>>401959>You have literally no fucking idea what you are talking about. The AES system was way more feministic than anything came or may come after it.Indeed, haven't declared either.
>Completely besides the point. Gay Pride Budapest (our capital city) "represents" like 20% of the total gay population, whose problems are merely that they are legally not recognized. Move to the rest of the 80% of gayfags, and their no.1 problem is that they are starving.Now that I've noticed, you haven't said shit, not even mentioned the word "prole" or worker. As said, that problem doesn't come from them being gay, but from their class, and even then, pretty much assuming every gay who lives in budapest is a managerial class porky. Also, does Hungary not have a minimun wage or something?
>Try being gay in the multinational capital, and try being the same in a fucking village. Guess which is more detrimental to your health?!Indeed, smaller towns tend to be more conservative/reactionary, and they could always migrate to the capital and try to find a better paying job there, that's one of capitalism features, and if bankrupt farmers could do it, these people can as well. And even then, moving to the capital means that you will have a job and live in a poor neighborhood.
>You are intentionally leaving beside the point I raised, namely that capital city dwelling gay tend to be managerial stratum: >>401831I have been searching through the data, and firstly, I would like to add that the studies were made with the presumption that were talking about couples. Of course gay (note, between a man and a man) makes more money than a heterosexual couple, as men get more money than women cause of dysparital salary or directly not working. To put an example, pic related: a gay man (all of this inside of a couple btw), on average, gets 11,70£ (per hour I suppose), a straight man, 10,70£, a lesbian woman, 10,10£, and a straight woman 7,60£ (btw the study was on britain). So this said, 11,70/10,70=1.09, (1.09-1)x100=9%. Gay men recieve 9% more than straight men. Of course, you might ass that heterosexual women get 7,60 cause they might be having a partial time job cause children and so on
But eitherway, i want to ask a question? Why is it that gays have double the degrees of heterosexual men? Well, as said on the study, gay men tend to have about the double university degrees (in fact, more than double, 36%) than straight men (16%), and of course these gives them the opportunity to access higher paying jobs.
The question here would be, how come that gay people get double the diplomas than straight people? You can't say that it is because their families have more money, cause this is a study from the UK. To put into comparison, an university dregree in the US costs about 5000 dollars at the very least amount of money (and it only goes up from there, 4x5000=20000 $), in the UK, it's 9200£ for the full package, and if you're scottish and want to study in Scotland it is about 500£ or so. And also, of note. I will add that before 1998, there was no fee to get into a british university, just your grades (pls some brit correct me if I'm wrong). Which also gets to another point, the studies which the article cites are were derive from the year 2005 which, considering that the fee came 7 years before, at that point the first ones to pay the tuition would have had to spend 4 years studying and from there try to get a high-paying job, as you may expect, these were talking about the classes of 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and that's about it when talking about the classes that would have had to pay for fees, everyone else having gone free, thus, less argument about gays coming from rich families, thus, these people studied university could come from any family. Of course, it might be that a family NEEDS a guy to work just as he completes highschool, but those instances are rare on the first world.
Thus, gays don't come from wealthier families, but they do study more and get more degrees than heterosexual men, why is it?
Btw, it also says on the article:
<A person who, due to choice or circumstances, has no offspring, depends for their day to day existence on the offspring of others. It may appear that by saving for their old age they have provided for themselves. But this is a monetary illusion. You do not save for your old age by putting cans of beans and sacks of flour in a cellar to sustain you; instead you rely on freshly produced food, clothes etc, produced by the labour of the generation that follows you.<The unpaid labour of raising children, labour predominantly done by mothers, is socially essential and all the current generation, whether they have children themselves or not, benefit indirectly from it. Gay activists are wont to identify their campaigns with campaigns against women’s oppression, but the economic analysis so far shows that this concept is fallacious. Not only are gay couples financially better off, they also, in the main, often opt out of the socially necessary unpaid labour that is at the root of the disadvantaged position of women/wives (by… not being able no have children).Don't know what to say about this one chief.
>As a communist I oppose "rights" as such. Maybe re-read Marx's critique of Gotha.Oh ffs go suck a cock, it's a manner of spech, sorry for not making self critique about my way of speaking to always be 100% correct with marxist literature. I shall now go out to the woods with all of my marxism books as a communist monk in order to purify the capitalist-liberal tendencies and way of speech that everyone has because of living in a society. I'm truly sorry.