This has been posted before, but without the translation, which sort of surprised me that someone wouldn't have taken the time given how great it is.

Marxist ideology and gender warfare

I have appended the adherents of male rights because many men who are deeply embedded in "black pill", MGTOW or MRA movements, some even self ascribed red pill men, do adhere to principles and ideas that are mirrored within feminist ideology. I think it is important to be cognizant to what is going on when you are finding yourself part of these movements.

Are you preoccupied with "us vs them?" Do you want to change the power dynamic and fight that fight? Then you are likely a rival to feminism, but also indeed part of the Marxist fight, where the presupposition is based on "class warfare." You are part of an illusory battle which is really taking place underneath your surface level debate.

If you've learned anything worthwhile here, it is that women are not in conflict or at war with men. They are at conflict with themselves and their innate strategy which clashes with a very real patriarchal structure of the world. Alain Soral posits many red pill beliefs here as he asserts that essentially, feminism was a movement to use working class women as workers who then become servants for upper class women to pursue careers and evade their homely duties strictly out of their own boredom based on their own luxurious existence not afforded to lower class women who lack the aptitude or means to live this lifestyle, who instead provide it to the very women whom they believed to be allies.

The female happiness paradox indicates this is not a successful strategy for long term female happiness (which is the basis of the argument that this was a giant lost shit test). So we will merely address the shorter timeframe in this essay.

Alain Soral on feminism

The original translations are not my own, and on top of that, I've taken liberal application of the brackets where I felt the translation was clunky to get the general point across. Skipped sections I didn't feel were making forward movement or were repetitive or not of importance. You can easily find the video if you speak French natively and can give a comprehensive translation I would include it. What I think is most interesting here, is this French intellectual is not interested in the SMP or even anti-feminist in terms of this video. He is considered an anti-feminist, but the overarching angle in which he approaches this is one of being opposed to the socioeconomic implications. I'm always interested in views and frameworks that are unrelated to our own, overlapping to provide useful insight or bounds.

You have to clearly differentiate feminism, from women and femininity. Feminism is a political movement which, somewhat on the Marxist model which claims history is class warfare, here it claims history is the war of the sexes. And that in fact, the point of history would be to free women from the oppression they are subjected to by men. So it's a view of the world that I call victimary communitarianism, with a mono-deterministic aspect to it, which is to say, "women are alienated by men and they have to free themselves from masculine oppression." That's the first serious definition of feminism.

Feminist demands, which are often legitimate, are manipulated in order in order to make them servants of commercial and wage worker society, which is the same thing since you need wages to consume.

I think we can clearly disagree with this last point, as such a thing isn't true. Merely control over someone who has wages, will allow someone to consume. As is already the case in the United States by an enormous margin.

so in fact, the feminist demands for emancipation were used to turn them into wage workers and consumers it was a two part process.

This started in the United States with the theory of the new woman which consisted of getting women out of the home and to make them feel guilty {by making them think a housewife is} an alienation, a suffering, a form of humiliation and in the end, make her shift from her husband's sphere of influence to her employer's, which is pretty ambiguous. Then thanks to the feminist struggle they end up with a dual alienation which is to endure both the husband and the boss. That's what some call "the double shift."

To be both a mother and a housewife, and wage worker. And it has often, especially in the working class, made the situation worse, not better. The feminist emancipation has often been the interest of upper class women, and they've rarely identified it as such.

In reality, {most} militant feminists are bourgeois women trying to escape their housewife role, dependent status or mother role to go towards civil society to {adopt other interesting roles, such a lawyers, researchers or to run a bookstore.}

Where as for the working class woman, it's not only caring for the children and the house, but being an assembly line worker. {so in reality women's emancipation often happens at the expense of other women, doubly alienated, {for instance the maid or daycare worker} who must take care of the children of the bourgeois and then her own. Which is left unsaid. But for working women, a babysitter would cost more than the work they make themselves.

So this isn't a matter of free choice, it's a matter of social class. {It is rare for couples to survive on one income today.} So a woman who stops working is a luxury in today's working class so that feminism {gets what they consider the fruit of their struggle, the "right" to work for wages. Which is actually an obligation}. {Which is a benefit for mercantilism}.

This does align very closely with what a lot of intellectuals have been saying, which is that marriage is becoming an institution of affluence that will be barred from the very people who used to benefit the most from it.