A Discussion With a Marxist Feminist: Is Her Vagina a Shared Possession or is it a Private Possession?

Written by John (the other John).

I was recently talking to my Marxist Feminist colleague who again raised the boring themes of the benefits of Socialism and of feminism (i.e., hating men [as opposed to mere equality]). So as she was talking, it suddenly dawned on me as to the inconsistency of these two concepts:

• Marxism (i.e., shared possessions [banning private property]; versus
• Feminism (i.e., private possessions [“my body my choice”; “mine, mine, mine”].

So just like the bullet-points show, Marxism says all property should be shared (i.e., there is no “my” or “mine”; just “ours”), whilst feminism is “my this”, “my that”; “get your dirty hands off of my…..[fill in the blank]…”. So I asked her about this apparent inconsistency. 

My first question was about private property/possessions and the protection of private property. She said that there should be no private property (only shared property), and thus no person should be able to defend property/possessions with force (even in the example of a person breaking into your home; just give the burglar whatever he/she wants). I also asked her if there were any conditions on sharing property, and she said that the public use of property must be unconditional, irrespective of looks, age, wealth, education, etc… So once she committed herself to the two positions that 1) all possessions should be unconditionally shared, and that 2) no possessions should be defended because it should be shared by all, then I moved in with my next questions that are admittedly vile. 

My next question was that being that all assets/possessions should be unconditionally shared by any person who wants make use of it, would she allow any person to make use of her most personal of all assets; her private parts (or better stated, her “public parts”). She gave me a horrified look, and said “hell no”, my body, my choice; only I decide who gets access to my ….” . (Hmmm; is this a violation of Marxist theory of unconditionally sharing everything?).

So I moved on to my next question, in which I created a fictional scene to her that some disgusting guy who looks like he is disease-infested attacks her, hits her, he rips off her clothing, and he is fully stiff ready to penetrate her to rape her. And in this hypothetical, she is holding a Colt 45 pistol that is fully loaded, and she has about one second to decide to: 1) do nothing, and possibly get impregnated, an STD, and a lifetime of psychological harm (all in the name of not defending with deadly force one’s own personal possessions), or 2) shoot him prior to penetration. She first tells me the hypothetical is disgusting (for which I agree, but she has in the past asked me to imagine disgusting hypotheticals as well). She resisted answering, but she finally said that yes, she would have shot him because this attack would violate her right to bodily autonomy. So basically, she would use deadly force to protect what is rightfully her own private asset.

So her own statements somewhat backed herself into a corner; she says that she is for the

unconditional shared use of property (anti-private property) in which force should never be used to defend it (Marxism), but when it comes to something that she actually has (her body, her private areas), then that is worth defending with deadly force (feminism). How can that be I asked her; either she supports the unconditional public use of assets (including hers), or she is against it. She stumbled in responding. So I told her that she is either 1) inconsistent in her positions, or she is 2) a fraud who wants to share property that is not hers, yet for property that is hers (her body) she is stingy with that and refuses to share it with whomever.

Her response was that her body is personal to her (which is worth defending), and not to be compared to a person’s house or other assets (hence, not worth defending). So I replied and asked her who died and made her God so to decide what is important to other people. Her privates may be important to her and thus worth defending, but to other people their house/assets are important to them and thus worth defending; they don’t tell her what should be important to her, and similarly she should not tell others as to what should be important to them. 

At this point, she was fuming; pretty much ready to violently hit me. Her response was very typical when she said “thanks for mansplaining to me what to think”; so I said “to the contrary, it is you telling others how to think by you telling them what should be important to them”. At that point, she told me to f’ off.