Patriarchy

[No War But Cold War]

Hello comrades. As we all know, all(?) Of us are some form or another of feminist. However recently the idea of patriarchy has been gaining a mainstream following. My question is this, in a class society shaped by peoples relationship to the means of prodiction can we subscribe to such theories as manifestations of class society or is this the pseudo-revolutionary talk of bourgeois radicals? Are patriarchy and Marxism ( or class struggle anarchism ) compatible?

[Sinister Intents]

I am a feminist yes. Patriarchy has been ingrained in society for a long time so I don't see how it's gaining a 'mainstream following' its always been in the mainstream because capitalist society is patriachal society and therefore completely incompatable with socialism. Patriarchy is hierarchical and needs to be dismantled in the revolution, and it will be because the socialists seek to bring about a classless society where no one is oppressed in anyway shape or form.

[Remus Bleys]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure marx talked about patriarchy quite a bit.
We just need to remember patriarchy is caused by class society.

[human strike]

Capitalism is an advanced stage of patriarchy.

[BIXX]

Wait... Are you saying "can revolutionaries support patriarchy and be consistent?"

If so, then the answer is no. Patriarchy is oppressive and must be destroyed.

[Remus Bleys]

Wait... Are you saying "can revolutionaries support patriarchy and be consistent?"

If so, then the answer is no. Patriarchy is oppressive and must be destroyed.

I think he is saying can communists support the theory of patriarchy, ie can communists believe that patriarchy exists, not necessarily support it.

[BIXX]

I think he is saying can communists support the theory of patriarchy, ie can communists believe that patriarchy exists, not necessarily support it.


Oh ok. That makes more sense. I was worried there for a moment.

[Comrade Chernov]

I believe that Patriarchy can exist (because it does), and I most definitely do NOT support it.

[Quail]

Patriarchy relates to capitalism in the particular ways in which women are exploited under capitalism. For example it is beneficial for the functioning of capitalism for women to take the bulk of "unpaid care work" (e.g. caring for children or people who are elderly or ill). Also reproduction ties in to women's role in capitalist society. Having people producing and raising the next generation of workers is essential to keeping capitalism running smoothly. Getting pregnant and raising small babies/children (something which is for the most part done by women) means that women often end up working in lower paid or part-time jobs, and the kinds of "feminine" jobs women are often pushed towards (such as childcare, nursing, etc) tend to be underpaid and underappreciated.

This post feels really incoherent. I'm sure someone else can say what I'm trying to with better words.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Patriarchy relates to capitalism in the particular ways in which women are exploited under capitalism. For example it is beneficial for the functioning of capitalism for women to take the bulk of "unpaid care work" (e.g. caring for children or people who are elderly or ill). Also reproduction ties in to women's role in capitalist society. Having people producing and raising the next generation of workers is essential to keeping capitalism running smoothly. Getting pregnant and raising small babies/children (something which is for the most part done by women) means that women often end up working in lower paid or part-time jobs, and the kinds of "feminine" jobs women are often pushed towards (such as childcare, nursing, etc) tend to be underpaid and underappreciated.

This post feels really incoherent. I'm sure someone else can say what I'm trying to with better words.

I think it would make more sense if it also referred to the historical context within which the specific social conditions for patriarchy under capitalism arose, namely the important role of the nuclear family during the period of industrial capitalism, child labour (which is still an issue in pre-industrial countries today) and the need, as you say, to raise the next generation of workers, which is probably an issue whose importance is more correlated to high mortality, so again referring to industrial capitalism, and currently pre-industrial countries.

[tuwix]

Hello comrades. As we all know, all(?) Of us are some form or another of feminist. However recently the idea of patriarchy has been gaining a mainstream following. My question is this, in a class society shaped by peoples relationship to the means of prodiction can we subscribe to such theories as manifestations of class society or is this the pseudo-revolutionary talk of bourgeois radicals? Are patriarchy and Marxism ( or class struggle anarchism ) compatible?

No. Patriarchy assumes some hierarchy. And anarchism and Marxism assume classless society.

[Radio Spartacus]

Can anyone direct me to some good Marxist feminist writings on patriarchy? I feel the connection between patriarchy and capitalism is fairly obvious in many respects, but I'd like a really in depth theoretical understanding of how the two interact.

[Remus Bleys]

try Alexandra Kollontai

[Radio Spartacus]

Thanks, marxists.org seems to have a pretty substantial body of work of hers

[No War But Cold War]

To clarify, I absolutely do not support patriarchy. I was just interested in learning how patriarchy theory and Marxist theory go together.

[Comrade Chernov]

As far as I'm concerned, the patriarchy isn't a capitalist-only system; it's more socio-religious than political or economic. For example, the "communist" parties of Vietnam and China, and the Workers' Party of North Korea, haven't done very much to rectify rampant gender inequality or provide LGBT rights. Their current governing politicians might not be as fervent communists as the original founders were, but if the original founders, as revolutionary communists, didn't believe in gender equality/LGBT liberation, then does this mean that patriarchy can exist within communist movements?

[Quail]

As far as I'm concerned, the patriarchy isn't a capitalist-only system; it's more socio-religious than political or economic. For example, the "communist" parties of Vietnam and China, and the Workers' Party of North Korea, haven't done very much to rectify rampant gender inequality or provide LGBT rights. Their current governing politicians might not be as fervent communists as the original founders were, but if the original founders, as revolutionary communists, didn't believe in gender equality/LGBT liberation, then does this mean that patriarchy can exist within communist movements?

Well, I think communist organisations have shown time and again their ability to replicate the structures of oppression that exist in wider society.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Can anyone direct me to some good Marxist feminist writings on patriarchy? I feel the connection between patriarchy and capitalism is fairly obvious in many respects, but I'd like a really in depth theoretical understanding of how the two interact.
I recommend Maria Mies and her book Patriarchy and accumulation on a world scale.
Here is a useful list (http://libcom.org/library/women-reading-guide) also

[Radio Spartacus]

As far as I'm concerned, the patriarchy isn't a capitalist-only system; it's more socio-religious than political or economic. For example, the "communist" parties of Vietnam and China, and the Workers' Party of North Korea, haven't done very much to rectify rampant gender inequality or provide LGBT rights. Their current governing politicians might not be as fervent communists as the original founders were, but if the original founders, as revolutionary communists, didn't believe in gender equality/LGBT liberation, then does this mean that patriarchy can exist within communist movements?

Patriarchy can exist within working class movements, but I think that is partially a reflection of the fact that these movements exist within capitalist societies and not everyone is aware of their privilege or how to make a movement more equitable. Even we, the people trying to dismantle this social order, make mistakes on account of being politically socialized in it. The key is to attempt to correct those mistakes.

I think it is important for any genuine communist party to take action against patriarchy both without and within, and do so with equalizing measures beyond mere rhetoric

Also, the communist parties of vietnam, the DPRK, and china are bourgeois as fuck

[human strike]

Can anyone direct me to some good Marxist feminist writings on patriarchy? I feel the connection between patriarchy and capitalism is fairly obvious in many respects, but I'd like a really in depth theoretical understanding of how the two interact.

Without recommending entire books, the best things I can recommend are:
The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism (http://www.old.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Gurung/soc2370sgUnhappyMarriageMarxismFeminismFall10.pdf) by Heidi Hartmann
The Logic of Gender (http://endnotes.org.uk/articles/19) in the new Endnotes (which partially builds on ideas set out in Maya Andrea Gonzalez's essay Communisation and the Abolition of Gender (http://libcom.org/library/communization-abolition-gender))

[Lily Briscoe]

try Alexandra Kollontai

Kollontai wasn't a feminist (she was actually opposed to feminism) so didn't have a theory of 'the patriarchy'. She had a more 'traditional' Marxist conception of 'the oppression of women'. Regardless, I don't think her writing on the subject was particularly good (and I recall some of her ideas being actually kind of fucked up, like IIRC she felt women had a social obligation to 'make babies for The Workers State'). People seem to mention her sort of like tokenistically.

[Ember Catching]

My question is this, in a class society shaped by people's relationships to the means of production, can we subscribe to such theories as manifestations of class society or is this the pseudo-revolutionary talk of bourgeois radicals?
Whilst the social relations of production result generally from relations to the means of production, in describing society, the latter relations are actually ancillary to the former, as the structure of human society is constituted by, for Marx, “[t]he totality of these relations of production” — society is thus more precisely shaped by the social relations of production, and of these wage-labor and other forms of exploitation are the most pertinent to our purposes here in describing patriarchy.

Patriarchy isn't a secretive cabal of men working to keep the sisterhood down — for communists the term merely expresses, in a morphemic form, a specific historical content. In the overwhelming majority of civilizations, the overwhelming majority of women have been exploited by men — or at least been measurably more exploited than men, almost always by other men — for millennia. In these civilizations women were historically accorded the status of literal domestic slaves, which quite frankly never exceeded that of a windmill or any other form of private property to be exploited.

The consolidation of bourgeois society from the late seventeenth century onwards, however, distinguishes itself by its spectacular simplification of all class antagonisms into the conflict between bourgeoisie and proletarians: to give an example, it lifted hundreds of millions out of slavery and into wage-labor. In the same way American capital's unquenched thirst for black labor compelled the abolitionist and the later civil rights movements to begin their struggle, international capital's need for mass female ascent into the social labor force has at several times shaken the social landscape and set in motion a feminist politics which, at one and the same time, overturns barriers to women's wage-labor and disrupts the patriarchal relations of the present.

Patriarchy, in this bourgeois epoch, refers to the general position of women where, although they've ascended to the industrial proletariat, their labor is generally remunerated at a lower rate compared to male labor, their traditional jobs are underpaid, and additional pre-capitalist forms of female subjugation and dispossession persist, such as the social compulsion that women perform the overwhelming majority of unpaid domestic and care work in addition to their social wage-labor; the curtailing of access to safe abortion, etc.

Lastly, although patriarchy is obviously not fundamental to the generalization of commodity production and the alienation of labor, bourgeois society has, as a consequence of its historical development, retained some of the patriarchal relations of the old society and even created some anew as a result of class struggle after-the-fact — but these may yet be shaken off.

[Q]

This is a pretty basic question: moved from /theory to /learning.

[Comrade #138672]

Sometimes critique of patriarchy is indeed bourgeois or pseudo-revolutionary, when it overly focuses on specific privileges, while ignoring class almost entirely, or even advocating capitalism / liberalism.

I subscribe to the theory of patriarchy, intersectionalism, and (parts of) privilege theory in general. Privileges sometimes take on a life of their own, seemingly separated from class rule, since capitalism gives rise to complex structures of oppression. This is why I believe we should take privileges seriously and study them. However, as has already been mentioned, it is important to remember that privileges are ultimately derived from class rule and that without class rule privileges cannot exist.

[ColossalButtwipe]

Read some anarcha-feminist writers like Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre, or even some radfem writings. Marxist feminists tend to ascribe patriarchy as being a problem of capitalism, rather than being a problem in its own right, so if you want good critiques of patriarchy you should probably look elsewhere.

[Lily Briscoe]

Read some anarcha-feminist writers like Emma Goldman
Similar to my comment about Kollontai earlier, Emma Goldman wasn't a feminist and was actually opposed to feminism. Sorry if I'm being pedantic, but it kind of irks me for some reason when people decide to just 'rebrand' dead political figures with a political perspective that these people explicitly rejected and opposed when they were alive.


Marxist feminists tend to ascribe patriarchy as being a problem of capitalism, rather than being a problem in its own right, so if you want good critiques of patriarchy you should probably look elsewhere.If I'm understanding what you mean by this, I don't think it's true at all. Marxists--feminist or otherwise--generally recognize the oppression of women as having originated with the rise of agriculture/civilization/class society, which obviously predated capitalism by thousands of years.

[Quail]

Similar to my comment about Kollontai earlier, Emma Goldman wasn't a feminist and was actually opposed to feminism. Sorry if I'm being pedantic, but it kind of irks me for some reason when people decide to just 'rebrand' dead political figures with a political perspective that these people explicitly rejected and opposed when they were alive.


I think you're wrong. Emma Goldman, by her writings and actions, was most definitely a feminist whether she would have described herself as such or not. She was critical of the contemporary women's movements (for example (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1911/woman-suffrage.htm)), but she was definitely interested in women's liberation (here, for example (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1914/marriage-love.htm)). She worked as a midwife, and described the impact of seeing women giving birth to child after child they didn't want in her autobiography. She later gave lectures on birth control even though it was illegal at the time.

[human strike]

It was very common for anarchist feminists in the first half of the twentieth century to reject the 'feminist' label because of its connotations and how it was associated at the time with a very middle class, bourgeois movement. Very few women in Mujeres Libres in Spain or anarcha-feminists in Argentina consciously identified with feminism even though they were very much feminists as we understand that term today.

[Lily Briscoe]

I think you're wrong. Emma Goldman, by her writings and actions, was most definitely a feminist whether she would have described herself as such or not. She was critical of the contemporary women's movements (for example (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1911/woman-suffrage.htm)), but she was definitely interested in women's liberation (here, for example (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1914/marriage-love.htm)). She worked as a midwife, and described the impact of seeing women giving birth to child after child they didn't want in her autobiography. She later gave lectures on birth control even though it was illegal at the time.

I guess the question here is about how the term 'feminism' is understood. Is it a vague term for 'anyone interested in women's liberation' or is it an explicitly-defined political trend. I have more to say about this but am at work/on my phone so will post later.

[Lily Briscoe]

It was very common for anarchist feminists in the first half of the twentieth century to reject the 'feminist' label because of its connotations and how it was associated at the time with a very middle class, bourgeois movement. Very few women in Mujeres Libres in Spain or anarcha-feminists in Argentina consciously identified with feminism even though they were very much feminists as we understand that term today.

Then I think it is problematic to just go ahead and ascribe that label to them when you acknowledge that they consciously rejected it. It is one thing to say that 'anarcha-feminism' is influenced by these groups and individuals, which is evidently true. It is something else entirely to say "these people were anarcha-feminists regardless of what they thought about it!" which is what you seem to be saying.

[Lily Briscoe]

Congratulations to myself on being the second person to misuse the word 'ascribe' in this thread btw

[Dagoth Ur]

Marxists are not feminists because the class division is the primary one and patriarchy is an outgrowth of class. Marxists are this the only ones actually capable of addressing the patriarchy issue.

[human strike]

Is it a vague term for 'anyone interested in women's liberation' or is it an explicitly-defined political trend.

I haven't considered it too critically, but in my mind there are two feminisms. It's why I don't have a problem with saying people who consciously rejected the feminist label were still feminists. I should probably capitalise one or something to avoid confusion.

[Sea]

To clarify, I absolutely do not support patriarchy. I was just interested in learning how patriarchy theory and Marxist theory go together.Patriarchy and Marxism go together like hippo shit and ice cream.

[Quail]

I guess the question here is about how the term 'feminism' is understood. Is it a vague term for 'anyone interested in women's liberation' or is it an explicitly-defined political trend. I have more to say about this but am at work/on my phone so will post later.

The word "feminism" probably means different things depending on who you are talking to, but if we take a dictionary-type definition, it means something like "the belief in gender equality/women's liberation" and "the political movement to that end". Emma Goldman wrote about women's liberation and was involved in furthering that cause, so by that definition she was undoubtedly a feminist. Ditto the Mujeres Libres.

If you take feminism to mean the mainstream women's movement of the time, then you could argue that she wasn't a Feminist, but by that definition nor am I or is anyone else on this board, since the mainstream liberal feminism of today is flawed and doomed to failure because it works within the framework of capitalist society.

[Quail]

Marxists are not feminists because the class division is the primary one and patriarchy is an outgrowth of class. Marxists are this the only ones actually capable of addressing the patriarchy issue.

Communists need to fight patriarchy alongside capitalism, therefore being a feminist is an essential part of being a communist. It is idealistic to imagine that communism will magically make sexism go away, and besides, most women don't want to wait for the glorious revolution - we want to struggle to improve our conditions now.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Communists need to fight patriarchy alongside capitalism, therefore being a feminist is an essential part of being a communist. It is idealistic to imagine that communism will magically make sexism go away, and besides, most women don't want to wait for the glorious revolution - we want to struggle to improve our conditions now.

I think there's also a strong argument to be made (and you probably get this Quail, I'm just using your post as a jumping off point) that the relationship between women's labour and capital is so fundamental that achieving communism without women's liberation is necessarily impossible. Without women's liberation, capitalist relations generally remain on firm ground.

[Quail]

I think there's also a strong argument to be made (and you probably get this Quail, I'm just using your post as a jumping off point) that the relationship between women's labour and capital is so fundamental that achieving communism without women's liberation is necessarily impossible. Without women's liberation, capitalist relations generally remain on firm ground.

Yeah, I do get that capitalism relies on the unequal status of women and their unpaid and undervalued labour.

The post you quoted was more a kneejerk reaction because I'm tired of being told on and offline that feminism is divisive/a distraction, communism will automatically do away with patriarchy, blah blah blah, when the anarchist movement itself reproduces oppressive power structures. (A somewhat relevant example would be... who mostly takes the minutes and makes the tea? Spolier: it's not the dudes.)

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, I do get that capitalism relies on the unequal status of women and their unpaid and undervalued labour.

The post you quoted was more a kneejerk reaction because I'm tired of being told on and offline that feminism is divisive/a distraction, communism will automatically do away with patriarchy, blah blah blah, when the anarchist movement itself reproduces oppressive power structures. (A somewhat relevant example would be... who mostly takes the minutes and makes the tea? Spolier: it's not the dudes.)

Yeah, no kidding. There's definitely some "have my cake and eat it too" that is a disturbingly normal in radical scenes/milieus/parties/whatever. Taken broadly, it's implicitly saying, "communism will do away with classes, so talking about class is a distraction." Brilliant theory, right?

[Skyhilist]

There isn't one specific cause for patriarchy, capitalism, or any other system of oppression. All systems of oppression (patriarchy, capitalism, racism, etc.) feed off of and cause each other synergistically. We must eliminate the entire matrix of oppression therefore and cannot be single issue activists who only focus on class struggle or patriarchy or racism. We must fight all systems of oppression because they all cause each other.

[Djoko]

Patriarchy will disappear one way or another, it will disappear in liberal capitalism in few generations

[BIXX]

Patriarchy will disappear one way or another, it will disappear in liberal capitalism in few generations

I know you're new here so I'll cut you some slack.

Patriarchy is embedded within civilization, as it is the oppressive element that civilization was born out of (gender roles became a thing when civilization arose). This means there is no way in hell that patriarchy will just "phase out"- rather, our civilization will either have to be destroyed and transcended or take a radically different form.

[Bea Arthur]

Most attempts at merging feminism and Marxism have been the same as heterosexual marriages. They result in the unity being one false universalism. The woman is covered by the man, and feminism is covered by Marxism. It is high time we allow women to decide for themselves what the relationship between patriarchy and Marxism is.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Most attempts at merging feminism and Marxism have been the same as heterosexual marriages. They result in the unity being one false universalism. The woman is covered by the man, and feminism is covered by Marxism. It is high time we allow women to decide for themselves what the relationship between patriarchy and Marxism is.

What does it mean to "let women decide"?

[Bea Arthur]

What does it mean to "let women decide"?

It means to allow females to choose. Something that covert sexists might not be used to supporting.

[BIXX]

Most attempts at merging feminism and Marxism have been the same as heterosexual marriages.They result in the unity being one false universalism.

While I am against marriage as a whole, I would like some clarification of this statement- are you saying no heterosexual marriage is "true unity" (also what exactly do you mean by unity?)? By extension, would you argue that no heterosexual relationship can be truly united?


The woman is covered by the man, and feminism is covered by Marxism. It is high time we allow women to decide for themselves what the relationship between patriarchy and Marxism is.


I agree, and think this is probably because of the Marxist BS handwaving "communism will solve racism/queerphobia/sexism/all oppression because there will be no economic basis for it". I disagree with them, for several reasons. Not the least of which being there was no economic basis for gender roles to be born but they were anyway.

Anyway, that's why I tend to feel that Marxism has a VERY oppressive element that makes it racist, sexist, homophobic, etc...

[human strike]

It was Heidi Hartmann who described the "unhappy marriage" of marxism and feminism as, "like the marriage of husband and wife depicted in English common law: marxism and feminism are one, and that one is marxism."