Feminism

[Einkarl]

Does the feminist movement take away from more radical leftist movements? Is it counter intuitive to focus on the emancipation of women exclusively rather than to focus all efforts to the emancipation of the working class as a whole?
Does the patriarchy really exist? Is feminism relevant in America and the the Euro countries?

Thoughts please.

[Lokomotive293]

Does the feminist movement take away from more radical leftist movements?

I don't think so. There are few people who are feminists exclusively.


Is it counter intuitive to focus on the emancipation of women exclusively rather than to focus all efforts to the emancipation of the working class as a whole?

You always have to see the struggles of different minorities in context with, or as a part of the struggle of the whole working class. The emancipation of women is inseperable from the emancipation of the whole working class.


Does the patriarchy really exist?

Yes.


Is feminism relevant in America and the the Euro countries?

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think feminism exists much outside of the radical left anymore. A lot of people seem to see it as a thing of the past, even though in reality women are still oppressed.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

feminism cannot be separated from the larger socialist struggle. without a commitment to struggle against oppression, be it traditionally-recognized forms of oppression (sexism, racism, religious bigotry) or more recently-recognized forms of oppression (homophobia, transphobia, ableism), there is no reason for subaltern workers to see the socialist movement as anything but a reflection of the oppressive society they already live in. why would they join that? and more importantly, how can the working class emancipate itself if the same discriminatory barriers still exist under socialism for every subaltern worker as they did under class society?

you do not have to be a postmodernist or a liberal to be a feminist. if you are not a feminist, you are not a socialist.

[RedAtheist]

Does the patriarchy really exist? Is feminism relevant in America and the the Euro countries?

Ever heard of something called 'the Christian right'? Their goal is to undo just about every positive change that supposedly makes feminism "irrelevent" to first world countries. To put it more concretely, this involves banning abortion, limiting access to birth control (if not outright banning it), opposing vaccines aimed at protecting women from STDs, training young women to be perfect, submissive, virginal housemaids and changing the culture and public education (e.g. via 'abstience only education') to reflect their ideology.

Plus there's the fact that if the half the working class thinks they've been programmed (either genetically or by god) to be gentle, soft, serville idiots, that will weaken any potential revolutionary force.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Does the feminist movement take away from more radical leftist movements? Is it counter intuitive to focus on the emancipation of women exclusively rather than to focus all efforts to the emancipation of the working class as a whole?
The answer to both questions is no. If we want to emancipate the working class as a whole, then we must recognize that sexism exists even on the Left and in working class movements, and thus revolutionary feminism is important (unlike bourgeois feminism) to abolishing sexism along with capitalism


Does the patriarchy really exist?
It's generally defined as social structures that oppress women. That may not be the best word for it, but clearly such structures exist and pre-date bourgeois society.


Is feminism relevant in America and the the Euro countries?
Are there reactionary movements hostile to women's rights and equality in those places?

[Quail]

Does the feminist movement take away from more radical leftist movements? Is it counter intuitive to focus on the emancipation of women exclusively rather than to focus all efforts to the emancipation of the working class as a whole?
I'd say no to both questions. The emancipation of women is part of the wider struggle. While sexism exists (and it still does, even in revolutionary movements) a proper socialist society can't exist. If women aren't free, society can't be free.


Does the patriarchy really exist?
Yes, patriarchy does exist. Society is structured in such a way that favours men. Most people hold patriarchal values, whether consciously or subconsciously, because those are the values that society promotes. Women are less likely to be taken seriously, women are judged on their appearance rather than their abilities, they are blamed for being harassed and assaulted, etc. From my living experience as a woman, it's quite obvious that patriarchy exists.


Is feminism relevant in America and the the Euro countries?
Yes, because things that women have fought for in the past, such as abortion, are under attack from right-wing politicians, and also because there is still a culture of sexism. I also think that feminism is relevant to the struggle for LGBTQ rights. It is because of patriarchal values that gay men are seen as inferior/womanlike, that gay women are objectified as "hot," trans people are discriminated against for not fitting into the "correct" gender role, etc.

[Lowtech]

Does the feminist movement take away from more radical leftist movements?I see no reason it would. I'm sure an educated study of feminism would allow you to see that there are as many flavors of feminism as there is of marxism, socialism etc. and its easy for opponents of feminism to choose the most illogical and stereotype the entire movement with it in order to falsify.
Is it counter intuitive to focus on the emancipation of women exclusively rather than to focus all efforts to the emancipation of the working class as a whole?this is a childish question. capitalism is based on mathematical subjugation via "artificial scarcity." and artificial scarcity creates social inequality at all levels of society, including between two individuals. elitism lead to subjugation of the whole of humanity economically in the same fashion it has lead to subjugation of women socially.

Does the patriarchy really exist? Is feminism relevant in America and the the Euro countries?

Thoughts please.it would take a very poor understanding of society and history to believe there has never been patriarchal families and to assume none exist now.

a friend asked me once for my advice, and my response was "since when does a woman need a man's approval?"

[Sasha]

guess its best to let the women speak for themselves;


Anarcho-feminism: two statements


http://libcom.org/files/imagecache/article/images/library/tumblr_m0kcurCdir1roos5xo1_500.jpg (http://libcom.org/files/images/library/tumblr_m0kcurCdir1roos5xo1_500.jpg)


Two statements regarding anarcho-feminism from 1971 by Chicago anarcho-feminists and the Black Rose Anarcho-Feminists respectively.



Who we are: An Anarcho-Feminist Manifesto
We consider Anarcho-Feminism to be the ultimate and necessary radical stance at this time in world history, far more radical than any form of Marxism.
We believe that a Woman's Revolutionary Movement must not mimic, but destroy, all vestiges of the male-dominated power structure, the State itself - with its whole ancient and dismal apparatus of jails, armies, and armed robbery (taxation); with all its murder; with all of its grotesque and repressive legislation and military attempts, internal and external, to interfere with people's private lives and freely-chosen co-operative ventures.
The world obviously cannot survive many more decades of rule by gangs of armed males calling themselves governments. The situation is insane, ridiculous and even suicidal. Whatever its varying forms of justifications, the armed State is what is threatening all of our lives at present. The State, by its inherent nature, is really incapable of reform. True socialism, peace and plenty for all, can be achieved only by people themselves, not by representatives ready and able to turn guns on all who do not comply, with State directives. As to how we proceed against the pathological State structure, perhaps the best word is to outgrow rather than overthrow. This process entails, among other things, a tremendous thrust of education and communication among all peoples. The intelligence of womankind has at last been brought to bear on such oppressive male inventions as the church and the legal family; it must now be brought to re-evaluate the ultimate stronghold of male domination, the State.
While we recognise important differences in the rival systems, our analysis of the evils of the State must extend to both its communist and capitalist versions.
We intend to put to the test the concept of freedom of expression, which we trust will be incorporated in the ideology of the coming Socialist Sisterhood which is destined to play a determining role in the future of the race, if there really is to be a future.
We are all socialists. We refuse to give up this pre-Marxist term which has been used as a synonym by many anarchist thinkers. Another synonym for anarchism is libertarian socialism, as opposed to Statist and authoritarian varieties. Anarchism (from the Greek anarchos - without ruler) is the affirmation of human freedom and dignity expressed in a negative, cautionary term signifying that no person should rule or dominate another person by force or threat of force. Anarchism indicates what people should not do to one another. Socialism, on the other hand, means all the groovy things people can do and build together, once they are able to combine efforts and resources on the basis of common interest, rationality and creativity.
We love our Marxist sisters and all our sisters everywhere, and have no interest in disassociating ourselves from their constructive struggles. However, we reserve the right to criticise their politics when we feel that they are obsolete or irrelevant or inimical to the welfare of womankind.
As Anarcho-Feminists, we aspire to have the courage to question and challenge absolutely everything - including, when it proves necessary, our own assumptions.

Blood Of The Flower: An Anarchist-Feminist Statement
We are an independent collective of women who feel that anarchism is the logically consistent expression of feminism.
We believe that each woman is the only legitimate articulator of her own oppression. Any woman, regardless of previous political involvement knows only too intimately her own oppression, and hence, can and must define what form her liberation will take.
Why are many women sick and tired of 'movements'? Our answer is that the fault lies with the nature of movements, not with the individual women. Political movements, as we have known them, have separated our political activities from our personal dreams of liberation, until either we are made to abandon our dreams as impossible or we are forced to drop out of the movement because we hold steadfastly to our dreams. As true anarchists and as true feminists, we say dare to dream the impossible, and never settle for less than total translation of the impossible into reality.
There have been two principle forms of action in the women's liberation movement. One has been the small, local, volitionally organised consciousness-raising group, which at best has been a very meaningful mode of dealing with oppression from a personal level and, at worst, never evolved beyond the level of a therapy group.
The other principle mode of participation has been large, bureaucratised groups which have focused their activities along specific policy lines, taking great pains to translate women's oppression into concrete, single-issue programmes. Women in this type of group often have been involved in formal leftist politics for some time, but could not stomach the sexism within other leftist groups. However, after reacting against the above-mentioned attitude of leftist males, many women with formal political orientations could not accept the validity of what they felt were the 'therapy groups' of their suburban sisters; yet they themselves still remained within the realm of male-originated Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, Maoist rhetoric, and continued to use forms of political organisation employed by the male leftist groups they were reacting against. The elitism and centralisation of the old male left thereby has found, and already poisoned parts of the women's movement with the attitude that political sophistication must mean 'building' a movement around single issue programmes, thereby implying that 'we must be patient until the masses' consciousness is raised to our level.' How condescending to assume that an oppressed person must be told that she is oppressed! How condescending to assume that her consciousness will grow only by plodding along, from single-issue to next single issue.
In the past decade or more, women of the left were consistently intimidated out of fighting for our own liberation, avoiding the obvious fact that all women are an oppressed group. We are so numerous and dispersed that we have identified ourselves erroneously as members of particular classes on the basis of the class of 'our men', our fathers or our husbands. So women of the left regarding ourselves as middle-class more than oppressed women, have been led to neglect engaging in our own struggle as our primary struggle. Instead, we have dedicated ourselves to fight on behalf of other oppressed peoples, thus alienating ourselves from our own plight. Many say that this attitude no longer exists in the women's movement, that it originated only from the guilt trip of the white middle class male, but even today women in autonomous women's movements speak of the need to organise working class women, without concentrating on the need to organise ourselves - as if we were already beyond that level. This does not mean (if we insist first and foremost on freeing ourselves) that we love our oppressed sisters any the less; on the contrary, we feel that the best way for us to be true to all liberation struggles is to accept and deal directly with our own oppression.
Why Anarchism?
We do not believe that rejection of Marxist-Leninist analysis and strategy is by definition political naiveté. We do not believe it is politically naive to maintain the attitude that even a 'democratically centralised' group could be considered the 'vanguard' spokeswoman for us. The nature of groups concerned with 'building' movements is: 1) to water down the 'more extreme' dreams into 'realistic' demands, and 2) to eventually become an organ of tyranny itself. No thanks!
There is another entire radical tradition which has run counter to Marxist-Leninist theory and practice through all of modern radical history - from Bakunin to Kropotkin to Sophie Perovskaya to Emma Goldman to Errico Malatesta to Murray Bookchin - and that is Anarchism. It is a tradition less familiar to most radicals because it has consistently been distorted and misrepresented by the more highly organised State organisations and Marxist-Leninist organisations.
Anarchism is not synonymous with irresponsibility and chaos. Indeed, it offers meaningful alternatives to the out-dated organisational and policy-making practices of the rest of the left. The basic anarchist form of organisation is a small group, volitionary organised and maintained, which must work toward defining the oppression of its members and what form their struggle for liberation must take.
Organising women, in the New Left and Marxist left, is viewed as amassing troops for the Revolution But we affirm that each woman joining in struggle is the Revolution. WE ARE THE REVOLUTION!
We must learn to act on impulse, to abandon the restrictions on behaviour that society has taught us to place on ourselves. The 'movement' has been, for most of us, a thing removed from ourselves. We must no longer think of ourselves as members of a movement, but as individual revolutionaries, co-operating. Two, three, five or ten such individual revolutionaries who know and trust each other intimately can carry out revolutionary acts and make our own policy. As members of a leaderless affinity group, each member participates on an equal level of power, thus negating the hierarchical function of power. DOWN WITH ALL BOSSES! Then we will not be lost in a movement where leadership determines for us the path the movement will take - we are our own movement, we determine our own movement's direction. We have refused to allow ourselves to be directed, spoken for, and eventually cooled off.
We do not believe, as some now affirm, that the splintering of the Women's Movement means the end to all of our revolutionary effectiveness. No! The spirit of the women is just too large to be guided and manipulated by 'a movement'. Small groups, acting on their own and deciding upon their own actions, are the logical expression of revolutionary women. This, of course, does not preclude various groups working together on various projects or conferences.
To these ends, and because we do not wish to he out of touch with other women, we have organised as an autonomous collective within the Women's Centre in Cambridge, Mass. The Women's Centre functions as a federation; that is, not as a policy-making group, but as a centre for various women's groups to meet. We will also continue to write statements like this one as we feel moved to. We would really like to hear from all and sundry!
ALL POWER TO THE IMAGINATION!
Red Rosia and Black Maria
Black Rose Anarcho-Feminists

A Note On The Text
The Anarcho-Feminist Manifesto was written by Chicago Anarcho-Feminists. Blood of the Flower was written by Red Rosia and Black Maria of Black Rose Anarcho-Feminists, who in 1971 could be reached c/o The Women's Centre, 46 Pleasant Street, Cambridge Mass.
Both articles first appeared in Siren - A Journal of Anarcho-Feminism Vol 1 No 1 1971 (now defunct), published in Chicago.
They were next published together as a pamphlet by the Seattle section of the Social Revolutionary Anarchist Federation and the Revolutionary Anarchist Print Fund, c/o 4736 University Way NE, Seattle, Wn 98105.

source; http://libcom.org/library/anarcho-feminism-two-statements-1971

[Comrade #138672]

Does the feminist movement take away from more radical leftist movements?Not necessarily, but bourgeois Feminists do.


Is it counter intuitive to focus on the emancipation of women exclusively rather than to focus all efforts to the emancipation of the working class as a whole?Yes.


Does the patriarchy really exist?Yes, although many theories of patriarchy are wrong and do not dig deep enough to get to the root of the problems. Patriarchy exists, but it has nothing to do with men having an inherent need to dominate women or something like that. Patriarchy has developed according to the needs of the ruling classes.


Is feminism relevant in America and the the Euro countries?Yes, but it needs to be combined with anti-racism and Socialism, or every effort will be futile.

This is a very good article and explains patriarchy very well: Lindsey German - Theories of Patriarchy (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/german/1981/xx/patriarchy.htm). It analyzes patriarchy from the perspective of Marxism. And it doesn't just do that, it also explains what is wrong with other theories.

[Dog]

Feminism was created in order to further the interests of the capitalist elite by ushering women into the corporate workplace.

[Lowtech]

Feminism was created in order to further the interests of the capitalist elite by ushering women into the corporate workplace.

Dafuq did I just read?

I'm going to pretend for a min you're being serious. Where are your refrences? and is there any actual evidence to support your crackology?

Joking aside, does anyone actually believe such nonesense, and if so, why??

[Red Enemy]

Should we be making a differentiation between the Marxist Feminism, or even anarcho-feminism which acknowledges the class origins of the oppression of women, and capitalist liberal feminism, which does not acknowledge capitalism as the problem?

[Quail]

Should we be making a differentiation between the Marxist Feminism, or even anarcho-feminism which acknowledges the class origins of the oppression of women, and capitalist liberal feminism, which does not acknowledge capitalism as the problem?
Yes we should, but it is easier to come up with bullshit strawmen.

[KdB]

Dafuq did I just read?

I'm going to pretend for a min you're being serious. Where are your refrences? and is there any actual evidence to support your crackology?

Joking aside, does anyone actually believe such nonesense, and if so, why??

The theory is that men working as wage slaves wasn't making the bourgeois rich enough for their liking; so, to double their wealth, they decided to make women wage slaves too. That has led to the campaign for women's right to work, and the push for a rejection of both stay-at-home parenting and having kids at all in the name of feminism. Proponents of the theory often bring up the fact that having kids and raising them is contributing to society in a huge way, contrary to the arguments about women being "hidden away" and not allowed to contribute etc.

Historically, it seems to have been normal for many women to get married in their teens and start cranking out babies. Today, it's generally frowned upon to get pregnant so young; additionally, anyone who does have a large number of kids is treated like a circus freak, the Duggar family being a good example. The push is in the direction of all people becoming proletariat wage slaves, with the idea of responsibility to family, friends, or any other organization being left behind.

I don't completely agree, but it is an interesting way of looking at it.

[Lord Hargreaves]

feminism cannot be separated from the larger socialist struggle. without a commitment to struggle against oppression, be it traditionally-recognized forms of oppression (sexism, racism, religious bigotry) or more recently-recognized forms of oppression (homophobia, transphobia, ableism), there is no reason for subaltern workers to see the socialist movement as anything but a reflection of the oppressive society they already live in. why would they join that? and more importantly, how can the working class emancipate itself if the same discriminatory barriers still exist under socialism for every subaltern worker as they did under class society?

you do not have to be a postmodernist or a liberal to be a feminist. if you are not a feminist, you are not a socialist.

Is any of this necessarily true, I mean, as a matter of definition?

Organised socialist parties have existed for over a century. Yet, while a lot of the ideas prominent within these groups considering class struggle have barely changed since the late 19th century (just browse revleft for examples of this) we would consider even the most enlightened ideas concerning women and sexuality within these groups in 1900 as deeply sexist as compared with today. So where is the direct causal relationship between the two?

It seems to me that socialism and feminism have different histories and they shouldn't be so easily and uncritically conflated as being the same.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Feminism was created in order to further the interests of the capitalist elite by ushering women into the corporate workplace.

Nowadays women are often both the main breadwinners of the household and the homemaker and carer of the children. They were "liberated" into the world of capitalist wage labour, but without any significant change in patriarchal relations within the family unit. It sucks to be female.

[Decolonize The Left]

Is any of this necessarily true, I mean, as a matter of definition?

Organised socialist parties have existed for over a century. Yet, while a lot of the ideas prominent within these groups considering class struggle have barely changed since the late 19th century (just browse revleft for examples of this) we would consider even the most enlightened ideas concerning women and sexuality within these groups in 1900 as deeply sexist as compared with today. So where is the direct causal relationship between the two?

It seems to me that socialism and feminism have different histories and they shouldn't be so easily and uncritically conflated as being the same.

The difference is that feminism is seeking to liberate women as women as opposed to seeking to liberate women as members of the working class. Both involve seeking the liberation of a group of people from oppression, only they contextualize said liberation differently given that there are many forms of oppression.

This said, most socialists would say (if I may put words in all their mouths) that they seek to liberate women both as women and as members of the working class. Hence they are both feminists and socialists.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Feminism was created in order to further the interests of the capitalist elite by ushering women into the corporate workplace.

Because obviously anyone who was not a capitalist could not possibly come to the conclusion that women should have equal rights to men...

[#FF0000]

Feminism was created in order to further the interests of the capitalist elite by ushering women into the corporate workplace.

Completely at odds with the history of feminism but okay.

I mean of course there are criticisms to be made of "bourgeois" or "liberal feminism" but goddamn, people. It's a big thing, feminism, and can't be painted with a broad brush like that.

[blake 3:17]

Yes, although many theories of patriarchy are wrong and do not dig deep enough to get to the root of the problems. Patriarchy exists, but it has nothing to do with men having an inherent need to dominate women or something like that. Patriarchy has developed according to the needs of the ruling classes.
...

This is a very good article and explains patriarchy very well: Lindsey German - Theories of Patriarchy (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/german/1981/xx/patriarchy.htm). It analyzes patriarchy from the perspective of Marxism. And it doesn't just do that, it also explains what is wrong with other theories.

German completely rejects patriarchy as a concept and is an anti-feminist economic reductionist. The piece you're quoting is from 81 so I can't fault her for missing the reproductive rights movements which happened after, but...

And there's a slam on Barbara Taylor! Her book Eve and the New Jerusalem is a fabulous account of socialist feminists in the early 19th century. Within English radicalism -- the Owenites and Chartists -- women were at the absolute theoretical vanguard and there were a few quite obscure activists whose ideas were remarkably similar to Marx's, many years before Marx had given a thought about social struggle.

German is right on about recognizing basic inequalities between men and women, seeing their unjust, and so on. Her recent work seems more of the same, which is a kind of one-solution-revolution type perspective.

[Psy]

Feminism outside class struggle is counter-productive. For example lets look at the erotic entertainment industry from a pure feminist standpoint women are being exploited for their sexuality while this true the larger issue is their labor exploited the best paid porn actress is paid far less.

Basically the road to women liberation is through the liberation of the proletariat.

[Quail]

Basically the road to women liberation is through the liberation of the proletariat.
Provided that patriarchy is challenged alongside capitalism.

[Psy]

Provided that patriarchy is challenged alongside capitalism.
If workers are in control of society then the primary obstacles to ending patriarchy would be gone.

[Quail]

No, because the forces that seek to liberate us from wage slavery are dominated by men. Those men don't listen to us or take us seriously, so the situation ends up where women don't attend because there isn't any childcare for exaple, and since women's issues aren't take seriously, the sexist society promoted by the "leftists" continues. If you don't realise or listen to why you're being sexist, how are you ever going to change?

[Ostrinski]

Feminism, we could define generally as the doctrine of the emancipation of women from patriarchy and gender roles. More specifically it refers to the movement toward the abolition of all social distinctions between gender identities. A feminist, then, would be any adherent to this movement. Thus all (actual) socialists are feminists. Anything less than a feminist approach to gender and sexuality issues is, in my mind, retrograde conservatism and Victorianism.

I tend to agree with the position that the deconstruction of patriarchy should be a conscious effort. It is a social relationship that binds us all. I'm thinking that those saying "we just have to worry about working class revolution.. then everything will be better!" are saying this and are able to say this because they are in no particular hurry to abolish oppressive gender norms - that is, they are unable to see that their innate privilege in the existing structures has blinded them of the ability to formulate a coherent attitude toward gender and sexuality concerns.

[blake 3:17]

@Quail - thank you - I thought my brain was going to explode. The lack of basic feminist consciousness amongst most parts of the Left is so depressing. Very basic issues like child care are taken as luxuries, rather than the basics we need for building movements which can challenge capitalism.

Thanks & solidarity.

[Psy]

No, because the forces that seek to liberate us from wage slavery are dominated by men. Those men don't listen to us or take us seriously, so the situation ends up where women don't attend because there isn't any childcare for exaple, and since women's issues aren't take seriously, the sexist society promoted by the "leftists" continues. If you don't realise or listen to why you're being sexist, how are you ever going to change?
This is has been less of a issue for the radical labor movement, for example Mary Harris Jones co-founded the IWW.

GgYjVOFZZFc

Also once there is global communism this would no be a issue anywhere, since we have free access to products of society means childcare would be free to everyone as use produces to meet the demands of society.

[Ostrinski]

This is has been less of a issue for the radical labor movement, for example Mary Harris Jones co-founded the IWW.

GgYjVOFZZFc

Also once there is global communism this would no be a issue anywhere, since we have free access to products of society means childcare would be free to everyone as use produces to meet the demands of society.So I take it you're in no particular hurry to oppose gender and sexuality based oppression?

[Quail]

@Quail - thank you - I thought my brain was going to explode. The lack of basic feminist consciousness amongst most parts of the Left is so depressing. Very basic issues like child care are taken as luxuries, rather than the basics we need for building movements which can challenge capitalism.

Thanks & solidarity.
I think that part of the problem is that the "left" is so male dominated that they don't really notice the ways in which they exclude women. Now, this is an issue because obviously if you're lacking women in a movement, wondering why there are no women and excluding them at the same time, there's a problem. There's also a problem because you're doing the same thing to queers and poc. You need to learn to the needs of women, queers, poc and actually do something to make non-white, non-straight, non-males feel accepted. For me, it's been a positive thing having a kid because it means I force local groups to take me and my circumstances seriously, but I don't know if everyone does that. Maybe some people look at how exclusive anarchist groups are and decide, fuck them.

(Sorry for incoherence, I'm wasted)

[Psy]

So I take it you're in no particular hurry to oppose gender and sexuality based oppression?

It is not that simple. Patriarchy is institutionalized within bourgeois society, you are never going to end sexual based oppression till capitalism is laid to rest. Thus attacking patriarchy outside of attacking capitalism is Sisyphean task, of course attacking patriarchy within the struggle against capitalism is productive.

Feminism on its own is putting the cart before the horse, this is why you have feminists thinking female capitalists is progress.

[Lowtech]

The theory is that men working as wage slaves wasn't making the bourgeois rich enough for their liking; so, to double their wealth, they decided to make women wage slaves too. That has led to the campaign for women's right to work, and the push for a rejection of both stay-at-home parenting and having kids at all in the name of feminism. Proponents of the theory often bring up the fact that having kids and raising them is contributing to society in a huge way, contrary to the arguments about women being "hidden away" and not allowed to contribute etc.

Historically, it seems to have been normal for many women to get married in their teens and start cranking out babies. Today, it's generally frowned upon to get pregnant so young; additionally, anyone who does have a large number of kids is treated like a circus freak, the Duggar family being a good example. The push is in the direction of all people becoming proletariat wage slaves, with the idea of responsibility to family, friends, or any other organization being left behind.

I don't completely agree, but it is an interesting way of looking at it.

i disagree. in actuality, to suggest feminism is some kind of capitalist conspiracy is the abuse of philosophical reasoning, in the attempt to support an existing bias. the user dog just doesn't like feminism. its fine to not like something, but making up reasoning to support your dislike is not intellectual at all, and what i prefer to call crackology.

[Let's Get Free]

Here's a pretty interesting video

Dbr1FpAMm_M

[Decolonize The Left]

It is not that simple. Patriarchy is institutionalized within bourgeois society, you are never going to end sexual based oppression till capitalism is laid to rest. Thus attacking patriarchy outside of attacking capitalism is Sisyphean task, of course attacking patriarchy within the struggle against capitalism is productive.

Feminism on its own is putting the cart before the horse, this is why you have feminists thinking female capitalists is progress.

Don't you think that this position is readily invalidated by the simple fact that patriarchy existed long before capitalism was ever invented. For if what you say is true then there would have been no patriarchy before bourgeois society - i.e. patriarchy came about as a result of bourgeois society. But this is false.

The truth is that patriarchy is a tool used by the capitalist class to divide and conquer the working class. Before this it was a tools used to divide the peasants and non-royalty.

The same can be said for racism, homophobia, nationalism, etc... these bigotries have always been, and always will be, tools used by the hands of the ruling class to control those beneath them. Hence there will be no victory for women as such through the revolution - for the revolution is a victory for the working class as such. Women are a part of it, absolutely, but not the focus of it.

And this is why feminism is important and deserves recognition as a completely viable position and a desperately needed perspective within the class struggle. In short, you'll never have a revolution until feminism becomes accepted and enacted.

Addendum: Female capitalists are progress. So is a black president. It's not the kind of progress we'd necessarily prefer, but it is progress none-the-less.

[Psy]

Don't you think that this position is readily invalidated by the simple fact that patriarchy existed long before capitalism was ever invented. For if what you say is true then there would have been no patriarchy before bourgeois society - i.e. patriarchy came about as a result of bourgeois society. But this is false.

I never said that patriarchy is a result of capitalism, patriarchy is institutionalized in bourgeoisie society just as it was institutionalized in feudalism.



The truth is that patriarchy is a tool used by the capitalist class to divide and conquer the working class. Before this it was a tools used to divide the peasants and non-royalty.

Right how I have yet to see a rational exploitation why a revolutionary workers state maintain patriarchy, or how it would be political feasible giving the massive revolutionary might female workers have displayed in revolutions.



The same can be said for racism, homophobia, nationalism, etc... these bigotries have always been, and always will be, tools used by the hands of the ruling class to control those beneath them. Hence there will be no victory for women as such through the revolution - for the revolution is a victory for the working class as such. Women are a part of it, absolutely, but not the focus of it.

And this is why feminism is important and deserves recognition as a completely viable position and a desperately needed perspective within the class struggle. In short, you'll never have a revolution until feminism becomes accepted and enacted.

Then why was it the radial labor movement that organized sex workers into labor unions while mainstream feminism still denounces sex workers due to the fact mainstream feminism denounces Marx as it counters their view that the only class division in society is between males and females.



Addendum: Female capitalists are progress. So is a black president. It's not the kind of progress we'd necessarily prefer, but it is progress none-the-less.
Female capitalists are not progressive, being exploited by a women doesn't change the exploitation. The very notion is very absurd, it is like saying the fact there are now black police officers that are racist against blacks is progressive because it is not just white police officers that are racist against blacks.

[Decolonize The Left]

Right how I have yet to see a rational exploitation why a revolutionary workers state maintain patriarchy, or how it would be political feasible giving the massive revolutionary might female workers have displayed in revolutions.

Given that we do not have a revolutionary workers state, it would very difficult to claim one way or another how patriarchy would or would not exist within said state, no?

I think it is pretty obvious that patriarchy exists in a multitude of different economic formats and that simply assuming that a leftist revolution would in tandem abolish patriarchy and all the while assuming this will happen without a feminist movement is a stretch.


Then why was it the radial labor movement that organized sex workers into labor unions while mainstream feminism still denounces sex workers due to the fact mainstream feminism denounces Marx as it counters their view that the only class division in society is between males and females.

This is a gross over-simplification of "mainstream feminism." Feminism is not a static theory - it is highly complex and there are ample feminists who would find what you said not only insulting but naive and misinformed.


Female capitalists are not progressive, being exploited by a women doesn't change the exploitation. The very notion is very absurd, it is like saying the fact there are now black police officers that are racist against blacks is progressive because it is not just white police officers that are racist against blacks.

Your absolutist view will get you very little in real life. I don't think you would stand up to a black woman and tell her to her face that the progress of black people and women is all a crock of shit would you? She might be old enough to remember when black people couldn't even fucking vote. So - yeah, progress has been made and to say it hasn't is to bury your head in the sand.

The truth is that the progress made by women and racial minorities is progress within the system. We, as radical leftists, are opposed to the system in it's entirety. But unfortunately we must exist within the system as a matter of life, and so to ignore the workings within the system is essentially to do yourself a disservice.

We must support women in their quest for equality, even if it be an equality in chains. We must also support racial minorities in their quest for equality and liberty, even if this liberty leads to an overall continued servitude. The reason why we must do this is because it is the quest that matters. A quest for liberty, even if it leads to continued servitude, changes the way one sees the world - opens eyes to possibilities.

The revolution of which we speak is so large, so powerful, so abstract at the present moment, that you will not be able to mobilize the type of movement you're talking about. On the other hand, movements can build off other movements.

You will never have a working class revolution until men and women of all races, genders, sexual orientations, etc... feel as though they are equal under the eyes of their oppressors. It is only when this happens that they will actually be able to recognize their oppressors for what they are, for it is only in this time that they will be able to stop fighting amongst themselves.

[Psy]

Given that we do not have a revolutionary workers state, it would very difficult to claim one way or another how patriarchy would or would not exist within said state, no?

Giving the massive role women have taken in revolutions and they come out of revolutions being heavily armed and battle hardened, I find it unlikely a workers state would have the means to continue patriarchy.



I think it is pretty obvious that patriarchy exists in a multitude of different economic formats and that simply assuming that a leftist revolution would in tandem abolish patriarchy and all the while assuming this will happen without a feminist movement is a stretch.

Patriarchy exists in class hierarchies there is no evidence of patriarchy existed in primitive human societies.




This is a gross over-simplification of "mainstream feminism." Feminism is not a static theory - it is highly complex and there are ample feminists who would find what you said not only insulting but naive and misinformed.

Then you haven't been paying attention to scandals the major feminists groups have been through, that have alienated both men and women with a very sexist gender world view. If open up popular feminists writings on patriarchy theory it basically states patriarchy is a system created by men to exploit men for the interest of men. And what Marxist- Feminists (that is not mainstream) have pointed out time the feminist patriarchy theory is BS, women workers are not paid less then men workers because it benefits the male proletariat (or men as a whole) but because the bourgeoisie be it male or female can exploit female workers more.

The problem with feminism outside of Marxism is that it rejects class even exists and instead blames exploiting entirely on men as if men as a class ran society.



Your absolutist view will get you very little in real life. I don't think you would stand up to a black woman and tell her to her face that the progress of black people and women is all a crock of shit would you? She might be old enough to remember when black people couldn't even fucking vote. So - yeah, progress has been made and to say it hasn't is to bury your head in the sand.

You are missing my point, my point is that having black police officers beat the shit out of the proletariat is not progressive just like having females exploit the proletariat isn't progressive. I don't care the color or gender my capitalist oppressors, all that matters is they are capitalist oppressors everything else about them is superficial.



The truth is that the progress made by women and racial minorities is progress within the system. We, as radical leftists, are opposed to the system in it's entirety. But unfortunately we must exist within the system as a matter of life, and so to ignore the workings within the system is essentially to do yourself a disservice.

Yet feminists outside of Marxism don't do this, they alienate both men and women with double standards and being undemocratic. The feminist vanguard decides what is proper behaviour for men and women, for example there was a scandal where feminist group raised noise of a atheist group making a list of the most sexy female scientists yet when the atheist group pointed to how the same women talked about sexy males athletes the feminist defended their hypocrisy.

I have seen bourgeois feminist organizations heckle anarchist and Marxist meetings simply because anarchists and Marxists attack all capitalists including female capitalists and trash talk about Margaret Thatcher.



We must support women in their quest for equality, even if it be an equality in chains. We must also support racial minorities in their quest for equality and liberty, even if this liberty leads to an overall continued servitude. The reason why we must do this is because it is the quest that matters. A quest for liberty, even if it leads to continued servitude, changes the way one sees the world - opens eyes to possibilities.

The revolution of which we speak is so large, so powerful, so abstract at the present moment, that you will not be able to mobilize the type of movement you're talking about. On the other hand, movements can build off other movements.

You will never have a working class revolution until men and women of all races, genders, sexual orientations, etc... feel as though they are equal under the eyes of their oppressors. It is only when this happens that they will actually be able to recognize their oppressors for what they are, for it is only in this time that they will be able to stop fighting amongst themselves.
But that happens now, male and female workers have been working together in the labor movement since the 19th century with women taking a prominent role in revolutions.

[blake 3:17]

@Quail -- I am childcare worker and I went to childcare for political reasons. I want to bring down the rule of traditional gender roles, participate in workers rights and gender equity campaigns as a front line worker, and build a culture of radical inclusion. I dropped out of far Left politics for a while, primarily focusing on child and elder care, both of which give me much more happiness than running around from meeting to meeting.

Over the past few years the main work I've done on the local Left has been providing child care at meetings and events. Some is paid and some volunteer. There have been a couple of local attempts to try to create a broader child care collective which could help radical movements, but very unfortunately not too many people have been willing to step and do it. I've tried guilt tripping a bunch of men in to do doing it, but to no avail.

I've done some brainstorming with socialist and anarchist feminists around child care, accessibility issues, and gendered practices in our organizations. Some of it is a bit successful, but other parts are just really hindered by masculine ignorance, willful or not.

Within this thread, people who do mean well about gender equality just really don't get much about the realities which most women experience. As a man, there are really only a small number of other men I can speak to who get it -- in some cases it is gay men who've experience particular forms of oppression, other times straight men who are fathers and understand the challenges of parenting, and some, regardless of sexuality, who have been caregivers of parents or other family members.

One of the things I found most attractive about feminism and feminist thought was the search for a new language and a new vocabulary and I look at what I wrote above and the most pressing point seems to be who get it but maybe that is fine for now. I can get upset about the posters above who don't understand where we're coming from but that seems pretty pointless.

[Psy]

@Quail -- I am childcare worker and I went to childcare for political reasons. I want to bring down the rule of traditional gender roles, participate in workers rights and gender equity campaigns as a front line worker, and build a culture of radical inclusion. I dropped out of far Left politics for a while, primarily focusing on child and elder care, both of which give me much more happiness than running around from meeting to meeting.

Over the past few years the main work I've done on the local Left has been providing child care at meetings and events. Some is paid and some volunteer. There have been a couple of local attempts to try to create a broader child care collective which could help radical movements, but very unfortunately not too many people have been willing to step and do it. I've tried guilt tripping a bunch of men in to do doing it, but to no avail.

I've done some brainstorming with socialist and anarchist feminists around child care, accessibility issues, and gendered practices in our organizations. Some of it is a bit successful, but other parts are just really hindered by masculine ignorance, willful or not.

Within this thread, people who do mean well about gender equality just really don't get much about the realities which most women experience. As a man, there are really only a small number of other men I can speak to who get it -- in some cases it is gay men who've experience particular forms of oppression, other times straight men who are fathers and understand the challenges of parenting, and some, regardless of sexuality, who have been caregivers of parents or other family members.

One of the things I found most attractive about feminism and feminist thought was the search for a new language and a new vocabulary and I look at what I wrote above and the most pressing point seems to be who get it but maybe that is fine for now. I can get upset about the posters above who don't understand where we're coming from but that seems pretty pointless.
I support feminism within the workers struggle but my experiences with feminism outside the worker struggle has been one of alienation due to arbitrary moral codes that piss off both men and women. For example feminists recently attacked promotional models saying they should be banned and guess what this pissed off the models. The feminists didn't give a shit that their proposal would put women out of work and these women have bills to pay, while the radical labor movement has pushed for the legalization and unionization of prostitution to actually help women in the workplace rather then throw them onto the street claiming they have be liberated.

[Decolonize The Left]

Giving the massive role women have taken in revolutions and they come out of revolutions being heavily armed and battle hardened, I find it unlikely a workers state would have the means to continue patriarchy.

While I agree with you, this is totally hypothetical.


Patriarchy exists in class hierarchies there is no evidence of patriarchy existed in primitive human societies.

Patriarchy changes form, but gender roles have existed for a long, long time.


Then you haven't been paying attention to scandals the major feminists groups have been through, that have alienated both men and women with a very sexist gender world view. If open up popular feminists writings on patriarchy theory it basically states patriarchy is a system created by men to exploit men for the interest of men. And what Marxist- Feminists (that is not mainstream) have pointed out time the feminist patriarchy theory is BS, women workers are not paid less then men workers because it benefits the male proletariat (or men as a whole) but because the bourgeoisie be it male or female can exploit female workers more.

Firstly, I do not think it wise for you to rely upon "scandals from major feminist groups" for your argument.

Secondly, 'major feminist groups' are not representative of feminism. Plenty of feminists are not organized, are not members of groups, are simply individual people living their lives but with the notion that women ought receive equal treatment as men. But more to the point, feminism is not anti-capitalist. It's just not in the cards. And this is because feminism is not addressing patriarchy within the modern capitalist system, it's addressing patriarchy in general.


The problem with feminism outside of Marxism is that it rejects class even exists and instead blames exploiting entirely on men as if men as a class ran society.

Well.... men do tend to run society.

You are ignoring that the ruling class will use whatever means it needs to in order to maintain rule. This includes maintaining sexist structures, racist structures, etc...


You are missing my point, my point is that having black police officers beat the shit out of the proletariat is not progressive just like having females exploit the proletariat isn't progressive. I don't care the color or gender my capitalist oppressors, all that matters is they are capitalist oppressors everything else about them is superficial.

Yes. I am becoming familiar with your black-and-white, absolutist, and idealistic perspective on things.

Here's my point in a nut shell:

"Progress" comes in many forms. Sometimes it is obvious and sometimes we don't even know it's there. Everyone has their own idea of what 'progress' means and what it looks like and how to get it. But no one person, or one perspective, is absolutely correct in this regard.
So what we must do is look at who is putting forth the ideas at hand. If a group of women decide that the best way to get progress is to have women-only meetings then so be it. Is it sexist? Perhaps from a certain male perspective yes. But from the perspective that the entire system is sexist against women, then carving out a spot for themselves makes sense within the larger context.
Is this act revolutionary? Not really. Is it leftist? No. But that's ok. What matters isn't that any one group or bunch of people confines themselves to your rigid definition of 'progress', no, what matters is that people feel empowered.

Because as a revolutionary we are talking about empowering the working class - everyone in it, no matter their gender, race, etc... That's really what it's about. And feminism, in general, empowers women.

Addendum: It is easy for white, heterosexual, men to talk about capitalist oppressors as the oppressor, the issue. And that is because we do not suffer from sexism, racism, homophobia, etc... we have the luxury and privilege to concentrate solely on the horrors of capitalism and how they affect us. We can think about what Marx would say while walking down a dark alley and not worry about being raped. We can ponder the thoughts of Engels while sitting in a bar and now worry about being beaten up for being gay. We can even think about Huey P while sitting at a bus stop and not worry about being arrested or detained simply for being black.

Context. Everything in context.

[Psy]

While I agree with you, this is totally hypothetical.

It is seen in history. One just have to look at the IWW back in their early days, or later with the Spanish Civilwar where you had female soldiers integrated into the revolutionary army.



Patriarchy changes form, but gender roles have existed for a long, long time.

Gender roles is not patriarchy. Patriarchy is a exploitative class division along gender lines. Research into hunter gather societies find that men didn't really have any exploitative advantage over females in the division of labor, it was more a trade, men applied their labor in harsher conditions outside the protection of the camp while women applied their labor within the protection of the camp and both had access to the products of the tribes labor. There is no evidence that this arrangement gave men any privilege over women in these tribal societies.



Firstly, I do not think it wise for you to rely upon "scandals from major feminist groups" for your argument.

Secondly, 'major feminist groups' are not representative of feminism. Plenty of feminists are not organized, are not members of groups, are simply individual people living their lives but with the notion that women ought receive equal treatment as men. But more to the point, feminism is not anti-capitalist. It's just not in the cards. And this is because feminism is not addressing patriarchy within the modern capitalist system, it's addressing patriarchy in general.

Marxist-feminism (that is outside what mainstreams views is feminism) is against capitalism, Mother Jones fought for the rights of male and female workers, and solution was revolution not reform. On Women's suffrage Mother Jones stated "You don’t need the vote to raise hell!" and looking today what use is the right to vote when you can only vote for bourgeoisie parties?



Well.... men do tend to run society.

No they don't, most men are wage slaves that have little say in society. This is like saying female workers in a textile mill are oppressed by male workers maintaining the machines of the textile mill.



You are ignoring that the ruling class will use whatever means it needs to in order to maintain rule. This includes maintaining sexist structures, racist structures, etc...

That also includes clawing back sexist and racist structures when it no longer benefits them, for example a black in the White House.



Yes. I am becoming familiar with your black-and-white, absolutist, idealistic (and remarkably non-materialist) perspective on things.

Here's my point in a nut shell:

"Progress" comes in many forms. Sometimes it is obvious and sometimes we don't even know it's there. Everyone has their own idea of what 'progress' means and what it looks like and how to get it. But no one person, or one perspective, is absolutely correct in this regard.
So what we must do is look at who is putting forth the ideas at hand. If a group of women decide that the best way to get progress is to have women-only meetings then so be it. Is it sexist? Perhaps from a certain male perspective yes. But from the perspective that the entire system is sexist against women, then carving out a spot for themselves makes sense within the larger context.
Is this act revolutionary? Not really. Is it leftist? No. But that's ok. What matters isn't that any one group or bunch of people confines themselves to your rigid definition of 'progress', no, what matters is that people feel empowered.

You are missing the point, let me spell it out for you. Think what happened to the female ruling class of the French feudal class in the French Revolution, they lost their heads right along with the males of the ruling class. Are you getting the point? I'm all for women organizing but to become part of the bourgeoisie is not progressive.



Because as a revolutionary we are talking about empowering the working class - everyone in it, no matter their gender, race, etc... That's really what it's about. And feminism, in general, empowers women.
Feminism doesn't base itself on class, feminism tells women becoming bourgeoisie also empowers them and is a good idea.

[#FF0000]

Feminism doesn't base itself on class, feminism tells women becoming bourgeoisie also empowers them and is a good idea.

"No I haven't read anything about feminist movements (especially not marxist feminists) why do you ask"

[Karabin]

Does the feminist movement take away from more radical leftist movements?

From what I have seen, generally feminism is an integral and important part of leftist movements, and with good reason. But I feel that in some instances radical feminism does take away from the leftist movement by focusing exclusively on the female portion of the working class and their struggle, while disregarding the male component. I noticed this when reading Marxist theories on the family, and one of the main criticisms from the feminist standpoint was that Marx focuses too much on the exploitation of the entire working class, and not exclusively on women (Here (http://www.earlhamsociologypages.co.uk/marxismfamily.html) is the example I'm talking about).

I feel that radical feminism may not be beneficial for the left if it ends up focusing almost exclusively on the exploitation of women, instead of the proletariat as the whole. However, feminism is definitely an important aspect of the leftist movement, and should not be disregarded.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

From what I have seen, generally feminism is an integral and important part of leftist movements, and with good reason. But I feel that in some instances radical feminism does take away from the leftist movement by focusing exclusively on the female portion of the working class and their struggle, while disregarding the male component. Radical feminism is a specific conservative tendency of feminism, so care should be taken not to use the term more generally.

[Psy]

"No I haven't read anything about feminist movements (especially not marxist feminists) why do you ask"
You are not making sense, mainstream feminism is okay with capitalism and is supported by subsidizes by bourgeois states and donations by capitalists. This is why Marxist-Feminists call mainstream feminism bourgeois-feminism.

[Psy]

I noticed this when reading Marxist theories on the family, and one of the main criticisms from the feminist standpoint was that Marx focuses too much on the exploitation of the entire working class, and not exclusively on women (Here (http://www.earlhamsociologypages.co.uk/marxismfamily.html) is the example I'm talking about).

This is because Marx analyzed capitalism prior to suburbia thus there was no such thing as a stay at home housewife within the proletariat at the time. Also when you are talking about organization like the IWW where women were part of the leadership (the co-founder was Mother Jones) women didn't feel oppressed within the IWW, and they saw they had more in common with their male comrades then bourgeoisie women, thus viewed themselves as part of the proletariat first and women second.

The primary criticism Marxism-feminism has with mainstream feminism is it has no class consciousness and expects women workers to have solidarity with women capitalists.

[Decolonize The Left]

It is seen in history. One just have to look at the IWW back in their early days, or later with the Spanish Civilwar where you had female soldiers integrated into the revolutionary army.

I understand this, but this was not your earlier point. I shall re-post it for you:

I find it unlikely a workers state would have the means to continue patriarchy.I was merely saying that relying upon two isolated incidents through history is not appropriate evidence for such a generous and hypothetical claim. That is all - but this disagreement is not important to the overall dialogue.


Gender roles is not patriarchy. Patriarchy is a exploitative class division along gender lines. Research into hunter gather societies find that men didn't really have any exploitative advantage over females in the division of labor, it was more a trade, men applied their labor in harsher conditions outside the protection of the camp while women applied their labor within the protection of the camp and both had access to the products of the tribes labor. There is no evidence that this arrangement gave men any privilege over women in these tribal societies.

Ah, but here you ignore the most important point: gender roles are the foundation of patriachy. There can be no "exploitative class division along gender lines" without... gender lines. And the point here is that men write these gender lines - they create the gender roles which then benefit them 'as men.'

Patriarchy is not so cut and dry as you would like it to be.


Marxist-feminism (that is outside what mainstreams views is feminism) is against capitalism, Mother Jones fought for the rights of male and female workers, and solution was revolution not reform. On Women's suffrage Mother Jones stated "You don’t need the vote to raise hell!" and looking today what use is the right to vote when you can only vote for bourgeoisie parties?

Most feminists would find this insulting. I shall only refer you to the current disgusting debate in the US government as to what counts as "rape" and whether or not women should be allowed autonomy over their own bodies. To say that these issues are not of importance because they are not class-oriented is to spit on your sisters.


No they don't, most men are wage slaves that have little say in society. This is like saying female workers in a textile mill are oppressed by male workers maintaining the machines of the textile mill.

Yeah, you're stretching for ground here. I said:

Well.... men do tend to run society. You have not refuted this at all. Men do tend to run society. Do I really need to google the statistics for you?



You are missing the point, let me spell it out for you. Think what happened to the female ruling class of the French feudal class in the French Revolution, they lost their heads right along with the males of the ruling class. Are you getting the point? I'm all for women organizing but to become part of the bourgeoisie is not progressive.

You spelled out very little here, or if you did your handwriting was hard to read. Believe me, I understand your position. I am very, very familiar with it; I even held it at one point in time. I'm trying to tell you:
As a male you don't get to tell women what is and isn't progressive for women. This isn't because you don't care, but because you aren't a woman and so you do not get to speak for them.


Feminism doesn't base itself on class, feminism tells women becoming bourgeoisie also empowers them and is a good idea.

You need to brush up on your feminism. Feminism does indeed base itself on class, it merely doesn't use the same class boundaries as Marxism.

I will end with my previous point, which you ignored:

It is easy for white, heterosexual, men to talk about capitalist oppressors as the oppressor, the issue. And that is because we do not suffer from sexism, racism, homophobia, etc... we have the luxury and privilege to concentrate solely on the horrors of capitalism and how they affect us. We can think about what Marx would say while walking down a dark alley and not worry about being raped. We can ponder the thoughts of Engels while sitting in a bar and now worry about being beaten up for being gay. We can even think about Huey P while sitting at a bus stop and not worry about being arrested or detained simply for being black.

Context. Everything in context.

[Psy]

I understand this, but this was not your earlier point. I shall re-post it for you:
I was merely saying that relying upon two isolated incidents through history is not appropriate evidence for such a generous and hypothetical claim. That is all - but this disagreement is not important to the overall dialogue.

It is not isolated incidents, in the Russian revolution women again came to be a major revolutionary force, again in Paris 1968, 1877 Great Railway Strike, in fact every worker uprising in human history has had women playing a major role as female workers make up a large chunk of the proletariat.



Ah, but here you ignore the most important point: gender roles are the foundation of patriachy. There can be no "exploitative class division along gender lines" without... gender lines. And the point here is that men write these gender lines - they create the gender roles which then benefit them 'as men.'

Patriarchy is not so cut and dry as you would like it to be.

Throughout the history class hierarchies most men had no say in the mater as only a tiny ruling elite had power. The fact women played a role even in the French Revolution proves patriarchy is imposed from the ruling class onto masses and revolutions causes these social norms to vanish into thin air.



Most feminists would find this insulting. I shall only refer you to the current disgusting debate in the US government as to what counts as "rape" and whether or not women should be allowed autonomy over their own bodies. To say that these issues are not of importance because they are not class-oriented is to spit on your sisters.

You missed Mother Jones stance, Mother Jones was against reformism in any form she believed the proletariat (male and female) had to smash the state. This is shown with the IWW that told male workers not to vote and instead told both female and male workers to struggle against the state.

In bourgeois democracy you can't vote against or for anything, you can only vote for a bourgeois party to manage the affairs of the bourgeoisie state, they have no legal obligation to actually carry out any promises they made during their campaign. Thus voting in bourgeois elections is only a illusion of choice.



Yeah, you're stretching for ground here. I said:
You have not refuted this at all. Men do tend to run society. Do I really need to google the statistics for you?

You fail at Marxism.

Most people in society are proletariat, the people that run society is the bourgeoisie that are not proletarian men. Most men have nothing in common with those running society.



You spelled out very little here, or if you did your handwriting was hard to read. Believe me, I understand your position. I am very, very familiar with it; I even held it at one point in time. I'm trying to tell you:
As a male you don't get to tell women what is and isn't progressive for women. This isn't because you don't care, but because you aren't a woman and so you do not get to speak for them.

Last time I check Mother Jones was female as was Rosa Luxemberg and Emma Goldman. Here is quote from Emma Goldman regarding woman's suffrage

Needless to say, I am not opposed to woman suffrage on the conventional ground that she is not equal to it. I see neither physical, psychological, nor mental reasons why woman should not have the equal right to vote with man. But that can not possibly blind me to the absurd notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed. If she would not make things worse, she certainly could not make them better. To assume, therefore, that she would succeed in purifying something which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit her with supernatural powers. Since woman's greatest misfortune has been that she was looked upon as either angel or devil, her true salvation lies in being placed on earth; namely, in being considered human, and therefore subject to all human follies and mistakes. Are we, then, to believe that two errors will make a right? Are we to assume that the poison already inherent in politics will be decreased, if women were to enter the political arena? The most ardent suffragists would hardly maintain such a folly.



You need to brush up on your feminism. Feminism does indeed base itself on class, it merely doesn't use the same class boundaries as Marxism.

You need to brush up on your Marxism, there are only dynamically opposed classes in capitalism that of the capitalists and that of the proletariat, men and women are not a class within Marxism.

The large feminist organizations are run by the bourgeoisie, feminist claim how no one listens to them when they have access to the White House, how many labor unions can have a talk with Obama over where stimulus spending can go? Speaking of that, this another major scandal of bourgeois feminism where National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, Institute for Women's Policy Research, and National Women's Law Centre lobbied to change the stimulus package so it went away from heavy industry because few women in heavy industry and they want that money for sectors were that are more female workers.



I will end with my previous point, which you ignored:
It is easy for white, heterosexual, men to talk about capitalist oppressors as the oppressor, the issue. And that is because we do not suffer from sexism, racism, homophobia, etc... we have the luxury and privilege to concentrate solely on the horrors of capitalism and how they affect us. We can think about what Marx would say while walking down a dark alley and not worry about being raped. We can ponder the thoughts of Engels while sitting in a bar and now worry about being beaten up for being gay. We can even think about Huey P while sitting at a bus stop and not worry about being arrested or detained simply for being black.

Well lets see in my city most serial rapist have been cops so I fail to see how bourgeois feminism will do anything about that as bourgeois feminism is not anti-police.

Also it is simple strategy, if you want change you have to do it through the workplace, while the feminist play politics with the bourgeois, the militant labor movement is actually engaged in class struggle to bring a better world.

http://www.workerseducation.org/crutch/graphics/organize.png

[Decolonize The Left]

It is not isolated incidents, in the Russian revolution women again came to be a major revolutionary force, again in Paris 1968, 1877 Great Railway Strike, in fact every worker uprising in human history has had women playing a major role as female workers make up a large chunk of the proletariat.

Yes, am I clear on this topic. I have not been clear with you. I am saying that while women have played roles in uprisings in the past, this does not mean that we have any right to declare what will or will not happen in a post-revolutionary scenario. That is all.


Throughout the history class hierarchies most men had no say in the mater as only a tiny ruling elite had power.

A tiny ruling elite composed... of... men. :lol:


The fact women played a role even in the French Revolution proves patriarchy is imposed from the ruling class onto masses and revolutions causes these social norms to vanish into thin air.

I fail to see how that proves anything..


You missed Mother Jones stance, Mother Jones was against reformism in any form she believed the proletariat (male and female) had to smash the state. This is shown with the IWW that told male workers not to vote and instead told both female and male workers to struggle against the state.

Yes, I was once a contributing member of the IWW (when I had more money). I am grateful for, and often agree with, their stance on many issues.


In bourgeois democracy you can't vote against or for anything, you can only vote for a bourgeois party to manage the affairs of the bourgeoisie state, they have no legal obligation to actually carry out any promises they made during their campaign. Thus voting in bourgeois elections is only a illusion of choice.

And that makes you an asshole.

Why don't you go talk to a woman who was raped and needs an abortion. BUT WAIT! This "illusion of choice" just legally stated that she cannot have an abortion. So this "illusion of choice" just totally and realistically legislated against a woman's bodily autonomy.

You: "But it's just an illusion of choice!!!!"
A woman: "Actually if fucking real. Now I'm pregnant with my rapist's baby. Thanks asshole."



You fail at Marxism.

Most people in society are proletariat, the people that run society is the bourgeoisie that are not proletarian men. Most men have nothing in common with those running society.

I do not fail at Marxism at all. In fact, I've made very little claims re: Marxism in this whole discussion. All my claims have been in regards to your pontificating on what women should and shouldn't do.


Last time I check Mother Jones was female as was Rosa Luxemberg and Emma Goldman. Here is quote from Emma Goldman regarding woman's suffrage

Needless to say, I am not opposed to woman suffrage on the conventional ground that she is not equal to it. I see neither physical, psychological, nor mental reasons why woman should not have the equal right to vote with man. But that can not possibly blind me to the absurd notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed. If she would not make things worse, she certainly could not make them better. To assume, therefore, that she would succeed in purifying something which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit her with supernatural powers. Since woman's greatest misfortune has been that she was looked upon as either angel or devil, her true salvation lies in being placed on earth; namely, in being considered human, and therefore subject to all human follies and mistakes. Are we, then, to believe that two errors will make a right? Are we to assume that the poison already inherent in politics will be decreased, if women were to enter the political arena? The most ardent suffragists would hardly maintain such a folly.


A beautiful passage by one of my favorite theorists. Thanks for posting it. It actually reinforced my point, not yours. ;)


You need to brush up on your Marxism, there are only dynamically opposed classes in capitalism that of the capitalists and that of the proletariat, men and women are not a class within Marxism.

Lol.

Yes I get that. That's within Marxism. Marxism is just one way of looking at the world.

As I've stated repeatedly, your naive adherence to a black-and-white view of the world greatly limits your ability to change it.


The large feminist organizations are run by the bourgeoisie, feminist claim how no one listens to them when they have access to the White House, how many labor unions can have a talk with Obama over where stimulus spending can go? Speaking of that, this another major scandal of bourgeois feminism where National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, Institute for Women's Policy Research, and National Women's Law Centre lobbied to change the stimulus package so it went away from heavy industry because few women in heavy industry and they want that money for sectors were that are more female workers.

Ah yes, more 'scandals' to support your point. I have never supported every large feminist organization, or anything like that. I am merely taking you to task in your ignorance of feminism.


Also it is simple strategy, if you want change you have to do it through the workplace, while the feminist play politics with the bourgeois, the militant labor movement is actually engaged in class struggle to bring a better world.


Wow. So feminists are not struggling to bring a better world? You don't find that... I don't know... patronizing?

Everyone is struggling to bring a better world, we just all differ on what that world means to us.

[Lucretia]

PSY is correct in this thread about the breakdown between Marxist and bourgeois strains of feminist politics and theory. The response that bourgeois feminists use the word "class" (in VERY different ways than a revolutionary Marxist would) does not detract from their bourgeois character one iota.

[Decolonize The Left]

PSY is correct in this thread about the breakdown between Marxist and bourgeois strains of feminist politics and theory. The response that bourgeois feminists use the word "class" (in VERY different ways than a revolutionary Marxist would) does not detract from their bourgeois character one iota.

Ok... but no one is claiming it does?

[Psy]

Yes, am I clear on this topic. I have not been clear with you. I am saying that while women have played roles in uprisings in the past, this does not mean that we have any right to declare what will or will not happen in a post-revolutionary scenario. That is all.

Well considering women make up a good chunk of the proletariat then as long as the workers keep their grip on the revolution then it is very probable for women to have a say in the post-revolution society.




A tiny ruling elite composed... of... men. :lol:

Yet even if bourgeois women replaced bourgeois men this wouldn't stop oppression by the bourgeois state against proletariat women.



I fail to see how that proves anything..

That the theory of patriarchy doesn't work, proletariat males have supported proletariat women in revolutions once they gain class consciousness. Yet if the they of patriarchy was true this would not be case as patriarchy would come from these same men, Marxist Feminist explains that patriarchy actually comes from the ruling class and proletarian men become indoctrinated by how bourgeois society projects women.



And that makes you an asshole.

Why don't you go talk to a woman who was raped and needs an abortion. BUT WAIT! This "illusion of choice" just legally stated that she cannot have an abortion. So this "illusion of choice" just totally and realistically legislated against a woman's bodily autonomy.

You: "But it's just an illusion of choice!!!!"
A woman: "Actually if fucking real. Now I'm pregnant with my rapist's baby. Thanks asshole."


But even if the party you voted for said they would give her the right to abortion, that party has no obligation to do so. Then there is tiny issue that the proletariat has no way of verifying election results thus even if the proletariat elects a party sympathetic to them the bourgeoisie state can rig the count but wait in the US they don't even have to do that because the US bourgeois state appoints the president the election through the Electoral College since the Electoral Collage doesn't have to appoint who got elected as that was its function back when the US founding fathers feared revolutionaries winning elections.

Also what does it say about class consciousness when you have to beg the ruling class for this basic human right rather then taking to the streets and forcing the bourgeoisie state to make concessions.



I do not fail at Marxism at all. In fact, I've made very little claims re: Marxism in this whole discussion. All my claims have been in regards to your pontificating on what women should and shouldn't do.




A beautiful passage by one of my favorite theorists. Thanks for posting it. It actually reinforced my point, not yours. ;)

What she is saying is she is skeptical of the female proletariat getting any farther from voting then male proletariat did through voting.



Lol.

Yes I get that. That's within Marxism. Marxism is just one way of looking at the world.

As I've stated repeatedly, your naive adherence to a black-and-white view of the world greatly limits your ability to change it.

It is currently the most accurate model of our social relations within capitalism.



Ah yes, more 'scandals' to support your point. I have never supported every large feminist organization, or anything like that. I am merely taking you to task in your ignorance of feminism.

And how is that, I've pointed out Marxist-Feminists criticism of Feminism in that you once you have a class view on capitalism then patriarchy theory has to be reworked as proletarian men have little agency in this regard due to the massive agency of the capitalist class.



Wow. So feminists are not struggling to bring a better world? You don't find that... I don't know... patronizing?

Everyone is struggling to bring a better world, we just all differ on what that world means to us.
Well given the political correct BS that the feminists recently unleashed on the atheist community acting like mature males and females can't be mature about their sexuality, there are feminists (not all and especially not Marxist-Feminists) that kind of patronizes females by treating them like little kids that needs regulations to ensure men never treats women like adults as women might get their feelings hurt by a man inviting them to have a cup of coffee with them (that is the incident that caused feminists to cry sexual harassment, and the atheist community to call feminism illogical and they should probably split from the main atheist community to not give atheism a bad name).

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I think it is worth pointing out that Marx set out to analyze the fundamentals of the capitalist mode of production, not capitalist society as a whole, which is not entirely reducible to the former. While the fundamental class relations of society (which is not just the homogenous proletariat vs the homogenous bourgeoisie, as Marx explains in the 18th Brumaire) do largely determine the material conditions of that society, there are a lot of other power relations that exist within that society as well that Marx did not examine -- such as patriarchy. Challenging the unequal power relations that exist within the proletariat is going to be essential if social revolution is going to take place, not only because unity depends on it but because a socially just society is impossible without it.

[Psy]

I think it is worth pointing out that Marx set out to analyze the fundamentals of the capitalist mode of production, not capitalist society as a whole, which is not entirely reducible to the former. While the fundamental class relations of society (which is not just the homogenous proletariat vs the homogenous bourgeoisie, as Marx explains in the 18th Brumaire) do largely determine the material conditions of that society, there are a lot of other power relations that exist within that society as well that Marx did not examine -- such as patriarchy. Challenging the unequal power relations that exist within the proletariat is going to be essential if social revolution is going to take place, not only because unity depends on it but because a socially just society is impossible without it.
While true the patriarchy theory of feminists outside Marxism conflict with Marxist class theory as the proletariat just lacks the power to be able to impose its own culture that effectively within the restraints of capitalism. Marxist-Feminists have a much different patriarchy theory in that patriarchy origins lay in the origins of property rights as women were property in slave societies and patriarchy originally propagated through religious institutions and spread into bourgeoisie institutions as capitalism took over society.

Thus Marxist-Feminism view patriarchy as institutionalized while feminists view patriarchy coming from men's desire to exploit women.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yet even if bourgeois women replaced bourgeois men this wouldn't stop oppression by the bourgeois state against proletariat women.

This is a good thought experiment - what would happen if, one day, the entire political apparatus was controlled by women?

I will agree with you one hundred percent that the machinations of the economy would not change. Capitalism would continue - the exploitation of the proletariat would continue. Agreed.

But what would change? Well, you might see more rights for women. Bodily autonomy, equal pay, access to health care, etc... Do you deny that this probably would happen as it would be in the interest of women to make it happen? Surely not. I'm sure what you will do is hop on your patronizing soapbox and say that none of that matters. A woman's uterus doesn't matter because you can't frame it in your narrow economic perspective. (pun intended).


That the theory of patriarchy doesn't work, proletariat males have supported proletariat women in revolutions once they gain class consciousness. Yet if the they of patriarchy was true this would not be case as patriarchy would come from these same men, Marxist Feminist explains that patriarchy actually comes from the ruling class and proletarian men become indoctrinated by how bourgeois society projects women.

Just so I'm clear, what's happening here is that you are claiming that the entire theory of patriarchy is patently false because in several isolated historical incidents dudes have supported women in revolutions?


But even if the party you voted for said they would give her the right to abortion, that party has no obligation to do so. Then there is tiny issue that the proletariat has no way of verifying election results thus even if the proletariat elects a party sympathetic to them the bourgeoisie state can rig the count but wait in the US they don't even have to do that because the US bourgeois state appoints the president the election through the Electoral College since the Electoral Collage doesn't have to appoint who got elected as that was its function back when the US founding fathers feared revolutionaries winning elections.

You side-stepped the entire point and made little sense while doing so.


And how is that, I've pointed out Marxist-Feminists criticism of Feminism in that you once you have a class view on capitalism then patriarchy theory has to be reworked as proletarian men have little agency in this regard due to the massive agency of the capitalist class.

Case in point: a proletarian man has social privilege over a proletarian woman simply because he's a man.

- August

Also: Cheers to TheOneWhoKnocks for an excellent post. You clearly missed the point there as well. Please re-read that post first as it was a fantastically concise argument very well made.

[Crux]

Most people in society are proletariat, the people that run society is the bourgeoisie that are not proletarian men. Most men have nothing in common with those running society.
The majority of worker's are women, the majority of low-paid worker's are women and the vast majority of unpaid work in the home is made by women.
See there's a reason why in the early labour movement some male trade unionists opposed women going into the workforce because a) "it would drive down the wages" (proving that patriarchy for them anyway was stronger than the most fundamental trade unionist principle) b) it would take women away from the home thus reducing the unpaid labour they do in the home.

And ideas like these are, unfortunately, far from eradicated and this, unwitting or not, class alliance between men as men is far stronger than any strawman or real bourgeoisie feminist movement. Ideas about men and women's roles in society are quite real, now they may handed down from above, but that doesn't mean it doesn't take root and mustn't be fought as an issue in and of itself.

[Counterreactionary]

Yes, it is counter-intuitive and counter-productive to exclusively focus on female emancipation.
Because first of all - the oppression of society is not exactly gender-based, but class-based. Lower class males are subject to exploitation by ruling classes as well as women are, and while women may seem to be, or rather had been, oppressed in terms of household objects, sex objects and so forth, so are men oppressed in various other forms. Used as soldiers, told to put themselves last and sacrifice themselves. Male disposability is about as widespread and longlasting a cultural construct as the concept of home being a woman's place.
Secondly;
It eventually results in women emancipation at the expense of men. When does the lavine of female qualms against men end, if they are given an exclusive focus? I mean, when women have achieved most of their goals, and then continues as a movement, then it eventually just tips the balance the other way.
We see it today. In the Western culture, that is, where Feminism has had it's biggest breakthrough.
When men are financially unsuccesful, they are dismissed as 'losers'. When husbands are mutilated by their spouse, they get laughed out on TV-shows(!). Fathers are discriminated in cases of child custody. Male victims are laughed at and their issues ignored by society. And (almost) noone objects against all this. That is, all while women generally get milder sentences for the very same crimes, a.o.
Try to consider it, just for a moment.

And an overall problem I also see with Feminism, is that it presumes guilt upon the male gender. I'm thinking of bullshit where men are perceived as rapists who 'objectify' women. Often wrapped in utopian ideals that hysterically stigmatizes males by their very nature, in which it's kind of criminalized just to be attracted to women or seek contact, however done.
I came across an older, but interesting article that solidly explains the hypocrisy behind the Feminist claim of 'objectification' which seems very crucial to the Feminist ideology; Objecting to Objectification on Feministcritics org.

If you support gender equality, you have to be for the rights of both, focus on the issues of both.
I have had enough of the extremity in what many modern feminists tend to try pushing down on the rest of us. And because the left wing has for long presented a feministic stance on various cultural matters for decades, advocates for male rights or just people objecting to male discrimination therefore tend to be pushed to the right and towards reactionary ideologies.

If I do, in any way, sound loathsome in my post, it might be because I'm deeply sickened with how areas of the left blatantly ignores this side of the coin and way too often tries to place near-sighted claims of 'sexism' upon one's shoulders, merely for when bringing up these matters. Probably and logically because Feminism is largely housed within the Left.

[#FF0000]

Because first of all - the oppression of society is not exactly gender-based, but class-based. Lower class males are subject to exploitation by ruling classes as well as women are, and while women may seem to be, or rather had been, oppressed in terms of household objects, sex objects and so forth, so are men oppressed in various other forms. Used as soldiers, told to put themselves last and sacrifice themselves. Male disposability is about as widespread and longlasting a cultural construct as the concept of home being a woman's place.
Secondly;
It eventually results in women emancipation at the expense of men. When does the lavine of female qualms against men end, if they are given an exclusive focus? I mean, when women have achieved most of their goals, and then continues as a movement, then it eventually just tips the balance the other way.
We see it today. In the Western culture, that is, where Feminism has had it's biggest breakthrough.
When men are financially unsuccesful, they are dismissed as 'losers'. When husbands are mutilated by their spouse, they get laughed out on TV-shows(!). Fathers are discriminated in cases of child custody. Male victims are laughed at and their issues ignored by society. And (almost) noone objects against all this. That is, all while women generally get milder sentences for the very same crimes, a.o.
Try to consider it, just for a moment.

And an overall problem I also see with Feminism, is that it presumes guilt upon the male gender. I'm thinking of bullshit where men are perceived as rapists who 'objectify' women. Often wrapped in utopian ideals that hysterically stigmatizes males by their very nature, in which it's kind of criminalized just to be attracted to women or seek contact, however done.
I came across an older, but interesting article that solidly explains the hypocrisy behind the Feminist claim of 'objectification' which seems very crucial to the Feminist ideology; Objecting to Objectification on Feministcritics org.

If you support gender equality, you have to be for the rights of both, focus on the issues of both.
I have had enough of the extremity in what many modern feminists tend to try pushing down on the rest of us. And because the left wing has for long presented a feministic stance on various cultural matters for decades, advocates for male rights or just people objecting to male discrimination therefore tend to be pushed to the right and towards reactionary ideologies.

If I do, in any way, sound loathsome in my post, it might be because I'm deeply sickened with how areas of the left blatantly ignores this side of the coin and way too often tries to place near-sighted claims of 'sexism' upon one's shoulders, merely for when bringing up these matters. Probably and logically because Feminism is largely housed within the Left.

ladies and gentlemen, the internet.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

At first I had no idea what counterreactionary was on about, but this makes it all too clear:


I'm thinking of bullshit where men are perceived as rapists who 'objectify' women. Often wrapped in utopian ideals that hysterically stigmatizes males by their very nature, in which it's kind of criminalized just to be attracted to women or seek contact, however done.


Having your creepy advances rejected is not the result of feminist hypocrisy or 'hysterical' (nice btw :rolleyes:) western attitudes run amok. It's because your advances are creepy, that's all.

[#FF0000]

i really just wanted to say "ladies and gentlemen: the internet" and leave it at that but holy shit what a dumb post.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Also, the distinction made by Lenin as well as Foucault between economic exploitation and oppression is valuable as well. Everyone who produces surplus value is exploited, but not everyone is subject to explicit social oppression (e.g. sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc). I, as a white, heterosexual male living in the USA do not experience social oppression.

Also, let's cut the "men are oppressed too" bullshit. Yes, some people do discriminate against men on an individual basis, and that's not a good thing, but there's no system of social oppression directed towards men on the basis of their maleness. Often times that discrimination is a direct response of oppression carried out by men. Therefore, to consider discrimination against men to be "sexism" is not only to completely ignore history but also to ignore social systems of oppression that exist and reduce oppression to individual attitudes.

On a somewhat related note, what's the deal with people who admire Malcolm X and other Black nationalists referring to female nationalism as sexist? It's some pretty blatant hypocrisy.

[Counterreactionary]

Yeah right, just disregard the examples I bring up, only to taunt, patronize like a bully. Yours is a better example of polemic 'internet arguing' if any. Refusing to accept other people's opinions just to arrogantly pad yourself on the back...

[#FF0000]

You asked for it, guy.


Because first of all - the oppression of society is not exactly gender-based, but class-based.

Nope. People are oppressed based on things other than class. Race, sex, gender, sexuality, etc.


Lower class males are subject to exploitation by ruling classes as well as women areYup. Women also tend to get paid less and are less likely to get comfortably paying jobs than men are, and usually get coralled into low-paying dead end pink collar work.

So, yeah. Men are exploited too, obviously, but women have a whole other pile of nonsense to deal with.


and while women may seem to be, or rather had been, oppressed in terms of household objects, sex objects and so forth, so are men oppressed in various other forms. Used as soldiers, told to put themselves last and sacrifice themselves. Male disposability is about as widespread and longlasting a cultural construct as the concept of home being a woman's place.It isn't about male disposability so much as it is about female incompetence. Women have been seen as weak and child-like, which is why they aren't fighting in wars. I'd also have to point out that there hasn't been a draft in the US in decades, while women are still practically doing a whole second shift at home.

In any case, the problem is gender roles, dude, not feminism.


It eventually results in women emancipation at the expense of men.Excuse me?


When does the lavine of female qualms against men end
Maybe if you honestly looked into what feminism was about, you'd have an idea?


When men are financially unsuccesful, they are dismissed as 'losers'.Uh, this kind of thing has always been around, though. Men have always been expected to be breadwinners. The problem isn't feminism. It's gender roles, dummy.


When husbands are mutilated by their spouse, they get laughed out on TV-shows(!)How often does that happen, though? Not often, considering the fact you're talking about a single event. Meanwhile, when women and girls are raped, excuses are made and victims are blamed. Obviously we call this out, but it still happen far too often.


Fathers are discriminated in cases of child custody.Except 91% of child custody decisions are made without the court's interference. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html)


Male victims are laughed at and their issues ignored by society. What do you mean? Male victims of rape and sexual abuse? Because if that's what you mean, feminists certainly aren't to blame for that. I remember pretty well talking about my experiences with sexual harassment in the past, and I seem to remember that it was the feminists who actually took it seriously (more seriously than I did, even).


That is, all while women generally get milder sentences for the very same crimes, a.o.
Try to consider it, just for a moment. Again, that is because of gender roles and the idea of female frailty. Plus, female prisoners also have a whole heap of problems to deal with all their own.


And an overall problem I also see with Feminism, is that it presumes guilt upon the male gender.No, it certainly doesn't. Feminists (with few exceptions) don't blame "men". They are critical of patriarchy.


I'm thinking of bullshit where men are perceived as rapists who 'objectify' women.I think it's really funny how I"ve never in my life had this problem that some dudes insist is so persistent in society or whatever.


Often wrapped in utopian ideals that hysterically stigmatizes males by their very natureHahaha dude what?


in which it's kind of criminalized just to be attracted to women or seek contact, however done.Again I gotta wonder what dudes are doing if they feel like people are constantly thinking they're rapists or something. Why have I never had this problem?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Yeah right, just disregard the examples I bring up, only to taunt, patronize like a bully. Yours is a better example of polemic 'internet arguing' if any. Refusing to accept other people's opinions just to arrogantly pad yourself on the back...

What examples? You basically spit out a template that every ignorant person with an axe to grind with 'women these days' screams about 24/7. It was almost entirely hyperbole. Feminists regularly point out that patriarchal society abuses and exploits men and children as well as women. And I can't think of anything I've read where sexual attraction between men and women was denounced. As #FF0000 said it sounds like you need to read a book, I would suggest http://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Theory-From-Margin-Center/dp/0896086135 as a nice, brief intro.

[Counterreactionary]

At first I had no idea what counterreactionary was on about, but this makes it all too clear:



Having your creepy advances rejected is not the result of feminist hypocrisy or 'hysterical' (nice btw :rolleyes:) western attitudes run amok. It's because your advances are creepy, that's all.


How the fuck would you know about my personal advances, without knowing me in any way?! Cut out that crap, because you don't have a prayer of telling a person's approaches and daily life occurances over a forum post that doesn't even cover it. I don't need your shitty personal attacks.

And you read me wrong. What I meant in that line was merely that some feminists tend to view ALL sorts of advances as immoral and wrong. Do I have to come up with concrete references for you to understand that they do exist within various Feminist communities, groups and parts of such movements? Of course it's more characterizing of more radical layers of such.

I'm sorry that you don't like what I'm saying, but I suppose it's because you just haven't experienced or considered any of what I refer to, but only witnessed the other end of society.
Now spare me of your sickening, narrow-minded bully attempts.
And don't try to point me out like I support male oppression, please.

[Crux]

Yes, it is counter-intuitive and counter-productive to exclusively focus on female emancipation.
If you're a dude who benefits from the way things are and would like it to stay that way, yes. Or just monumentally ignorant about the experiences of people other than and different from yourself.


Because first of all - the oppression of society is not exactly gender-based, but class-based. Lower class males are subject to exploitation by ruling classes as well as women are, and while women may seem to be, or rather had been, oppressed in terms of household objects, sex objects and so forth, so are men oppressed in various other forms. Used as soldiers, told to put themselves last and sacrifice themselves. Male disposability is about as widespread and longlasting a cultural construct as the concept of home being a woman's place.
The "soldier" argument is complete "MR" nonsense. If you want to play a numbers game, *plenty* of more women than men get killed during war. If you're trying to make a point about male genderroles your doing it in the most hamfisted way possible. And no, they're not equally bad or have a comparable effect.


Secondly;
It eventually results in women emancipation at the expense of men. When does the lavine of female qualms against men end, if they are given an exclusive focus? I mean, when women have achieved most of their goals, and then continues as a movement, then it eventually just tips the balance the other way.
So you're pretty openly defending male privilege. Nice. Women getting equal pay? But that must mean men get less pay! And yes we will lose out on some things, because, like you completely ignored in the previous paragraph, men do objectively benefit as a group from the oppression of women.


We see it today. In the Western culture, that is, where Feminism has had it's biggest breakthrough.
When men are financially unsuccesful, they are dismissed as 'losers'. When husbands are mutilated by their spouse, they get laughed out on TV-shows(!).
Personally I think the talk of "rape-rape", something the MR movement does plenty, was a far more repugnant view coming from The View. How you think an opinion expressed on The View, which was indeed wrong, somehow compares to the structural oppression women face shows that is you who have a problem with not being very exclusive (and ignorant) in the way you view gender relations.


Fathers are discriminated in cases of child custody. Male victims are laughed at and their issues ignored by society. And (almost) noone objects against all this. That is, all while women generally get milder sentences for the very same crimes, a.o.
Try to consider it, just for a moment.
I have and it's all nonsense that doesn't stand up to even the least bit of scrutiny, the MR movement even acknowledges this by insinuating the reason the stats don't match up is because of a sinister left wing and feminist conspiracy in academia. Surely you, as supposed marxian, should be aware of the root such "theories" come from? As for the custody issue, that's the friendly faux-reasonable face put out by the MR movement to try and make people ignore the far more repugnant bits. Feminists have been engaged in that issue for far longer then the MR movement was even a thing (or rather back then it was just known as "conservatism").


And an overall problem I also see with Feminism, is that it presumes guilt upon the male gender. I'm thinking of bullshit where men are perceived as rapists who 'objectify' women.
Ah yes, the other ugly cornerstone of the MR movement, shaming and attacking rape survivors and more or less actively defending rapists and relativising rape. All this under guise of supposedly protecting "men's rights". The fuck they are.


Often wrapped in utopian ideals that hysterically stigmatizes males by their very nature, in which it's kind of criminalized just to be attracted to women or seek contact, however done.
Utopian ideals about men not raping and sexually assaulting women? Since you're the one bringing up "nature" I'd be more than happy to hear what you think is utopian about that.


I came across an older, but interesting article that solidly explains the hypocrisy behind the Feminist claim of 'objectification' which seems very crucial to the Feminist ideology; Objecting to Objectification on Feministcritics org.
I'd prefer for you to express this apparently stunning theoretical insight in your own words.

If you support gender equality, you have to be for the rights of both, focus on the issues of both.
Oh and indeed, just as I while being consistent anti-racist, do care about stuff some white people cares about. That won't mean me jumping on some "reverse racism" "whites are discriminated too" thinly veiled racist nonsense though.


I have had enough of the extremity in what many modern feminists tend to try pushing down on the rest of us.
Ah. I recall a similar statement: “I am first of all a white man, and only then a socialist” - Jack London.



And because the left wing has for long presented a feministic stance on various cultural matters for decades, advocates for male rights or just people objecting to male discrimination therefore tend to be pushed to the right and towards reactionary ideologies.
Well that is utter nonsense and can only be spoken by someone who has no knowledge of the history of the feminist movement. The reason "Men's Rights" types are reactionaries on the right is because that is their natural home. To attempt to peddle it to well-meaning if ignorant left-ish men won't hold up for too long. As you rightly point out, they tend to drop the pretense after a while. So uhm, may I suggest not swallowing their bullshit hook, line and sinker, bro?


If I do, in any way, sound loathsome in my post, it might be because I'm deeply sickened with how areas of the left blatantly ignores this side of the coin and way too often tries to place near-sighted claims of 'sexism' upon one's shoulders, merely for when bringing up these matters. Probably and logically because Feminism is largely housed within the Left. And I am deeply worried that there are men who are in any sense leftwing who don't see through "Men's Rights" for the reactionary ploy it is. The libertarians and far right can have it on their own.
Oh nice, I see the main "Men's Rights" group are hanging out one of my friends as a "bigot". So yeah this is essentially a far right front, sprinkled with ignorant fucking libertarians. They are not friends of equal rights. They are the enemy. And when you start taking their talking points I suggest you stop for a second and think. Two suggestions: look up the real facts when it comes to statistical data. There are plenty of good articles on that. Two: try talking to, or rather listening to, a woman. I know feminism might be a hard concept for some men to wrap their heads around but that's no excuse for laying down with reactionaries.

[#FF0000]

Do I have to come up with concrete references for you to understand that they do exist within various Feminist communities, groups and parts of such movements?

Guy, I don't think you've ever even looked at a piece of feminist text in your life to be honest, outside maybe some crazy "goddess feminism" person on youtube.

So yeah, I'd really like to hear the "whos" and "whats" you're against when it comes to feminism, because I don't think you actually know a thing about it, and rather built all your opinions on strawman conceptions of feminism.

EDIT: OH MAN MAJAKOVSKIJ AND #FF0000 IN THE SAME THREAD AT THE SAME TIME. S.C.U.M. MALE AUXILIARY IN FULL EFFECT

(http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=17403)

[Decolonize The Left]

How the fuck would you know about my personal advances, without knowing me in any way?! Cut out that crap, because you don't have a prayer of telling a person's approaches and daily life occurances over a forum post that doesn't even cover it. I don't need your shitty personal attacks.

And you read me wrong. What I meant in that line was merely that some feminists tend to view ALL sorts of advances as immoral and wrong. Do I have to come up with concrete references for you to understand that they do exist within various Feminist communities, groups and parts of such movements? Of course it's more characterizing of more radical layers of such.

I'm sorry that you don't like what I'm saying, but I suppose it's because you just haven't experienced or considered any of what I refer to, but only witnessed the other end of society.
Now spare me of your sickening, narrow-minded bully attempts.
And don't try to point me out like I support male oppression, please.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33118675.jpg

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

How the fuck would you know about my personal advances, without knowing me in any way?! Cut out that crap, because you don't have a prayer of telling a person's approaches and daily life occurances over a forum post that doesn't even cover it. I don't need your shitty personal attacks.

And you read me wrong. What I meant in that line was merely that some feminists tend to view ALL sorts of advances as immoral and wrong. Do I have to come up with concrete references for you to understand that they do exist within various Feminist communities, groups and parts of such movements? Of course it's more characterizing of more radical layers of such.

I'm sorry that you don't like what I'm saying, but I suppose it's because you just haven't experienced or considered any of what I refer to, but only witnessed the other end of society.
Now spare me of your sickening, narrow-minded bully attempts.
And don't try to point me out like I support male oppression, please.

Some humans feel it's justified to abduct and eat other humans, is this reason enough for me to make a blanket statement about humanity? Anyhow, unless you're talking about the MIM position on sex under patriarchy, I'd really like to know which feminist has you so distressed about your sexual advances.

[Counterreactionary]

What examples? You basically spit out a template that every ignorant person with an axe to grind with 'women these days' screams about 24/7. It was almost entirely hyperbole. Feminists regularly point out that patriarchal society abuses and exploits men and children as well as women. And I can't think of anything I've read where sexual attraction between men and women was denounced. As #FF0000 said it sounds like you need to read a book, I would suggest [link] as a nice, brief intro.

At least I pointed out some concrete examples and cultural phenomenons, but all fine that you have to reject it at first hand and paint me as an abomination.
Well, I offer my apology on the second - that wasn't a remark about Feminist theory though, more the cultural attitude among various feminist ranks, which can also matter. I merely tried to point out that there does exist a misandric approach and attitude (among radical feminists, that is), why I find it problematic to only acknowledge the existence of misogyny. Is that such a fuzz worthy?

The idea of the Patriarchy just doesn't fit very well with the reality today, when we have areas of grievances on the male part.
Maybe it could also be an idea to read various data figures, instead of only burying your head in theoretical book? Just saying.
I'll take a look. I suggest reading the article 'Objecting to “Objectification”' on Feministcritics dot org.

[#FF0000]

At least I pointed out some concrete examples and cultural phenomenons

I sort of disproved them btw


The idea of the Patriarchy just doesn't fit very well with the reality today,

Could you do me a favor, and, in your own words, describe the "idea of patriarchy" put forth by feminists?

Like I said, I don't think you actually know anything about feminism.

[Decolonize The Left]

At least I pointed out some concrete examples and cultural phenomenons, but all fine that you have to reject it at first hand and paint me as an abomination.
Well, I offer my apology on the second - that wasn't a remark about Feminist theory though, more the cultural attitude among various feminist ranks, which can also matter. I merely tried to point out that there does exist a misandric approach and attitude (among radical feminists, that is), why I find it problematic to only acknowledge the existence of misogyny. Is that such a fuzz worthy?

The idea of the Patriarchy just doesn't fit very well with the reality today, when we have areas of grievances on the male part.
Maybe it could also be an idea to read various data figures, instead of only burying your head in theoretical book? Just saying.
I'll take a look. I suggest reading the article 'Objecting to “Objectification”' on Feministcritics dot org.

I suggest you actually talk to actual women about whether or not they think patriarchy "just doesn't fit very well with the reality today, when we have ares of grievances on the male part."

Women are paid less, on average, then men.
Women have less rights, legally speaking.
Women have less medical benefits.
Women occupy fewer positions of political authority.
Women occupy fewer positions of economic authority.

Women are, generally speaking, second class citizens. And this isn't because that's just how things played out or whatever, it's because of patriarchy.

I don't think you'd tell black people that liberating them comes at the cost of white people, or that it's not valid to want liberation because white people have 'grievances,' would you?

[Crux]

At least I pointed out some concrete examples and cultural phenomenons, but all fine that you have to reject it at first hand and paint me as an abomination.
Well, I offer my apology on the second - that wasn't a remark about Feminist theory though, more the cultural attitude among various feminist ranks, which can also matter. I merely tried to point out that there does exist a misandric approach and attitude (among radical feminists, that is), why I find it problematic to only acknowledge the existence of misogyny. Is that such a fuzz worthy?

The idea of the Patriarchy just doesn't fit very well with the reality today, when we have areas of grievances on the male part.
Maybe it could also be an idea to read various data figures, instead of only burying your head in theoretical book? Just saying.
I'll take a look. I suggest reading the article 'Objecting to “Objectification”' on Feministcritics dot org.
And I find "misandry" to be the exact same bullshit as "reverse racism".
I have read the data. Plenty of it. About rape and rape statstics. About domestic abuse. About murder rates. And this long before this fashionable internet "men's rights" movement came along. It's a conservative and reactionary movement and I don't feel bad at all about calling it out for what it is. "Men's Rights" much like other similar movements, like for instance the white power movement, try sometimes to clutch at straws about real issues, like unemployment or, I have seen from the "MR"-types workplace injuries but puts those issues in a wholly reactionary framework.
And of course there's this pretence that the left doesn't care about "white people" or "men" but it's all fucking bullshit, man. I am a poor white man. But I have looked around long enough to not buy into theories that try to posit it as if I am poor because I am WHITE. Or a man.

That you have grievances that, to you, makes it hard for you to connect with the idea that men as a group benefit from the oppression of women is completely analogous to if you wanted to talk about the situation of rural poor whites as an issue of "anti-white racism" or whatever fucking new nonsense pet theory the reaction comes up with.

[Psy]

This is a good thought experiment - what would happen if, one day, the entire political apparatus was controlled by women?

I will agree with you one hundred percent that the machinations of the economy would not change. Capitalism would continue - the exploitation of the proletariat would continue. Agreed.

But what would change? Well, you might see more rights for women. Bodily autonomy, equal pay, access to health care, etc... Do you deny that this probably would happen as it would be in the interest of women to make it happen? Surely not. I'm sure what you will do is hop on your patronizing soapbox and say that none of that matters. A woman's uterus doesn't matter because you can't frame it in your narrow economic perspective. (pun intended).

Well how many issues of the men's rights movement does the male ruling class adhere to? For example the top issue in male rights groups is to stopping the circumcision of babies yet the ruling class has done nothing to end it, even though scientific evidence shows circumcised males has less sexual pleasure then non-circumcised males.

The problem is circumcisions is major industry and the male ruling class rather have more surplus capital then give men more sexual pleasure. Odds are female capitalists will have the same lack of empathy to the proletariat.




Just so I'm clear, what's happening here is that you are claiming that the entire theory of patriarchy is patently false because in several isolated historical incidents dudes have supported women in revolutions?

Marxist-Feminists have a different theory of patriarchy, where sexism and racism is caused by indoctrination and a lack of class consciousness. Thus a successful working class revolution will shake the foundations of sexism and racism in society as workers change how they perceive each other.



You side-stepped the entire point and made little sense while doing so.

In short voting is a placebo, the ruling class will still carry out their plans regardless of who the people vote for.




Case in point: a proletarian man has social privilege over a proletarian woman simply because he's a man.

- August

What social privilege? There is sexism but proletarian men are crewed up and spit out by capitalism just like proletarian women. If you are referring to the wage gap this is not the case of in unionized workplaces where men and women earn the same.

[Tim Cornelis]

I think, at one point, we all had views similar to those of Counterreactionary regarding feminism. I hated feminism because it made me feel threatened in how I was (now I critically examine my behaviour towards women). I had never spoken to a feminist, nor read any feminist works, my entire opinion on feminism was constructed based on a faulty popular perception of feminism.

I hope other (pro-feminist) posters realise this and will be more nuanced towards non- or anti-feminists on revleft. Contempt certainly will not change their opinion.

I think we can also agree that within the feminist movement there are a fair share of actual misandrists, and they tend to skew the view of feminism altogether--favourably exploited by anti-feminists of course. Much like Islamic fundamentalism paints all muslims as fanatics.

It is important to realise that gender-based discrimination against men, as anti-feminists love to bring up, in fact usually or perhaps always, stems from patriarchical gender roles:

1) Men are discriminated against in terms of child custody.
Patriarchal gender role: women should take care of children.

2) Men are not taken serious in cases of domestic abuse (even though 4 out of 10 victims is male, so a British research found), while women are
Patriarchal gender role: men should be dominant, when abused or raped they were submissive, and hence acted contrary to patriarchical behavioural expectations and are subsequently not taken seriously.

Of course, this applies to much more (including discrimination against homosexuals or transsexuals).


If you are referring to the wage gap this is not the case of in unionized workplaces where men and women earn the same.

How do you explain the wage gap in Western Europe were unionisation is guaranteed by law through works councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council)?

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/images/2/2f/The_unadjusted_gender_pay_gap_2009.png

The unadjusted gender pay gap, 2009 (% difference between average gross hourly earnings of male and female employees, as % of male gross earnings, unadjusted form)

[Crux]

I think, at one point, we all had views similar to those of Counterreactionary regarding feminism. I hated feminism because it made me feel threatened in how I was (now I critically examine my behaviour towards women). I had never spoken to a feminist, nor read any feminist works, my entire opinion on feminism was constructed based on a faulty popular perception of feminism.
Actually, no I never felt any particular affinity for reactionary movements, which the "Men's Rights" movement are. That said, we all live and learn, I've certainly learned plenty about feminism by...wait for it...actually listening to women. So many of these attitudes are very deeply ingrained in our society and of course most of us have held a bunch of prejudices or just been quite ignorant at some point in our lives. But I think repeating what is just the general ignorance floating about and repeating talking points from an actively reactionary movement are two quite different things. Casual sexism is one thing, actively adopting the talking points of a anti-feminist, sexist and reactionary movement is another.

[Psy]

How do you explain the wage gap in Western Europe were unionisation is guaranteed by law through works councils (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_council)?

Look for wages within unionized workplaces as even in Western Europe most people are non-unionized. France has something like only 10% of the work force unionized.

[Crux]

Well how many issues of the men's rights movement does the male ruling class adhere to? For example the top issue in male rights groups is to stopping the circumcision of babies yet the ruling class has done nothing to end it, even though scientific evidence shows circumcised males has less sexual pleasure then non-circumcised males.
Anti-feminism for one. Also the main issues for the Men's Rights movement are the feminist conspiracy in the courts, academia (which is why their stats don't check out) and in society in general. It is the alleged oppression of men by women, the "feminization" and the spurious claim that "feminism has gone too far". In other words conservatism in a new packaging. Another issue, and here is where that damn conspiracy in academia comes in, is rape, or rather the claim that false rape charges are common and in general an attack on both a strawman variant and the real feminist view on rape. It unsurprisingly overlaps with other reactionary groups, for example Breivik made the charge that the reason muslims were winning the war against the west was because the feminization of white men, under the guiding hand of the cultural marxist and feminist conspiracy. His views are hardly unique. Indeed the larger white male "anti-pc" mileu where these opinions originate from is full of crossovers. A seemingly unlikely one was Ingrid Carlqvist who's spent the last few years getting kicked out of any journalistic job she, for some to me completely unfathomable reason, been able to hold because she adheres to tinfoil theories that there's a war against men, waged primarily through women and children lying or being told to lie by the court system about rape. She now, unflinchingly, marries this idea of hers with the idea that over 90% of rapes are made by immigrants.

[Crux]

Look for wages within unionized workplaces as even in Western Europe most people are non-unionized. France has something like only 10% of the work force unionized.
Some 70%+ of the swedish workforce are unionized. There's still a gender wage gap.

[Psy]

Some 70%+ of the swedish workforce are unionized. There's still a gender wage gap.
I'd have to see more data, specifically the break down of men and women in industry the wage gaps within industries. In North American union contracts with employers tend to not have a separate pay scales for men and women, thus contractually women and men within unions earn the same.

[Crux]

"Counterreactionary":
I did pop into the blog you linked. While trying to put up a facade about somehow being more "balanced" anti-feminists here for example is their brilliant explenation why domestic work is almost always done top a far far larger extent by women: "Until that changes — until a very significant percentage of women embody egalitarian standards during courtship as well as wanting them post-courtship — it seems unrealistic to me to expect significant numbers of men to embody the post-courtship egalitarianism that some are demanding. The simple fact is, you don’t get to enjoy a post-courtship relationship without having passed muster during pre-courtship first … and for most men, that’s a much bigger hurdle than it is for most women. If dominant, patriarchal men are the ones valued on the dating market, that’s what most men will concentrate their efforts on becoming."

"Yeah so those dumb girls brought it on themselves. Why can't they date a nice guy like me? I'll only look down on them and expect them to be ever so grateful if I was at all approaching them to initiate the relationship."

I swear the neighbours must have heard the facepalm I just made.

Okay so, really looking forward to the excellent quality of the post you recommended.

"I’m still wrestling with my understanding of “objectification” and the way gynocentric feminists deploy the concept. This post represents only my views as I can phrase them at the moment"
And he did wrestle with his understanding and lost. Also it's a nice touch that he tries to cover his anti-feminism with talking about "gynocentric feminism".
In short he displays quite well that he doesn't even understand, or try to understand, the beginning of the problem with objectification. Or indeed fully understand what it is, but then again from his vantage point how could he? Messed up shit happens if you try to do a "feminism" but want to disregard women's experiences as well as, you know, a long tradition in academia.

[blake 3:17]

Didja notice the women have left the conversation?

Oddly, many of those interested in ending the oppression of women aren't that overwhelmingly interested in how hard men have it.

Anyways, for what it is worth I think do men sometimes experience discrimination and sometimes very unjust and unfair discrimination. The overwhelming majority of feminists, across the political spectrum, do not support those injustices and often have very sensible and just solutions or partial solutions.


@Psy -- you are really displaying a lot of ignorance about how the world actually happens and seem to be defending really effed up ways of actually doing class struggle. Particular unions in particular times have been very very important in defending and advancing women's rights. Economic inequality in a society hurts women more than men, and more women, than men, in most societies, are in favor of economic equality.

I was looking for an essay by Robin Kelley on identity politics and the problem of class reductionism, which is here http://nova.wpunj.edu/newpolitics/issue22/kelley22.htm

And found this wonderful quote from a very early Black feminist:
We take our stand on the solidarity of humanity, the oneness of life, and the unnaturalness and injustice of all special favoritisms, whether of sex, race, country or condition. . . . The colored woman feels that woman's cause in one and universal; and that. . . not till race, color, sex, and condition are seen as accidents, and not the substance of life; not till the universal title of humanity to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is conceded to be inalienable to all; not till then is woman's lesson taught and woman's cause won -- not the white woman's nor the black woman's, not the red woman's but the cause of every man and every woman who has writhed silently under a mighty wrong.

[blake 3:17]

I'd have to see more data, specifically the break down of men and women in industry the wage gaps within industries. In North American union contracts with employers tend to not have a separate pay scales for men and women, thus contractually women and men within unions earn the same.

Dude! WTF??? I guess, justice is colorblind, too.

[blake 3:17]

actually listening to women.

OMG -- yikes -- the fact you made that point and I'm giggling in sorrow that you made is a bad sign.

You might be interested in this article on the very creepy mens rights movement by Michael Laxer, of the Socialist Party of Ontario (which the CWI is in) here: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2012/12/mens-rights-movement-cafe-university-toronto

[Psy]

Dude! WTF??? I guess, justice is colorblind, too.
Well the minorities at my workplace earn the same as everyone in that job, a black forklift operator earns the exact same wage as white forklift operator.




@Psy -- you are really displaying a lot of ignorance about how the world actually happens and seem to be defending really effed up ways of actually doing class struggle. Particular unions in particular times have been very very important in defending and advancing women's rights. Economic inequality in a society hurts women more than men, and more women, than men, in most societies, are in favor of economic equality.

I know unions defend and advance women's rights by that is not feminism. Feminism is a ideology to try and explain sexism, Marxist-Feminists explains it as simply a tactic of the ruling class. Feminism outside Marxism and Anarchism does not believe in class theory, it replaces it with a patriarchal theory where men conspire across their social status to exploit women.

I also don't see any evidence that men are less in flavor for economic equality, every union I've been in the men demanded everyone in a job got paid the same regardless of race or gender.

[blake 3:17]

Well the minorities at my workplace earn the same everyone in that job, a black forklift operator earns the exact same wage as white forklift operator.

And who gets hired? Who gets pulled over by the cops for no reason?

And the only reason you even got integrated unions in the US was because of African Americans and Communists, who recognized the special oppression of Black workers to overcome this.

What you are articulating is what socialist feminists have called functionalism. Yes, divide and conquer serves the dominant class. But simply uniting on a pure class basis does not address the complexities of how oppression actually happens in a society.

A co-worker was telling me how happy she was her boyfriend was willing to buy her tampons. Apparently a lot of guys won't do this. There's no law, no collective agreement that enforce that kind of interpersonal fairness.

Anyone here read The Second Sex?

[Psy]

And who gets hired? Who gets pulled over by the cops for no reason?

And the only reason you even got integrated unions in the US was because of African Americans and Communists, who recognized the special oppression of Black workers to overcome this.

These are all true and addressed within Marxism and Anarchism. For example the Black Panther Party turned to Marx to look for the source of black oppression. Outside Marxist-Feminism the feminist movement had wasted decades trying to reinvent the wheel and still doesn't get class relations.



What you are articulating is what socialist feminists have called functionalism. Yes, divide and conquer serves the dominant class. But simply uniting on a pure class basis does not address the complexities of how oppression actually happens in a society.

Marxist-Feminist dismiss mainstream feminism as bourgeois, so I don't get what you mean by socialist feminists. Outside Marxist-Feminism the feminist movement the lack of class consciousness have given them no means of addressing the complexities of sexism, i.e feminists debate on why working class men hated Margret Thatcher and there are theories like men hated her for being a strong women yet tend that the progressive proletariat hated Margret Thatcher for attacking their class and hated Ronald Reagan just as much.



A co-worker was telling me how happy she was her boyfriend was willing to buy her tampons. Apparently a lot of guys won't do this. There's no law, no collective agreement that enforce that kind of interpersonal fairness.

I never said men had to be forced, my point is that the source of sexism in society come from outside the proletariat, while parts of the proletariat are sexist this comes from how bourgeois society frames gender roles.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

For example the Black Panther Party turned to Marx to look for the source of black oppression. Outside Marxist-Feminism the feminist movement had wasted decades trying to reinvent the wheel and still doesn't get class relations.


How do you account for sexism against ruling class women? It's no less sexist than is sexism against working class women. Speaking from experience, one of the reasons many non-Marxist leftists reject Marxism is precisely because so many Marxists try to explain everything in society with the writings of Marx and Engels. They provided a framework through which to understand certain developments in society. For example, Engels analyzes in his Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State how the creation of a surplus led to the privileging of male labor, but he has no answer for why a sexual division of labor existed in the first place. Looking to them to understand the development of sexism or racism in contemporary society is like looking to Darwin to explain the evolution of hiphop. They have dynamics of their own that aren't always reducible to capital accumulation.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

How do you account for sexism against ruling class women? It's no less sexist than is sexism against working class women.
I'm going to contest this. Patriarchy expresses itself in two ways, one by reducing economic opportunity of woman and by exploiting them through the creation of unpaid maternal value that woman produce in the form of house work and fulfilling the duties of "motherhood", and through gender roles which as Engels explains are dialetically interrelated with the development of capitalism. These things are objectively measurable and can be understood through a materialist outlook. Sexism is not woman getting their feelings hurt because of chick jokes. Don't get me wrong, Marxist should oppose free speech when it is oppressive and discriminatory, but not because the speech it's self is oppressive but because it is the result of and the enforcer of capitalist social relations. Marxists don't care about people's "feelings", we care about quantitatively measurable oppression. Rich woman do not see barriers in economic opportunity and they exploit the labor of nannies to take care of their children and are thus not exploited themselves. Sure, they might be called slut by chauvinistic men, but this is not "oppressing" them since it only reinforces social relations that effect working class woman

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Rich woman do not see barriers in economic opportunity and they exploit the labor of nannies to take care of their children and are thus not exploited themselves.Social oppression is distinct from economic exploitation. Rape and sexual assault, domestic abuse, and so forth are all instances of oppression that effect all women, regardless of class.

Also, I'm not sure when Marxism become about "quantifiable oppression." Can you quantify alienation?

[blake 3:17]

Marxists don't care about people's "feelings", we care about quantitatively measurable oppression.

Sorry, but this Marxist does care about people's feelings. Why be a socialist if you don't care about people's experience of the world?

[Geiseric]

Man, some people on this forum are just as bad chauvanists as my irish catholic grandpa. Oh well, if they don't see the struggles of non white males as important, fuck em.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Speaking from experience, one of the reasons many non-Marxist leftists reject Marxism is precisely because so many Marxists try to explain everything in society with the writings of Marx and Engels.

Please expand.

[Sasha]

Someone over at libcom just published this very worthwhile reading list on feminism; http://libcom.org/library/women-reading-guide

[Psy]

Social oppression is distinct from economic exploitation. Rape and sexual assault, domestic abuse, and so forth are all instances of oppression that effect all women, regardless of class.

Also, I'm not sure when Marxism become about "quantifiable oppression." Can you quantify alienation?
Social oppression doesn't exist in a vacuum and bourgeois society is dominated by the projections by the bourgeoisie. Proletarian men have no say in how the media portrays women as the media is run by the bourgeoisie which is why bourgeois media discriminates against the proletariat (a good documentary on this is "Class Dismissed: How TV Frames the Working Class").

This is where bourgeois feminism flounders, it bases its theories on the surface of culture and struggles to look deeper.

[Quail]

I'm not sure why this discussion is now about attacking bourgeois feminism. I don't think anyone on this website would defend bourgeois feminism because it doesn't make a class analysis. However, the point is that feminism is necessary as part of a marxist or anarchist analysis in order to create the free, equal society that is our eventual aim.

[Crux]

I'm not sure why this discussion is now about attacking bourgeois feminism. I don't think anyone on this website would defend bourgeois feminism because it doesn't make a class analysis. However, the point is that feminism is necessary as part of a marxist or anarchist analysis in order to create the free, equal society that is our eventual aim.
I think the implication is that feminism would generally be bourgeoisie, and while I realise the political culture here in Sweden and in, say, the U.S is pretty different, I think that's a pretty sweeping and fundamentally wrong statement to make.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Please expand.
For example, the attempt to reduce racism and sexism simply to class relations and economic exploitation. They are certainly connected, but they are distinct from each other. And attempts to do that often disregard the lived experience of oppression because it disregards any social oppression that doesn't link back to class relations (see the above comment about disregarding emotions).

I'm curious, how does womanism fit into this? I'm not very educated on it, but my understanding is that it is an attempt to create an alternative to the largely white and middle class liberal feminist movement.

[blake 3:17]

I'm curious, how does womanism fit into this? I'm not very educated on it, but my understanding is that it is an attempt to create an alternative to the largely white and middle class liberal feminist movement.

Womanism was a term coined by the great African American writer, Alice Walker, to describe an African American feminism which sought to address other social inequalities.

There are some fairly specific divides within the White and Black feminist movements over the definition of reproductive rights. The mainstream of feminism has been often centered around abortion rights and not so much on the right to be a mother. There's racialized differences here -- large numbers of Black, Native and disabled women have had forced sterilizations imposed upon them.

When I first started working with children I volunteered at a pro-feminist pro-choice childcare drop in, and it meant a lot to me when I heard some relatively young mothers talking about how they couldn't bear the thought of abortion, of losing their child, and it really shook me up.

I believe in unconditional abortion rights, including late term, and absolutely free on demand, but I was very deeply moved by one young woman talking about her choice to be a mother and that she had the right to carry her baby and have it and care for it, and she shouldn't be discriminated against for making that choice. And I support that too 100%.

I don't know that that is "womanism", but I feel it is.

On the topic of bourgeois feminism, I'd advise people to be careful and thoughtful on the issue. In my locale, the primary leaders of the abortion rights movement were socialist feminists, mostly Trotskyist of one kind or another, but not exclusively, but they got some very good support from very moderate, and even conservative feminists.

There were a number of defining issues in the late 80s in Toronto and one of the biggest was the mass mobilization defenses of the Morgenthaler Clinic. The anti-feminist reactionary anti-abortion bigots were out in full force and there were big actions to physically defend the clinic. Pro-choice conservative feminists came out in favour of the mobilizations and that did a lot to convince fence sitters about who was right.

[Psy]

For example, the attempt to reduce racism and sexism simply to class relations and economic exploitation. They are certainly connected, but they are distinct from each other. And attempts to do that often disregard the lived experience of oppression because it disregards any social oppression that doesn't link back to class relations (see the above comment about disregarding emotions).


Yet racism and sexism is linked back to the fact that how the bourgeoisie projects race and sex determines how bourgeois culture frames race and sex in bourgeois media. Thus sex and racism do link back to the institutions of capitalism.

[Geiseric]

Yet racism and sexism is linked back to the fact that how the bourgeoisie projects race and sex determines how bourgeois culture frames race and sex in bourgeois media. Thus sex and racism do link back to the institutions of capitalism.

It's about more than culture, women and non white people get fucked over EXTRA by capitalism, so white males like us feel like we're above "the lowest of the low," I mean this is basic fucking sociology and marxism. Have you seen the incarceration rates by race? Is that a cultural problem? Or teenage moms who can't get abortions, is that a cultural problem?

[Psy]

It's about more than culture, women and non white people get fucked over EXTRA by capitalism, so white males like us feel like we're above "the lowest of the low," I mean this is basic fucking sociology and marxism. Have you seen the incarceration rates by race? Is that a cultural problem? Or teenage moms who can't get abortions, is that a cultural problem?
That also is the actions of the bourgeoisie, meaning you are still dealing with class theory to explain it and the solution being class consciousness so workers see racism and sexism originating from scapegoating and divisive tactics by the ruling class.

[Counterreactionary]

If you're a dude who benefits from the way things are...

Which I'm not, so you can leave that BS out already.


So you're pretty openly defending male privilege. Nice. Women getting equal pay? But that must mean men get less pay! And yes we will lose out on some things, because, like you completely ignored in the previous paragraph, men do objectively benefit as a group from the oppression of women.

Nope, you're wrong about me - I object against making men inferior in favor of women's desires. I'm for equal pay and for the same laws to apply for both sexes. Most of what all of you people direct at me is just complete garbage taken out of your own prejucidal minds, thank you. But I will admit my way of expressing at first was wrong and misplaced.


Personally I think the talk of "rape-rape", something the MR movement does plenty, was a far more repugnant view coming from The View. How you think an opinion expressed on The View, which was indeed wrong, somehow compares to the structural oppression women face shows that is you who have a problem with not being very exclusive (and ignorant) in the way you view gender relations.I won't deny women are facing oppression at a larger level. But are they always alone in being so? If that view was outstanding, it would be an absurdity to On the cultural level there are several characteristics stigmas and attitudes, in terms of the way men often are portrayed in today's popular culture, how society reacts to negative things said about the entire male gender (cultural concepts like 'boys are stupid, throw rocks at them' and similar, doesn't receive outrage, but appeared to go popular!), while women are largely acknowledged as victims. Still, it's not like I think there is any kind of 'matriarchy' going on, or that oppression of women isn't taking place in any general sense.



Could you do me a favor, and, in your own words, describe the "idea of patriarchy" put forth by feminists?

Like I said, I don't think you actually know anything about feminism.

Yes, the feminist idea of Patriarchy is the theory of a social structure where the role of the male is held central to all institutions in which the father figure holds authority over women, who are held under oppression on an institutional level (the idea of Patriarchy differs though - some feminists attribute the Patriarchy as some 'natural', innate force among males).

But In today's developed countries, I'd say this concept applies very little to communities and areas with high infrastructure and living standard.

_
When you in here accuse me of being so awfully ignorant of Feminism, it's because I don't view feminism just from what feminist theoretics declare themselves, but from the attitudes experiences by various profound and prominent (well, radical) feminists in debates, as well as from what many feministic politicians, writers and opinionmakers have proved to be in practice, being ethically hypocritical and so on.

As of references to some concrete (straw?) feminists that I consider worthy of nausea, this could be i.e radical feminist Valerie Solanas (behind the genocidal SCUM manifesto), 'Skepchick' from the atheist community, extreme feminist bloggers like 'Eve bit first' (behind 'A man is a rape supporter if...').
Else, I guess it's just a sum of appalling experiences and expressions from various public figures and rigid internet feminists that has appeared. Not exactly just a clueless thought picked out of the blue air.

Hope that was better.


And just a passage I found from marxist(dot)com which also (kinda) rejects feminism, without resorting to any reactionary conclusion;

"Academic feminists blame inequality (not just sexism, but also racism and all kinds of prejudice) on some abstract, supposedly innate force called patriarchy that pits white men as a homogenous and equally advantaged group against anyone in society who is not a white man. This argument simply doesn’t add up. Certainly, under capitalism, the majority of ruling class exploiters are white men. And there is no doubt that working class women are doubly oppressed, and that a good number of people of colour, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities are among the lowest ranks of the working class and poor. But to explain this inequality along the lines of gender and skin colour alone does not account for the fact that working class women of all ethnicities have more in common with their working class brothers than they do with Margaret Thatcher or Condoleeza Rice. And this is an oversight that’s deliberately maintained. “Divide and rule” isn’t just a strategy for winning at a game of RISK; it’s a strategy used again and again by the ruling class to distract from the real issue, the real enemy – that is, capitalism.

Fortunately, explaining women’s inequality does not depend on believing in this evil sprite patriarchy, which makes all men naturally prone to want to subjugate women. Inequality only appeared with the emergence of class society."
&
"To end this system, the only way out is the class struggle where the working men and women have to unite to overthrow it. Any tendency that breaks this class unity, whether it is feminism, nationalism, religion or any other prejudice becomes reactionary and retrogressive."

[blake 3:17]

@Psy and Counterreactionary -- I think you've made your point. You are against feminism. I am not insinuating that either of you are misogynists or sexist pigs. But could you please stop? What you're doing is just ending a conversation which could take interesting directions. Thanks.

[Art Vandelay]

I feel that the feminist movement is undoubtedly important, however it must not be confused that the liberation of the female sex is intrinsically linked to the emancipation of the proletariat.

[Crux]

Which I'm not, so you can leave that BS out already.
Except you clearly are.


Nope, you're wrong about me - I object against making men inferior in favor of women's desires. I'm for equal pay and for the same laws to apply for both sexes. Most of what all of you people direct at me is just complete garbage taken out of your own prejucidal minds, thank you. But I will admit my way of expressing at first was wrong and misplaced.And you believe feminism is about making men inferior because it focuses on women, indeed men are so terribly oppressed that perhaps there needs to be a...Men's Rights movement? Right?


I won't deny women are facing oppression at a larger level. But are they always alone in being so? If that view was outstanding, it would be an absurdity to On the cultural level there are several characteristics stigmas and attitudes, in terms of the way men often are portrayed in today's popular culture, how society reacts to negative things said about the entire male gender (cultural concepts like 'boys are stupid, throw rocks at them' and similar, doesn't receive outrage, but appeared to go popular!), while women are largely acknowledged as victims. Still, it's not like I think there is any kind of 'matriarchy' going on, or that oppression of women isn't taking place in any general sense.Cultural concept's like "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them"? Christ...See this is why you shouldn't get your info on culture from the far right.




Yes, the feminist idea of Patriarchy is the theory of a social structure where the role of the male is held central to all institutions in which the father figure holds authority over women, who are held under oppression on an institutional level (the idea of Patriarchy differs though - some feminists attribute the Patriarchy as some 'natural', innate force among males).

But In today's developed countries, I'd say this concept applies very little to communities and areas with high infrastructure and living standard.Yes, undoubtedly *you* would say that. But it is simply false. Even in Sweden, which some imagine to be some kind of egalitarian utopia.


_
When you in here accuse me of being so awfully ignorant of Feminism, it's because I don't view feminism just from what feminist theoretics declare themselves, but from the attitudes experiences by various profound and prominent (well, radical) feminists in debates, as well as from what many feministic politicians, writers and opinionmakers have proved to be in practice, being ethically hypocritical and so on.Oh? Like The View? I'm sorry but I find your claim more than a little doubtful.


As of references to some concrete (straw?) feminists that I consider worthy of nausea, this could be i.e radical feminist Valerie Solanas (behind the genocidal SCUM manifesto)Have you ever actually read the SCUM manifesto?


, 'Skepchick' from the atheist community, extreme feminist bloggers like 'Eve bit first' (behind 'A man is a rape supporter if...').I've only seen pretty good pieces from Skepchick as for "Eve Bit First" I am not aware of it at all.


Else, I guess it's just a sum of appalling experiences and expressions from various public figures and rigid internet feminists that has appeared. Not exactly just a clueless thought picked out of the blue air. No doubt filtered through the lens of MRA's. But shoot give me an example of these prominent public figures.


Hope that was better.No, not really.


And just a passage I found from marxist(dot)com which also (kinda) rejects feminism, without resorting to any reactionary conclusion;


"Academic feminists blame inequality (not just sexism, but also racism and all kinds of prejudice) on some abstract, supposedly innate force called patriarchy that pits white men as a homogenous and equally advantaged group against anyone in society who is not a white man. This argument simply doesn’t add up. Certainly, under capitalism, the majority of ruling class exploiters are white men. And there is no doubt that working class women are doubly oppressed, and that a good number of people of colour, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities are among the lowest ranks of the working class and poor. But to explain this inequality along the lines of gender and skin colour alone does not account for the fact that working class women of all ethnicities have more in common with their working class brothers than they do with Margaret Thatcher or Condoleeza Rice. And this is an oversight that’s deliberately maintained. “Divide and rule” isn’t just a strategy for winning at a game of RISK; it’s a strategy used again and again by the ruling class to distract from the real issue, the real enemy – that is, capitalism.

Fortunately, explaining women’s inequality does not depend on believing in this evil sprite patriarchy, which makes all men naturally prone to want to subjugate women. Inequality only appeared with the emergence of class society."
&
"To end this system, the only way out is the class struggle where the working men and women have to unite to overthrow it. Any tendency that breaks this class unity, whether it is feminism, nationalism, religion or any other prejudice becomes reactionary and retrogressive."And I think it's pretty dishonest of the IMT to put feminism on par with religion or nationalism. Rather it is sexism, like racism, that is used to divide the working class. And, as the comrades in the IMT should be aware, there are very real dividing lines among the working class, along the lines of religion, race and gender. I don't think patriarchy is in any way abstract, regardless of the weaknesses "academic feminism" may suffer from.

[blake 3:17]

Rather it is sexism, like racism, that is used to divide the working class.

Yes!

[Psy]

@Psy and Counterreactionary -- I think you've made your point. You are against feminism. I am not insinuating that either of you are misogynists or sexist pigs. But could you please stop? What you're doing is just ending a conversation which could take interesting directions. Thanks.
Well the original post was

Does the feminist movement take away from more radical leftist movements? Is it counter intuitive to focus on the emancipation of women exclusively rather than to focus all efforts to the emancipation of the working class as a whole?
Does the patriarchy really exist? Is feminism relevant in America and the the Euro countries?

My view is that patriarchy does not exist as bourgeois feminsists see it, that the interests of the ruling class has always played a dominant role in racism dating back to ancient slave societies. I fell looking at sexism through class theory continues the discussion as we now can view the emancipation of women from a deeper understanding of what actually are the issues.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Feminism and Socialist society?

For one, men cannot speak for women as much as women cannot speak for men. Recognizing though the history of patriarchal sex relations in virtually all class societies before Socialism, special attention needs to be made to empower, give voice to, and advance women and womens' issues.

Like issues of racism and national oppression, institutions should be built around formerly oppressed groups to combat remaining bigoted sentiment. How does it go? The birthmark of capitalist society is still present in young socialist societies?

Any form of bigotry does not simply end with workers' power. It doesnt end in some predetermined period of time. It is a social aspect that is not wholly in the sphere of economics. Once the economic conditions of various forms of bigotry, including sexism, are overturned then work can be done over generations of stamping out old customs and unconscious (but learned) bigotry. Being a communist isnt just about overturning capitalism, but building a better society. The most basic act of a revolution; overturning class relations and abolishing the capitalist state (And from a leninist perspective, building a workers state), releases so much energy. That process is only the key. To continue being metaphorical, the key is turned but they door isnt opened. :lol: That basic act of political and economic revolution is not the end all. It is really just the beginning.

For example, in Cuba, there is the Federation of Cuban Women (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Cuban_Women).

Organizations such as this are very much necessary for Women and oppressed nations alike in representation and input in collective societies. Not having such institutions can leave many issues unaddressed and even swept under the rug by white male communists because other issues are 'more important.'

Things like social child care/day care and working against the notions of men-do-this and women-do-that are just as important. Providing adequate maternity and paternity leave as well as steering entertainment towards more advanced portrayals of groups are also necessary.

There are probably a million and a half almost cliche statements like "Women hold up half the sky" and "Sin mujeres, no hay revolucion" but they are true. Having an abolutist workerist view of revolution is doomed to failure by solely being oriented around the economic sphere and completely disregarding social revolution.

Of course, the first and most important task at hand is obtaining and securing workers' power, but after that comes the task of overcoming thousands of years of bigotry and oppression. Not just of women, but all people.

To answer the OP. No it does not take away from the radical left. It is integral to it.

[Psy]

Things like social child care/day care and working against the notions of men-do-this and women-do-that are just as important. Providing adequate maternity and paternity leave as well as steering entertainment towards more advanced portrayals of groups are also necessary.

I agree yet the feminists that lack class consciousness tend be be sexist against women. A prime example is this clip of Chirstopher Hitchens

bpA7pfR0FIc

Christopher Hitchens is sexist against men and women in viewing gender roles being limited by social norms but the interviewer calls Hitchen sexist for believing women have the right to not to be forced into job market against their will. Basically we have a feminist saying if the husband does not force his wife into a wage slavery the husband is sexist for giving the wife the option to not be exploited directly by capitalists. From a Marxist perspective Hitchen is the more progressive position as at least Hitchen is not suggesting men should force women against their will into wage slavery in the name of the female liberation.

[Crux]

Psy: Wow. Hitchens is "the more progressive"? Jesus christ...didn't we have this debate circa 1910? Giving the wife the option to...forcing the wife into wageslavery...Christ. Sorry for all the use of religious terms, but I find your position to be shockingly ignorant and reactionary. Not only do you defend Hitchens as "progressive" you further expand his argument making it perfectly clear you believe men should rule over women, especially women they happen to be married to.

[Psy]

Psy: You think Hitchen's was a feminist? Surely, you're joking. If you think Hitchens views in this clip is "feminism without a class consciousness" then you clearly haven't the faintest idea what feminism is. Yet ironically you apparently feel strongly about it.
No I think the interviewer was a feminist. Hitchen said he didn't think women had to work if they didn't want to and the interviewer viewed that as sexist.

[Psy]

Psy: Wow. Hitchens is "the more progressive"? Jesus christ...didn't we have this debate circa 1910? Giving the wife the option to...forcing the wife into wageslavery...Christ. Sorry for all the use of religious terms, but I find your position to be shockingly ignorant and reactionary.
So it is more progressive for a husband to force a women against their will into wage slavery? If the wife doesn't want to work why is more progressive for the husband force them into the labor market? Marxism actually sides with Hitchens in the issue except Marxism goes farther and saying the husband also shouldn't be forced into the labor market if they don't want to.

The interviewer is clearly against a leisure society and only views women as animals of burned that should be worked to death along side men.

[Crux]

So it is more progressive for a husband to force a women against their will into wage slavery? If the wife doesn't want to work why is more progressive for the husband force them into the labor market? Marxism actually sides with Hitchens in the issue except Marxism goes farther and saying the husband also shouldn't be forced into the labor market if they don't want to.

The interviewer is clearly against a leisure society and only views women as animals of burned that should be worked to death along side men.
Your question is both extremely reactionary and completely divorced from reality. I don't know from what kind of upperclass circumstances you come from but I've never been in a situation where work was a choice. Note how I use myself as parallel because a woman is a human being not property of her husband.
Also way to completely ignore a core issue, and one that Marx and Engels were aware of too although perhaps I must remind you most of the rest of us are not living in the mid-1800's, that is that women do 80% of the unpaid labour in the homes.
That you use a superficially "anti-work" argument to justify your position is beyond the pale. Tell me, since we oppose wageslavery should we also be applauding the millions of people being thrown into unemployment and poverty? Indeed how lucky must I not be to be unemployed. Oh yeah and this is sarcasm by the way.

Uhm no, she defends the position that women should be allowed to work. Incidentally this is also the position of Zetkin, Luxemburg, Lenin and literally any other modern marxist you could think of. Your position however sounds much more, since you seem to be firmly rooted in the 1800's, like the "aristocratic socialism" Marx spoke of in the manifesto. That is a by it's very definition reactionary position. Probably combined with what seems to be mindless utopianism and complete divorce from reality and any real political action. I am sorry I do not have time to go over with you the marxist literature on women's rights in the past 100 years or so but I can only hope that you get better soon.

[Psy]

Your question is both extremely reactionary and completely divorced from reality. I don't know from what kind of upperclass circumstances you come from but I've never been in a situation where work was a choice. Note how I use myself as parallel because a woman is a human being not property of her husband.
Also way to completely ignore a core issue, and one that Marx and Engels were aware of too although perhaps I must remind you most of the rest of us are not living in the mid-1800's, that is that women do 80% of the unpaid labour in the homes.
That you use a superficially "anti-work" argument to justify your position is beyond the pale. Tell me, since we oppose wageslavery should we also be applauding the millions of people being thrown into unemployment and poverty? Indeed how lucky must I not be to be unemployed. Oh yeah and this is sarcasm by the way.

Uhm no, she defends the position that women should be allowed to work. Incidentally this is also the position of Zetkin, Luxemburg, Lenin and literally any other modern marxist you could think of. Your position however sounds much more, since you seem to be firmly rooted in the 1800's, like the "aristocratic socialism" Marx spoke of in the manifesto. That is a by it's very definition reactionary position. Probably combined with what seems to be mindless utopianism and complete divorce from reality and any real political action. I am sorry I do not have time to go over with you the marxist literature on women's rights in the past 100 years or so but I can only hope that you get better soon.
So if women are human beings and not property of the husband then why did the interview take offensive with Hitchens sayins women don't have to go to work yet they can if they want to? The interviewer does not support women's right not to work if they don't have to.

Let me put it another way, if a worker wins the lottery would you would find it offensive if that worker decides to leave the labor market and give their sexual partner the option to do the same? From a revolutionary perspective it is better for a militant worker to leave the labor market if they can and become a full time revolutionary with their lottery winnings.

You are ignorant of the fact that the that the goal of Marxism is a leisure society where socially necessary labor time is over shadowed by our free time, and to think Marxism goal is for everyone slaving in industry is bourgeois propaganda.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Addendum: Female capitalists are progress. So is a black president. It's not the kind of progress we'd necessarily prefer, but it is progress none-the-less.

I usually agree with most of what you say, but I don't really agree with this. I don't think that the creation of female capitalists is really progress at all.

You said later on, well, you wouldn't tell a black woman that all progress made for decades within capitalist society is all for naught, would you? And the answer is no, I wouldn't...I don't really like being offensive for no particular reason, esp to someone who would probably think I have weird beliefs anyway. But many black radicals who somewhat share my political position would actually agree that yeah, the fact that Barack Obama or Michael Steel exist does not really benefit our political project in any way. It's just the result of an adaptive changing economic environment..."Nihilist Communism" talks about this quite well, how the old models of crude, explicit divide-and-conquer racism such as the type that took place between immigrant groups in the USA during the early 20th century no longer apply in an era when all the leaders of western nations steadfastly state their commitments to anti-sexism, anti-racism etc. I don't think the economic system is weakened at all by this, though.

Or, if you want to delve into what the "classics" say about this, Emma Goldman wrote about the question of whether women in positions of power within the present system represented any sort of benefit for women.

[Crux]

So if women are human beings and not property of the husband then why did the interview take offensive with Hitchens sayins women don't have to go to work yet they can if they want to? The interviewer does not support women's right not to work if they don't have to.

Let me put it another way, if a worker wins the lottery would you would find it offensive if that worker decides to leave the labor market and give their sexual partner the option to do the same? From a revolutionary perspective it is better for a militant worker to leave the labor market if they can and become a full time revolutionary with their lottery winnings.

You are ignorant of the fact that the that the goal of Marxism is a leisure society where socially necessary labor time is over shadowed by our free time, and to think Marxism goal is for everyone slaving in industry is bourgeois propaganda.
No I am not. But unlike you I live in the real world and base my political views on how to get from here to there. You've not answered any of my questions, so I shall not repeat myself further.
So being a woman is like winning a lottery? Amazing.
Ah I see I need to break it down in the most simple way possible: What he is saying is first: women should be home taking care of children. Secondly "I am not having any woman of mine work." He takes an extremely paternalist view all throughout and that this to you is progressive. To say that the "fairer sex should not be coarsened by the labour market". Obviously you haven't the first inkling of an understanding of how sexism works.

[Psy]

No I am not. But unlike you I live in the real world and base my political views on how to get from here to there. You've not answered any of my questions, so I shall not repeat myself further.
So being a woman is like winning a lottery? Amazing.

No, the reason I mentioned lottery is Chirstopher Hitchens was very well off and his two wives Eleni Meleagrou (ex) and Carol Blue could not hope to ever earn anywhere near as much Hitchens did, this the context we have to put the interview in.



Ah I see I need to break it down in the most simple way possible: What he is saying is first: women should be home taking care of children. Secondly "I am not having any woman of mine work." He takes an extremely paternalist view all throughout and that this to you progressive. To say that the "fairer sex should not be coarsened by the labour market"? Obviously you haven't the first inkling of an understanding of how sexism works.
Again Hitchens earned so much by being a very successful petite-bouerigise, Hitchen's view comes from being above the proletariat and having class consciousness to realize it. What Hitchen's really was saying was "No women of mine is going be part of the proletariat" and what the interviewer was saying "Your are sexist for protecting your wives from wage slavery".

I admit that Hitchen's is sexist in having a limited view in gender roles but he is not sexist by giving his wives the option to not be exploited by capitalists.

[Sam_b]

Oh please white male, tell me more about why you don't get feminism.

[Psy]

Oh please white male, tell me more about why you don't get feminism.
So for Hitchens to not be sexist he would have to force his wife to slave under a capitalist boss in which she would only earn fraction of what he earned? Lets not forget they would need to hire wage slaves to do the labor the she couldn't do now that she is selling that labor to capitalists.

As for role reversal, if it was that easy for the proletariat to become wealthy petite-bourgeoisie then we wouldn't be exploited as much. To me Hitchen's Marxist background (he was a Trot back in the 1970's) gave him enough class consciousness to understand what what women entering the labor market means, and that his petite-bourgeoisie privilege can be extended to his wife.

Also it should be pointed out a growing number of women feel alienated from feminism as they feel it forces all women to fit into a limited view of a women.

[Rafiq]

I hate looking at revleft via mobile because I have to look at bullshit from, for example, Psy and know I can't say or do shit through it. Jesus christ, and people complain about admins being TOO ban-happy...

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Crux]

So for Hitchens to not be sexist he would have to force his wife to slave under a capitalist boss in which she would only earn fraction of what he earned? Lets not forget they would need to hire wage slaves to do the labor the she couldn't do now that she is selling that labor to capitalists.

As for role reversal, if it was that easy for the proletariat to become wealthy petite-bourgeoisie then we wouldn't be exploited as much. To me Hitchen's Marxist background (he was a Trot back in the 1970's) gave him enough class consciousness to understand what what women entering the labor market means, and that his petite-bourgeoisie privilege can be extended to his wife.

Also it should be pointed out a growing number of women feel alienated from feminism as they feel it forces all women to fit into a limited view of a women.
Uhm. Nope the idea that women should not work has nothing what so ever to do with marxism. The fact that you believe it does also implies you do not understand marxism in addition to you not getting sexism. To my recollection no real marxist has ever opposed women entering the labour market. And no, that's not because we love wageslavery. So, let me get this straight, you oppose feminism because you don't understand it or indeed the experiences of women in general? How novel. As for your throwaway comment about women being away from home means hiring a wageslave for domestic work. First of all, that's not true for most people, second what gender do you think that domestic worker will most likely be? Oh and your "growing number of women" is a total weaselword, or at least that's what experts say.

[Psy]

Uhm. Nope the idea that women should not work has nothing what so ever to do with marxism. The fact that you believe it does also implies you do not understand marxism in addition to you not getting sexism. To my recollection no real marxist has ever opposed women entering the labour market.

Hitchen said if women want to that is fine but they don't have to. The goal of Marxism is limited necessarily labor time to reduce the amount work required.

It seems you didn't pay attention to the clip and that he said women don't need to work but they don't have to. He only said he disproves of his wife entering the work force. If you look at the comments of the youtube video most people interrupted Hitchen supporting women having a choice in entering the work force.



So, let me get this straight, you oppose feminism because you don't understand it or indeed the experiences of women in general?

I understand them and see that outside of anti-capitalist circles they are horribly reactionary. I'm all for female rights but I have real issue with the authoritarian nature of the feminist vanguard that will denounce fellow women that don't tow the party line.



How novel. As for your throwaway comment about women being away from home means hiring a wageslave for domestic work. First of all, that's not true for most people, second what gender do you think that domestic worker will most likely be?

Actually it is true for most people that either they have latchkey kid (kids that have no parental figure to raise them) or they have to hire someone to raise them (which is only true for those that can afford it). Add in labor required to maintain the home itself that means either way either the parents have to spend their days off tending to their home or hire even more labor. The fact most domestic workers are female just you are replacing one female for another to do the labor.



Oh and your "growing number of women" is a total weaselword, or at least that's what experts say.
There are women that feel pressured by feminists to not be housewives and that they have to do well in the labor market to live up to the image of a women feminists projects. There are adult tomboys that feel feminism lumps them with men.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I understand them and see that outside of anti-capitalist circles they are horribly reactionary. I'm all for female rights but I have real issue with the authoritarian nature of the feminist vanguard that will denounce fellow women that don't tow the party line.



Reactionary means harking back to a previous time. I don't think any feminist harks back to previous times where marital rape was legal, a woman's place was seen as doing unpaid labour in the home rather than paid labour in the workplace, and before that women were the (literal) property of their husband or father.

Please consider rescinding this accusation of bourgeois feminism as reactionary. I can assure you it is not. Whilst none of us subscribe to the confused, liberal facade that is bourgeois feminism, to suggest they are reactionary doesn't really make sense.

I'm not sure i've come across any feminist vanguard that will "denounce fellow women who don't tow the party line." I mean, have you been involved in any anti-sexism struggles, instead of observing from afar? Because what you're describing doesn't really correspond to the reality i've ever seen.

[Psy]

Reactionary means harking back to a previous time. I don't think any feminist harks back to previous times where marital rape was legal, a woman's place was seen as doing unpaid labour in the home rather than paid labour in the workplace, and before that women were the (literal) property of their husband or father.

Please consider rescinding this accusation of bourgeois feminism as reactionary. I can assure you it is not. Whilst none of us subscribe to the confused, liberal facade that is bourgeois feminism, to suggest they are reactionary doesn't really make sense.

They are reactionary against the sexual revolution, I've seen feminists that hate the promiscuity that came from the 1960's and don't really want to admit women have a sex drive as to do so would mean women would have to take some blame for the hook up culture that the militant feminists despise.



I'm not sure i've come across any feminist vanguard that will "denounce fellow women who don't tow the party line." 0 describing doesn't really correspond to the reality i've ever seen.
Well you have Robecca Watson (that has a feminist following) denouncing Paula Kerbie for saying in her experience the men in the atheist movement was not holding women back. Once we had the elevator incident Robecca Watson censored even women that told her she was tilting at windmills and it was just a socially awkward man failing at hitting at her and it was a non-issue since the man moved on once she made her disinterested clear.

This has been my experience with feminist vanguards in that they are not even democratic centralism as they don't allow democratic debate and they are run under the idea that the vanguard knows best. This is why feminism has caused such big waves in the atheist movement since feminists view any criticism of their theories as heresy while atheist demand feminists prove their theories with empirical evidence. Now feminists within the Marxist tradition don't have these problems yet they don't prescribe the same theories of why women are discriminated against.

[Crux]

Well you have Robecca Watson (that has a feminist following) denouncing Paula Kerbie for saying in her experience the men in the atheist movement was not holding women back. Once we had the elevator incident Robecca Watson censored even women that told her she was tilting at windmills and it was just a socially awkward man failing at hitting at her and it was a non-issue since the man moved on once she made her disinterested clear.

This has been my experience with feminist vanguards in that they are not even democratic centralism as they don't allow democratic debate and they are run under the idea that the vanguard knows best. This is why feminism has caused such big waves in the atheist movement since feminists view any criticism of their theories as heresy while atheist demand feminists prove their theories with empirical evidence. Now feminists within the Marxist tradition don't have these problems yet they don't prescribe the same theories of why women are discriminated against.
Yes?
I think Watson was completely correct, regardless of whatever misrepresentation's others might have come with, and the complete relentless misogynist hate emanating from others in the "atheist" movement does more to prove her point than anything else.

you're the one to talk about bourgeoisie feminism when you line up with those actively ignoring and defending sexism in the "atheist" movement.
The fact that you seemingly prefer the "atheist" movement to even the most basic understanding of feminism is...interesting.

So why do I put "atheist" in brackets? Well because I find, of course with some honourable exceptions, that the movement at large is dominated by, white, elitist men who, crucially, don't even understand how religion works.
If you are so well off your main gripe is that there are people out there who believe in God well I suspect you've got to be pretty well off indeed.
In short I've been an atheist all my life, I want nothing to do with the neo-atheists and the fact that they seem to think atheism is some kind of intellectual breakthrough amazes me. You don't believe in god? Jesus christ, you must be some kind of genius towering high over the unwashed masses!


Actually it is true for most people that either they have latchkey kid (kids that have no parental figure to raise them)
I was raised by a single parent. Again you show you are completely divorced from reality and also de facto reactionary. You are patently not "all for" women's rights, rather you hark back, like Hitchen's, to some imagined bourgeoisie ideal past where women did not work (well aside from doing all the housework). So women should not work because they should be home raising babies, or ideally if you're rich enough you can pay some other woman to do it...wait, doesn't that mean the other woman is working? Your bougie ideology couldn't shine through any more clearer. Try reading some marxist texts on feminism instead of entitled, rich, white male "atheists".

[Psy]

Yes?
I think Watson was completely correct, regardless of whatever misrepresentation's others might have come with, and the complete relentless misogynist hate emanating from others in the "atheist" movement does more to prove her point than anything else.

Why is she correct?

The argument against her is basically the argument coming from the sexual revolution, both women and men like sex, sex is good thus being hit on is not a bad thing as long as people get the hint when someones is not interested which was the case for Watson, the guy picked up she was not interested stopped hitting on her and went on his way.

Many atheists women have come out against Watson for making men feel uncomfortable hitting on women as they want to get hit on by men, viewing Watson as just a prude since the man went away when she made her disinterest clear.



you're the one to talk about bourgeoisie feminism when you line up with those actively ignoring and defending sexism in the "atheist" movement. The fact that you seemingly prefer the "atheist" movement to even the most basic understanding of feminism is...interesting.

I don't defend sexism in the atheist movement, yet like Paula Kerbie said sexism is not a major hurtle for women in the atheist movement and the fact many women have much thicker skin then Watson proves Paula Kerbie's point.



I was raised by a single parent. Again you show you are completely divorced from reality and also de facto reactionary.

A signal data point, statistically latchkey kids have exploded since women entered the workforce in mass.




You are patently not "all for" women's rights, rather you hark back, like Hitchen's, to some imagined bourgeoisie ideal past where women did not work (well aside from doing all the housework). So women should not work because they should be home raising babies, or ideally if you're rich enough you can pay some other woman to do it...wait, doesn't that mean the other woman is working? Your bougie ideology couldn't shine through any more clearer. Try reading some marxist texts on feminism instead of entitled, rich, white male "atheists".

I'm not against women entering the workforce, I am glad so many women were in industry in the USSR but the USSR also provided childcare for those women and the USSR was not afraid of making women more masculine. While feminists don't spend any time looking into why most tomboys give into female gender roles by adulthood since tomboys associate more with men, tomboys don't want men to change for them as they comfortable fitting in with male culture.

I also find it funny that you call Marxist feminism reactionary and bourgeois feminism progressive. Bourgeois feminists are against women being house wives even if that is their choice, the UK bourgeois state admitted the primary goal of the institutionalization of feminism in the UK is to bring women into the labor market making it more competivie (i.e making labor cheaper).

I defend women's right to have a choice, the choice to go to work (or stay home), the right for tomboys to embrace male culture, the right of women and men to be sexual without prudes scream sexism.

[human strike]

Does the feminist movement take away from more radical leftist movements? Is it counter intuitive to focus on the emancipation of women exclusively rather than to focus all efforts to the emancipation of the working class as a whole?

No to both questions. It is important to transcend the talk of solidarity between struggles that has been expressed a lot in this thread and to understand how the struggle against patriarchy and the struggle against capital are genuinely one in the same. They're not linked struggles, they're the same struggle. There is an essay by Maya Andrea Gonzalez called Communization and the Abolition of Gender (http://libcom.org/library/communization-abolition-gender) which discusses just this, explaining that class society is built on a foundation of sexism and that capitalism cannot be undone without the undoing of patriarchy. To understand this is to recognise that the existence of class is dependent on the existence of gender.


Is feminism relevant in America and the the Euro countries?

Feminism is relevant everywhere and for everyone. bell hooks' book Feminism is for Everybody (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:hGNhHWMC1rYJ:excoradfeminisms.files.wordpr ess.com/2010/03/bell_hooks-feminism_is_for_everybody.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShC_PEunMZuNjsIFxOkGD8yCBCL3kV9bSti_47Z jrNa94m160tXrxjzPP3rQVSYhAnHSBaJe9A39E7l5XqtDWmuSg gt8lpRdUW8mPMFVzPLXBkvAyRKj14OdSMCkfrGyNa2g7OF&sig=AHIEtbQu0yTKi7Z6SvmiL4HUB7IINGrAJA) does a fantastic job at explaining this.

[Crux]

Why is she correct?
Because if you're alone in the middle of the night and a stranger hits on you while you are in a small confined space, i e elevator, that's creepy and not okay. This was literally all she said. That some "atheist" men have been completely outraged by this shows their complete ignorance of women's experiences, inability to read and disregard for women generally.


The argument against her is basically the argument coming from the sexual revolution, both women and men like sex, sex is good thus being hit on is not a bad thing as long as people get the hint when someones is not interested which was the case for Watson, the guy picked up she was not interested stopped hitting on her and went on his way. yeah well, that's just a straw man you made up and does not even deserve to be addressed.


Many atheists women have come out against Watson for making men feel uncomfortable hitting on women as they want to get hit on by men, viewing Watson as just a prude since the man went away when she made her disinterest clear. Here we go again with the weaselwords. "Many atheist women" eh? I know "many atheist women" and they would quite decidedly not agree with what you're saying at all. So Watson is making "men feel uncomfortable on hitting on women" by making a completely true remark about, you know, hitting on women in the middle of the night in an elevator is creepy, means you are directly in someone's personal space? If that makes "men uncomfortable", well god damn, try listening to women and respecting their opinions once in a while. Clearly this was not done in the "atheist movement" with the subsequent withchunt against feminists, that you defend.


I don't defend sexism in the atheist movement, yet like Paula Kerbie said sexism is not a major hurtle for women in the atheist movement and the fact many women have much thicker skin then Watson proves Paula Kerbie's point. I am not sure I've read Kerbie, but it sounds very similar to the strawman nonsense you said a second ago. So your point was feminism is "undemocratic" because Watson responded to Kerbie? I mean speaking of "thicker skins".


A signal data point, statistically latchkey kids have exploded since women entered the workforce in mass.
Yes, let's push women back into the homes, that's clearly the preferable option here. So your really making the argument women working = lack of role models for children? You really have no idea how very reactionary this position is do you?




I'm not against women entering the workforce, I am glad so many women were in industry in the USSR but the USSR also provided childcare for those women and the USSR was not afraid of making women more masculine. While feminists don't spend any time looking into why most tomboys give into female gender roles by adult hood since tomboys associate more with men, tomboys don't want men to change for them as they comfortable fitting in with male culture. Tomboys? I'm not even sure what the fuck you are on about. But I can tell you this, the reason there even is such a thing as childcare is because of feminist struggles.


I also find it funny that you call Marxist feminism reactionary and bourgeois feminism progressive. Bourgeois feminists are against women being house wives even if that is their choice, the UK bourgeois state admitted the primary goal of the institutionalization of feminism in the UK is to bring women into the labor market making it more competivie (i.e making labor cheaper). Nope, I call you (and Hitchens etc) reactionary. Not marxist feminism, because I am one and you are not even remotely any such thing.
Again, I reminisce about debates in the late 1800's. So how do you think marxists responded to this? Here's a clue, not even close to your position. And even so the late 1800's is quite a long time ago now so may I suggest reading any marxist literature on feminism published in the last 40 years or so.


I defend women's right to have a choice, the choice to go to work (or stay home), the right for tomboys to embrace male culture, the right of women and men to be sexual without prudes scream sexism.Is "tomboys" your extremely hamfisted and obviously ill-informed way to adress trans issues...? Well, I as a marxist defend gender equality. Of course doing so requires having even a simple grasp of how gender oppression works, something you by your ill-informed statements show that you clearly don't.

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Well, with Psy's banning, I suppose we can put that debate to rest. Much more important in my mind, though, is how to extirpate the sort of ideas he was expressing from the revolutionary left.