Another very good piece that shows the problems and limitations of the approach to these questions be taken today. But, I wonder if some of the old conceptions have since been surpassed? Women as the slaves and sex objects of their men? Marriage as a prison where men dominate women? Of course, some of this still exists, but capitalist development during and since the post-war reconstruction period (along with the attendant social movements) would seem to have made that situation not nearly as universal today. In the developed world today divorce rates have skyrocketed, soemthing which can have multiple meanings, but at the very least women are no longer quite the prisoners of men that they once used to be. Moreover, in more recent years, we are seeing the emergence of new kinds of social phenomena in the period of neo-liberalism, like the socially useless male--unemployed and virtually unemployable, households where the woman is the primary bread winner and thus yields some power over the men in the family (in part becasue under neo-liberalism traditionally feminized jobs are among the few that show tendencies towards growth: so-called "pink collar" work, health care, nursing, care work of various kinds, etc.). In any event, the situation is not as clear cut as in the days of Engels' Origins or Bebel's The Woman Question.
In addition, whatever the misdeeds of a Trump or Weinstein, it is clear that bourgeois society has developed an interest for whatever reason in the social problems of domestic violence, sexual violence, etc. In fact, as part of the "cutlure wars" these issues have been elevated to the top of public consciousness with the "Me Too Movement," etc. so much so that there is now a developing backlash against the pendulumn having been swung too far, i.e. the idea that all women should be believed when they accuse a man of misconduct and to question a woman's claims amounts to victimizing her all over again.
Both sides of this near relgious quarrell were on display in the US with the rancor over the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination. In the early going, the anti-Kavanaugh forces in the Democratic Party appeared to be on the offensive, thinking that the Me Too momentum would carry Kavanaugh and thus Trump to defeat, but once more and more outlandish sounding accusations were made against him, the tide appeared to turn and Trump capitalized on this with a political master stroke: reminding women that that could be their husbands, brothers, sons in the dock facing potentially life ruining false accusations with Democrats appearing to want to scrap hundreds of years of Western jurisprudence demanding that men now must prove themselves innocent--a virtual impossiblity in a "he said, she said" situation.
This opens up other questions for us that the article does not touch upon. As communists whose goal is human emancipation we abhor interpersonal violence and abuse of any kind, but where do we stand on standards of guilt and innocence, etc? It would seem to me that things like "innocent until proven guilty," "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," etc. --all of the legal protections for individuals flowing through English Common Law into the founding constitutional documents of the United States--while creations of the bourgeoisie and often only ever honored by it in the breach--are nevertheless important advancements in human freedom. Today, those principles do seem to be under threat, as much by a kind of "ends justify the means" mentality of the left as by an authoritarian right. The emerging mentality seems to be on the order of: 'If some innocent men suffer, that's acceptable, because we have to right the greater wrong of women's oppression as a gender."
Women's abstract oppression as a group takes precedence over the individual rights and protections of concrete men facing the repressive power of the state (which the left now appears to want to yield to punish its adversaries.) All of this is of course ironic as one of the founding issues of modern liberalism (at least in the US) was the fight against harsh punishments for black men often falsely accused of sexual assault on white women (the death penalty for rape was still given even into the 1960s). In this sense, the suspiscions of the political right that the New Left today (or is it the New, New Left?) itself represents a dark authoritarian instinct inherited from Stalinism are not entirely unfounded.
So maybe then, our guide should be more the early Marx (On the Jewish Question) who probed these issues of political rights vs. human emancipation, as we sort through the right Marxist orientation to the thorny issues being raised today around gender, sexuality, race, etc. (so-called "identity politics") and how they relate not only to the working class' struggle against captialism, but the broader human patrimony of which it seems to me the rights and protections of the age of democratic revolutions are a part, but which today are often maligned not as protections of human freedom, but as shields for the privielged to escape responsibility for their personal misdeeds. Of course, what makes a concrete person "privliged" seems to be open for debate and constantly whillted down in the modern day oppression olympics.