>>249>Dude, people got hitched at near 100% levels back in the Victorian era.
What makes you think that ?
In the victorian era most people couldn't even afford to rent more than a single room. How could they possibly afford raising a family. Also many people died very young, before they raised a family. You may have a very distorted view of how capitalism was before social democracy. It was truly awful. Neo-liberalism is a path back to that very shitty past.
>Since feminism posits that men are inherently oppressive of women
That's just sexism. Rich Bourgeois women hating on poor working class men. It's just class hatred behind a veil. People like that are really shit, you can go after them specifically, without making it into a conflict between all men and all women. Capitalism ruins everything by changing things into bourgeois versions, that reflect bourgeois class interests. If you look at early socialist feminism, they were just trying to establish man and women as equals, there was no beating each other down. A socialist lady from the early 20th centry called Rosa Luxemburg wrote a long rant about bourgeois feminism, maybe read that.
I'm not going to comment on things i consider sexual preference, that's just a recipe for creating unnecessary conflict.
I will say that strange stuff is going on, like some people appear to be implying that sexual dimorphism is bad for some reason. Maybe we should push back on that a little, because that seems reactionary.
You also have to beware of those that turn filth into theory.
Politics is exclusively about economics, if anybody tries to make politics about sex, they are most likely class traitors that are trying to distract you with sex from their reactionary politics. I think that somebody is trying to trick you to hand over your surplus to capitalists. They are just pretending you'll get a nicer girlfriend that way, but they won't deliver, Capitalism wants to make people atomized so they can turn social relations into commodities, they want to be middlemen for intimacy.