absentlyabbie
ozymandias271:

solarmetronome:

shaunadarling:

solarmetronome:

Based on this (x). Conclusion: they’re still fuckers. 

Or maybe daddy works all week to provide us money for food and clothes

Because daddy’s labour is arbitrarily placed at a higher value and the work he does all week is no more important or legitimate than domestic labour. The capital value of the same relative labour is dependent on the gender of the person its performed by, and the capital values of different, specific kinds of labour, are dependent on the gender of the person who usually performs them in a society. The work easily available to women is priced cheap or free, and the work women have to struggle harder to get is still worth less capital than that same work when performed by men. 
In short, daddy gets to choose what he gets to work on, and the job he gets to choose can easily generate more than enough money to feed and shelter more than one person.  In this scenario, women still have to do work, but are often forced to depend on others to support them, let alone able to consider supporting others with their labour. 
In some cases, men might actually prefer their wives to do even less in terms of domestic labour, because it will be a symbol of conspicuous leisure, which is the mark of status. Women doing no work at all only happens if daddy has so much money and power that he wants to show it to people by how he can support a family with even less work on their part. 
A society directing women to be dependent on men, who like their women that way, is definitively a patriarchy, and the division of labour between men and women continues to reinforce gender inequality even today. 
Hopefully you can see more of the repercussions of EXACTLY WHAT WAS IMPLIED IN THE ORIGINAL POST now. 

In addition to this kickass socialist feminist analysis: women do more household labor even if they work full-time. Women do more household labor even if they make more money than their partner does. 

ozymandias271:

solarmetronome:

shaunadarling:

solarmetronome:

Based on this (x). Conclusion: they’re still fuckers. 

Or maybe daddy works all week to provide us money for food and clothes

Because daddy’s labour is arbitrarily placed at a higher value and the work he does all week is no more important or legitimate than domestic labour. The capital value of the same relative labour is dependent on the gender of the person its performed by, and the capital values of different, specific kinds of labour, are dependent on the gender of the person who usually performs them in a society. The work easily available to women is priced cheap or free, and the work women have to struggle harder to get is still worth less capital than that same work when performed by men. 

In short, daddy gets to choose what he gets to work on, and the job he gets to choose can easily generate more than enough money to feed and shelter more than one person.  In this scenario, women still have to do work, but are often forced to depend on others to support them, let alone able to consider supporting others with their labour. 

In some cases, men might actually prefer their wives to do even less in terms of domestic labour, because it will be a symbol of conspicuous leisure, which is the mark of status. Women doing no work at all only happens if daddy has so much money and power that he wants to show it to people by how he can support a family with even less work on their part.

A society directing women to be dependent on men, who like their women that way, is definitively a patriarchy, and the division of labour between men and women continues to reinforce gender inequality even today. 

Hopefully you can see more of the repercussions of EXACTLY WHAT WAS IMPLIED IN THE ORIGINAL POST now. 

In addition to this kickass socialist feminist analysis: women do more household labor even if they work full-time. Women do more household labor even if they make more money than their partner does. 

zeldaux

Anonymous asked:

I'm sorry, Asexual?? Do you reproduce by budding or??? That's so fucking stupid

zeldaux answered:

yes. under the light of a full moon that falls on a wednesday, I can impregnate myself with a child that grows like a tumor on one of my limbs. over the course of eighteen weeks they feed off of my blood in order to grow.

when they reach the age of maturity, I forcibly detach them from my body and tell them to go out into the world, get a job and contribute to society. hell no I ain’t raisin’ no babies that grow up to be 40-year-olds living in my basement that slaved over a boiling hot stove to pay for