Feminism and the Revolutionary Left

[Quail]

I've noticed that a few people have mentioned wanting to see more discussion of how feminism fits into a marxist/anarchist ideology so I'm starting this thread with a few questions. I'll come back and give a more detailed response myself, but just wanted to get the ball rolling. (And btw, if you want to see a thread on a particular topic in future, don't feel afraid to start one. :))

In particular I wanted to discuss the limitations of what we can do. I don't think we can abolish patriarchy (or indeed any other power structure) within the confines of capitalism, and I'm sure most if not all people posting on this forum would agree. In which case, what can we realistically achieve? Which struggles are most important, and how best can we engage in them or support them?

I realise this is quite a vague question, but I'd appreciate your thoughts.

[Comrade Nasser]

I love feminist women. I think it'st hot how they stand up for themselves and don't take men's shit anymore.

[Quail]

I love feminist women. I think it'st hot how they stand up for themselves and don't take men's shit anymore.
What is that supposed to mean? Women don't stand up for themselves to be "hot" for the benefit of men. Women, and allies, are feminists because of the discrimination women face on a daily basis - such as objectification. You know, like when guys patronisingly tell them they're "hot" for standing up for themselves. Don't say anything like that again, this is a verbal warning.

[Comrade Nasser]

What is that supposed to mean? Women don't stand up for themselves to be "hot" for the benefit of men. Women, and allies, are feminists because of the discrimination women face on a daily basis - such as objectification. You know, like when guys patronisingly tell them they're "hot" for standing up for themselves. Don't say anything like that again, this is a verbal warning.

lolwut

[Quail]

Women are often reduced to their appearance, much more so than men. This means that they're not listened to or taken seriously. Do you think it's respectful and useful to the discussion in a serious thread to tell everyone that you think feminist women are hot? It's off topic and offensive.

[Comrade Nasser]

Women are often reduced to their appearance, much more so than men. This means that they're not listened to or taken seriously. Do you think it's respectful and useful to the discussion in a serious thread to tell everyone that you think feminist women are hot? It's off topic and offensive.

I'm sorry?

[Comrade Nasser]

Women are often reduced to their appearance, much more so than men. This means that they're not listened to or taken seriously. Do you think it's respectful and useful to the discussion in a serious thread to tell everyone that you think feminist women are hot? It's off topic and offensive.

I didn't really mean "hot" as physical I meant it more as I found it admirable that women (who have been held down so long by patriarchal society) to stand up for themselves. I really wasn't trying to offend at all. I'm sorry if you construed it any differently.

[#FF0000]

I love feminist women. I think it'st hot how they stand up for themselves and don't take men's shit anymore.

lmfao god what a dumb thing to say

[Vanilla]

sick2death of the "I'm sorry you were offended" fake apologies

[Quail]

I didn't really mean "hot" as physical I meant it more as I found it admirable that women (who have been held down so long by patriarchal society) to stand up for themselves. I really wasn't trying to offend at all. I'm sorry if you construed it any differently.
Then I suggest a better choice of words in future. One of the benefits of typing things out is you can read what you've written back before you post. I don't know how you could have looked at that post and thought it was an acceptable contribution to the thread. Anyway, let's keep on topic now.

[Comrade Nasser]

Then I suggest a better choice of words in future. One of the benefits of typing things out is you can read what you've written back before you post. I don't know how you could have looked at that post and thought it was an acceptable contribution to the thread. Anyway, let's keep on topic now.

I got you. I really didn't mean to offend anyone lmfao anyways, I had a couple questions for you.

-Do feminists realize that society is very patriarchal or at least has been for a while?

-If they do realize this, how do they plan to change it, and make it an equal playing field?

-Also is it tough for Feminists to break the stereotypes handed to them by society such as being "man-haters" or "female supremacists" or "sexists" as the far right try's to portray them?

[Tjis]

I think the most important task of feminism within our movement is to ensure that women do not become second-class members of our organizations. Regardless of patriarchy existing within bourgeois society, within our own spaces we should do everything in our power to eliminate it.
For that reason, feminist organizations are absolute necessary. Without such organizations, the feminist critique is divided and ineffective, thus giving an upper hand to the patriarchal consensus. And although these days nearly all socialist and labor organizations nominally support feminist goals, what good is that if the patriarchal consensus sets the priorities?

[Vanilla]

It's hard to say which struggles are most important because different women have different lives. I think that the current restrictions on abortion implemented currently in America are something that we should fight against. Is it as hard to get an abortion in other places too? In North Dakota, you can't get an abortion after a heartbeat is detected in the fetus, for example. I think some other places force you to get therapy before having an abortion too.

Also, there is the wage gap. What is there to be done about that though? I don't know.

[Comrade Nasser]

I think the most important task of feminism within our movement is to ensure that women do not become second-class members of our organizations. Regardless of patriarchy existing within bourgeois society, within our own spaces we should do everything in our power to eliminate it.
For that reason, feminist organizations are absolute necessary. Without such organizations, the feminist critique is divided and ineffective, thus giving an upper hand to the patriarchal consensus. And although these days nearly all socialist and labor organizations nominally support feminist goals, what good is that if the patriarchal consensus sets the priorities?

Thanks for answering my questions they've been on my mind for a while now

[Quail]

I got you. I really didn't mean to offend anyone lmfao anyways, I had a couple questions for you.

-Do feminists realize that society is very patriarchal or at least has been for a while?

Yes, isn't that the point of feminism? To dismantle the patriarchal power structure?


-If they do realize this, how do they plan to change it, and make it an equal playing field?
There are a wide variety of feminists who use a variety of tactics. As an anarchist feminist I don't think it is possible to have an equal society within the framework of capitalism. However there are things we can do in the present to change people's attitudes and encourage people to change their behaviour. For example, I think that the Slutwalk protests were a good reaction to the policeman saying that women shouldn't dress like sluts if they don't want men to rape them. Obviously a march isn't going to stop rape, but it's important to challenge victim-blaming attitudes. There are often attacks on things such as abortion rights, so we need to resist that and possibly support women who can't access abortion. There is a charity for example which supports women who travel to the UK from Ireland with financial aid and volunteers who offer somewhere to stay. Another issue is making sure things are accessible to women. For example anarchist meetings are often held in pubs or other venues that aren't child friendly, which means fewer women can get involved. So practical things like arranging childcare and stuff are useful.


-Also is it tough for Feminists to break the stereotypes handed to them by society such as being "man-haters" or "female supremacists" or "sexists" as the far right try's to portray them?
Well given that the stereotypes are for the most part completely false (feminists want equality and freedom regardless of gender), if someone is willing to listen then it isn't difficult to show that the stereotypes are false. Also, many people support feminist ideas and goals even if they would not call themselves feminists.

[Comrade Nasser]

Yes, isn't that the point of feminism? To dismantle the patriarchal power structure?


There are a wide variety of feminists who use a variety of tactics. As an anarchist feminist I don't think it is possible to have an equal society within the framework of capitalism. However there are things we can do in the present to change people's attitudes and encourage people to change their behaviour. For example, I think that the Slutwalk protests were a good reaction to the policeman saying that women shouldn't dress like sluts if they don't want men to rape them. Obviously a march isn't going to stop rape, but it's important to challenge victim-blaming attitudes. There are often attacks on things such as abortion rights, so we need to resist that and possibly support women who can't access abortion. There is a charity for example which supports women who travel to the UK from Ireland with financial aid and volunteers who offer somewhere to stay. Another issue is making sure things are accessible to women. For example anarchist meetings are often held in pubs or other venues that aren't child friendly, which means fewer women can get involved. So practical things like arranging childcare and stuff are useful.


Well given that the stereotypes are for the most part completely false (feminists want equality and freedom regardless of gender), if someone is willing to listen then it isn't difficult to show that the stereotypes are false. Also, many people support feminist ideas and goals even if they would not call themselves feminists.

You're right. Those victim-blamers are some of the worst scum of the earth. Like I know I make stupid/dumb comments every once in a while, but these people are just fucking sadistic and stupid. Thank's for answering my questions btw.

Here's another question, although it may sound dumb:

-Is there a term for male feminists? Like what do people call them?

[Quail]

-Is there a term for male feminists? Like what do people call them?
Some men just call themselves feminists, or pro-feminists.

[Comrade Nasser]

Some men just call themselves feminists, or pro-feminists.

So is it a movement in and of its own, or a sub-movement?? :confused:

I'm so confused. I understand that they basically have the same goal in mind though right?

[Quail]

So is it a movement in and of its own, or a sub-movement?? :confused:

I'm so confused. I understand that they basically have the same goal in mind though right?
Male feminists have the same goal as female feminists, although they should take a more supportive role in the movement as opposed to trying to lead it. It should be the people in the oppressed group who lead the movement for their liberation.

[slum]

I love feminist women. I think it'st hot how they stand up for themselves and don't take men's shit anymore.

how revealing that this is the first response to this thread, good lord.



-Do feminists realize that society is very patriarchal or at least has been for a while?

i personally have beef with the idea of 'patriarchy' since it is a model that suggests all men oppress all women without any understanding of how sexism and women's oppression is born out of material and economic relations (the new 'kyriarchy model that attempts to integrate other oppressions like ableism, racism and classism is better, but similarly flawed).

i see the overwhelming white maleness (in some cases, just maleness, or just whiteness) in organizational 'high places' as both an inevitable result of these relations (with the introduction of wealth accumulation and inheritable private property descent needed to be assured, and as a result women are reduced to instruments of reproduction and descent is shown through paternity rather than maternity), and a reflection of sexism's own internal logic- when we talk about the influence or presence of women in power structures (political parties, governments, armies, religious institutions, workplaces etc) i guess the term 'patriarchy' can be useful but it's not my first choice of term. that said, yes, feminists are the people who came up with that model, and pretty much every feminist who has ever lived is well aware of the vast political and economic inequality of women in a male-dominated society.



-If they do realize this, how do they plan to change it, and make it an equal playing field?

for a long time "feminism" as a self-identified movement worked to get women increased participation in capitalist political life, such as the right to vote, and own property, divorce their husbands, etc. these sorts of gains are of course critical. feminists and women workers have been instrumental in labor struggles for decent conditions, maternity leave, and socialized childcare. the feminist demand for accessible birth control and abortion is related to this; when women have control over their own bodies, they can participate more freely in work outside the home, for example. feminists agitate for equal pay for equal work (equal pay as men, etc.) and against sexual violence, and if they're worth their salt they also agitate against anti-immigration laws, imperialism and the murder and enslavement of women across the globe.

some schools of feminism, like "power feminism", consider that "level playing field" to be their ultimate goal- for them, women will have "won" when women can be just as good capitalists and warmongers as men are. these feminists throw other women and all oppressed people under the bus and have no interest in destroying the capitalist mode of production that oppresses women by its very nature.

i'm more marxist, so i'm not interested in 'leveling the playing field' in that way; i think we should be revolutionary leftists who aim for the emancipation of all people, and who pay attention to the needs of women given their particular relationship to reproduction. there are many many many other different approaches to feminism and women's liberation, from radical feminism to third-wave inter-sectional feminism to separatist feminism to anarcho-feminism to muslim feminists to environmentalist feminists. we all have different analyses and different approaches.




-Also is it tough for Feminists to break the stereotypes handed to them by society such as being "man-haters" or "female supremacists" or "sexists" as the far right try's to portray them?

i don't see breaking these stereotypes (and they are false, sexist caricatures) as important for feminists. again, many feminists disagree on this. a lot of this reactionary nonsense comes out of the right wing and will persist no matter how feminists talk or act, it is part of the 'rollback' from the gains of the women's liberation movement in the 60s and 70s. i also argue that it has intensified lately because of the capitalist crisis.

generally people who talk this way about feminists are just telling you that they are either ignorant, or ignorant and an asshole. category A can be rehabilitated if you think it's worth it, category B generally cannot.

[Vanilla]

I think the most important task of feminism within our movement is to ensure that women do not become second-class members of our organizations. Regardless of patriarchy existing within bourgeois society, within our own spaces we should do everything in our power to eliminate it.
For that reason, feminist organizations are absolute necessary. Without such organizations, the feminist critique is divided and ineffective, thus giving an upper hand to the patriarchal consensus. And although these days nearly all socialist and labor organizations nominally support feminist goals, what good is that if the patriarchal consensus sets the priorities?

I think that this is a good idea. We should work on correcting the sexist (and, for that matter, other oppressive) behaviors and attitudes within our own group before we try ending sexism elsewhere. If we allowed women to be seen as second-class citizens in our movement, when would we fight for women to be treated equally?

[Taters]

Alright, how about a couple of very basic questions...

1. What is feminism?

2. What is Marxist/proletarian feminism and how is it distinguished from bourgeois-liberal feminism?

[Rafiq]

Feminism is intristically a component of communism and a result of proletarian struggle, i.e. it is superstructural to the revolutionary proletariat

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

1. What is feminism?
I define it as the liberation struggle of women.


2. What is Marxist/proletarian feminism and how is it distinguished from bourgeois-liberal feminism?
1. Revolutionary feminism recognizes that the liberation of women can only be realized as part of the liberation of the working class as a whole. Thus, revolutionary feminism is part of the class struggle.

2. Revolutionary feminism accepts a materialist conception of history.

[#FF0000]

I define it as the liberation struggle of women.

What would you say "liberation" entails, concretely?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What would you say "liberation" entails, concretely?
For me, it means smashing the structures of misogynistic ideology and male supremacy as part of the broader class struggle.

[Rafiq]

what feminists should strive for is not liberation, but emancipation.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

For me, it means smashing the structures of misogynistic ideology and male supremacy as part of the broader class struggle.

then it is better to say emancipation. liberation implies almost like an external factor "freeing" women or releiving them of their gender based restrictions. a step in the right direction, but the real struggle is not to be relieved but to destroy the mechanisms which allow it to be the choice of others to "liberate" you, to emancipate from the constraints of male benevolence. liberation is a bourgeois concept, almost universally.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[melvin]

In which case, what can we realistically achieve? Which struggles are most important, and how best can we engage in them or support them?? I don't see why you would potentially limit yourself this way. there's no way to know what's possible and what's not until you try. fucking scream and shout about everything. and if it doesn't work then scream and shout louder. I do not like this question because I think it is a self defeating attitude, trying to prioritize the specific effects of the broader issue of patriarchy in general.

edit: I don't mean for this post to sound aggressive. sorry if it sounds that way.

[slum]

? I don't see why you would potentially limit yourself this way.

because women cannot completely end their exploitation until capitalism has been crushed and sadly global revolution is not happening tomorrow

because we have limited possibilities right now under capitalism and after decades of backlash against the feminist movement, it makes perfect sense to decide where our efforts can be most usefully directed.

because screaming is not always the most effective way to bring about change, although i do find it cathartic sometimes.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I think the most important task of feminism within our movement is to ensure that women do not become second-class members of our organizations. Regardless of patriarchy existing within bourgeois society, within our own spaces we should do everything in our power to eliminate it.
For that reason, feminist organizations are absolute necessary. Without such organizations, the feminist critique is divided and ineffective, thus giving an upper hand to the patriarchal consensus. And although these days nearly all socialist and labor organizations nominally support feminist goals, what good is that if the patriarchal consensus sets the priorities?

The experience of the SWP proves this. We need to promote a degree of affirmative action to our organizations to allow woman to have a greater role in these spaces. Though there should be a limit to this affirmative action, since we don't want to resurrect the lingering woman worship of the chalvarious ages

[#FF0000]

For me, it means smashing the structures of misogynistic ideology and male supremacy as part of the broader class struggle.

Such as what, for example?


what feminists should strive for is not liberation, but emancipation.

I hate this kind of thing. "NOT EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, BUT LIBERATION".

"NO NOT LIBERATION, EMANCIPATION!"

What does it mean?

[melvin]

I might be too drunk for his but..


because women cannot completely end their exploitation until capitalism has been crushed and sadly global revolution is not happening tomorrowthat is not an excuse to not be the full person you are against oppression. you fight and you fucking fight until you cant breath and you will be remembered as someone who dedicated her/his life to destoying patriarchy. and you NEED to fight.


because we have limited possibilities right now under capitalism and after decades of backlash against the feminist movement, it makes perfect sense to decide where our efforts can be most usefully directed. decades of backlash against the feminist movement? there have been deacdes of backlash against ever aspect of anti-sexist ideas. so why choose whch one?


because screaming is not always the most effective way to bring about change, although i do find it cathartic sometimes.disagreed on a political level, but im too drunk to explain. it is the most effective way but even then, you need to end your life knowing you stood for everthiung you stand for. and you foght against patroarchy.

[slum]

I might be too drunk for his but..

that is not an excuse to not be the full person you are against oppression. you fight and you fucking fight until you cant breath and you will be remembered as someone who dedicated her/his life to destoying patriarchy. and you NEED to fight.

i hope i am the full person i can be against oppression, which is why i think feminists should also be engaged in the revolutionary struggle to liberate all people from capitalist exploitation. if there were revolution in the street right now i would be out there fighting and fighting. but right now that's not happening. what does it mean to fight and fight in a non-revolutionary period? that is what i think quail is asking in this thread. i think it means agitating for women's economic and political rights, fighting for socialized education and healthcare, fighting sexism where you encounter it, and educating and learning from other revolutionaries.

i've not devoted my life to ending patriarchy per se, since i don't think patriarchy as a model reflects the true nature of women's oppression under capitalism. does it matter if capitalists and imperialists are women or men? should we aim for a 50/50 ratio of exploiters? i'm more concerned that women are 70% of the world's poor and are the victims of brutal violence across the globe. that's not a patriarchy problem, it's a capitalism problem, reflecting women's relationship to reproduction in class society.

also not really interested in being remembered, just want the world not to suck as much, especially for women. it would be nice to see socialism.



disagreed on a political level, but im too drunk to explain. it is the most effective way but even then, you need to end your life knowing you stood for everthiung you stand for. and you foght against patroarchy.

i appreciate your enthusiasm?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

liberation is a bourgeois concept, almost universally.
Linguistically, the Latin emancipare can mean "to transfer ownership of." Whereas liber means "free." I'm comfortable using liberation rather than emancipation.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Such as what, for example?
The structures of misogynistic ideology and male supremacy are literally part of every aspect of society. Would you care to narrow the question down?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

edit: I don't mean for this post to sound aggressive. sorry if it sounds that way.
Aggressive? No. Condescending? Yes.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The experience of the SWP proves this. We need to promote a degree of affirmative action to our organizations to allow woman to have a greater role in these spaces. Though there should be a limit to this affirmative action, since we don't want to resurrect the lingering woman worship of the chalvarious agesI think you are right that the SWP should have some sharp warnings about the left and sexism, but I don't know if affermative action would have changed much about the situation. I don't know enough about daily life in the SWP to say much about how women were treated, but it does seem like they had a decent level of female comrades with leading roles - the CC compoisition may be different, but I'm not sure.

I think the bigger issue/warning in this case was a sense of party infallability and that somehow because of their politics, they exist outside of a sexist society and therfore any claim of sexism within the leadership was view as some kind of absurd impossibility. Worst IMO is the use of political arguments as a shild and excuse for dismissive practices towards the alligations and victim and the concept of "feminism" generally. It takes more than "we have a good analysis of sexism, so join us" to actually help build up revolutionary struggle for sexual liberation and if you mean "affermative action" in the sense of paying particular attention to how inequalities and oppression impact people and their ability to be confident self-leaders, then I totally agree.

As for left-wing "affermative action" in general well, maybe it's just the connotation of liberal affermative action in the US (which I critically support if people are organizing for more access in jobs and education in an oppressive society). But affermative action is a band-aid for structural inequality in society and I think the issue for the left should be trying to enable women to become leaders, to try and compensate for wider cultural issues and baggage (such as women being taught that being opinionated is bad, or that women should serve as support in groups). This is something we need to do generally, since workers generally are taught that their ideas and actions and leadership are not valuable. I guess it really is "affermative action" afterall and I'm kind of nit-picking, but I guess A.A. seems too passive to me and our goal should be to try and make everyone around us their own leader and this just requires more attention when it comes to people from oppressed groups.

[melvin]

Okay yeah. I was too drunk to be trying to talk about this later on last night. sorry. I will try to write something that makes more sense later on when I have more time.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

As for left-wing "affermative action" in general well, maybe it's just the connotation of liberal affermative action in the US (which I critically support if people are organizing for more access in jobs and education in an oppressive society). But affermative action is a band-aid for structural inequality in society and I think the issue for the left should be trying to enable women to become leaders, to try and compensate for wider cultural issues and baggage (such as women being taught that being opinionated is bad, or that women should serve as support in groups). This is something we need to do generally, since workers generally are taught that their ideas and actions and leadership are not valuable. I guess it really is "affermative action" afterall and I'm kind of nit-picking, but I guess A.A. seems too passive to me and our goal should be to try and make everyone around us their own leader and this just requires more attention when it comes to people from oppressed groups.

I think you are right in this, liberal affirmative action is inadequate and does not compensate for the structural problems that make it necessary. I do believe that even leftists internalize patriarchal ideology that ultimately needs to be combated and I agree with your general line on this matter

[Crixus]

My quick two cents. I have a problem when people advocate 'the' patriarchy as being the historical source of class, men being the oppressor class and women the oppressed. Also in doing so many times this oppression is painted as universal, all men benefiting from it, all men perpetuating it either consciously or subconsciously- taken to it's conclusion, (one example only) in a thread on this site, a person went as far as to say we all support rape. This will no doubt have it's roots in rape culture theory, rape culture does indeed exist but not as the universal homogenous force experienced at all times by all people. I'd say with youth it's much more prevalent. To say we all support rape is, well, no.



Organizing along the lines with people who need their own spaces to feel safe, ends up being intellectual spaces so as to not have theory challenged (which is always framed as mens "oppressive resubstantiation of patriarchal relations) gets a tad complicated. When men become one class, the oppressor class, and women the oppressed class which needs liberating from the oppressor class (men) it's comparable to asking workers to organize with capitalists. I certainly wouldn't do it but such is the mindframe some feminist theory (mostly Radical Feminism) creates. Women are in danger at all times in every situation. There is no escape from patriarchal relations. EVERYTHING is lain at the feet of 'the' patriarchy.

On the other hand Materialist and Socialist Feminism is attacked as nonsense by Radical Feminists and Materialist and Socialist feminists cave in all too much ground and end up adopting much of the questionable RadFem theory. Historical materialism shows us most of the source of woman's subordination to man is found in her relation to the means of production/sustenance. This is behind the major push to get women in the work force under capitalism now but in the end most of us are still subordinate to a capitalist. This sort of "reformism" has indeed helped women liberate themselves from abusive situations, mostly domestic. This struggle is by far not over though and needs to expand beyond women in the work force and it has/is. Where we get into some problems is when, as I said, the universal conception of the patriarchy is pushed as the basis of theory and the reason Radical Feminists attack Materialist Feminists is because much of the Radical Feminist theory will have no material basis. In the end we end up with a hodgepodge of Radical Feminist theory mixed with Materialist/Marxist/Socialist feminist theory and a lot of ideas, when taken to their conclusion, become rather absurd.

Contention is the end result. Take the sex negative position for instance. Some people on this site may be sex negative, some may be sex positive. What's the theoretical foundation for the sex negative position? I think discussing this will highlight why there's problems with a lot of Radical Feminist theory bleeding into the overall feminist tradition but then again we have people like Ellen Willis within the Radical Feminst tradition who came to different conclusions than, lets say, Andrea Dworkin.

It becomes a large cluster of arguments and theories and factions and tendencies much like the overall Marxist and Anarchist traditions. Feminism as a whole shouldn't be avoided, thrown out or ignored much in the same light that we would obviously not ignore Marxist or Anarchist theory. Sifting through it all is something the average person has not the time or inclination to do which means just as North Korea is paraded around as "Marxism" a lot of batshit feminist theory is paraded around as representative of feminism which in turn manufactures knee jerk reactions. Even us on the left who are paying half way attention can't agree on what's correct theory and what isn't. It's a mess but it's a mess not limited to feminism.

[Rafiq]

I hate this kind of thing. "NOT EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW, BUT LIBERATION".

"NO NOT LIBERATION, EMANCIPATION!"

What does it mean?

Liberation is ideological in nature, while emancipation is proletarian. Liberation implies a kind of an abstract "freedom", the opening of space left to "free will" while emancipation is the act and process of struggle against your own enslavement. Of course we should not oppose "liberation" feminists, we should, all I say, enhance feminism.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[bcbm]

Historical materialism shows us most of the source of woman's subordination to man is found in her relation to the means of production/sustenance. This is behind the major push to get women in the work force under capitalism now

could you flesh this out a little more? for many years during and after industrialization women and children worked in the factories beside men; before primitive accumulation began they were working side by side in the fields and households.

[Crixus]

could you flesh this out a little more? for many years during and after industrialization women and children worked in the factories beside men; before primitive accumulation began they were working side by side in the fields and households.

Find a summary of Engels work on "The Origin Of Family, Private Property And The State". I don't think it can explain the origin of Patriarchy or woman's oppression universally but this combined with Marx's study of the Iroquois gives insight into how our relation to the means of production largely determines the amount of freedom we enjoy. If we're not to believe this material truth then it's pointless that workers control production. This isn't to say that other forms of oppression havent and dont exist it explains how the rise of the property based market system and the institution of marriage amplified pre existing inequalities.

With primitive communism (Marx's study of the Iroquois) women were not expected to do household chores and raising children was communal. He attributed this to the complete lack of property relations and the woman's ability to easily (communally) provide material sustenance without the need of a man.

In my opinion pre property relations oppression and or lack of equality of women had to do with both the simple size difference between men/women and in whichever case a woman could not provide material sustenance alone (in the case of the Iroquois a woman could kick her mate out of the house and be done with him, the tribe as always helped with raising children and life went on as she could survive without depending on the man).

Marriage was at it's root (pre capitalism) based on the dispossession of woman's ability to independently provide material sustinence much in the same way a working class was created to be dependant on capitalists. So the source of modern oppression, in a way, depends on women having no independent means to provide material sustenance and no communal way of raising children. Of course as was the case with dispossession of people in general (dispossession in order to force people into capitalism) dispossession of womans ability to be independent of man came before any sort of property relations so Engels description isn't a universal explanation but the dynamics of family oppression are found in a nuclear family social set up different than the communal way children were raised as was the case in primitive communism- no communal child raising= get married. No communal or independent way to provide material sustenance = enter exploitative/oppressive relations. Enter this relation with a man and children will follow. No independent way to raise children = dependance on man. It's a fucked up circle of dependance rooted in the inability to provide material sustenance without dependance on a man.

The women working in fields/factories with men were then doomed to experience an exaggerated dependence on men due to the fact their ability to raise children independently was taken away and their ability to provide material sustenance independently was taken away (which led to many unwanted children, sick circle). Marx/Engels goal then was to attack the nuclear family, as in, make child rearing a communal effort and also give each person the ability to provide material sustenance independently without depending on a single person but on the community as a whole. It's all more complex than I just summarized, can add much more and am not giving an explanation to the beginnings of woman's oppression but more of a road map to end it. This is why first and foremost modern feminists have sought to get women in the work place while focusing on divorce/family laws.

[bcbm]

Marriage was at it's root (pre capitalism) based on the dispossession of woman's ability to independently provide material sustinence

i think it makes sense to tie the dissolution of communal child rearing with the need to assure paternity of children for property relations, which would obviously only become a need in a class/property based society

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Liberation is ideological in nature, while emancipation is proletarian. Liberation implies a kind of an abstract "freedom", the opening of space left to "free will" while emancipation is the act and process of struggle against your own enslavement. Of course we should not oppose "liberation" feminists, we should, all I say, enhance feminism.
:rolleyes:

Seriously, dude. You're making ridiculous linguistic arguments.

[Crixus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Willis

If I were to recommend any radical/socialist feminist material to a person unfamiliar (FFOOOO, have a read) it would probably be Ellen Willis as she lays bare the divide and the motivations behind it quite well:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Fts0v56J-qAC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Lust+Horizons:+Is+the+Women%27s+Movement+Pro-Sex?&source=bl&ots=VrycJ0tm_s&sig=VkMwCY5zUGPd_TJOBhShYuoqHnc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LPZuUdSEOozS9ATl1IH4Cw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Lust%20Horizons%3A%20Is%20the%20Women%27s%20Move ment%20Pro-Sex%3F&f=false

[Luís Henrique]

I've noticed that a few people have mentioned wanting to see more discussion of how feminism fits into a marxist/anarchist ideology so I'm starting this thread with a few questions. I'll come back and give a more detailed response myself, but just wanted to get the ball rolling. (And btw, if you want to see a thread on a particular topic in future, don't feel afraid to start one. :))

In particular I wanted to discuss the limitations of what we can do. I don't think we can abolish patriarchy (or indeed any other power structure) within the confines of capitalism, and I'm sure most if not all people posting on this forum would agree. In which case, what can we realistically achieve? Which struggles are most important, and how best can we engage in them or support them?

I realise this is quite a vague question, but I'd appreciate your thoughts.

I would start by the realisation that there are two different kinds of commodities, those that capitalists produce to sell at a profit, and labour force, that cannot be produced and sold at a profit. While the former are produced in capitalist companies - factories, farms, shops - the latter is produced and reproduced in units called "families", where issues of sex and gender arise and are determinant.

Luís Henrique

[slum]

BTW there's a good summary of Engel's The Origin here:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/02/engles_family.shtml

obviously it's better to read the thing yourself (it's on marxists.org ofc); I also highly recommend the introduction by Eleanor Burke Leacock which can be found here:

marxistschool.org/classdocs/Leacockintro.pdf

she also wrote a great book called 'Myths of Male Dominance' that helps tear apart the assertions by both evopsychs and certain feminists that men are somehow biologically inclined to subdue women by violent sexual means.

[bcbm]

for more on pre-agricultural humans and the evolution of the family, class and patriarchy i would recommend the books sex at dawn (http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Dawn-Stray-Modern-Relationships/dp/0061707813) and blood rites (http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Rites-Origins-History-Passions/dp/B000SZVGCS)

[slum]

In my opinion pre property relations oppression and or lack of equality of women had to do with both the simple size difference between men/women and in whichever case a woman could not provide material sustenance alone

i'm a little confused by your reading of engels here and your emphasis on 'dependance'. i think a lot of his argument was based on the idea that in primitive communism goods were held in common i.e. no private property, and that in these pre-property societies there was no oppression or lack of equality of women. the idea that men being larger then women and thus capable of oppressing them somehow leads to their oppression of women (why?) doesn't match with his analysis and is more reflective of theorists like dworkin (not a dig here, seriously, i know you hate her, just explain why you think men's physical ability to dominate women means they would do so).

there was sexual division of labour, but this did not preclude women from holding high status and decision-making posts in society (clearly seen in the Iroquois example), nor did it indicate oppression. the idea that sexual division of labour where women gather and men hunt being oppressive comes from a class-society perspective that has devalued what it sees as 'women's work' and lionized what it sees as 'men's work' and applied this view to pre-class societies where those attitudes about female inferiority did not exist.

i don't see, either, why you'd view this as a situation where 'women can't provide sustenance independent of men'- everyone was involved in providing sustenance, communally, despite a sexual division of labour- no one could provide sustenance independently. prior to agriculture (and in some cases horticulture) women were generally responsible for gathering (which btw provided for the bulk of a community's caloric needs) and household chores and the care of children were accomplished communally. you're talking as if women were already oppressed in pre-class, pre-property society.



Marriage was at it's root (pre capitalism) based on the dispossession of woman's ability to independently provide material sustinence much in the same way a working class was created to be dependant on capitalists.marriage (and here i assume you mean monogamous marriage, not group marriage) was based on the need for assured paternity once class society emerged and inheritance of private property became a thing. this is once of the reasons for the peculiar tendency of monogamous marriage to mean monogamy only for the wife.



So the source of modern oppression, in a way, depends on women having no independent means to provide material sustenance and no communal way of raising children. agreed, and the assault on public education and other socialized forms of childcare is clearly an attack on women as a group. however, some women do have the ability to provide material subsistence independent of men. some even raise children independent of men while working. engels (incorrectly) assumed that once working class women were able to do this, this would mean the end of women's oppression, but often it is these women who suffer the most from sexism.


Of course as was the case with dispossession of people in general (dispossession in order to force people into capitalism) dispossession of womans ability to be independent of man came before any sort of property relationscould you elaborate on this? prior to property relations women often provided the bulk of a community's food supply, and since goods were owned and distributed communally there wasn't really a question of 'who could exist independent of someone else'.


the dynamics of family oppression are found in a nuclear family social set up different than the communal way children were raised as was the case in primitive communism- no communal child raising= get married. again, i think the origins of 2-person marriage lie not in the abolition of communal child-rearing, but in the need for assured patrilineal descent following the rise of a propertied class, which coincides with the rise of agriculture and an agricultural surplus.


It's a fucked up circle of dependance rooted in the inability to provide material sustenance without dependance on a man. it's part of the fucked up cycle of dependence rooted in the dominance of one class over another. ruling-class women exist as instruments of production to assure inheritance. working-class women exist as instruments of reproduction to assure a new generation of workers (note also that the rise of agriculture required a rise in birthrates- more field hands). this is why the patriarchy model, where all men oppress all women, is faulty (except for the extent to which bourgeois sexist ideology dominates all classes and can be used to justify the oppression of any woman by any man).



Marx/Engels goal then was to attack the nuclear family, as in, make child rearing a communal effort and also give each person the ability to provide material sustenance independently without depending on a single person but on the community as a whole. if you provide material sustenance independently you don't depend on the community. i think your use of the term 'independent' (where i assume you mean the ability of women to live independently of a husband in class society) needs to be re-defined if you equate it with 'communally' (and communal ownership can't exist meaningfully in class society). not trying to be pedantic, i think i see where you're going with this but i'm kind of confused.

[Fionnagáin]

Male feminists have the same goal as female feminists, although they should take a more supportive role in the movement as opposed to trying to lead it. It should be the people in the oppressed group who lead the movement for their liberation.
I think this is really key. Historically, even those parts of a left which purport to take feminism seriously have treated women's groups as think-tanks rather than vehicles for struggle in themselves. I think it's part of the broader problem as treating the oppressed as a constituency for "the left", rather than a revolutionary agent in themselves.


Liberation is ideological in nature, while emancipation is proletarian. Liberation implies a kind of an abstract "freedom", the opening of space left to "free will" while emancipation is the act and process of struggle against your own enslavement. Of course we should not oppose "liberation" feminists, we should, all I say, enhance feminism.
I've never encountered this distinction before. Do you have any links that could elaborate on it?