Feminism as a bourgeois idea?

[fabian]

Some interesting points to think about..

Do5zrdTb-yI

[#FF0000]

I was gonna watch the whole thing before posting but that thing where he says 'feminism basically posits that history is a war between sexes' is dumb as heck

(edit: and then it got p. interesting i will post more later, though)

[fabian]

'feminism basically posits that history is a war between sexes'
He says "sometimes". He also says that feminist demands are often legimate, but are manipulated. Watch the hole clip, Soral makes some interesting points which I think haven't crossed a lot of people's minds (including mine)..

[Revolution starts with U]

Honestly... I just wish guys would stop talking about women's issues, period, for a little while. Notice how it's always "her children" that have to be taken care of. It's not about sexual equality, but "escaping boredom." Feminists have "often been pampered" by the power elites. Feminists were "useful idiots" of the bourgeois (rather than the bourgeois being extremely resilient). And I really don't understand his criticism of Simone at all...

And what are the proscriptions to arise from this view of feminism? He offers none... but it seems he stops just short of saying the small pittance of female emancipation we have gained shouldn't have happened.

Don't get me wrong, there are smidgens of truth laced throughout the presentation (nothing that hasn't been said better elsewhere). Overall, I am not impressed :thumbdown:

[corolla]

Honestly... I just wish guys would stop talking about women's issues, period, for a little while. Notice how it's always "her children" that have to be taken care of. It's not about sexual equality, but "escaping boredom." Feminists have "often been pampered" by the power elites. Feminists were "useful idiots" of the bourgeois (rather than the bourgeois being extremely resilient). And I really don't understand his criticism of Simone at all...
I hope you are not a guy then, because if you are, the fact that you are opining in this thread makes you a hypocrite. If he, as a man, has no right to talk about "women's issues", then neither do you.


And what are the proscriptions to arise from this view of feminism? He offers none... but it seems he stops just short of saying the small pittance of female emancipation we have gained shouldn't have happened.His entire point was that there is no "we" in the sense that you are using it, that women are not an amorphous mass who have all collectively benefited from the "gains" that feminists have won for themselves. While bourgeois women may have won freedom from the isolation of the home, working class women have been forced to take on the duties of both wage worker and housewife/mother, which has given them less freedom, not more.

[Revolution starts with U]

I hope you are not a guy then, because if you are, the fact that you are opining in this thread makes you a hypocrite. If he, as a man, has no right to talk about "women's issues", then neither do you.
That's right, and it's why I didn't really speak on women's issues there (not to say men shouldn't be able to... just in the current climate I wish they would stop for a while). I spoke specifically on his tone and message.


His entire point was that there is no "we" in the sense that you are using it, that women are not an amorphous mass who have all collectively benefited from the "gains" that feminists have won for themselves. While bourgeois women may have won freedom from the isolation of the home, working class women have been forced to take on the duties of both wage worker and housewife/mother, which has given then less freedom, not more.

Ya, and? The problem here isn't women in the workforce but the idea, that he proposed multiple times, that it's "her baby" and her duty to take care of it.
Again, hypocritical men should just stfu for a while.

[corolla]

That's right, and it's why I didn't really speak on women's issues there

Except that that is exactly what you are discussing.


Ya, and? The problem here isn't women in the workforce but the idea, that he proposed multiple times, that it's "her baby" and her duty to take care of it.He didn't "propose" any such thing. Its obvious you are clutching at straws in order to tar him as some sort of male chauvinist without actually having to engage with the substance of what he has said.


Again, hypocritical men should just stfu for a while.Who's stopping you? :)

[Revolution starts with U]

He didn't "propose" any such thing. Its obvious you are clutching at straws in order to tar him as some sort of male chauvinist without actually having to engage with the substance of what he has said.

Bullshit. He says on multiple occasions that it's "her baby." I'm clutching at nothing but what he offered.

Again, what he says about the situation of prole women is largely true. But it's not the fault of feminism (bourgeois or prole), but of people who think it's the woman's duty to raise children, and bourgeois profits. Feminism is in no way at fault here, and I see no reason why anyone should suggest it is.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's also bullshit to say I am not addressing the actual content of what he said, as that is exactly what I did in my first post. :thumbdown:

[Yuppie Grinder]

There are liberal elements within feminism, certainly. To reject the whole broad movement as bourgeois is short-sighted, though.

[corolla]

Bullshit. He says on multiple occasions that it's "her baby." I'm clutching at nothing but what he offered.
This is ridiculous. There is no point in even continuing to respond to you when you are deliberately lying and misrepresenting what he said. He said 'her baby' as in, you know, the woman's baby, as in 'the working class woman is expected to do wage work on top of caring for her baby', not in the sense that caring for babies should be the duty of women.


Again, what he says about the situation of prole women is largely true. But it's not the fault of feminism (bourgeois or prole), but of people who think it's the woman's duty to raise children, and bourgeois profits. Feminism is in no way at fault here, and I see no reason why anyone should suggest it is.So if you admit that what he says about the situation of working class women is true, then you are conceding that feminism didn't represent their interests. So then what is your issue? I don't think his point was about 'fault' so much as it was about the class nature of feminism, and that the agenda of feminists was never the agenda of working class women.

[Revolution starts with U]

This is ridiculous. There is no point in even continuing to respond to you when you are deliberately lying and misrepresenting what he said. He said 'her baby' as in, you know, the woman's baby, as in 'the working class woman is expected to do wage work on top of caring for her baby', not in the sense that caring for babies should be the duty of women.

You're making the same mistake. It's not "her baby," no matter how much societal pressure forces this duty on women exclusively.
Is it the fault of feminists that men are not expected to do wage work on top of carrying for their baby? If not, what's the point of bringing feminist struggle up in this issue?


So if you admit that what he says about the situation of working class women is true, then you are conceding that feminism didn't represent their interests.
Feminism as a whole? Certainly not. I never suggested otherwise. Certain aspects of it like suffrage, etc? Yes, that's good for proles and bourg women.

So then what is your issue?
That he stops just short of saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote, should remain housewives, and stop rebelling against their fathers.

I don't think his point was about 'fault' so much as it was about the class nature of feminism, and that the agenda of feminists was never the agenda of working class women.

What feminists? All of them? If not all of them, why bring up feminism as a whole?

[Revolution starts with U]

"(Feminism) is a view I call 'victimary communitarianism."

"Feminist demands... forced them into wage labor" as if that didn't free many of them from basically being the property of their husbands or fathers.

(Getting women in the workforce) "often made their lives worse, not better." In what reality?

"3/4s of feminist militants are bougeois." Source?

"It's possible for a woman to be a wage worker if someone is taking care of her young children, which means... there is another one (woman) who has a dual alienation..." Where is the father in all of this?

"... in fact this is what consumer society wants." So... what? Women should get back in the kitchen, or what's your point?

"The more feminism arises, the more class struggle regresses." Prove it.

"Simone Debeavier is proof that feminism is 100% bullshit." Need I say more?

[corolla]

You're making the same mistake. It's not "her baby," no matter how much societal pressure forces this duty on women exclusively.

To avoid blowing a gasket, I am not even going to respond to this.


Is it the fault of feminists that men are not expected to do wage work on top of carrying for their baby? If not, what's the point of bringing feminist struggle up in this issue?Maybe to like, you know, make a class based analysis of it? A shocking thing for a marxist to do, obviously!


Feminism as a whole? Certainly not. I never suggested otherwise. Certain aspects of it like suffrage, etc? Yes, that's good for proles and bourg women.Yes, the position of working class women is so much better now that they can vote for their choice of bourgeois politicians to rule over them.


That he stops just short of saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote, should remain housewives, and stop rebelling against their fathers.He isn't arguing any such thing. He is simply offering a class based analysis of the traditional feminist movement and the interests it represented. It is obvious from what he is saying that he doesn't see the solution for working class women in turning the clock backwards, but in fighting as a class.

[Revolution starts with U]

To avoid blowing a gasket, I am not even going to respond to this.

Whatever works for you


Maybe to like, you know, make a class based analysis of it? A shocking thing for a marxist to do, obviously!

Which I already said has merit, but has been said better elsewhere, without all the veiled opining for women as housewives...


Yes, the position of working class women is so much better now that they can vote for their choice of bourgeois politicians to rule over them.

Are you saying it would be better if they couldn't?

He isn't arguing any such thing.
No he isn't... which is why I said he stops just short of it.

He is simply offering a class based analysis of the traditional feminist movement and the interests it represented. It is obvious from what he is saying that he doesn't see the solution for working class women in turning the clock backwards, but in fighting as a class.
Often it's not what you say that causes misconfusion, but how you say it... my original contention in the first place.

[Prometeo liberado]

I could only stomach so much of that nonsense. All I would add is that I would like him to walk up to big bad Emma G. and try and pass off that shit(get outta the way its gonna get bloody).

[Revolution starts with U]

In 2005, Soral turned to the far-right, joining the National Front's campaign committee; he was given responsibility for social issues and for the suburbs under the authority of Marine Le Pen. Soral's personal journey has led some to compare him with Jacques Doriot, one of the neo-socialists in the early 1930s and Collaborationist under Pétain.[8] He supported the Bloc identitaire's distribution of food in January 2006

In his book Vers la féminisation ? Démontage d'un complot antidémocratique, Alain Soral argues that women have always worked (in trade or agriculture, for example). To him, they would have invented feminism by tiring of their role as mothers. Soral distinguishes two types of feminism: that of the "flippées" ("freaked-out") such as Simone de Beauvoir, and that of the "pétasses" ("*****es") like Élisabeth Badinter

Soral believes that community-ism in France could have a similar effect, if the French Republic fails to apply its prestigious 1905 Law of Separation of Church and State, which is enshrined in the French constitution.[17]
According to a recent TV interview (Direct 8 / 88 minutes), Alain Soral stated; "that today, no-one was surprised to see French presidents, prime ministers and other high French political figures meet elusively with the Jewish representing body every year in Paris, meetings that go against the laws of France and send mixed signal to the Republic".[17]
Soral finished by stating that such a course could only push other minorities to form political religious movement in order to be heard.[17] According to Soral, this would be a step likely to divide France into its various religious communities, which would then weaken the independence of the country.

[corolla]

In 2005, Soral turned to the far-right, joining the National Front's campaign committee; he was given responsibility for social issues and for the suburbs under the authority of Marine Le Pen. Soral's personal journey has led some to compare him with Jacques Doriot, one of the neo-socialists in the early 1930s and Collaborationist under Pétain.[8] He supported the Bloc identitaire's distribution of food in January 2006

In his book Vers la féminisation ? Démontage d'un complot antidémocratique, Alain Soral argues that women have always worked (in trade or agriculture, for example). To him, they would have invented feminism by tiring of their role as mothers. Soral distinguishes two types of feminism: that of the "flippées" ("freaked-out") such as Simone de Beauvoir, and that of the "pétasses" ("*****es") like Élisabeth Badinter

Soral believes that community-ism in France could have a similar effect, if the French Republic fails to apply its prestigious 1905 Law of Separation of Church and State, which is enshrined in the French constitution.[17]
According to a recent TV interview (Direct 8 / 88 minutes), Alain Soral stated; "that today, no-one was surprised to see French presidents, prime ministers and other high French political figures meet elusively with the Jewish representing body every year in Paris, meetings that go against the laws of France and send mixed signal to the Republic".[17]
Soral finished by stating that such a course could only push other minorities to form political religious movement in order to be heard.[17] According to Soral, this would be a step likely to divide France into its various religious communities, which would then weaken the independence of the country.

Jesus Christ, I guess I should have wiki'd him before I defended him. Clearly he is an absolute scumbag, and I feel like a bit of a jackass now. However, and I know this doesn't help my argument at this point, but I think the analysis in the clip is still correct on its own, and similar analyses of feminism have been and continue to be shared by many communists. But yeah, fair enough, the guy is a misogynistic shitbag. Still, none of this actually comes through in the clip (assuming the subtitles are accurate, as the sound is not working on my computer).


I could only stomach so much of that nonsense. All I would add is that I would like him to walk up to big bad Emma G. and try and pass off that shit(get outta the way its gonna get bloody).

Goldman opposed feminism and distanced herself from the women's suffrage movement. As did Kollontai, incidentally, and a lot of other communist women.

[u.s.red]

Only an idiot would say something like: "..victimary communitariaism with a mono-deterministic aspect to it..."

What the hell does that mean anyway? The socialism of the victim, as determined by the individual. What he wants to say is that feminists are socialists, are victims, and are self-centered. It is not surprising to read that he is now a far right ideologue.

Is feminism a bourgeois idea? Is feminism part of the bourgeois ideology? The ideology of freedom and equality are bedrock bourgeois ideas. Everyone must be equally free to sell his or her labor on the open market. Bourgeois production must ultimately draw everybody, men, women and children into the labor market. Once women get into the labor market they obviously compete with men. I know from personal experience that once the equal and free competition begins women then develop politically on an equal and free basis with men.

Obviously liberation is not complete, but there is no going back to the old days.

[Revolution starts with U]

Jesus Christ, I guess I should have wiki'd him before I defended him. Clearly he is an absolute scumbag, and I feel like a bit of a jackass now. However, and I know this doesn't help my argument at this point, but I think the analysis in the clip is still correct on its own, and similar analyses of feminism have been and continue to be shared by many communists. But yeah, fair enough, the guy is a misogynistic shitbag. Still, none of this actually comes through in the clip (assuming the subtitles are accurate, as the sound is not working on my computer).



Goldman opposed feminism and distanced herself from the women's suffrage movement. As did Kollontai, incidentally, and a lot of other communist women.

As I said, there are parts of it that are valid. Women's suffrage alone does not free women of patriarchy. Women, while now wage laborers are still expected to be homemaker (while men are absolved of this role). Etc. There are good points. But he offers no step forward, only lamentations that women leave the household now. (Incidentally, I'm almost become used to far right wing reactionaries couching their scum in leftist rhetoric... it's sad really)

Idk... his misogyny just came out as pretty obvious to me.

[#FF0000]

yo y'all should actually, you know, watch the video and not jump to the conclusion that the dude is calling for all women to go back to the kitchen.

[Revolution starts with U]

yo y'all should actually, you know, watch the video and not jump to the conclusion that the dude is calling for all women to go back to the kitchen.

yo y'all should probably, you know, read the thread and realize the dude is fascist scum :rolleyes:

[Prometeo liberado]

Goldman opposed feminism and distanced herself from the women's suffrage movement. As did Kollontai, incidentally, and a lot of other communist women
What she opposed was the refomist "in the system" direction it was headed to. We call her and those like her Revolutionary Feminist for a reason. Your welcome.

[corolla]

What she opposed was the refomist "in the system" direction it was headed to. We call her and those like her Revolutionary Feminist for a reason. Your welcome.

She was not a feminist. You are retrospectively applying labels to her that she would have rejected.

Also, from Kollontai


The feminists see men as the main enemy, for men have unjustly seized all rights and privileges for themselves, leaving women only chains and duties. For them a victory is won when a prerogative previously enjoyed exclusively by the male sex is conceded to the “fair sex”. Proletarian women have a different attitude. They do not see men as the enemy and the oppressor; on the contrary, they think of men as their comrades, who share with them the drudgery of the daily round and fight with them for a better future. The woman and her male comrade are enslaved by the same social conditions; the same hated chains of capitalism oppress their will and deprive them of the joys and charms of life. It is true that several specific aspects of the contemporary system lie with double weight upon women, as it is also true that the conditions of hired labour sometimes turn working women into competitors and rivals to men. But in these unfavourable situations, the working class knows who is guilty.

The woman worker, no less than her brother in misfortune, hates that insatiable monster with its gilded maw which, concerned only to drain all the sap from its victims and to grow at the expense of millions of human lives, throws itself with equal greed at man, woman and child. Thousands of threads bring the working man close. The aspirations of the bourgeois woman, on the other hand, seem strange and incomprehensible. They are not warming to the proletarian heart; they do not promise the proletarian woman that bright future towards which the eyes of all exploited humanity are turned.

The proletarian women’s final aim does not, of course, prevent them from desiring to improve their status even within the framework of the current bourgeois system, but the realisation of these desires is constantly hindered by obstacles that derive from the very nature of capitalism. A woman can possess equal rights and be truly free only in a world of socialised labour, of harmony and justice. The feminists are unwilling and incapable of understanding this; it seems to them that when equality is formally accepted by the letter of the law they will be able to win a comfortable place for themselves in the old world of oppression, enslavement and bondage, of tears and hardship. And this is true up to a certain point. For the majority of women of the proletariat, equal rights with men would mean only an equal share in inequality, but for the “chosen few”, for the bourgeois women, it would indeed open doors to new and unprecedented rights and privileges that until now have been enjoyed by men of the bourgeois class alone. But each new concession won by the bourgeois woman would give her yet another weapon for the exploitation of her younger sister and would go on increasing the division between the women of the two opposite social camps. Their interests would be more sharply in conflict, their aspirations more obviously in contradiction.

[Strannik]

I have always thought that for marxists class identity should be primary while for bourgeoise its the last thing they want to talk about. For marxists, as long as a person is a great worker, it should be unimportant what their gender, nation, skin color or sexual preferences are. This kind of approach unifies - not everyone is automatically great worker, but everyone can become one.

Bourgeoise use identity politics to split class consciousness, therefore the features of an individual that they are born with become primary. Black bourgeoise, female exploiter, gay imperialist deserves as much regard as everyone else and therefore, bourgeoise deserves as much respect as a worker.

Isn't this correct?

[corolla]

I have always thought that for marxists class identity should be primary while for bourgeoise its the last thing they want to talk about. For marxists, as long as a person is a great worker, it should be unimportant what their gender, nation, skin color or sexual preferences are.This kind of approach unifies - not everyone is automatically great worker, but everyone can become one.

I agree that class is paramount, but I am not sure what you mean about 'great workers'. Its the bourgeoisie, not communists, who demand 'great workers'.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I have always thought that for marxists class identity should be primary while for bourgeoise its the last thing they want to talk about. For marxists, as long as a person is a great worker, it should be unimportant what their gender, nation, skin color or sexual preferences are. This kind of approach unifies - not everyone is automatically great worker, but everyone can become one.

Bourgeoise use identity politics to split class consciousness, therefore the features of an individual that they are born with become primary. Black bourgeoise, female exploiter, gay imperialist deserves as much regard as everyone else and therefore, bourgeoise deserves as much respect as a worker.

Isn't this correct?

Society (note: American society, as that's what I've lived in and that's the only place I've experienced enough to make a statement about) is kind of obsessed with categorizing people, though, whether it's by gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race etc. Thus many people identify more as black or native american or homosexual or Muslim or American or whatever far more than they identify as "working class" (if they even identify as working class at all!) Communists need to address this. Not necessarily foster some kind of phony racial or gender unity, that's bullshit, but I don't think that automatically saying "that's not important, class is what's important!" is productive.

I might actually say that if I were speaking with another self-proclaimed communist, but probably not someone from outside the far left wingnut millieu.