jake williams
14th March 2009, 20:33
I don't really know where this belongs, but the Dis crowd seems more into the whole intersection-y business, so I'll put it here.
I was having a couple thoughts about the whole concept of "ally" that comes up especially when talking about sexism and patriarchy, and sort of the division of labour involved with men and women having different roles in feminism, and it all sort of irks me, so it comes up a lot in my musings.
Most recently a comment set me off about how fighting violence against women is a job for men, and that it's not just up to women to prevent such violence. Of course there's some truth to it - but there's also sort of a paternalistic logic, that women can't do anything without men. I was also thinking that if you extend that logic, you can't have class struggle without helpful rich people, that in fact it's the responsibility of the ruling class to fight against the exploitation of workers.
There is the significant difference, however, that on the grand scale women can't live without men, sexual separation just doesn't really work if only because of reproduction (and certainly something we even have to consider even at the broadest level, most women are heterosexual). Conversely, working people would get along just fine without capitalists.
But I got wondering how significant another difference is. Sex is basically involuntary, and race even more so. But even minimally informed members of the ruling class are at least on some level choosing to by their action and inaction to exploit workers. The power that capitalism affords the wealthy includes the power to liquidate that very position, and even give themselves a soft landing. This is a technical fact - you have the legal and material ability to stop being a capitalist. You might be looked on poorly for doing so, or you might not. But it's really much more difficult for men to give up their status as men, even if they can to some extent limit the privilege they derive from that position.
How significant is this distinction? Is there anyone who's looked at this in any deal? It seems like an obvious thing, so I'm sure I'm not the only one who's ever thought of it, but I'm wondering if there's anyone specific I should be looking at?
I was having a couple thoughts about the whole concept of "ally" that comes up especially when talking about sexism and patriarchy, and sort of the division of labour involved with men and women having different roles in feminism, and it all sort of irks me, so it comes up a lot in my musings.
Most recently a comment set me off about how fighting violence against women is a job for men, and that it's not just up to women to prevent such violence. Of course there's some truth to it - but there's also sort of a paternalistic logic, that women can't do anything without men. I was also thinking that if you extend that logic, you can't have class struggle without helpful rich people, that in fact it's the responsibility of the ruling class to fight against the exploitation of workers.
There is the significant difference, however, that on the grand scale women can't live without men, sexual separation just doesn't really work if only because of reproduction (and certainly something we even have to consider even at the broadest level, most women are heterosexual). Conversely, working people would get along just fine without capitalists.
But I got wondering how significant another difference is. Sex is basically involuntary, and race even more so. But even minimally informed members of the ruling class are at least on some level choosing to by their action and inaction to exploit workers. The power that capitalism affords the wealthy includes the power to liquidate that very position, and even give themselves a soft landing. This is a technical fact - you have the legal and material ability to stop being a capitalist. You might be looked on poorly for doing so, or you might not. But it's really much more difficult for men to give up their status as men, even if they can to some extent limit the privilege they derive from that position.
How significant is this distinction? Is there anyone who's looked at this in any deal? It seems like an obvious thing, so I'm sure I'm not the only one who's ever thought of it, but I'm wondering if there's anyone specific I should be looking at?