chapotraphouse

To reduce decades of theory and praxis into a quip, socialism requires all people to receive the fruits of their labor. Just as the bourgeoisie extract surplus labor from the proletariat, a husband extracts surplus labor from his wife^[this is the concept Marx was talking about when he wrote about the 'abolition of the family' in the Manifesto]. Socialism requires women's liberation, which necessarily means men lose surplus labor from women. Therefore, men as a class will act in their class interest to stifle socialism as it requires women's liberation.

Additionally, the law of supply and demand applies to labor sellers. This means that as the supply of those willing to sell their labor increases, the exchange value of their labor falls. Therefore, proletarian men as a class are inclined to prevent women from selling their labor. This effect also applies to immigration^[Engles wrote about this quite a bit in Conditions of the Working Class. It is racist screed and you probably shouldn't read it.]. Of course, this is not to say that women or immigrants' interests are in conflict with other proletariats, but rather that the bourgeoisie have pitted them against each other.

This is, of course, a massive undersimplificaton that ignores tones of causes and points of view. I'm sure other comrades will be more than happy to talk about other aspects of women's liberation.

A lot of "machismo" is simply rooted in claiming one part of an alleged binary and defining it as "masculine" - they do this with everything, including political parties.

If suddenly women were rabidly enthusiastic about conservative politics we'd have mobs of young, divorced men (led by Stephan Molyneux) in the streets foisting a nordic demsoc reign of terror, replete with a "green new deal" and UBI, upon us all.