot of revolutionary fervor was appeased and subsided due to wide-reaching reforms due to the civil rights movement, as well as changes in government in the post-Watergate/post-Vietnam era. Also, the "working class" was still pretty strong back then, as unions were still quite powerful and even blue-collar workers were enjoying higher wages, better working conditions, and could afford homes in suburbia and send their kids to college.

So, it didn't seem like there was any pressing need for a revolution, since Nixon's impeachment and resignation made a lot of people believe that "the system works." But that likely led to great deal more complacency, which led to a significant degree of stagnation and apathy which has led us to where we are now.

But who knows? Perhaps there might very well be a revolution someday - or perhaps some kind of civil war.

antariusz · 2017-05-10T00:52:38+00:00

You've made a fatal assumption.

That women don't already control the means of production. That "the patriarchy" is as much a fake construct as the "Emmanuel Goldstein" character in 1984.

Having a force to rage against is an important part of their control. Even if that force is actually not a part of anyone's day to day life.

AutoModerator · 2017-05-09T11:19:51+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Princeso_Bubblegum · 2017-05-09T12:17:30+00:00

This is one of the differences between class conflict and gender conflict, and why Marxists put class conflict above it, as there is no historical struggle of sexes in such a material manner. The contradictions of the Patriarchy will not lead to a revolution of women.

godfatherchimp · 2017-05-09T13:27:09+00:00

Communists seized power from everyone except the wealthy Wall Street bankers that financed Trotsky and the October Revolution. Stalin nationalized all the banks - except Rockefeller's national city bank. The Soviet Union's agriculture and industry was propped up by US subsidies throughout its entire existence. The Cold War was nothing more than controlled opposition by Wall St and the US government.

Socialism cannot survive without being subsidized by capitalism.

despisedlove2 · 2017-05-09T14:05:09+00:00

They are already in power. Why do you want them to revolt?

theiamsamurai · 2017-05-09T17:36:02+00:00

...Because they already have power and can manipulate men to fight their battles for them?

KingMarshmalo · 2017-05-11T06:00:25+00:00

France?

Title	Why don't women seize the power through revolution?
Author	DarkLord0chinChin
Upvotes	1
Comments	59
Date	May 9, 2017 11:19 AM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/6a4rri/why_dont_women_seize_the_power_through_revolution/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/why-dont-women-seize-the-power-through-revolution.268268 https://theredarchive.com/post/268268

Comments