LassWiADelicateAir It is a very emotional post.
I'm not sure how it's emotional. I put together a plausible situation based on what I know of domestic abuse (including a MNer's account of running down the road in bare feet to escape an abusive male partner) and explained how legislation and policy changes could endanger the woman being abused by hampering her escape. I use worked examples a lot to explain things.
It does not however make me change my mind about the Labour Party. I will not be voting for a bunch of economically illiterate Marxists or Momentum authoritarians.
That wasn't the point of my post. I have voted Green, Lib Dem, and Labour in the past and for the first time honestly cannot vote for anyone because there isn't a party out there who will defend the interests of women as a class, both in terms of austerity and of sex-based rights. So believe me, I am not here to tell anyone how to vote.
My point was the point I made, that individualism underpins both genderism and the all-party consensus on austerity.
economically illiterate Marxists
Engels explains how patriarchy requires the subjugation of women as the means of production of sons to be heirs for men and daughters to be used to broker alliances through marriage, and how this is motivated by the increase in male property ownership inherent in the adoption of agriculture. As PP and Thomas Paine have remarked "the earth in its natural state [...] is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state" and so we need agriculture (contrary to the views of the OP who truly is economically illiterate).
Feminists believe that women must be liberated from this subjugation of women that has come as a consequence of male property ownership. I will now argue that redress for women does not have to be incompatible with free market capitalism. The luminary of capitalist thinking that is Milton Friedman has suppported a Georgist-style tax on the unimproved value of land as "the least bad tax". Adam Smith explains that a tax based on the value of unimproved land does not hamper economic activity. Charging the tax annually to the landowner, instead of as a stamp duty at time of change of ownership, would discourage speculative purchasing and encourage productive use of land. (I was sickened by the sight of empty boarded-up houses in a southern academic city whilst homeless people begged on the streets of that same city. If houses sitting boarded up cost the owners money every year, they would soon sell them or rent them out. Could this even, , stimulate economic activity?) Part of the revenue from such a land tax could be paid to mothers as child benefit or motherhood wage, in recognition of the work mothers do to perpetuate the nation-state by creating new citizens with their bodies. This motherhood wage would not be incompatible with free market capitalism because the state paying mothers for their reproductive labour doesn't prevent the operation of the free market. This idea isn't Marxist feminism, if it had a name, it would be Georgist feminism.
Even if you believe in Ayn Rand-esque minimal taxation, tiny government, and no payments by the state to citizens, the charities made by concerned citizens to redress female subjugation (for example, the early days of Rape Crisis and the women's shelter movement, before they took the state shilling, which arguably made them weaker in the long run by denying them autonomy, but that's for another post/thread) need the legal right to exclude men as employees and service users, otherwise they cannot function effectively. This recognition of the need for women's right to single-sex services and free association without men present is where "right wing women are women" and a coalition across the economic spectrum, from Marxist to Randist, becomes applicable. I would argue that this coalition is very necessary to secure women's single-sex rights because we are not all going to agree on economic theory.