Do working class men benefit from patriarchy in any way?

[Lobotomy]

If so, how?

inspired by a few posts that were made in this forum a few days ago (can't remember what thread though).

[gorillafuck]

most men don't benefit from it.

[Raúl Duke]

Arguably, men of all classes did benefit from patriarchy.

I feel to better frame this question would be to ask in what specific unique way did working-class men benefit or were effected from this arrangement that differed from men of other classes or did not benefit/effect much men of other classes.

I myself wouldn't know much about it (thus why I'm also interested in hearing what other more informed comrades may say) and I might be wrong...but I can guess one thing is that patriarchal gender role of women as housewife/homemaker which barred women from entering the work-force would benefit them in the sense that they wouldn't be competing with women in the labor market under a capitalist society. Already I read articles about how women entering the workforce and in certain work/income/classes tend to be more employed than men has caused tensions among patriarchal-minded males towards women.

[The Douche]

Yes, male privilege exists. Is this question for real, am I missing something?

[gorillafuck]

what are the specific benefits?

[9]

No, I dont think working class men benefit from the oppression of women, it affects them negatively, hence why it is in their interests to fight against it. I think the whole idea of 'male privilege' is liberal nonsense.

[The Douche]

In 2007, women’s earnings were lower than men's earnings in all states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) and the District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia) according to the Income, Earnings, and Poverty Data From the 2007 American Community Survey by the Census Bureau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau). The national female-to-male earnings ratio was 77.5 %


According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, which includes crimes that were not reported to the police, 232,960 women in the U.S. were raped or sexually assaulted in 2006.


According to United States Department of Justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice) document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 191,670 victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#cite_note-19) 1 of 6 U.S. women and 1 of 33 U.S. men have experienced an attempted or completed rape.

...

[9]

Um, no one is disputing that the oppression of women exists. The question is whether working class men benefit from it.

[gorillafuck]

so men benefit from patriarchy kind of in the same way that people who don't live in a cage benefit from not living in a cage?

[NewLeft]

That is an example of male privilege..

If that's the case then is there female privilege? Sure, workplace incidents.

[9]

That is an example of male privilege..

Is there female privilege? Sure, workplace incidents.

What

[Raúl Duke]

Personally, I'm dis-inclined to think that working-class men are "negatively effected" by sexism and/or don't benefit from them. But I want to see examples, evidence, etc arguing both sides and no one has yet put out specific ones (although I see cmoney has put out stats on sexist actions, but the ones about sexual assualt are not specific to working class men and the one about being less paid has more to do with employer's perspective of women rather than working class men's perspective/reaction/etc to working-class women).

[NewLeft]

What
Women are less likely to die from a workplace related injury.

[9]

Women are less likely to die from a workplace related injury.
Yes, what a tremendous privilege. :rolleyes:

Ugh, revleft. Why even bother, tbh.

[gorillafuck]

Women are less likely to die from a workplace related injury.I thought you were talking about sexual harassment and was like what the fuck is he talking about

and once again, the "privledge" provided is the same as calling someone who doesn't live in a cage privledged for not living in a cage.

[Bronco]

...

I don't really see how working class men benefit from women being raped

[NewLeft]

I thought you were talking about sexual harassment and was like what the fuck is he talking about

and once again, the "privledge" provided is the same as calling someone who doesn't live in a cage privledged for not living in a cage.
I am saying that if that is male privilege then the example I used is female privilege.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

As a transwoman, I've lived in this society both as someone perceived as a man and as a woman, and my experience is that male privilege is very real.

[gorillafuck]

I am saying that if that is male privilege then the example I used is female privilege.well rape happens a lot more than serious workplace injury so you didn't do a very good job demonstrating that tbh.

women do get it in the shits more than men. it's just ridiculous to call that privledge.

[9]

Anyway, the fact that working class women are overwhelmingly employed in the lowest paid, most precarious jobs, are denied easy access to abortion, are forced to raise children on their own, at their own expense, does not benefit working class men at all, it makes life more difficult for them.

[NewLeft]

Anyway, the fact that working class women are overwhelmingly employed in the lowest paid, most precarious jobs, are denied easy access to abortion, are forced to raise children on their own, at their own expense, does not benefit working class men at all, it makes life more difficult for them.
How is that different from the situation of working class men?

[gorillafuck]

How is that different from the situation of working class men?when was the last time you needed an abortion performed on you?

[9]

How is that different from the situation of working class men?
So far your comments in this thread dont make a whole lot of sense to be honest. It is a lot different from the situation of working class men, but like I already said, it doesnt benefit them, it makes their lives more difficult. So what exactly is your point?

[NewLeft]

when was the last time you needed an abortion performed on you?
I guess you could say that men are impacted by abortions aswell.

I give up this devil's advocate thing..

[gorillafuck]

I guess you could say that men are impacted by abortions aswell.yeah but fetuses grow inside of women therefore abortion is a womens bodily autonomy issue.


I give up this devil's advocate thing..you have much to learn son

[NewLeft]

So far your comments in this thread dont make a whole lot of sense to be honest. It is a lot different from the situation of working class men, but like I already said, it doesnt benefit them, it makes their lives more difficult. So what exactly is your point?
It was the wrong question to ask.

We could go on about the working class man's situation.. working class men are far more likely to be in prisons, victims of physical assault, robbed..

Yes, they're different situations. The question in this thread is do working class men benefit from patriarchy? But how can we tell if it's patriarchy or just a result of different gender behaviours/qualities and in the case of jobs, how they play out on the market..etc?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Firstly, unless you live in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and some other countries which have legal and cultural conventions that prohibit women from pursuing a normal life, then you don’t live in a patriarchy. Not allowing women to drive, or be in public alone, is a form of clear oppression because it is based almost entirely on gender.

Within democracies and communist countries, law does not permit legal inequality. However, practice obviously varies within different countries.

Calling the US or Europe a patriarchy is similar to calling US or Europe slave societies because they still have racists in positions of power. Only mental people would really think the US is a patriarchy.

Saying women are oppressed because they have often have low paid jobs is ridiculous and anti scientific. Men also have low paid jobs, because it’s a class issue. Women face difficulties in obtaining abortions only when they are not wealthy. You really think wealthy women can’t have abortions at will?

It’s simply a fact that women suffer varying degrees of oppression based on their class, location, the time at which they lived, their ethnicity etc.

It’s bourgeois ideology to see women’s oppression resulting from their sex.
In the US and Europe and many other countries, perhaps the majority, it should be framed as discrimination against women, which does exist and is widespread.

And no, the vast majority of working class men, the world over are not thugs and rapists and killers of women with pointed horns coming out their head.

They can’t benefit from discrimination of women because people don’t live their lives separately from one another. People live in communities, where large groups of women receiving low wages in turn places further demand on the men in those communities to work longer and harder, as just one example.

All these things are connected and can’t really be separated.

Basically though, all Marxists argue for the separation or scepticism of bourgeois ideas, including when we have common interest. What this means is that, while it’s useful to read things by Gloria Steinem, don’t accept it just because she is on the left.

[Ele'ill]

Firstly, unless you live in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and some other countries which have legal and cultural conventions that prohibit women from pursuing a normal life, then you don’t live in a patriarchy. Not allowing women to drive, or be in public alone, is a form of clear oppression because it is based almost entirely on gender.

Within democracies and communist countries, law does not permit legal inequality. However, practice obviously varies within different countries.

Calling the US or Europe a patriarchy is similar to calling US or Europe slave societies because they still have racists in positions of power. Only mental people would really think the US is a patriarchy.

Saying women are oppressed because they have often have low paid jobs is ridiculous and anti scientific. Men also have low paid jobs, because it’s a class issue. Women face difficulties in obtaining abortions only when they are not wealthy. You really think wealthy women can’t have abortions at will?

It’s simply a fact that women suffer varying degrees of oppression based on their class, location, the time at which they lived, their ethnicity etc.

It’s bourgeois ideology to see women’s oppression resulting from their sex.
In the US and Europe and many other countries, perhaps the majority, it should be framed as discrimination against women, which does exist and is widespread.

And no, the vast majority of working class men, the world over are not thugs and rapists and killers of women with pointed horns coming out their head.

They can’t benefit from discrimination of women because people don’t live their lives separately from one another. People live in communities, where large groups of women receiving low wages in turn places further demand on the men in those communities to work longer and harder, as just one example.

All these things are connected and can’t really be separated.

Basically though, all Marxists argue for the separation or scepticism of bourgeois ideas, including when we have common interest. What this means is that, while it’s useful to read things by Gloria Steinem, don’t accept it just because she is on the left.

I should move this post to OI.

[Martin Blank]

most men don't benefit from it.


No, I dont think working class men benefit from the oppression of women, it affects them negatively, hence why it is in their interests to fight against it. I think the whole idea of 'male privilege' is liberal nonsense.


The question in this thread is do working class men benefit from patriarchy? But how can we tell if it's patriarchy or just a result of different gender behaviours/qualities and in the case of jobs, how they play out on the market..etc?


Firstly, unless you live in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and some other countries which have legal and cultural conventions that prohibit women from pursuing a normal life, then you don’t live in a patriarchy. Not allowing women to drive, or be in public alone, is a form of clear oppression because it is based almost entirely on gender.

Within democracies and communist countries, law does not permit legal inequality. However, practice obviously varies within different countries.

Calling the US or Europe a patriarchy is similar to calling US or Europe slave societies because they still have racists in positions of power. Only mental people would really think the US is a patriarchy.

What the fuck is wrong with you people?! I mean, seriously, what. the fuck. is wrong with you?!

I can give you a direct example, from my own experiences, of how working-class men benefit from patriarchy.

My last job before I retired (in 2008) was at a railroad terminal. At our particular terminal, there were four jobs you could have: gate inspector, clerk, mechanic and crane operator. Women could only get hired in as clerks and daytime gate inspectors. There were the lowest paid workers at the terminal. Women were never hired to be mechanics or crane operators, simply because they were women and for no other reason. (It was something everyone who worked there knew, including the women.) The union caucus I started included as one plank of its platform equal hiring practices -- i.e., allowing women to be hired in these men-only areas. The bosses said the jobs were "dangerous" and "hard", and that was why they discriminated. They were also the best paying jobs at the terminal; a clerk or gate inspector would make $12 an hour, a crane operator would make $18 and a mechanic would make $26 (these were starting wages at the time I left). At all of the terminals I worked at during my years with the company, I never saw a woman crane operator or mechanic.

And, no, this is not an exception. I've seen this situation so many times over the years that I've lost count.

Perhaps working in an industrial job is something out of all of your experiences; I don't want to make assumptions about people I don't know. But to say that working-class men don't benefit from patriarchy/sexism is just plain false and betrays the extent to which patriarchy/sexism has affected the culture which you have absorbed and are regurgitating here.

[NewLeft]

What the fuck is wrong with you people?! I mean, seriously, what. the fuck. is wrong with you?!

I can give you a direct example, from my own experiences, of how working-class men benefit from patriarchy.

My last job before I retired (in 2008) was at a railroad terminal. At our particular terminal, there were four jobs you could have: gate inspector, clerk, mechanic and crane operator. Women could only get hired in as clerks and daytime gate inspectors. There were the lowest paid workers at the terminal. Women were never hired to be mechanics or crane operators, simply because they were women and for no other reason. (It was something everyone who worked there knew, including the women.) The union caucus I started included as one plank of its platform equal hiring practices -- i.e., allowing women to be hired in these men-only areas. The bosses said the jobs were "dangerous" and "hard", and that was why they discriminated. They were also the best paying jobs at the terminal; a clerk or gate inspector would make $12 an hour, a crane operator would make $18 and a mechanic would make $26 (these were starting wages at the time I left). At all of the terminals I worked at during my years with the company, I never saw a woman crane operator or mechanic.

And, no, this is not an exception. I've seen this situation so many times over the years that I've lost count.

Perhaps working in an industrial job is something out of all of your experiences; I don't want to make assumptions about people I don't know. But to say that working-class men don't benefit from patriarchy/sexism is just plain false and betrays the extent to which patriarchy/sexism has affected the culture which you have absorbed and are regurgitating here.

I am not denying male privilege, I am asking how is this patriarchy rather than a result of how both genders have different advantages when renting their labour. I am not trying to justify this practice.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

They are discriminating based on sex, that's illegal in the US.

If they complied with the law, they would hire women.

What you have done is assume because some companies are sexist there must also be the same systematic process at work which negatively affects all women across society.

Sorry, but in advanced democratic countries there just is not enough evidence to say that.

Where working class men may benefit from discrimination against women is probably mostly limited to what kinds of jobs women, especially those with children, will opt to take.

This is a fact very well know to feminist economists. Which is why we should all support free child care etc.

You are simply not thinking very clearly if you think American women are oppressed by a patriarchy.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I should move this post to OI.


why don't you respond properly instead of making pointless replies.

[NewLeft]

They are discriminating based on sex, that's illegal in the US.

If they complied with the law, they would hire women.
I mean, do companies really care about the law? I wasn't paid minimum wage at my last job.. If I were to go through the entire process of filing a complaint, I would have lost a good month's worth of savings. The point here is that it goes unreported.


What you have done is assume because some companies are sexist there must also be the same systematic process at work which negatively affects all women across society.
It is systemic, look at the statistics on women and types of employment... etc. The same could be said about men too. Here you're talking about sexism and not patriarchy.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What the fuck is wrong with you people?! I mean, seriously, what. the fuck. is wrong with you?!
This. We shouldn't need to explain any of this on a revolutionary leftist board.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I mean, do companies really care about the law? I wasn't paid minimum wage at my last job.. If I were to go through the entire process of filing a complaint, I would have lost a good month's worth of savings. The point here is that it goes unreported.

You know, they probably opt for a cost benefit arrangement, but usually they will follow laws because it is more efficient for an entire economy to either follow them, or break them.



It is systemic, look at the statistics on women and types of employment... etc. The same could be said about men too.

Right, but people don't make choices about what kinds of jobs they want to do at a whim. If sexism is more costly and trouble than it's worth, why bother with it? It's accepted that women are as productive as men, so where does this systematic impulse come from in 2012?

I think it's true to say that, most people work in the areas of economy that, if not desirable, then most convenient to them at the time. I for example, would not want to work in a coal mine, if i had the opportunity to work in a 7/11. And I would not want to work in a 7/11 if I could work for a bank.

I'm pretty sure this is universal in advanced capitalist countries.

What it means is, given men and women tend to have a similar 'lived experience' to one another, but different in important ways, their choices in employment reflect that. Which is why some areas of the economy have a gender imbalance.

It's just more complex than simply excluding women. I think, at least.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

This. We shouldn't need to explain any of this on a revolutionary leftist board.

Why, when almost no Marxist feminist accepts the idea of a universal patriarchy, should we have a member start a thread on RevLeft called "Do working class men benefit from patriarchy in any way?"

No one is saying sexism is not a part of capitalism, or that women are not oppressed. Just trying to point out Marxist's don't accept patriarchy as an explanation.

[Lobotomy]

My last job before I retired (in 2008) was at a railroad terminal. At our particular terminal, there were four jobs you could have: gate inspector, clerk, mechanic and crane operator. Women could only get hired in as clerks and daytime gate inspectors. There were the lowest paid workers at the terminal. Women were never hired to be mechanics or crane operators, simply because they were women and for no other reason. (It was something everyone who worked there knew, including the women.) The union caucus I started included as one plank of its platform equal hiring practices -- i.e., allowing women to be hired in these men-only areas. The bosses said the jobs were "dangerous" and "hard", and that was why they discriminated. They were also the best paying jobs at the terminal; a clerk or gate inspector would make $12 an hour, a crane operator would make $18 and a mechanic would make $26 (these were starting wages at the time I left). At all of the terminals I worked at during my years with the company, I never saw a woman crane operator or mechanic.

So this is similar to what Raul Duke said about not having to compete with women for jobs, which I think is the best example so far of how working class men can benefit from patriarchy.


This. We shouldn't need to explain any of this on a revolutionary leftist board.

yeah god forbid people try to learn something around here, what the fuck was I thinking. :rolleyes:

[9]

I still dont accept the concept of male privilege, or that working class men as a whole benefit from the oppression of women. Yes, there are most definitely plenty of instances where men have advantages over women (Miles example of higher paying, industrial jobs being one of them}, but I think the fact that the ruling class uses shit like this to divide workers along gendered lines, and to make it more difficult for workers to come together as a class and struggle in their collective interests, is ultimately to the detriment of all workers, male and female.

[black magick hustla]

priviliege politics belong to the dustbin as every abortion of radical academia from the 90s.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Why, when almost no Marxist feminist accepts the idea of a universal patriarchy, should we have a member start a thread on RevLeft called "Do working class men benefit from patriarchy in any way?"

No one is saying sexism is not a part of capitalism, or that women are not oppressed. Just trying to point out Marxist's don't accept patriarchy as an explanation.
I guess it depends on what is meant by "patriarchy." When Engels wrote that "the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male," to me he was talking about what some label "patriarchy."

I think most Marxist feminists have been as naive as bourgeois feminists. One posits that women's liberation can be won without class liberation, the other posits that class liberation is all that is necessary for women's liberation.

"Patriarchy" or whatever you choose to call it has thousands of years of history behind it. It may assume specific forms under capitalism, but I don't think it will magically "wither away" post-revolution unless it's directly addressed as part of the revolutionary class struggle.

[NewLeft]

priviliege politics belong to the dustbin as every abortion of radical academia from the 90s.
What is the problem with privilege concepts?

[Per Levy]

@miles: so tell me how do i benefit from lower wages for women, or that women cant get certain jobs? my fiance is unemployed and we need money, i dont benefit from her getting paid less then i would, i dont benefit from her not getting certain jobs. nowadays working class couples need any income they can get to have at least somewhat of a decent living. lower wages for women dont benefit male workers it benefits the bourgeosie.

@cmoney: so tell me how do i "benefit" from that my fiance was raped in the past? how is that a "benefit"? tell me please.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Privilege proponents often argue this question like if you don't agree in privilege theory then you are blind to social oppressions in our society or in denial of them or whatnot. This isn't the case for Marxist and anarchist critics of the theory at all who have, more consistently than any other ideologies and movements (though not perfect by a long-shot), put the fight against oppression at the heart of the struggle.

The way I think of it is like this. If you look at the slave system in the south, there are obvious differences between the treatment of house slaves and field slaves. Does this mean that house slaves were privileged? Is there house slave privilege theory? No. While the field slaves had more restrictions and worse treatment, and house slaves were known to defend their masters even sometimes in rebellions, on the objective level house slaves did not have an interest and did not benefit from the slave system.


Arguably, men of all classes did benefit from patriarchy.

I feel to better frame this question would be to ask in what specific unique way did working-class men benefit or were effected from this arrangement that differed from men of other classes or did not benefit/effect much men of other classes.

In my view, the working class as a whole is harmed by sexual oppression and sexism. Working class men as individuals may feel some individual benefit from this order of things, but in the bigger picture of class, they are shooting themselves in the foot.

It's mixed consciousness at best for individual working class men who think that sexism is in their benefit. It's like workers who support tax lowering policies and whatnot, yeah maybe individually they feel like they gain from getting an extra $100 off their federal taxes, but on the class level they are hurting themselves by supporting policies that help corporations have more power and not have to pay as much for social expenses (that they need in order to make profits!).

Sexism doesn't benefit or "privilege" male workers, it assigns them a specific role in a system that keeps them oppressed. This role, yes, is above women and children in the family; recreating a kind of management division of labor within families. This began during industrialization and after worker's movements as well as just the unsustainable work-pace of the more mature industrial revolution forced capitalist societies to try and figure out how to organize working class life under the new conditions of industrial cities. There were tons of street-kids, modern work broke-up the traditional family units and all the other social problems with think of in a Dickens novel. One solution was the bourgeois family unit: male wages were raised and women were disfavored in the workforce while culture created the more modern notions of the roles of men and women: breadwinner and care-taker. It was for many workers a step up and created more stable working class lives for many - one wage could now support a family, the capitalists got privatized and socially-free child-care, cleaning, and healthcare for the working class.


What is the problem with privilege concepts?

As I understand it, privilege theory would argue that the ruling class privileged what men desired in a family structure as "the norm" in society. So the ruling class bought-off men by giving them control of the family. I think this makes sense from an impressionistic view, but is unconvincing in a class view. It assumes that men wanted the nuclear family structure when this was an invention; it assumes that the traits assigned as "masculine" were favored by the ruling class rather than the concept of how men should behave in capitalist society was constructed to make a system stable for profit-making.

The problem with privilege theory to me is that it doesn't understand the connection between class and oppression in society. On one level it agrees with the sexists that men do have things better BECAUSE of sexism and so it's up to men to "check their privilege". This may be useful for interpersonal interactions between people, recognizing the oppression of women or others in society is a pre-condition to building any kind of united fight, but it is useless for understanding how oppression works in society, what keeps it in place, and how to get rid of it. Basically the answer it gives for racism or sexism is for white people or males to acknowledge their "privilege".

Lastly I think it views people as passive. White workers weren't "given" labor unions and more labor rights in order for the ruling class to screw over black workers. Rather, white (often more than just white) workers fought for better conditions and the bosses used pre-existing social divisions or stoked thoes divisions in order to not just oppress blacks or women or X immigrant group, but to weaken the whole workforce and grant only a partial victory which could later be used as a weak link in the chain to push back against the hard-fought reforms.

The same thing happens when oppressed groups fight: There might be a fight around some issue of gay rights and if the movement is gaining ground, the ruling class will try and work something out where they grant the reform but specifically exclude the trans community from these rights. This pits people with the same interests against each-other.

Privilege theory doesn't explain this, rather it then just creates a new "privilege" category. Are homosexuals privileged if gay marriage passes but there are clauses to exclude other sexual minorities? Or is it an attempt by the ruling class to prevent solidarity and a full victory against oppression.


As a transwoman, I've lived in this society both as someone perceived as a man and as a woman, and my experience is that male privilege is very real.

Again, no one is saying that men and women are not treated differently by society. The question is does the extra oppression of women actually benefit male workers. Again, while on an individual level, maybe many men can be won over by the idea that they don't have to do the dishes - who wants to do the dishes after-all?! But in the bigger picture the continued existence of privatized nuclear families means that housework, (in the US) healthcare, school supplies, raising and care of children, and so on all fall to the family to provide out of their wages and time.

Lessening the oppression of women would have an immediate and quantifiable benifit to all working people. First, income equality would immediately raise working class incomes since women are such a huge part of the workforce now and in 2 parent houses, it's so common for both parents to be working. Second, women can't have more equality without more freedom from child-raising. This would mean things like daycare at work, more funding for schools and maybe after-school care so that working parents can drop-off and pick-up kids around their work schedule so they aren't having to make their own arrangements or hire people to do this. Many of these things have and can be won under capitalism, but it would only be a stepping stone and in order for real equality to be more sustainable, society would have to be re-organized and the nuclear family as a buttress for the capitalist system smashed (not that people couldn't live with each-other as two parents and kids, just that they wouldn't be forced to in order to function in society).

[Thirsty Crow]

If so, how?

inspired by a few posts that were made in this forum a few days ago (can't remember what thread though).
One way working class men are in a dominant position, with regard to the power relations between the sexes, concerns the organization and distribution of domestic labour.

Especially with the decline of single paycheck families, women have been disproportionately entering the low end of the labour market - less well paid jobs and poorly paid jobs, all the while the patterns of domestic labour, in my opinion (I remember that there was a study, but can't recall its title, author or anything; I hope other users might contribute empirical data and research done), didn't significantly change. In other words, after work, the woman was also to bear the brunt of domestic work. Structural sexism as a set of expectations, attitudes, opinions and power relations transmitted culturally and socially, is still a social fact, and working class males are, in my opinion, in a dominant position over working class women.



@cmoney: so tell me how do i "benefit" from that my fiance was raped in the past? how is that a "benefit"? tell me please.
There's no need for personalizations of blame and guilt of this sorts. I think we can reationally discuss the issues at hand without resorting to defensive attitudes.

[Jimmie Higgins]

One way working class men are in a dominant position, with regard to the power relations between the sexes, concerns the organization and distribution of domestic labour.

Especially with the decline of single paycheck families, women have been disproportionately entering the low end of the labour market - less well paid jobs and poorly paid jobs, all the while the patterns of domestic labour, in my opinion (I remember that there was a study, but can't recall its title, author or anything; I hope other users might contribute empirical data and research done), didn't significantly change. In other words, after work, the woman was also to bear the brunt of domestic work. Structural sexism as a set of expectations, attitudes, opinions and power relations transmitted culturally and socially, is still a social fact, and working class males are, in my opinion, in a dominant position over working class women.
Yes men have a higher seat on a sinking boat. There's no question for me that what you are describing is correct. But the bigger issue is why is it the responsibility of the family to pick up the kids, prepare their materials for school, each little family unit inefficiently making their own meal at roughly the same time as everyone else, each doing small loads of laundry, etc all while working for wages to pay for this!

Many of the things that fall onto families can (and I think under a worker's run society would) be socially taken care of. Daycare, eldercare, healthcare, meal preparation and so on. Think about how many people it takes to feed several hundred in a cafeteria - a dozen? It would take at least twice that many just to feed 100 people in a typical single-family meal. It's a totally inefficient way of taking care of things we need to survive considering that people from pre-class hunting bands, to peasants to kings at court ate their meals in big groups. Why does it exist - it's a free way for meals to be produced from a capitalist perspective.

The fact that fast-food is a staple for American workers, I think, shows that worker's wouldn't mind picking up dinner from a communal kitchen rather than going home and making their own dinner each night. But either way, with more free-time workers could still make their own meal from scratch if they wanted to - it would just be a choice rather than what it is now: the capitalist ruling class forcing family units to do unpaid labor in their own self-maintenance.

So should men do a fair share of the housework? Of course - no doubt that would be nice, but it doesn't solve the fundamental problems that lead to sexism: it's just how the ruling class kind of pushes some of these social needs into the family unit. It is important to combat the acceptance of the idea that women "should" do these tasks of course - and men helping to fight these attitudes is essential for building trust and solidarity among male and female workers - but ultimately we should be argue not for a balance of scarcity and chore-work, but for a better organization of society where we can use the wealth of society to make all of our lives more chore and hassle free and with more time to do whatever we want.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

...


So....one of the benefits to working class men here is that...if working class men wanted to become rapists, patriarchy would make it easier for them to get away with it? Gee, thanks patriarchy.

This is just an example of why the whole "men are privileged" thing sucks. Apparently its meant to benefit me that women get harrassed at work more than men or something.

Bascially, men and women have different expectations, and of them, women probably get the shittier deal. Because women get a worse deal doesn't necessarily imply that men therefore are "privileged", or that, as privilege implies, are directly benefiting and responsible for as individuals, in performing any action which takes advantage of said privilege, the oppression of women.

If you think about it, its a really bourgeoisie concept, you know. It directly blames individual men's actions for the reinforcement of privilege for just living their lives within the social expectations of men. I'd feel uncomfortable blaming the working class for their own oppression because by going to work they "reinforce capitalist norms" - and anyone saying that would be rightly called out on this site. Sadly, if you say men are taking advantage of their privilege and oppressing women "reinforcing gender norms", its all cool. To centre the cause of the reproduction of patriarchy onto the social actions of people is just wrong imo.

[Ele'ill]

Men hold a position of power over women as a group and it is reinforced as a social norm through a variety of alienating and violent actions. It's not just that this 'patriarchy thing' was created and it's like a trend that some folks really like that is only occasionally relevant.

http://www.rainn.org/statistics
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims



Rape culture is a term or concept used to describe a culture in which rape and sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone sexual violence. Examples of behaviors commonly associated with rape culture include victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing rape.

[gorillafuck]

how do working class men benefit from the rape of women?

[Ele'ill]

how do working class men benefit from the rape of women?

I don't think the issue is 'do they actually benefit' which is a very weird question to ask. The real and only question that needs to be asked is are there men taking advantage of a position of power that is systemic and consistent. Yes there are as we can clearly see. What the question you're asking does is attempt to deflect blame away from the male dominated social system and that is extremely offensive and poisonous.

[gorillafuck]

I don't think the issue is 'do they actually benefit' which is a very weird question to ask.that is exactly what is being asked.


The real and only question that needs to be asked is are there men taking advantage of a position of power that is systemic and consistent. Yes there are as we can clearly see. What the question you're asking does is attempt to deflect blame away from the male dominated social system and that is extremely offensive and poisonous.question I'm asking? read the title of the thread.

[Ele'ill]

question I'm asking? read the title of the thread.


how do working class men benefit from the rape of women?

Yeah.

[gorillafuck]

wait, what were you trying to demonstrate there? the thread asked how working class men benefit from patriarchy. you cited rape. I asked how that relates to the thread topic which is clearly stated by the title of the thread.

[manic expression]

I don't think the issue is 'do they actually benefit' which is a very weird question to ask. The real and only question that needs to be asked is are there men taking advantage of a position of power that is systemic and consistent. Yes there are as we can clearly see. What the question you're asking does is attempt to deflect blame away from the male dominated social system and that is extremely offensive and poisonous.
You don't think the fact that men are generally physically stronger than women plays any role? Must all rape come down to a "systemic position of power"?

If such crimes do not benefit men, then I do not think it appropriate that we approach it in such overarching, systemic terms.

[Ele'ill]

wait, what were you trying to demonstrate there? the thread asked how working class men benefit from patriarchy. you cited rape. I asked how that relates to the thread topic which is clearly stated by the title of the thread.

I was demonstrating that you asked the question again in your post which is what I was responding to because you know zeekloid, there's a lot of other statements and questions being asked in the thread.




You don't think the fact that men are generally physically stronger than women plays any role? Must all rape come down to a "systemic position of power"?

The systemic position of power is what creates rape culture which is what makes rape possible the way we see it right now.



If such crimes do not benefit men, then I do not think it appropriate that we approach it in such overarching, systemic terms.


Do I think men would be better off with women's liberation? Yeah, of course but I don't see this as a legitimate center-piece of conversation regarding this topic. I find it offensive, very odd at best, to be saying 'yeah the patriarchy but meh men don't really benefit from it so weh'. That's not a talking point.

[gorillafuck]

I was demonstrating that you asked the question again in your post which is what I was responding to because you know zeekloid, there's a lot of other statements and questions being asked in the thread.don't address me by my username just to be disrespectful, mari3l.

yeah you didn't give a good answer. this thread has had a pretty clear topic all the way through.

[manic expression]

The systemic position of power is what creates rape culture which is what makes rape possible the way we see it right now.
The way we see it right now? Rape is virtually seen universally as a crime, and a very grave one at that. Rape is possible whenever one person is able to enforce their will upon another person...women can and do rape men after all. IMO, no culture or absence of culture could alone cause or prevent this.


Do I think men would be better off with women's liberation? Yeah, of course but I don't see this as a legitimate center-piece of conversation regarding this topic. I find it offensive, very odd at best, to be saying 'yeah the patriarchy but meh men don't really benefit from it so weh'. That's not a talking point.
I find it odd that this apparent patriarchy does not seem to benefit men in such a direct manner. In the case of rape, there really is no way that the rape of women benefits men as a whole. Why, then, conceive of gender relations in such stark terms?

[Os Cangaceiros]

What is the problem with privilege concepts?

It tends to break down greatly on an individual level. AKA why no one can ever explain how a white male hobo is more privileged than Oprah.

Of course the response then is that it's intended for a wider population, but then I've never been able to understand why traditional leftist conceptions of institutional racism and the vestiges of institutional racism that existed long before "privilege theory" aren't perfectly capable of addressing those topics. Ultimately privilege theory often seems to come down to the self-flagellation and encouraged extreme introversion of guilty white liberals.

[gorillafuck]

The way we see it right now? Rape is virtually seen universally as a crime, and a very grave one at that. Rape is possible whenever one person is able to enforce their will upon another person...women can and do rape men after all. IMO, no culture or absence of culture could alone cause or prevent this.I think it's fairly evident that culture is a strong factor. femininity is seen as weak and an easy target to assert power over. the association by our culture of femininity with weakness is why male victims of prison rape are referred to as *****es.

[Ele'ill]

The way we see it right now? Rape is virtually seen universally as a crime, and a very grave one at that. Rape is possible whenever one person is able to enforce their will upon another person...women can and do rape men after all. IMO, no culture or absence of culture could alone cause or prevent this.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2396917&postcount=47



I find it odd that this apparent patriarchy does not seem to benefit men in such a direct manner. In the case of rape, there really is no way that the rape of women benefits men as a whole. Why, then, conceive of gender relations in such stark terms?

See above. Social control of women as objects- both sexual and work related.

[Per Levy]

There's no need for personalizations of blame and guilt of this sorts. I think we can reationally discuss the issues at hand without resorting to defensive attitudes.

agreed and i apologize for that, it was somewhat uncalled for.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Of course the condition of women continues to be fucked up and outrageous, but it's rooted in this system and requires its overthrow for resolution.

Sure, in most cases women make less on average than men. But that doesn't benefit male workers anymore than undocumented workers being paid less benefits workers who are citizens. For one, the division helps the bosses drag down wages for all workers, similar to international competition, two-tier wages, etc. It's not for nothing that one of the main areas of the work of the earliest workers movements was aimed at eliminating competition between workers of different countries.

Second, lower pay for women workers doesn't mean male workers are "privileged." At best they are "less exploited." They're still exploited. And any antagonism between them benefits the bosses above all.

One slave is forced to work 7 days a week. The other is forced to work 6. Neither is "privileged." They're both slaves.

This graduate school sociology slop is utter shit. Leave it to academia to measure "degrees" of exploitation, alienation, etc.... to look at capitalism, with all of its inhumanity and blood sucking exploiters, and come out with a criticism of a section of the working class of all people. Fuck.

This literally has nothing to do with human liberation.

[Martin Blank]

so tell me how do i benefit from lower wages for women, or that women cant get certain jobs? my fiance is unemployed and we need money, i dont benefit from her getting paid less then i would, i dont benefit from her not getting certain jobs. nowadays working class couples need any income they can get to have at least somewhat of a decent living. lower wages for women dont benefit male workers it benefits the bourgeosie.

How do you benefit from being able to get certain jobs that pay higher and not have to compete with half of the population?! Jesus Christ on a Crutch! I can't believe I have to explain this.

You know what? No, I'm not going to dignify this with a reply.

And people wonder why so few women get involved with the left these days! I mean, seriously! What is this?! I can't even ...

[Yuppie Grinder]

Yes. Men across all classes earn more than women, although the higher your tax bracket the bigger the difference is I've read.
It's important to keep class politics before gender politics. The liberal elements within Feminism, specifically 2nd wave feminism as a whole, seem really unaware of the issues facing working class women. That stuff is really petty and focused squarely on the interests of petite-bourgeois women.
The anti-feminist vibe I get from many young men strikes me as apologetic for the crimes committed against female proles by the private sector and the bourgeois state, as well as just being very whiny and immature.
As much as I sympathize with third-wave feminism, class politics absolutely must come first.

[Martin Blank]

Second, lower pay for women workers doesn't mean male workers are "privileged." At best they are "less exploited." They're still exploited. And any antagonism between them benefits the bosses above all.

One slave is forced to work 7 days a week. The other is forced to work 6. Neither is "privileged." They're both slaves.

This graduate school sociology slop is utter shit. Leave it to academia to measure "degrees" of exploitation, alienation, etc.... to look at capitalism, with all of its inhumanity and blood sucking exploiters, and come out with a criticism of a section of the working class of all people. Fuck.

This literally has nothing to do with human liberation.

Fuck it. I give up. It's all yours, boys.

[black magick hustla]

lol miles you have grown soft on this bullshit what happened

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Sorry brother, but the term "privilege" indicates 'a special right' that is 'above and beyond the advantages of most.' By saying working class men are privileged, you're arguing that lower paid women workers are making the "normal" wage and that male workers are earning "extra." I know this isn't what you actually believe, but it's inherent with use of the term.

It's like saying unionized public workers, bus drivers, teachers, etc., are "privileged" for making more than other workers. The only "resolution" that ever comes from that is an attack on the wages of public workers. No one making that argument ever says "well then, other workers should be brought up to the level of the privileged union workers."

This is fundamentally no different, even if it's coming from an entirely different direction.

The condition of women workers is terrible? Of course! Equal wages for equal pay? Sure! Abolish wages? Yes!

These guys are "privileged?"

http://www.coalmining203.lyrics-download.info/coal_mining_underground_1.jpg

Nah.

[Franz Fanonipants]

yes.

see studies on household gender labor division and amount of women vs. men's time performing activities like cleaning, cooking, etc.

obvs. none of that shit changes their class position but for sure hegemonic structures are used to recreate the mechanisms of capitalism on a lot of different levels w/lots of different authors

[Manic Impressive]

I am a working class man and I have benefited from patriarchy.

(but not because I get paid more I don't, in my industry women get paid more because of patriarchy)

[Anarpest]

If it were simply a matter of men not being raped as much, treated as sex objects, etc., then yes, it would probably be valid to say that they aren't necessarily 'benefitting' so much as not being fucked over as much. Still, though, that seems to be simplifying things somewhat as far as collective power goes. As far as we're looking at males and females and simply comparing them as categories, I'm not sure that we can necessarily even reach the problem, which seems to arise primarily when you consider the two sides in relation to each other. That is, to what extent are males, within their relationships with females, given certain advantages on a social level?

As long as you simply compare the statistics for both males and females in isolation, then you can, at least to some extent, just as well say that they're both fucked as that one has privilege over the other. Even so, you do have to consider the fact that working class males have a greater chance of becoming higher-income or even bourgeois, which is, in concrete terms, a benefit, not to mention matters of inheritance, education, etc. At a certain point, you're looking at jobs far better paid than mining, and you're also frequently looking at, well, males. A person from an upper-middle-class family, even if working class, will generally 'benefit' as compared to one from a poor family due to social inequalities in education, healthcare, job-seeking, nutrition, etc., and to assert that neither ought to exist doesn't abstract from the fact that one does benefit in the here-and-now.

Nonetheless, though, in their relations to females, do males not benefit in any way? Sure, perhaps that they can rape doesn't necessarily translate into a concrete benefit so much as a disadvantage for females, but what lies behind the fact that they can rape? Well, of course, on a more general level there's a sense of security and power which comes with such a social hegemony, although that is still a relative benefit (though, strictly speaking, all benefits are relative.) Not only are women vulnerable to rape, however, but men are in a position of power and a culture which allows and encourages such power over females, which is the other side of the coin, and allows them a level of freedom of self-fulfillment which would have to be relinquished in a society dominated by more equal relationships.

In any case, in their relationships with females, the relationships are on the whole 'tilted' towards the satisfaction of the males, precisely because of the control and hegemony over its direction that is inherent to culture and manifested both in ordinary relationships and in the more extreme form of 'rape culture.' Sure, perhaps at the poorer margins of society such differences can occasionally decrease (although, globally speaking, some of the poorest people are also those who end up trying to avoid female children because male children would be more capable of taking care of the family in the future, etc.), but nonetheless the working class spans a fairly large spread of incomes and families, and to deny that any of their relationships happen to be tilted towards the satisfaction of the male member due to overall cultural factors seems to be going somewhat overboard. Indeed, to deny that the 'male as breadwinner' side of things is nowhere near completely eradicated in the global working class, and therefore that the social and financial advantages which it lends men in their relations with females, via dependency, are still existent, would still seem to be going too far.

Do capitalists benefit from capitalism? Yes, and we can admit this even while also admitting that they could only attain a full, human and humane enjoyment under a socialist system. As socialists critical of modern society, we of course criticize the forms of enjoyment prevalent in modern, bourgeois society, but nonetheless they are still forms of enjoyment as far as these things go, and relative to the position of the proletariat, capitalism certainly benefits the bourgeoisie and is enjoyed by them. This ultimately stems from the fact that in actual relation to the proletariat, the bourgeoisie have a hegemonic status in which they are able, due to money capital, to force the proletariat to do their bidding. This may be an extreme example, but it nonetheless remains the case that benefits are more or less always relative, and if we're looking at modern society, and modern forms of relationship between people, existent benefits are existent. And the power to have others serve your own need for pleasure is a benefit within such a relation.

[Franz Fanonipants]

thats a lot of words to make a point completely irrelevant to the main way most men benefit from patriarchy:

household labor inequities

[Le Libérer]

lol miles you have grown soft on this bullshit what happened

BMH, I'm going to give you a verbal warning for spamming. It seems its the only thing you are capable these days.

Please find something relevant to say except one liner personal attacks, or infractions will come a'plenty.

Consider yourself warned.

[Martin Blank]

lol miles you have grown soft on this bullshit what happened

A proletarian communist can draw a sharp class line and also recognize the contradictions within his or her own class, especially when it comes to the effects of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology (e.g., sexism).

I have not "grown soft". You and the other economistic "Marxists" on here have ossified and become too brittle. You've capitulated to the reactionary bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology bound up in the current attacks on women's rights, and have given it a leftist veneer.

[Martin Blank]

Sorry brother, but the term "privilege" indicates 'a special right' that is 'above and beyond the advantages of most.' By saying working class men are privileged, you're arguing that lower paid women workers are making the "normal" wage and that male workers are earning "extra." I know this isn't what you actually believe, but it's inherent with use of the term.

First, I did not use the term "privilege"; I said "benefit", as was stated in the OP. And I specifically stuck to this term because it is relative, not absolute. A privilege can arguably be an absolute advantage, whereas a benefit is a relative one.

Second, to say I was "arguing that lower paid women workers are making the 'normal' wage" is a mischaracterization. The "normal" is what jobs what any worker with equivalent skill can obtain. In the example I used, both men and women were gate inspectors and clerks. But only men could be mechanics and crane operators. That is a relative benefit male workers received. Yes, they're still workers, still exploited. But they have also been given a relatively superior position in relation to the women (and men) who work in the other jobs. This relative inequality is used by the ruling classes to pit workers against each other. Like racism and national chauvinism, sexism is used as a weapon against the working class by telling one half of the working class that it is superior to the other half.


It's like saying unionized public workers, bus drivers, teachers, etc., are "privileged" for making more than other workers.

Relatively speaking, they are better off than a janitor or office worker making just above minimum wage in a non-union job with no benefits. That's simply a fact. Those workers you describe have a relatively better standard of living (generally due to past workplace struggles), better economic security and stability, better opportunity to engage politically. This reality puts these workers in a different stratum within the working class than, for example, the working poor. Their "privileges" (if one wishes to use that term) are relative and historically temporary, as many of them are finding out in this age of austerity. But that is not the same as saying that they are or had an absolute advantage, as we find in the exploiting and oppressing classes.


The only "resolution" that ever comes from that is an attack on the wages of public workers. No one making that argument ever says "well then, other workers should be brought up to the level of the privileged union workers."

That is not true, and you know it. I've said it to you numerous times; our organization has said it in its statements and publications numerous times. This is the position any communist worth their salt would advocate. It is only the ruling classes and those more backward sections of the working class that make the argument in favor of "shared immiseration" among all strata within the working class.

It is often times the case that a central part of the process of raising the proletariat to the level of a class-for-itself is the fight to bring the working poor "up to the level of the privileged union workers". Certainly, this becomes the case in periods where the objective material conditions for proletarian revolution are not present -- when that process becomes protracted and spread across decades or even generations.

To say, "The only 'resolution' that ever comes from that is an attack on the wages of public workers", is to completely ignore or erase the working class itself from the equation. It reduces the struggle, and its "resolution", to backroom power plays among the exploiting and oppressing classes. In other words, it reduces the argument to reformism -- to what is possible within the confines of the capitalist mode of production.

[Jimmie Higgins]

How do you benefit from being able to get certain jobs that pay higher and not have to compete with half of the population?! Jesus Christ on a Crutch! I can't believe I have to explain this.

You know what? No, I'm not going to dignify this with a reply.

And people wonder why so few women get involved with the left these days! I mean, seriously! What is this?! I can't even ...By this logic, native workers benefit from the second-class status of immigrant labor, white labor benefits from the suppression of black labor and relegation of black workers to lower positions.

This may be a relative short-term benefit for workers on an individual basis, but it's a race to the bottom for all workers on a class basis.


As much as I sympathize with third-wave feminism, class politics absolutely must come first.

I think this above quote and Cthulhu's are two sides of the same coin because to me class politics are the politics of women's liberation. Not that just getting rid of the wage-system will automatically get rid of sexism; but in the sense that in order for workers to wage a real class-wide struggle women's liberation has to be a major focus and in order to achieve women's liberation, there has to be a struggle against the class and profit system.

So in my view the problem with feminism or ID politics isn't that it put the struggle against oppression before the class struggle necessarily, but that it puts it outside the class struggle as a separate and autonomous social phenomenon. This disconnect is part of the reason feminism has tended to drift towards liberal politics and therefore generally becomes class collaborationist, often throwing needs of working class women under the bus for tactics and views favored by petty-bourgeois and even ruling class women. Actual movements such as in the 1970s or a strike wave can act against the liberal pull though and reassert a more grassroots approach or articulate the demands of working class women.

[Martin Blank]

By this logic, native workers benefit from the second-class status of immigrant labor, white labor benefits from the suppression of black labor and relegation of black workers to lower positions.

This may be a relative short-term benefit for workers on an individual basis, but it's a race to the bottom for all workers on a class basis.

I agree with both statements above, and it is why I see fighting against superexploitation and superoppression as a central task of the workers' movement in its struggle to overthrow capitalist rule.


I think this above quote and Cthulhu's are two sides of the same coin because to me class politics are the politics of women's liberation. Not that just getting rid of the wage-system will automatically get rid of sexism; but in the sense that in order for workers to wage a real class-wide struggle women's liberation has to be a major focus and in order to achieve women's liberation, there has to be a struggle against the class and profit system.

I think you're stuffing words into my mouth that don't belong. I agree that women's struggles are workers' struggles, and that fighting for women's rights and liberation is an integral part of the class struggle itself. Point 18 of our Party's principles states:


The division of labor into definite classes is the primary antagonism of society. However, there are groups of people that suffer from privations and prejudices that cross these class lines, and create dynamics and antagonisms that communists must address. These added divisions, which center on differences of gender, race, nationality, age, ability and sexuality, are barriers that were established in the birth pangs of class society, and have historically served to clarify the composition of both the exploiting and exploited classes. [B]Communists see the elimination of the forms of superexploitation and superoppression imposed on proletarians from these social and biological groups as a necessary task — and predicated on the abolition of class society, which perpetuates the institutional and societal divisions — and will work alongside those who share this goal. At the same time, communists continually point out that it is class and class antagonism that defines, motivates and perpetuates not only these superexploitative and superoppressive divisions, but also the primary division in capitalist society itself. (Boldface mine)

In order to be able to wage these struggles, however, it is necessary to recognize what concrete forms these "institutional and societal divisions" take, what elements of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology motivate them, and how they can be overcome through class struggle. Thus, it is important to know how the ruling classes utilize what Marx called their "most powerful secret" and "most powerful weapon" against the proletariat.


So in my view the problem with feminism or ID politics isn't that it put the struggle against oppression before the class struggle necessarily, but that it puts it outside the class struggle as a separate and autonomous social phenomenon.

And I would say this is the problem I see with the position you and the other economistic "Marxists" have taken on this question.

You all scream so much about how proletarian men and women are "both slaves", how recognizing and analyzing the forms of superexploitation and superoppression is engaging in "identity politics", "privilege politics" or "graduate school sociology slop", and how it "literally has nothing to do with human liberation", and then have the utter temerity to accuse others of putting these struggles "outside the class struggle as a separate and autonomous social phenomenon". It is you, taco and the other economists as one side of your coin, with those who believe in "polyvanguardism" and "new social movements" on the other.

As I told the moonbat above, "A proletarian communist can draw a sharp class line and also recognize the contradictions within his or her own class, especially when it comes to the effects of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology (e.g., sexism)." And that is what I've been doing in this thread: pointing out how bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology have impacted the working class, as a means of understanding how better to fight it through the class struggle.

There are some who would take the issue of relative benefit resulting from sexism (or racism, or national chauvinism, or heterosexism, etc.) in a vulgar direction and fall into the polyvanguardist or "new social movements" dead-end. But those people are usually those who played the economism card and were exposed for who they are. It is very much like Trotsky's old comment about how when sectarians get their fingers burned, they become the worst opportunists; today's economists have yet to burn their fingers in the class struggle, either because they've been lucky by avoiding being tested or because they are too isolated to be able to get close to the fire.

The proletariat cannot be emancipated from its own exploitation and oppression as long as women remain shackled by the institutional and cultural elements of sexism, misogyny and, yes, patriarchy remain in place. Likewise, women cannot achieve liberation from that institutional and cultural superexploitation and superoppression as long as the proletariat remains immiserated through wage-slavery, alienated from its collective labor, exploited at the points of production and distribution, and oppressed by the armed enforcers of the ruling classes' "law and order".

This is why these issues have everything to do with human liberation. The class struggle is first and foremost a political struggle. If that is ignored or relegated to the "other", then you've already abandoned the fight and are of no use in the fight to overthrow capitalism. You may as well just stay home and watch American Idol.

[gorillafuck]

I have not "grown soft". You and the other economistic "Marxists" on here have ossified and become too brittle. You've capitulated to the reactionary bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology bound up in the current attacks on women's rights, and have given it a leftist veneer.people that don't buy into the ideology of male privilege, straight privilege, not-homeless privilege and not-a-warzone-resident privilege are buying into the ideology behind the right wing attacks on women?

how can an accusation like that be justified?

[Martin Blank]

people that don't buy into the ideology of male privilege, straight privilege, not-homeless privilege and not-a-warzone-resident privilege are buying into the ideology behind the right wing attacks on women?

how can an accusation like that be justified?

Read more carefully, zeek. I do not use the term "privilege", because it speaks more to an absolute advantage. That term I reject. On the other hand, I do speak of "benefit", which is a relative advantage that is much more temporary. By conflating the absolute with the relative, and thus rejecting them both, you end up arguing that women are only oppressed in the abstract in modern capitalist society -- that fighting the concrete manifestations of sexism, misogyny and, yes, patriarchy have "nothing to do with human liberation".

This allows the reactionary elements of society who are seeking to do away with women's rights to re-frame issues such as access to contraception and abortion services as "special rights", much as they have done successfully with affirmative action and same-sex marriage. They can do this because reducing women's oppression to an abstraction (i.e., ignoring and/or rejecting the concrete manifestations of it) turns the very concept of sexism into a subjective argument -- again, much like they've managed to do with homophobia/heterosexism and racism (the "post-racial America" nonsense).

[gorillafuck]

Read more carefully, zeek. I do not use the term "privilege", because it speaks more to an absolute advantage. That term I reject. On the other hand, I do speak of "benefit", which is a relative advantage that is much more temporary. By conflating the absolute with the relative, and thus rejecting them both, you end up arguing that women are only oppressed in the abstract in modern capitalist society -- that fighting the concrete manifestations of sexism, misogyny and, yes, patriarchy have "nothing to do with human liberation".I don't understand what you are saying in this paragraph at all.


This allows the reactionary elements of society who are seeking to do away with women's rights to re-frame issues such as access to contraception and abortion services as "special rights", much as they have done successfully with affirmative action and same-sex marriage. They can do this because reducing women's oppression to an abstraction (i.e., ignoring and/or rejecting the concrete manifestations of it) turns the very concept of sexism into a subjective argument -- again, much like they've managed to do with homophobia/heterosexism and racism (the "post-racial America" nonsense).I don't think what anybody here is saying is allowing right wing elements to re-frame abortion and contraceptive rights as special rights.

[Althusser]

As a transwoman, I've lived in this society both as someone perceived as a man and as a woman, and my experience is that male privilege is very real.

Did the people you met as a women know that you were born in a man's body? If so, maybe they treated you differently as a woman because of their transphobia.

[Martin Blank]

I don't think what anybody here is saying is allowing right wing elements to re-frame abortion and contraceptive rights as special rights.

You don't make similar arguments in the real world? Perhaps that's for the best; after all, Mark Twain was a rather astute observer. Enjoy Wednesday's American Idol!

[gorillafuck]

You don't make similar arguments in the real world? Perhaps that's for the best; after all, Mark Twain was a rather astute observer. Enjoy Wednesday's American Idol!what? No, I mean the arguments being laid out by left coms, NHIA, and Jimmie Higgins don't make contraceptive rights and abortion rights able to be framed as special rights.

[Martin Blank]

what? No, I mean the arguments being laid out by left coms, NHIA, and Jimmie Higgins don't make contraceptive rights and abortion rights able to be framed as special rights.

Your subjective intentions and assertions mean nothing. It's the concrete action (or, in your cases, inaction) and interaction that matters.

[gorillafuck]

Your subjective intentions and assertions mean nothing. It's the concrete action (or, in your cases, inaction) and interaction that matters.well I haven't really said anything on the subject, I just think you're being a bit slanderous to them.

I understand where you're coming from by saying that not working in womens rights movements is inaction that allows reactionary elements to go unopposed. what is your attitude towards communists working with national liberation organizations, btw? (which is relevant)

[Martin Blank]

well I haven't really said anything on the subject, I just think you're being a bit slanderous to them.

To be honest, the sentiment is mutual.


I understand where you're coming from by saying that not working in womens rights movements is inaction that allows reactionary elements to go unopposed. what is your attitude towards communists working with national liberation organizations, btw? (which is relevant)

If they are a genuine socially-progressive movement, then I would consider working alongside them to be worthwhile (independently, under our own banners and slogans). But most organizations that define themselves as "national liberation" movements do not fit that category. Virtually all of the "national liberation" movements we see today are reactionary bourgeois or petty-bourgeois nationalists looking for a bigger slice of the profits for themselves.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree with both statements above, and it is why I see fighting against superexploitation and superoppression as a central task of the workers' movement in its struggle to overthrow capitalist rule.Yes I agree that it is an essential part of the class struggle and fighting back against this on a class level is a pre-condition for a strong working class revolutionary movement.


I think you're stuffing words into my mouth that don't belong. I agree that women's struggles are workers' struggles, and that fighting for women's rights and liberation is an integral part of the class struggle itself.Ok, maybe I was just trying to be too clever by linking two different views of this argument together.


In order to be able to wage these struggles, however, it is necessary to recognize what concrete forms these "institutional and societal divisions" take, what elements of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois ideology motivate them, and how they can be overcome through class struggle. Thus, it is important to know how the ruling classes utilize what Marx called their "most powerful secret" and "most powerful weapon" against the proletariat.I agree, but my disagreement when it comes to many of the ideas around patriarchy but more specifically ID politics and privilege theory is that it's not a clarifying way to look at these divisions and oppressions.


And I would say this is the problem I see with the position you and the other economistic "Marxists" have taken on this question.Maybe I don't know what you mean by this term, but to me it suggests a view that oppression is secondary and subordinate to exploitation (implying that struggles against oppression must wait until after the economic struggle), rather than more bound up with each-other as I am trying to argue.


You all scream so much about how proletarian men and women are "both slaves", how recognizing and analyzing the forms of superexploitation and superoppression is engaging in "identity politics", "privilege politics" or "graduate school sociology slop", and how it "literally has nothing to do with human liberation", and then have the utter temerity to accuse others of putting these struggles "outside the class struggle as a separate and autonomous social phenomenon". It is you, taco and the other economists as one side of your coin, with those who believe in "polyvanguardism" and "new social movements" on the other.No I am arguing against the idea that men have an objective benefit from systemic sexism in our society. Many may think they do, but in the long run and for the working class as a whole there is no benifit. Not just in the larger sense of men are still workers irregardless of sexism, but in a more direct way of suppressing wages of all workers, forcing more social costs onto the family unit, reinforcing gender constructs that obviously aid sexism and homophobia but also can (to a less systematic extent) cause misery for straight males who don't live up to these bullshit constructs. The end of sexism (or significant movements against structural sexism) would obviously make the lives of women better, but it would also make the lives of men better instantly. Just eliminating wage inequality would raise working class living standards across the board.

So the argument isn't that sexism is secondary to economic struggles, or that it's a distraction and divisive, or any of that. My argument is that working class men don't benifit from sexism and actually have a class interest in ending it.


The proletariat cannot be emancipated from its own exploitation and oppression as long as women remain shackled by the institutional and cultural elements of sexism, misogyny and, yes, patriarchy remain in place. Likewise, women cannot achieve liberation from that institutional and cultural superexploitation and superoppression as long as the proletariat remains immiserated through wage-slavery, alienated from its collective labor, exploited at the points of production and distribution, and oppressed by the armed enforcers of the ruling classes' "law and order".Yes I agree and this is the argument I have been making. What I take issue with is the argument that men have a relative benefit from sexism. Maybe it's semantic or maybe I can't separate it in my mind from the "privilege theory" arguments about benefits that people in non-oppressed groups receive, if you said "percieved benifit" I wouldn't disagree with what you are saying. Of course there are very real divisions and extra-oppression such as sexism, but benefit connotes something that I don't think accurately describes how oppression fits into in capitalist society.

[Ele'ill]

No I am arguing against the idea that men have an objective benefit from systemic sexism in our society. Many may think they do, but in the long run and for the working class as a whole there is no benifit. Not just in the larger sense of men are still workers irregardless of sexism, but in a more direct way of suppressing wages of all workers, forcing more social costs onto the family unit, reinforcing gender constructs that obviously aid sexism and homophobia but also can (to a less systematic extent) cause misery for straight males who don't live up to these bullshit constructs.


I don't understand this. If men want/desire/feel they need the social control over women it's irrelevant whether or not it's good for men and women together united that this exists what's relevant at least to this discussion is that men are benefiting from the social control of women by getting what they want which is power to control decisions or actions. This is systemic.

[manic expression]

I don't understand this. If men want/desire/feel they need the social control over women it's irrelevant whether or not it's good for men and women together united that this exists what's relevant at least to this discussion is that men are benefiting from the social control of women by getting what they want which is power to control decisions or actions. This is systemic.
Are men not under social control as well? Do women have no power to control decisions or actions?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Are men not under social control as well? Do women have no power to control decisions or actions?

With men, the social control they are subjected to is class based, but with women it´s both class and gender based, thats the difference. Often working class women are subjected to harsher class oppression than working class men. Sure, some bourgeois women are in positions of power but they are far fewer than men in said positions.

[manic expression]

With men, the social control they are subjected to is class based, but with women it´s both class and gender based, thats the difference. Often working class women are subjected to harsher class oppression than working class men. Sure, some bourgeois women are in positions of power but they are far fewer than men in said positions.
I find it hard to believe that men are not at all controlled on the basis of gender. Just off the top of my head, in many places men cannot marry other men because they are men. So both working-class women and working-class men face social control on the basis of gender, no?

Further, how exactly is class oppression harsher for women than for men? I cannot speak from experience, but I do not think that the strikebreaker's club is any more forgiving upon the skull of a man than it is upon that of a woman.

And lastly, does not the existence of powerful bourgeois women who directly exploit and oppress thousands upon thousands of working-class men itself disprove your notion? If we are dealing with an overarching patriarchy that actively disenfranchises women, then how could such a thing possibly come to pass?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

1.I find it hard to believe that men are not at all controlled on the basis of gender. Just off the top of my head, in many places men cannot marry other men because they are men. So both working-class women and working-class men face social control on the basis of gender, no?

2.Further, how exactly is class oppression harsher for women than for men? I cannot speak from experience, but I do not think that the strikebreaker's club is any more forgiving upon the skull of a man than it is upon that of a woman.

3.And lastly, does not the existence of powerful bourgeois women who directly exploit and oppress thousands upon thousands of working-class men itself disprove your notion? If we are dealing with an overarching patriarchy that actively disenfranchises women, then how could such a thing possibly come to pass?

1. My opinion is that that men who don´t meet the fixed patriarchal and capitalist standards of what the male social role and behavior should be are indeed subject to social control and discrimination. The discrimination of homosexuals you name is an example of this. It is sometimes refered to as "the price of manhood". Many feminists think this social pressure and discrimination is linked to the systematic discrimination agains women. Anyway, man aren´t subjected to gender based discrimination to the same degree as women. As many have pointed out, those men are discriminated agains because of alledged "feminine" traits. "Feminine" charachteristics are considered a weakness and "masculine" ones are considered a sign of strenght. This is a symtom of female discrimination, I´d say.

2. I said often. Class oppression is not always harsher on women than men but in many cases it is. As has been stated here before, women often occupy the worst paid and most degrading jobs in capitalist society. There are much more women in low- paid service jobs than men and they more often than not lack stuff like union representation etc. Also, I think the workforce in a lot of sweatshops in china for example is predominantly female.

3. Those powerful bourgeois women are a fraction of the bourgoisie, so I disagree with you that they invalidate the notion of gender based oppression, or that gender based oppression is part and parcel of the capitalist system. Does the fact that there exist some African- American capitalists invalidate the observation that you can´t have capitalism without racism?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't understand this. If men want/desire/feel they need the social control over women it's irrelevant whether or not it's good for men and women together united that this exists what's relevant at least to this discussion is that men are benefiting from the social control of women by getting what they want which is power to control decisions or actions. This is systemic.No what you are describing is an idealistic view of women's oppression - i.e. that it comes from some desire of all, or at least powerful men, to have women in a subordinate position. I don't think this is historically or materialistically accurate. Besides the argument further falls apart when there are times like now or possibly maybe even better during the 70s and 80s when large numbers of men WANT and support sexual equality and yet women's oppression obviously continues.

I am arguing that there is a difference between "perceived" benifit and objective benefit. Native workers often "percieve" that they have it better through the exlusion of and restrictions on immigrantion. Does this mean that xenophobia COMES and ORIGINATES from native workers and their desires to have better pay? Does that mean that native workers are better off due to a two-tiered labor force? I'd argue that it does not and only leads to the suppression of wages for both tiers. Do immigrants face the repression and greater exploitation - no doubt, but natives also suffer from these policies by the lowering of their wages and inability to organize united worker's struggles.


I don't understand this. If men want/desire/feel they need the social control over womenNo, in my view, the ruling class wants social control over all workers and the masses in general, they use sexism which has been a tool of oppression in previous class societies, and have transformed sexism to be a tool that bolsters their rule. Sexism and ideas in feudalism was very different than sexism in capitalism, exposing the class nature of the way sexism acts in society.

So sexism is a tool for the division and rule of society and many workers or other non-ruling class people have adopted these ideas just like with neo-liberal tax ideas, rascist war on crime ideas, nationalist ideas, and so on. Men don't inherently desire to control women (and oppression has been different under different social and historical conditions so if it was inherent, then we'd see more uniformity across the ages) but many are convinced that they benifit from this arrangement - it's mixed consciousness just like so many commonly held attitudes.


what's relevant at least to this discussion is that men are benefiting from the social control of women by getting what they want which is power to control decisions or actions. This is systemic.Are men uniformly benefiting? Are men being raised by a working single mother benefiting from the lack of child-support in this country (since child support means that you must be incapable to doing your "real job" as a mother) and lower wages for his one-income home? Do male students benefit from the sexist attacks on the female-dominated lower grade teaching positions? Are male workers benefiting from higher wages than women, or are they actually being forced to now compete with 51% of the workforce who are paid less and therefore more attractive hires... leading to a situation where male unemployment had increased much more during the recession than female unemployment. Unlike those arguing the ridiculous concept of male oppression, I see the higher rates of unemployment for men as a function of WOMEN'S OPPRESSION.

What men, working class or poor that is, get from sexism is a mirage at best - they get to hold the idea or perception that in the home they get to be the manager and boss, while then returning to work to be bossed around themselves. It's like with people who support tax cuts for the rich, they may THINK they are getting a good deal, but they arn't. People may THINK that when the US wins a war, they get something out of it, but in the larger, class view of things no one but the ruling class actually receive objective benefits from the oppression of women or natioanlism or racism.

[Martin Blank]

Ok, maybe I was just trying to be too clever by linking two different views of this argument together.

Too clever for your own good, in this case. :D


No I am arguing against the idea that men have an objective benefit from systemic sexism in our society. Many may think they do, but in the long run and for the working class as a whole there is no benefit. Not just in the larger sense of men are still workers regardless of sexism, but in a more direct way of suppressing wages of all workers, forcing more social costs onto the family unit, reinforcing gender constructs that obviously aid sexism and homophobia but also can (to a less systematic extent) cause misery for straight males who don't live up to these bullshit constructs. The end of sexism (or significant movements against structural sexism) would obviously make the lives of women better, but it would also make the lives of men better instantly. Just eliminating wage inequality would raise working class living standards across the board.

You contradict yourself in this paragraph and, in doing so, make my argument for me. At the beginning of this paragraph, you argue that men do not receive an objective (i.e., material) benefit from systemic women's oppression. But at the end of your paragraph, you argue for eliminating wage inequality. Well, what is wage inequality but an objective, material benefit that working-class men receive?

For that matter, I have to question how far "eliminating wage inequality" alone would actually reverse the effects of women's oppression. After all, one of the first acts of the Obama administration was to sign the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act into law. How's that working out, in terms of raising working-class living standards across the board?

In the context of the current war on women being waged by the ruling classes, that piece of legislation is meaningless. If you want to talk about another material benefit men receive, how about this one. Right now, in several states, laws have been or are in the process of being passed that restrict women's access to contraception. Arizona now has a law that requires women to submit to their bosses a written statement that contraception they are prescribed is not being used for ... contraception! Without that statement, an employer can deny a woman medical insurance coverage for such medications. But the guys can get all the Viagra and Cialis they can handle! And I don't see condoms being restricted, either. But RU-486 is still illegal in the U.S. and the "morning after" pill is still restricted.

Finally, when men are required by the state to receive an anal ultrasound to get a vasectomy and/or have to worry about where they might be able to get a prostate exam because the government is threatening to cut off funding for clinics that provide them, then we can talk about a reduction of material benefits for men, thankyouverymuch!


So the argument isn't that sexism is secondary to economic struggles, or that it's a distraction and divisive, or any of that. My argument is that working class men don't benefit from sexism and actually have a class interest in ending it.

I can agree with you that proletarian men have a class interest in eliminating women's oppression, but that does not mean those same men don't also receive a relative material benefit, given as a means of dividing workers along gender lines. To argue otherwise is to deny that women's oppression actually exists or, at the very least, that it is only a "bad idea" that has no material basis and can be fought on a purely idealist basis.


Yes I agree and this is the argument I have been making. What I take issue with is the argument that men have a relative benefit from sexism. Maybe it's semantic or maybe I can't separate it in my mind from the "privilege theory" arguments about benefits that people in non-oppressed groups receive, if you said "perceived benefit" I wouldn't disagree with what you are saying. Of course there are very real divisions and extra-oppression such as sexism, but benefit connotes something that I don't think accurately describes how oppression fits into in capitalist society.

I have never used the term "privilege" in this discussion, and that is for a reason. In my view, using the term "privilege" in the context of a discussion such as this is to imply a more absolute, fundamental advantage. For example, the petty bourgeoisie has privilege in capitalist society that the working class does not (and never will) have. I use "benefit" because, in the context of a discussion such as this, it implies something that is relative and temporary (in an historical sense), while also being material (e.g., wage inequality). If I was to defer to your view and call them "perceived benefits", that would be reducing the issue, once again, to one of "bad ideas" versus "good ideas". I am too much of a materialist to do that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You contradict yourself in this paragraph and, in doing so, make my argument for me. At the beginning of this paragraph, you argue that men do not receive an objective (i.e., material) benefit from systemic women's oppression. But at the end of your paragraph, you argue for eliminating wage inequality. Well, what is wage inequality but an objective, material benefit that working-class men receive?Whoa! Wage-work and exploitation is a benefit? Women get paid less - as in they face an additional oppression on top of the normal exploitation of people in capitalist society. That doesn't mean they benefit. Again, house slaves weren't beat as much and had better treatment, but it would be insane to talk of house-slaves benefiting under the slave system. Despite what individual slaves may have thought, ultimately they have an interest as slaves to see the end of the slave system.


For that matter, I have to question how far "eliminating wage inequality" alone would actually reverse the effects of women's oppression.Wouldn't - I never argued that in any way. You are reading your own arguments into what I'm saying. I have said that taking steps to eliminate sexism is a precondition to a united working class that can effectively fight for itself. Then with capialism eliminated, the class basis for modern sexism as we know it would be knocked out from under sexual oppression leading the the ability to get rid of this form of oppression once and for all just like with class differences in general. Sexism can be fought and pushed back through working class anti-sexist movements, but in the end, like other capitalist oppressions, the relations that allow these oppressions to thrive have to be gotten rid of.

Eliminating wage inequality would be a boost across the board for working class wages since 51% of the workforce are women. That is all I argued - demonstrating that it would be in the CLASS interests of working class men to fight sexism and sexual inequality. This is one example and the fight against sexism can't be isolated to the workplace alone either. For another example, fighting to end the idea that child-care is the "natural" role for women would, in a working class women's lib struggle, lead to questions of who then cares for the children of working class people, how do workers make sure their kids are safe if they have to work 8-10 hours a day. So such a struggle would bring up questions of free day-care at work, maternity (and paternity) leave, etc. Again, the more working class women gain, the more the working class as a whole gains - this is the reason oppressive structures and ideologies are supported by the ruling class anyway, to keep us divided and weak!


After all, one of the first acts of the Obama administration was to sign the Lily Ledbetter Equal Pay Act into law. How's that working out, in terms of raising working-class living standards across the board?How is that working out in really ending wage inequality for women? That's the first question - it's like arguing that the lameness of Obama-care shows that a real social healthcare system can never work. So while I don't know much about this legislation, I know enough about the Dems and Obama not to count on it too much. Now, if there was a movement of working class women and male allies forcing actual reforms, then we could use that as a test of this argument.


In the context of the current war on women being waged by the ruling classes, that piece of legislation is meaningless. If you want to talk about another material benefit men receive, how about this one. Right now, in several states, laws have been or are in the process of being passed that restrict women's access to contraception. Arizona now has a law that requires women to submit to their bosses a written statement that contraception they are prescribed is not being used for ... contraception! Without that statement, an employer can deny a woman medical insurance coverage for such medications. But the guys can get all the Viagra and Cialis they can handle! And I don't see condoms being restricted, either. But RU-486 is still illegal in the U.S. and the "morning after" pill is still restricted.Again this is a description of the OPPRESSION of women, not giving guys a bunch of stuff from the ruling class for the hell of it! You act like the problem is that men get paid too much, not that women are systematically discriminated against.

Of course when a group is specifically targeted for oppression, people not in that group do not face the specific forms of that oppression! If it were otherwise then there'd be NO SPECIFIC OPPRESSION! But the issue is not that working men have more of their rights actually upheld and are not targeted for sexism, the issue is that women are.


Finally, when men are required by the state to receive an anal ultrasound to get a vasectomy and/or have to worry about where they might be able to get a prostate exam because the government is threatening to cut off funding for clinics that provide them, then we can talk about a reduction of material benefits for men, thankyouverymuch!Wow, I'm just shocked at the anti-working class sentiments of these arguments coming from someone with such good politics.

First of all, the examples you give above are what some liberal politicians have proposed in opposition to the sexist laws going through right now. While humorous satire, and while it's nice to see liberals stand up against something, it's not good class politics. This is a "fighting over crumbs" version of fighting oppression - the problem isn't that women are systematically oppressed in this society, the problem I guess is that men aren't oppressed enough? Obviously the liberals aren't really proposing this, they are trying to draw a parallel in the negative, but they also aren't even considering the possibility of a principled fight FOR women's reproductive rights - which would have been a given for even Democratic Party platforms a generation ago.

Follow the logic of this argument through and what do you get? The answer to anti-immigrant sentiments and policies must be to strip everyone of the right to unionize; the answer to black oppression must be for white people to get pulled over and harassed by cops for absolutely nothing, the answer to Islamophobia must be to make sure that everyone is denied due-process and is strip-searched whenever they travel?!

The working class doesn't have much in the way of benefits - what we do have is exploitation and what some of us have are extra systematic oppressions on top of the lowest common denominator of just being exploited workers. Male worker's don't have it too good, the problem is women are systemically oppressed. The answer to this is a class-based fightback against oppression (which would also mean standing up to oppression when faced by non-workers too) and I think part of that is getting away from the liberal ideas like "ID Politics" or individualist solutions, as well as the idea that men actually do get something positive (other than not being targeted for extra oppression) from sexism - and for anti-sexist struggles when possible (probably not the first priority right now since we are starting at a pretty low-point) to try and convince men that their liberation too is tied to the fight against sexism.

[Martin Blank]

For the sake of expediency, I've cut out the areas where we agree and am only responding to the points of contention.


Whoa! Wage-work and exploitation is a benefit? Women get paid less - as in they face an additional oppression on top of the normal exploitation of people in capitalist society. That doesn't mean they benefit. Again, house slaves weren't beat as much and had better treatment, but it would be insane to talk of house-slaves benefiting under the slave system. Despite what individual slaves may have thought, ultimately they have an interest as slaves to see the end of the slave system.

Not "wage-work and exploitation", but wage inequality. The fact that working-class men are paid more, have access to higher-paying jobs, etc., is a material benefit designed to divide workers along gender lines and draw working-class men closer to their exploiters, in order to pit working men and women against each other.

In this sense, the "house slave and field slave" analogy is appropriate. (Malcolm X, who is apparently insane in your opinion, gave an insightful speech on this issue (http://yeyeolade.wordpress.com/2007/04/05/brother-malcolm-x-lives/) just before his assassination.) Because the house slaves had material benefits that derived from their position, they drew closer to the master. While it is accurate to say that it was in the interests of all slaves to see abolition of the system -- just as it is the case today that all workers have an interest in abolishing capitalism -- this does not negate the fact that the masters (both those of the chattel-slaves and those of the wage-slaves) have used material benefits to divide one group from the rest and draw the group receiving the benefits closer to themselves, as a means of keeping them divided and fighting each other for the scraps.


Now, if there was a movement of working class women and male allies forcing actual reforms, then we could use that as a test of this argument.

That assumes capitalism can be reformed. It can't. Defense of women's rights and social position can only take place through a revolutionary movement fighting for a workers' republic, not some liberal grovelling session trying to draw a happy face on capitalist rule.


Again this is a description of the OPPRESSION of women, not giving guys a bunch of stuff from the ruling class for the hell of it! You act like the problem is that men get paid too much, not that women are systematically discriminated against.

If that's how you perceive it, then you should spend more time reflecting on your own politics, not mine. Quite honestly, you sound like one of those reactionaries who complains about how the rights of white men are under attack -- "reverse racism/sexism" and all that. This is the same bullshit argument that NHIA used earlier in this thread. The problem is not "that men get paid too much". The problem is that women are treated as second-class citizens -- that they "are systematically discriminated against". The difference between you and me is you see it as a mere abstraction, while I recognize how it manifests itself in the material world.


Of course when a group is specifically targeted for oppression, people not in that group do not face the specific forms of that oppression! If it were otherwise then there'd be NO SPECIFIC OPPRESSION! But the issue is not that working men have more of their rights actually upheld and are not targeted for sexism, the issue is that women are.

Apparently, you and the others making the same argument have an inability to understand the concept of relativity. Think of it this way: You and I have to walk a mile east to reach a certain location in the city. Both of us are standing on corners of an intersection; I am on the eastern corner and you are on the western. Relatively speaking, I am closer to our common destination than you are, and thus can be seen as having a relative material advantage over you when it comes to how long it might take to reach our goal. But in the overall perspective, neither of us can actually be considered to be close to the location, and are basically in the same position in relation to our destination.

It is the same case here. Relative to the social position of working women, working men have a benefit. To put it another way, because of systematic discrimination and oppression, working women are relegated to a lower standard of living and less rights, and receive less in relation to working men. However, in the context of class society as a whole, both working men and women are exploited and oppressed.

This is what I have been saying from the beginning.


Wow, I'm just shocked at the anti-working class sentiments of these arguments coming from someone with such good politics.

OK, if this is the level at which you want to play, then fine. Bring it, motherfucker.


First of all, the examples you give above are what some liberal politicians have proposed in opposition to the sexist laws going through right now. While humorous satire, and while it's nice to see liberals stand up against something, it's not good class politics. This is a "fighting over crumbs" version of fighting oppression - the problem isn't that women are systematically oppressed in this society, the problem I guess is that men aren't oppressed enough? Obviously the liberals aren't really proposing this, they are trying to draw a parallel in the negative, but they also aren't even considering the possibility of a principled fight FOR women's reproductive rights - which would have been a given for even Democratic Party platforms a generation ago.

I used that satire to point out that these laws are part of the systemic oppression of women. You know that, and more or less acknowledge it. But at the same time, you dismiss what the satire is intended to point out, blithely calling it "fighting over crumbs". Either you don't know what kind of attacks have been taking place on women in the U.S. or you don't care, but calling it all a matter of "fighting over crumbs" is insulting to any intelligent person. Quite literally, women living in the states where these attacks are concentrated are fighting for their lives, not for crumbs. To call it all "fighting for crumbs" is to belittle the fight that all workers, especially working women, are facing. It demonstrates an economistic and sexist viewpoint that exposes a callous and malignant disregard for women's basic humanity.

This capitulation to social backwardness is the epitome of workerism -- i.e., a romanticism of the current social position of the working class most common among petty-bourgeois elements that go slumming in our class. To see this in a fellow worker is not only extremely disappointing, it is appalling. It exposes your own social backwardness and sexism at a time when there is an urgent need for workers' unity to beat back this assault on working women.

The ruling classes are openly comparing women to cattle and pigs, and passing laws codifying that, and you want to dismiss it all as "fighting over crumbs"?!


Follow the logic of this argument through and what do you get? The answer to anti-immigrant sentiments and policies must be to strip everyone of the right to unionize; the answer to black oppression must be for white people to get pulled over and harassed by cops for absolutely nothing, the answer to Islamophobia must be to make sure that everyone is denied due-process and is strip-searched whenever they travel?!

The only "logic" I see you displaying here is that of someone trying to protect their social position at the expense of superoppressed workers and whining about losing it. Once again, you sound like a socially-backward reactionary; this time, you are echoing the same "logic" that the critics of "socialism" make. "Socialism makes everyone poor!" "Socialism puts everyone into misery!" Same reactionary bullshit, now with a nice coat of "red" varnish.

I'm not even going to dignify the argument itself with a response.


... and for anti-sexist struggles when possible (probably not the first priority right now since we are starting at a pretty low-point) to try and convince men that their liberation too is tied to the fight against sexism. (Emphasis mine)

What a perfect way to sum up your reactionary politics. Nevermind what's actually happening in the real world, Jimmie says women can "just close their eyes" when they're being raped by a transvaginal probe, or can put on a happy face when forced to carry a stillborn fetus to term. And when working women are denied contraception because they want to use it for what it's designed, Jimmie has the aspirin they can hold between their knees.

Fuck it, I'm done arguing over this petty-bourgeois romanticizing of socially-backward sexist shit. I've said all I need to say.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I am close to closing this thread.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What a perfect way to sum up your reactionary politics. Nevermind what's actually happening in the real world, Jimmie says women can "just close their eyes" when they're being raped by a transvaginal probe, or can put on a happy face when forced to carry a stillborn fetus to term. And when working women are denied contraception because they want to use it for what it's designed, Jimmie has the aspirin they can hold between their knees.

Fuck it, I'm done arguing over this petty-bourgeois romanticizing of socially-backward sexist shit. I've said all I need to say.

I'm sorry if my post offended you, I am not trying to pick a fight or insult you. I said some of these arguments are anti-working class in my opinion, I did not mean to imply or say that you are. Arguing that the answer to sexism is equality in oppression, rather than solidarity in struggle, is IMO an anti-working class argument and, like I said, I was suprized to hear these arguments that I normally associate with 3rd-worldist or ID politics supporters, from you.

As for my "reactionary" position - yet another straw-man. I'm sorry if I write fast and it's hard to follow the thought, but I was NOT arguing for WOMEN TO WAIT FOR LIBERATION. In fact I was arguing that convincing male allies is a SECONDARY concern for women's liberation movements currently because while I believe it will be important for men to join in this struggle, it's more important right now for people ALREADY against sexism (men and women) to organize and start from there before worrying about convincing slightly-sympathetic, but not fully on-board men. Frankly I was trying to cut off a potential for you to misconstrue my argument as saying that men are more important to women's lib than women are themselves.

As I have said numerous times, I think figing against specific oppressions within the working class is a pre-condition to building an independent working class movement that can challenge capitalist hegemony and rule. That doesn't mean liberation can be won under capitalism, but it does mean in my view that it's a battle ground where we can and have made historical gains. The process of independent fights for equality and against sexism help build a more united class struggle and a class where it is harder for the bosses to pit us against each-other.

So there is a relationship, in my view between fights against specific oppression and for worker's power. On the one hand, there can't be a working class revolution if the class is divided up into competing groups or leveled tiers, and we can make transitory gains through struggle against oppression but ultimately a new kind of society - one without a ruling class that needs to divide and rule, one without constant competition among the masses.

But on the one hand you accuse me of ignoring the everyday experience of sexism in this society (which is a bullshit way of attempting a counter-argument) and then when I propose one example of many possible struggles right now - an independent struggle for wage equality, you accuse me of reformism and say that women's liberation has to wait until after the revolution. I think that's the abstract way to look at oppression - as some piece of superstructure that will just wither away after revolutionary rapture. I don't even know if you are arguing a version of that or not, because you haven't provided an alternative argument other than to say that since I don't agree with your formulation of male-benifit from sexism then I'm obviously some kind of sexist myself (arguing that I'm indifferent to the oppression of women, that I'm reactionary, that I'm petty bourgeois).


If that's how you perceive it, then you should spend more time reflecting on your own politics, not mine. Quite honestly, you sound like one of those reactionaries who complains about how the rights of white men are under attack -- "reverse racism/sexism" and all that. This is the same bullshit argument that NHIA used earlier in this thread. The problem is not "that men get paid too much". The problem is that women are treated as second-class citizens -- that they "are systematically discriminated against". The difference between you and me is you see it as a mere abstraction, while I recognize how it manifests itself in the material world.]Well, let's forget that I explicitly argued AGAINST "reverse-sexism" in this thread:rolleyes:. Then yes or no: the problem of wage inequality and sexism is that male workers are paid too much in capitalist society, not that women are systematically degraded and told that their labor is less worthy than men unless it's taking care of children.

That's all I'm arguing, not that oppression doesn't exist. I'm arguing that men have an OBJECTIVE class benefit from FIGHTING sexism.


Not "wage-work and exploitation", but wage inequality. The fact that working-class men are paid more, have access to higher-paying jobs, etc., is a material benefit designed to divide workers along gender lines and draw working-class men closer to their exploiters, in order to pit working men and women against each other.So your arguement is that the ruling class created better paying jobs and supervisory roles in order to kick something along to working class men in the way of a benefit?


In this sense, the "house slave and field slave" analogy is appropriate. (Malcolm X, who is apparently insane in your opinion, gave an insightful speech on this issue (http://www.anonym.to/?http://yeyeolade.wordpress.com/2007/04/05/brother-malcolm-x-lives/) just before his assassination.)Quite wrong again. I was thinking of Malcolm's speech when I made the original comment. I disagree with his use of this anecdote as a defense of his then support of black nationalist segregation because I don't think that's an effective strategy for black liberation, but his characterization of the petty-bourgeois orientation of the civil rights leadership in that story is phenomenal. But your leap in reasoning is to then say that because the house slave perceived a benefit that he had an overall benift from the slave system. Malcolm wasn't arguing that, just that you can not actually rely on your oppressors to give you real liberation, it keeps you tied to the rotten system just like civil right support for the Northern Liberal Democrats was just looking for support in the left hand of the beast with a segregationist right hand that's beating you.


Because the house slaves had material benefits that derived from their position, they drew closer to the master.Not because they benefited from slavery! You can be more or less exploited, but you can't be beneficially exploited!


While it is accurate to say that it was in the interests of all slaves to see abolition of the system -- But why? If some of them were benifiting from it, then wouldn't it be in their interestes to preseve the system they owe their benifits to?


just as it is the case today that all workers have an interest in abolishing capitalism -- this does not negate the fact that the masters (both those of the chattel-slaves and those of the wage-slaves) have used material benefits to divide one group from the rest and draw the group receiving the benefits closer to themselves, as a means of keeping them divided and fighting each other for the scraps.I am not arguing against the division aspect, but in my view it was increased repression and restrictions on targeted groups. In the US, forced labor went from slaves and white forced servants being on more or less equal footing as far as living quarters and so on - the main difference was slave verses a term of service for European servants. When the slave system became more stable and a more profitable way to get labor for larger farming, it wasn't that the benifits for being a servant were increased, it was that restrictions of the freedom and movement of black slaves increased - eventually becoming a racial caste system. Northern capitalists used slavery as an example of how good industrial wage workers had it and the Southern slave rulers used the racial caste system to try and convince poor whites that they had mutual interests and that whites benefited from the slave system. But these are all examples of mixed consciousness. Poor whites were oppressed by the large land-owners whose power rested on the backs of slaves. Northern capitalists benifited from the influx of southern trade capital but as Marx famously said, the institution of slavery retarded the growth of working class movements in the US and it wasn't until after the civil war that workers really began organizing and it wasn't until the racism in the unions began to be confronted that they were effective at maintaining solidarity.

So the only group who really materially benifit from oppression in my view are the ruling class who divide and rule and get scapegoats and people without rights and so on. Other people in society my perceive that they benefit from imperialism or oppression or racial profiling or the PATRIOT ACT or whatnot - and some may get an individual benefit from forcing their wives to cook or by "feeling" superior, but these are not meaningful benefits in the big picture.