#WomenAgainstFeminism

[Creative Destruction]

What in the fuck?

http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Satirical response from a feminist: http://www.buzzfeed.com/rossalynwarren/heres-how-one-feminist-responded-to-women-who-say-they-dont

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Frankly, reading those posts by anti-feminist women makes me feel the same way as when I read things by anti-communist workers.

[Creative Destruction]

i laughed at this one:

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014-07/21/9/enhanced/webdr06/enhanced-21689-1405950031-24.jpg

[RedWorker]

Reactionary as fuck.

[LiaSofia]

''I don't need feminism because my sex life is not a political agenda''.

There are so many things wrong with that statement I literally don't know where to start.

[Sabot Cat]

''I don't need feminism because my sex life is not a political agenda''.

There are so many things wrong with that statement I literally don't know where to start.

The first four words?

[Kingfish]

Its perfectly understandable, if you can have trade unions that are specifically anti-socialist you could certainly have anti-feminist women.

Just as living as a member of proletariat (despite the objective conditions) does not automatically raise a persons consciousness to the point they become a revolutionary communist so to does living as a women not necessarily raise a persons consciousness to the point they become a feminist. Where it otherwise in both cases there would be no need for vanguard like groups and agitators.

[consuming negativity]

They are enemies but they are also victims. While they are wrong and against us, and so should be ridiculed, it is important to remember that they are products of their environment... no children are sexist.

:(

[#FF0000]

''I don't need feminism because my sex life is not a political agenda''.

There are so many things wrong with that statement I literally don't know where to start.

Yeah there are a few, such as one from a woman who's apparently in the military, that reach into "it's not even wrong" territory.

[Lily Briscoe]

Oh no, some tumblr page full of people with bad political views! :ohmy:

Who even cares.

[bropasaran]

I think they are confused with the name feminism, and when talking with people like that I think the simple solution is to just call oneself anti-sexist. Personally I like generalizations so I usually just go with anti-authoritarianism, e.g. when someone talks about fascism and mentions anti-fascism, I almost never go with the simple confirmation of "yeah sure I'm anti-fascist" but say "yeah, I'm anti-authoritarian, I'm against relations of domination and hierarchy among people in general", likewise when patriarchy and feminism are mentioned. I hope this gives a small nudge to people, like, plant the seed in their heads how such-and-such of example of oppression is not the only one.

[Firebrand]

Proof that the internalization of oppression is still a major problem.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's obviously a problem that there are groups of women who feel this way. I think the last thing that anybody should do (least of all those of us who don't identify as women and so can only understand women's lives up to a point) is be pricks about other women, though.

It is true to an extent that feminism, broad as it is, tends to be dominated by certain ideas at certain points, which I think can be a negative. I really like the broad definition of a feminist as being somebody who believes that men and women should be equals; it might be problematic to theorising pedants, but it is actually something that every woman and feminist man can rally around. I think that when feminism becomes ideologically dominated by this or that current, it does lose its ability to connect with the broadest swathe of self-identifying women, and thus loses a lot of momentum.

[Rosa Partizan]

It's obviously a problem that there are groups of women who feel this way. I think the last thing that anybody should do (least of all those of us who don't identify as women and so can only understand women's lives up to a point) is be pricks about other women, though.

It is true to an extent that feminism, broad as it is, tends to be dominated by certain ideas at certain points, which I think can be a negative. I really like the broad definition of a feminist as being somebody who believes that men and women should be equals; it might be problematic to theorising pedants, but it is actually something that every woman and feminist man can rally around. I think that when feminism becomes ideologically dominated by this or that current, it does lose its ability to connect with the broadest swathe of self-identifying women, and thus loses a lot of momentum.

do you have some examples to illustrate that, please? Thank you in advance.

[RedRev]

I had heard that many women were so-called anti-feminists back in the days of the suffragettes and even in the 1960s...but now? I shouldn't be surprised that this exists but I'm still taken back

[blake 3:17]

This is a pretty good response http://confusedcatsagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/

[Loony Le Fist]

Proof that the internalization of oppression is still a major problem.

Definitely. I dated someone like that, as a matter of fact.

[Loony Le Fist]

i laughed at this one:
[funny image]


Yea, she put on a whole bunch of wigs and outfits; totally mocked the whole anti-feminism thing. Hilarious. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Good on her!

[Loony Le Fist]

http://37.media.tumblr.com/7e10175747c41ea7ea3e2545e8ebda32/tumblr_n98it3dn7f1syitgfo1_500.jpg


Since when did feminism stop people from being courteous to one another? This is just absurd.

[Rosa Partizan]

http://37.media.tumblr.com/7e10175747c41ea7ea3e2545e8ebda32/tumblr_n98it3dn7f1syitgfo1_500.jpg


Since when did feminism stop people from being courteous to one another? This is just absurd.

https://padresteve.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/stdogbert.jpg

[TC]

They are enemies but they are also victims. While they are wrong and against us, and so should be ridiculed, it is important to remember that they are products of their environment... no children are sexist.

:(

That argument applies equally to the leading members of the bourgeoises yet instead of expressing patronizing sympathy they are regarded as responsible for their choices.

Save the sad emoticon for someone else.

[Rosa Partizan]

That argument applies equally to the leading members of the bourgeoises yet instead of expressing patronizing sympathy they are regarded as responsible for their choices.

Save the sad emoticon for someone else.

this is something that I always struggle with. On the one hand, I don't wanna blame women because they are still the ones that suffer most from patriarchy, even if they aren't aware of it, because they tend to take sides of the oppressor. But on the other hand, and I know that some will be hating on me now, I'm like "If an averagely intelligent person like myself was able to identify and name patriarchy as what it is, why shouldn't other women be able to do that?" It's exactly this patronising, I mean, what's the deal? Aren't these women capable of getting contexts and correlations? Isn't it somehow insulting their intelligence by claiming they can't get it? Some women tend to be so goddamn sexist that I'm wondering why I should "forgive" them this stupidity while I wouldn't forgive that same stupidity to men. I know, difference, because of oppression and privileges, blah blah, but really, sometimes I'm a bit sick of being lenient to any sexist woman. If I can get it, you can get it, too.

[Thirsty Crow]

The last picture is baffling.

First off we start with what seems like complaining that men don't stand up in the tube or help out with something. And it's all feminists doing, somehow that men a) don't consider young women incapable of having to stand while riding a train and b) that obviously people are either assholes or going about their own business without noticing that someone might need some help.

The second motif is even more baffling. Feminism has obviously had such a deleterious effect that it shattered this person's dream, to be a stay-at-home mom. This is truly despicable.
But I can't for the life of me see how that could possibly be true. Maybe it is the changes in the wage relation that tore down this shining dream of a single worker in a family? But of course this whole exercise is to post pics as stupid as nearly brain dead blaming the end of times on feminism.

[Lily Briscoe]

Come on, everyone; we need more penetrating political criticism of these reactionaries selfies!

[consuming negativity]

That argument applies equally to the leading members of the bourgeoises yet instead of expressing patronizing sympathy they are regarded as responsible for their choices.

Save the sad emoticon for someone else.

You're comparing apples to oranges here. How is it patronizing to recognize that women are just as able to believe sexist things as anyone else, and to remind people that it doesn't make someone stupid to believe in such things. Complaining that these women are "responsible" for their beliefs is about as correct as saying the poor are responsible for lacking wealth. No, I recognize that I am not any better than these women who are wrong, because I just have easily could have been someone else who's biology and/or circumstances could have led me to pursue something else and/or not made the connections the way I did that brought me here. "I did it, why can't you?" is equally vacuous applied here as when working class persons get a nice job and then start looking down on others asking why they couldn't do it if you could. Reality can only ever be interpreted subjectively through our limited senses. And I talk the same way when confronted with any situation... a little bit of compassion and understanding can go a long way. Someone misguided but angry can be set right and work for good if they are treated as a human and are not penalized for what we see as their mistakes. I am not patronizing them, I am recognizing that I have not always been a communist or a feminist, and feel sympathy for people tricked into promoting their own societal degradation.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Come on, everyone; we need more penetrating political criticism of these reactionaries selfies!

Lol. I think this thread illustrates what the "Discrimination" sub-forum mostly is: a place for people who agree to talk shit about people who say stupid things. What on earth does some page from a guy's magazine from the 90s and a silly Twitter slacktivist campaign have to do with discrimination?

[Rosa Partizan]

communer, while I almost always agree on anything you write about feminist issues, I find that comparison to poor people somehow inadequate. Often enough, you're born in an environment that makes it almost impossible to get education, social status etc, because others are profiting off of the fact that you can't get it. It's something different with feminism. You don't have to struggle to get essential information, to get a feeling for oppression, to exchange about forms of oppression with others, be it only via internet. You got all this information nowadays ready at hand, it's a big societal issue, even mainstream culture's dealing with feminism nowadays. Some people really don't WANT to understand it.

[Creative Destruction]

Come on, everyone; we need more penetrating political criticism of these reactionaries selfies!

Come on, everyone; we need more unproductive posts dripping in biting sarcasm like this one!

[Zukunftsmusik]

Come on, everyone; we need more unproductive posts dripping in biting sarcasm like this one!

As opposed to those productive posts pointing out how reactionary these people are?

[Creative Destruction]

As opposed to those productive posts pointing out how reactionary these people are?

dunno if you missed it, but there's some good discussion starting from communer and LinksRadikal. even impossible had a somewhat decent contribution.

but i'm not completely against bullshit posting. by all means, i can't wait to see the next great one that strix has planned for us.

[Lily Briscoe]

Come on, everyone; we need more unproductive posts dripping in biting sarcasm like this one! Refusing to take this thread seriously is really the only 'productive' way to respond, IMO.

[Creative Destruction]

Refusing to take this thread seriously is really the only 'productive' way to respond, IMO.

you could, you know, not respond at all and spend your time on some other threads, of which there are literally thousands to choose from. regardless of your opinion about this thread or the response contained therein, doing something like participating in a different discussion that does interest you would seem to be much more productive than crapping out a post in the middle of this thread, which you supposedly do not care about.

[Zukunftsmusik]

even impossible had a somewhat decent contribution.

:lol:

[Lily Briscoe]

you could, you know, not respond at all and spend your time on some other threads, of which there are literally thousands to choose from. regardless of your opinion about this thread or the response contained therein, doing something like participating in a different discussion that does interest you would seem to be much more productive than crapping out a post in the middle of this thread, which you supposedly do not care about.
1. It's worth pointing out, in all your complaining about "productive" discussion, that your actual original post in this thread which you created consists of:
What in the fuck?

http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/
What is even the point of this thread, other than talking shit about random women with bad politics for not having your glorious insight into the oppression of women?

2. There is an actual point here I'm trying to make. Maybe feminists should be spending more time addressing things that actually concern regular women rather than naval-gazing; obsessing over pop culture, tumblr, and twitter drama; and then whining about women having misconceptions about what feminism is...

[consuming negativity]

communer, while I almost always agree on anything you write about feminist issues, I find that comparison to poor people somehow inadequate. Often enough, you're born in an environment that makes it almost impossible to get education, social status etc, because others are profiting off of the fact that you can't get it. It's something different with feminism. You don't have to struggle to get essential information, to get a feeling for oppression, to exchange about forms of oppression with others, be it only via internet. You got all this information nowadays ready at hand, it's a big societal issue, even mainstream culture's dealing with feminism nowadays. Some people really don't WANT to understand it.

It's probably easier for you, a college-educated person in a Western country, to be exposed to feminist ideas and get a good education, than the average woman or person in general of the world. Don't you agree? And being a woman correlates with poverty, too - as does having children. Most people in the world won't get your education or your intelligence level, though. Or they might get shot by a stray bullet and then it's just over for them. Or maybe they've justified it to themselves somehow - the human mind is great at repressing things.

Not that I'm trying to tell you you can't be pissed off or anything. You can feel whatever you want about it. But nobody has always believed everything they've believed. If I had to talk to the version of me that lived 10 years ago, I'd hate me and think myself a fool. I was just as smart then as I am now... I just didn't know what I do now at that time. It makes me angry, too, you know, to see people getting co-opted by bullshit. But we can't blame the people who get fooled.

[Rosa Partizan]

I'll get back to that tomorrow, have to wage slave away in 6 hours. Thank you for that answer.

[Creative Destruction]

Maybe feminists should be spending more time addressing things that actually concern regular women rather than naval-gazing; obsessing over pop culture, tumblr, and twitter drama; and then whining about women having misconceptions about what feminism is...

this argument wasn't evident in either of your sarcastic dismissals and is probably the best bit of contribution you've made thus far. you probably should've led off with this.

[Hermes]

2. There is an actual point here I'm trying to make. Maybe feminists should be spending more time addressing things that actually concern regular women rather than naval-gazing; obsessing over pop culture, tumblr, and twitter drama; and then whining about women having misconceptions about what feminism is...

I'm not sure I understand completely what you're trying to say, here. Should we not be paying attention to what people write/say/do? Is it not important to at least acknowledge the popular mindset, etc? I agree that the OP, and some posts in this thread, have been weird, but you seem to be at issue with more than just the thread. I don't see how 'pop culture, tumblr, and twitter drama' isn't inseparable from 'things that actually concern regular women', since it represents attitudes/etc extant in society.

I'm also not really sure what you mean by 'whining about women having misconceptions about what feminism is...', could you expand on that?

[LiaSofia]

It's probably easier for you, a college-educated person in a Western country, to be exposed to feminist ideas and get a good education, than the average woman or person in general of the world. Don't you agree? And being a woman correlates with poverty, too - as does having children. Most people in the world won't get your education or your intelligence level, though.

What you're saying is true but your point doesn't apply to this particular scenario. I only looked through the tumblr page briefly, but all of the women I saw looked Western, possibly college-educated, and if they are computer literate enough to be able to upload those selfies then they can just as easily do a quick Google search for 'the history of feminism'.

It's different if you're from another part of the world and you can't access information about Marxism or feminism. But even then you can still sense injustice and question the values of the society you were brought up in. You don't need to know what Kropotkin said in order to arrive at some basic anarchist concepts. All you have to do is ask questions and think.

[Rosa Partizan]

Sofia totally beat me to it. I know very sexist women with a PhD, so I don't know why I should cut these women some slack, when they have the same structural opportunities as me, and it's very obvious those are all women with a Western background. And as I said, I highly doubt you have to be extremely intelligent or educated to access such information or at least to recognize injustice in society.

[Quail]

I think actually the more privileged you are in society, the less likely you are to notice the gross injustices all around you. You say that you know women with PhD's who are sexist - well, perhaps having had the privileges necessary to get that far in education, those women don't come face to face very often with the struggles of someone like a single mother claiming benefits, and thus have something of a blind spot.

[Lily Briscoe]

^The problem with making a connection between that assumption and having feminist politics though, is that there is a very long history (extending into the present) of women who are privileged in society being extremely over-represented among feminists. I think I have even seen you post about this before (some feminist group being composed overwhelmingly of university students and making no consideration for e.g. Child care at meetings).

Plenty of poor and working class women have the same sort of assumptions that are prevalent in society in general. I think there is something kind of messed up about holding women to some special standard in this regard simply on the basis that they're women and therefore (because they're women) expecting them not to have the same sort of views that everyone else has with regard to feminism or sexism or whatever (which isn't to say that you are doing this, but other people on here definitely do)

[LiaSofia]

I think there is something kind of messed up about holding women to some special standard in this regard simply on the basis that they're women and therefore (because they're women) expecting them not to have the same sort of views that everyone else has with regard to feminism or sexism or whatever (which isn't to say that you are doing this, but other people on here definitely do)

I get what you're saying, but I also think it's reasonable to expect a member of a particular social group to be more aware of the issues that concern that group, and to be more sensitive to any discrimination being directed towards that section of the population.

It's true that privileged people have been over-represented in the feminist movement, but it is also true that most political theorists and philosophers have been white males from rich backgrounds. This does not mean that the working class were unsympathetic to those ideas. Practical obstacles would have prevented less 'elite' people from participating in intellectual theorising (why were there so many 'P's in that sentence?) :o

The suffrage movement was initially comprised of middle-class women, but they did manage to recruit from the poorer classes. On an entirely practical level, most of the middle class suffragists would have had more leisure time than people who were working in factories. And because of their group's higher standard of literacy it would have been easier for them to organise in basic ways such as through petitions/letters.

I wouldn't assume that university students are privileged either. I suppose they are if your definition of privilege includes access to higher education, but in terms of wealth there are a lot of working class students. And it's worth pointing out that a person can be educated without having been to school if they have somehow been able to self-teach.

[Dagoth Ur]

This disconnection between those who most experience patriarchy (Proletarian women) and their leadership (affluent white bourgeoisie) has led to a great many theoretical/practical problems for feminism as a movement. And at least for some of these anti-feminists it is this disconnect in interests that drives them into such a stupid camp. As a trans woman and as a very poor person I've never felt any support from mainstream feminism, although the former is starting to make some headway even in liberal circles.

I'm not trying to defend this anti-feminist camp at all however, and unlike communer I feel zero pity for those who hold up the banners of their own oppression (although I can see where he is coming from and understand even if I completely disagree). It's just this camp didn't pop up out of nowhere and is basically organized by only women. It's just as important to understand their origins as it is to demolish their arguments.

[Rosa Partizan]

the other day, my friend and me went to a Ladyfest, only the second one in my town. There was some workshop about inclusion in feminism and I was hoping for something interesting, with that workshop about men in feminism the day before that blew ass. So we went there and what did we basically do? Recognizing that it is important not to gather a group of white, middleclass, ablebodied cis-female feminists with academic background that talk ABOUT less privileged people instead of WITH them.

What did we do? We talked about them, since we were all that privileged cis-scum with academia stuff going on. I gotta say I live in a very bourgeois town with a university that is considered elitist in the whole world, that's why there are plenty students here when the population is actually rather small. So it's difficult to find women that do not fit in this above described image AND are interested in feminism. I guess I was even probably the only non-German woman there.

Then we started putting up some ideas on some kind of board that were about "how to not discriminate" and people put up stuff like "ask them", "talk to them", "listen", "put yourself in their position" and my friend and me had this strong feeling of vicarious embarrassment, so that we decided to leave this workshop. It was really awful and everyone was full of themselves.

[StreetsRunRed]

These "women" have so much internalized misogyny that I feel they need mandatory re-education or counseling cessions.

[Quail]

These "women" have so much internalized misogyny that I feel they need mandatory re-education or counseling cessions.

Why is the word women in quotes?

[Lily Briscoe]

Because true ladies are feminists, of course, unlike those trashy accomplices to 'the male gaze'.

[Rss]

Their argument basically: "I don't need feminism because I am standing on shoulders of giants (giants being past feminists, men and women, workers and peasants, people of all ethnicities). Living in the first world also helps."

[bropasaran]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/t1.0-9/1610785_740802395985663_8356633706024075558_n.jpg

x)

[RedWorker]

i dont need communism because success shouldnt be punished

#workersagainstcommunism

written from my ipad 7 on my 600euro/month wage 2 children and still paying house

[PhoenixAsh]

conscious question:

Indignation because of the sexist things being said or indignation because of women saying these things?

[Redistribute the Rep]

conscious question:

Indignation because of the sexist things being said or indignation because of women saying these things?

Well yea, I think it is a bit more frustrating that women are saying these things. Like when the Koch brothers go on tv and talk about how the poor are just lazy moochers it's annoying, but we all kind of expect them to say it. It's more frustrating though when you hear a worker say those things. I think that's analogous to this situation.

[VivalaCuarta]

Communists (women and men) oppose feminism because it is a bourgeois ideology that offers no solution to the oppression of women. Feminism, since it preaches the unity of interests ("sisterhood") of women of all classes, has always and everywhere been the enemy of the revolutionary labor movement. Only the revolutionary labor movement, in abolishing the family, can remove the material basis for the oppression of women.

There is no such thing as socialist feminism, just as little is there can be socialist nationalism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Communists (women and men) oppose feminism because it is a bourgeois ideology that offers no solution to the oppression of women. Feminism, since it preaches the unity of interests ("sisterhood") of women of all classes, has always and everywhere been the enemy of the revolutionary labor movement. Only the revolutionary labor movement, in abolishing the family, can remove the material basis for the oppression of women.

There is no such thing as socialist feminism, just as little is there can be socialist nationalism.

Unfortunately, in popular consciousness "feminism" has come to mean simply "women's liberation", not the particular ideology that sees the oppression of women as somehow transcending class society. This is simply one aspect of the low political consciousness of the period. When these women say they "oppose feminism", they certainly aren't saying that they support a socialist solution to the problems women workers face - they're saying they don't think there is a problem at all.

Which is not to say that what you said was wrong, although I fear many people won't even read or understand it.

[Luís Henrique]

Communists (women and men) oppose feminism

I am a communist, and I don't oppose feminism.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

I thik what VivalaCuarta is arguing is that traditionally the revolutionary movement saw patriarchy and the oppression of women as a result of class struggle and not as a seperate system of oppression. The focus on womens liberation has tradtionally been rejected as a seperate issue and struggle as it was presumed and accepted to be the result of class society. The answer to it was to be found in class struggle and not outside of it.

[DOOM]

http://38.media.tumblr.com/de215e37a06007e05b009593cc0597aa/tumblr_naa6vcB6pv1syitgfo1_500.jpg

told status: Knights of the TOLD republic

[Redistribute the Rep]

Communists (women and men) oppose feminism because it is a bourgeois ideology that offers no solution to the oppression of women. Feminism, since it preaches the unity of interests ("sisterhood") of women of all classes, has always and everywhere been the enemy of the revolutionary labor movement. Only the revolutionary labor movement, in abolishing the family, can remove the material basis for the oppression of women.

There is no such thing as socialist feminism, just as little is there can be socialist nationalism.

Except, there is such as thing as socialist feminism :

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_feminism

And the comparison to nationalism is just bizarre and unsubstantiated. Also, when you say 'only' the revolutionary labor movement is needed, you ignore the fact that historically women have been systematically excluded from participation in unions and the labor movement. There's been a long history of sexism in socialism that has hindered the movement by alienating half of the workers. So while saying that all we need to do is overthrow capitalism and all our problems will go away may sound nice, really all it does is ignore the problems and discrimination that keep some marginalized groups from participating fully in the movement.

[Luís Henrique]

I thik what VivalaCuarta is arguing is that traditionally the revolutionary movement saw patriarchy and the oppression of women as a result of class struggle and not as a seperate system of oppression. The focus on womens liberation has tradtionally been rejected as a seperate issue and struggle as it was presumed and accepted to be the result of class society. The answer to it was to be found in class struggle and not outside of it.

That is not what he said. There is not anything about "traditionally" or "historically" in his post.

On the contrary, he sounds quite normative.

Luís Henrique

[Fourth Internationalist]

Communists (women and men) oppose feminism because it is a bourgeois ideology that offers no solution to the oppression of women. Feminism, since it preaches the unity of interests ("sisterhood") of women of all classes, has always and everywhere been the enemy of the revolutionary labor movement. Only the revolutionary labor movement, in abolishing the family, can remove the material basis for the oppression of women.

There is no such thing as socialist feminism, just as little is there can be socialist nationalism.


Unfortunately, in popular consciousness "feminism" has come to mean simply "women's liberation", not the particular ideology that sees the oppression of women as somehow transcending class society. This is simply one aspect of the low political consciousness of the period. When these women say they "oppose feminism", they certainly aren't saying that they support a socialist solution to the problems women workers face - they're saying they don't think there is a problem at all.

Which is not to say that what you said was wrong, although I fear many people won't even read or understand it.

I agree with both of these posts. Not too long ago, I would identify myself as a Marxist and a Trotskyist, but also as a feminist. While I would argue Bolshevism would solve the fundamental issue that feminism puts forward (that inequality exists between the sexes), I see it now as unnecessary to put forward the message of women's liberation under the banner of feminism rather than of communism (or even under both, e.g. "Marxist feminism" as if Marxism didn't already entail women's liberation). In fact, it would be better for revolutionaries to always put forward their message of women's liberation, gay liberation, etc. under the banner of socialist revolution. It puts forth the idea of communism as the solution to the oppression of women and gays rather than feminism or gay rights, both of which are labels used by liberals. By doing this, we tie in the issues women or gays face with communism, rather than associating it with non-revolutionaries who also call themselves feminists or advocates of gay rights. This is not ignoring the issues because 'class struggle is more important' (the two are interlinked anyways and cannot be separated); it just distinguishes revolutionaries who put forth the idea that women's and gay liberation is only possible through the self-emancipation of the working class, from the liberals who argue for feminism and gay rights in a manner entirely non-threatening to capitalism and imperialism, which of course means their solutions are no solution. Thoughts?

[PhoenixAsh]

That is not what he said. There is not anything about "traditionally" or "historically" in his post.

On the contrary, he sounds quite normative.

Luís Henrique

I didn't catch that sound but I understand what you mean. I do know a lot of communist/marxist/leninist parties do still reject feminism on that same bases. So perhaps it is individual experience.

[Luís Henrique]

I didn't catch that sound but I understand what you mean. I do know a lot of communist/marxist/leninist parties do still reject feminism on that same bases. So perhaps it is individual experience.

I would argue that those "communist/marxist/leninist parties" are not communist, not marxist, not leninist, and quite probably rather cults than parties.

But even (most of) those, at least here in Brazil, at the very least pay lip service to the necessity of feminism in the struggle for liberation.

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And the comparison to nationalism is just bizarre and unsubstantiated. Also, when you say 'only' the revolutionary labor movement is needed, you ignore the fact that historically women have been systematically excluded from participation in unions and the labor movement. There's been a long history of sexism in socialism that has hindered the movement by alienating half of the workers. So while saying that all we need to do is overthrow capitalism and all our problems will go away may sound nice, really all it does is ignore the problems and discrimination that keep some marginalized groups from participating fully in the movement.

Viva La Cuarta is free to correct me on this, but I think this misses the point of their post entirely. Only a revolutionary labour movement can end the oppression of women. This does not mean that women workers "only" need to struggle for immediate trade-union demands but that only workers (and workers of all sexes, all genders, nationalities, races and colours, and all sexualities) can liberate women. Their bourgeois "sisters" can not do so, and unity with the bourgeois woman is a noose around the neck of a proletarian woman.


I would argue that those "communist/marxist/leninist parties" are not communist, not marxist, not leninist, and quite probably rather cults than parties.

But even (most of) those, at least here in Brazil, at the very least pay lip service to the necessity of feminism in the struggle for liberation.

Again, you seem to be using the term "feminism" in the sense of "women's liberation". Of course every actual socialist group is for women's liberation. But Marxists can't really be feminists in the sense that they can not suppose the oppression of women is the result of biological differences and transcends class society.

The Spartacist League are pretty vocal about their opposition to feminism in this sense, but they still view the women's question as key to understanding both modern capitalism and all other forms of special oppression. In fact they go further than the vast majority of this site by explicitly arguing for the abolition of the family, free abortion on demand at any stage, "no to the veil" (in Iran) and so on.

[Rafiq]

There is no neutral, complicated obscure position you can take. You either identify with Feminism today (even if you do critically) or you oppose them. You can veil your opposition to feminism through whatever pseudo-'Socialist' drivel you want, but in the end you are still taking a position. Because unlike your bankrupt 'socialism' which has no social basis today, feminism is a real phenomena with overreaching influences, and dare I say a social base today. You can veil your cries of reaction by tarnishing banners of the old, but it is still a form of reaction. Feminism derives today as a form of mediocre class consciousness. And I mean this quite literally: The class differences among Feminists are very visible. The point being is that today's feminism derives from today. You are doing no service to any form of socialist orthodoxy by opposing it, you are only presenting yourself as an (un) useful idiot to hegemonic sexual relations.

Why do I say Leninism can only possess a reactionary role today? Precisely because it operates by taking advantage of the fact that it has no social context or basis among the proletariat. By taking advantage of the fact that it did not derive from our present condition it posits itself as a force of reaction. A weak, inadequate one at that, easily swept aside by the tides of Neo Fascism and Islamism. Are there problems with Feminism? There are, but despite that it is still worth defending. Because at the end of the day when the hour of conflict is met, you have to take a side.

But then, those philistine reactionaries will say, what about war? What about our refusal to take side in wars, or petty ideological conflicts between the ruling class? On the contrary we are taking a side, feminism is above all a real social and ideological issue, just as opposition to war was. Feminism tore through false dichotomies and presented a new one.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

http://37.media.tumblr.com/16d04308e9fbb940c00f60707c5cb394/tumblr_n9egi1SRw11thkqcyo1_1280.jpg

What I think^

[Rafiq]

Do we recognize that only through the dictatorship of the proletariat can sexual relations presently be crushed? Undoubtedly. Though, was women's suffrage then a useful struggle? Sexual freedom? Struggles pertaining to divorce laws? Abortion? The point is that our struggle, our Eden is not vested in some unforeseeable future, it is today. Our struggle derives from present circumstnaces, we must have a voice, a language within the context of today's "bourgeois society" (as petty bourgeois socialists would claim). The proletariat composes a great majority of society. Again, we do not "abstain" from it. Our Communism derives from struggling within it.

I have few qualms with a socialist criticism of feminism in its present form. My quarrel is with whether this is an opposition, that is, do you show solidarity towards feminists, do you identify with the essence of feminism or do you sit back and scold them (the difference being with other chauvinists and reactionaries that you happen to be wearing October revolution role play attire). Do you viciously attack them for not conforming to a (non-existent, mind you) socialist orthodoxy or do you identify with their endeavors? Feminism is, above all, a phenomena. Not some kind of theory derived from processes of pure thought. You either oppose it, or you are with it. Language veils real positions in relation to our social, sexual and ideological being. You cannot make your real position any different through theoretical obfuscation. Deng "justified" himself, but did this make the nature of his actions any different? Kautsky "justified" himself, but did this make his actions any different?

[Rafiq]

Again, you seem to be using the term "feminism" in the sense of "women's liberation". Of course every actual socialist group is for women's liberation. But Marxists can't really be feminists in the sense that they can not suppose the oppression of women is the result of biological differences and transcends class society.


Feminism is not distinguished, or defined by asserting some kind of ecological place for women. The class differences are visible: Bourgeois feminists adhere to a pre-cartesian notion pertaining to our biology, or 'human essence'. They are fascinated by primitive matriarchal societies, women's natural place in the social order and other such drivel. Rather than being a defining characteristic of feminism, this is a threat to feminism. I have met few feminists who adhere to such drivel anyway. It is all about today, about re-defining their sexual condition today despite any drivel pertaining to biology. Actually most feminists I know regard biological differences as absolutely no basis for gender relations. As a result of their lack of knowledge, rather than any error in intention, they place this as "society does this" "society does that" rather than a disciplined Marxist understanding which connects everything into a totality. This is hardly grounds for opposing feminism. It would be just as erroneous to oppose the labor movements in the 19th century before Marxism.

But of course rather than coming to any sort of honest conclusion on your own, you are effectively apologizing for a cult. You most likely have some kind of elaborate justification for "defense of the deformed worker's state", too.

[Bea Arthur]

Yes it is true. Some women have been brainwashed by men into accepting a masculinist antifeminist view of the world. Other women are held hostage by men physically. We call this institution marriage. The path forward for sisters around the world begins with breaking the shackles of masculinist language and metaphors. Society, with its false universality, is an example of a construct that is used to hammer home male supremacy in all its hideious forms!!

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Feminism is not distinguished, or defined by asserting some kind of ecological place for women. The class differences are visible: Bourgeois feminists adhere to a pre-cartesian notion pertaining to our biology, or 'human essence'. They are fascinated by primitive matriarchal societies, women's natural place in the social order and other such drivel.

You mean anthropology, right? Interest in primitive cultures is not the area of biology, though the two are sure to intersect often. Bourgeois biology does not normally pay heed to any notion of human nature. Are you condemning anthropology carte blanche?

[Redistribute the Rep]

Viva La Cuarta is free to correct me on this, but I think this misses the point of their post entirely. Only a revolutionary labour movement can end the oppression of women.

Yea. The problem is, revolutionary labor movements in the past have been largely dominated by men who had no interest in ending the oppression of women and were more than willing to throw their female (and minority) comrades under the bus for their own benefit. Most of the labor unions in the US in the 19th century (the Knights of Labor being a notable exception) didn't even allow women or minorities to join. These movements clearly then were at odds with worker solidarity and have been rightfully been addressed by feminist marxists.

[Rafiq]

You mean anthropology, right? Interest in primitive cultures is not the area of biology, though the two are sure to intersect often. Bourgeois biology does not normally pay heed to any notion of human nature. Are you condemning anthropology carte blanche?

No, as the findings are correct. I am condemning the fundamental implications drawn from them in relation to the struggle for women's emancipation today. In reality it is meaningless. The struggle is not to "go back" to some kind of sexual ecology. We applaud the achievements of capitalism and of civilization. The point is to appropriate them and succeed them.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yea. The problem is, revolutionary labor movements in the past have been largely dominated by men who had no interest in ending the oppression of women and were more than willing to throw their female (and minority) comrades under the bus for their own benefit. Most of the labor unions in the US in the 19th century (the Knights of Labor being a notable exception) didn't even allow women or minorities to join. These movements clearly then were at odds with worker solidarity and have been rightfully been addressed by feminist marxists.

None of that is really the case, though.

Unions of the Gompers type certainly were hostile to women (and the Knights of Labor, mind, were virulently racist), but at the same time they were not revolutionary in any sense. The socialist, revolutionary labour movement always put an emphasis on women's liberation. See e.g. articles by Marx, Jenny Marx, Bebel, Zetkin etc.

Feminists opposed the socialists from the beginning, and continued to oppose them during the feminist revival of the sixties-seventies (see e.g. the hostility of groups like Redstockings to socialists - and the gays, trans* people etc.). "Socialist feminism" or "Marxist feminism" was a minor current, chiefly associated with Clara Frazer, that didn't have much influence outside the Freedom Socialist Party.

[Luís Henrique]

Again, you seem to be using the term "feminism" in the sense of "women's liberation".

It seems to me the correct way to use the word.


Of course every actual socialist group is for women's liberation. But Marxists can't really be feminists in the sense that they can not suppose the oppression of women is the result of biological differences and transcends class society.

I don't see why the definition of "feminism" includes the belief that the oppression of women is the result of biological differences or that it transcends class society.

On the contrary, the idea that the oppression of women is the result of biological differences seems rather anti-feminist: if so, the problem has no solution, and women are going to be oppressed never mind what kind of society we build. And feminism, indeed, seems usually linked to the idea that biological sex and socially defined sexual roles (or "genders") are not directly or inevitably linked.


The Spartacist League are pretty vocal about their opposition to feminism in this sense, but they still view the women's question as key to understanding both modern capitalism and all other forms of special oppression. In fact they go further than the vast majority of this site by explicitly arguing for the abolition of the family, free abortion on demand at any stage, "no to the veil" (in Iran) and so on.

This seems a mish-mash of very different issues, with widely different scopes of resolution, ranging from common-sence bourgeois reforms (struggle against the veil) easily attainable under capitalism, to post-revolutionary developments (abolition of family) that cannot be meaningfully agitated as of nowadays, passing through deeper reforms (such as abortion on demand), that are within the possibilities of capitalism but demand much struggle and possibly extraordinary situations to be achieved.

Of course, the suppression of the oppression of women demands a social(ist) revolution; but a socialist revolution demands an everyday struggle against anti-women prejudices, or it isn't going to happen. That's the reason the Bolsheviks, which are the model upon which the Spartacist League supposedly structures itself, had a section devoted to the issue (the Zhenotdel, chaired, successively, by Inessa Armand and Alexandra Kollontai).

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

It seems to me the correct way to use the word.

I don't think it is, and it misses the point of what people like me or Viva La Cuarta (and for that matter, every Marxist organisation I can think of except the FSP and the notorious Solidarity/US) mean when we say that we are not feminists - obviously we don't mean that we're opposed to women's liberation, quite the contrary.


I don't see why the definition of "feminism" includes the belief that the oppression of women is the result of biological differences or that it transcends class society.

On the contrary, the idea that the oppression of women is the result of biological differences seems rather anti-feminist: if so, the problem has no solution, and women are going to be oppressed never mind what kind of society we build. And feminism, indeed, seems usually linked to the idea that biological sex and socially defined sexual roles (or "genders") are not directly or inevitably linked.

In the seventies, some feminists explicitly argued that women would only be liberated when artificial uteruses were made. Today that sounds laughable, but it was taken seriously at the time.

I suppose there are feminists who don't subscribe to biological interpretations of women's oppression (e.g. those who subscribe to what I can only call wannabe-Marxist theories about "women as a class" that were popular at one stage), but the chief difference between feminists and Marxists remains: feminists posit the oppression of women as transcending class society, Marxists view it as a consequence of class society.


This seems a mish-mash of very different issues, with widely different scopes of resolution, ranging from common-sence bourgeois reforms (struggle against the veil) easily attainable under capitalism, to post-revolutionary developments (abolition of family) that cannot be meaningfully agitated as of nowadays, passing through deeper reforms (such as abortion on demand), that are within the possibilities of capitalism but demand much struggle and possibly extraordinary situations to be achieved.

I never said all of these demands are of the same type, though. I pointed them out as demands that the SL raises but that many, perhaps most members of the forum who are self-avowed feminists would find uncomfortable. Whether one subscribes to feminism and whether one is for the liberation of women are two entirely different things.


Of course, the suppression of the oppression of women demands a social(ist) revolution; but a socialist revolution demands an everyday struggle against anti-women prejudices, or it isn't going to happen. That's the reason the Bolsheviks, which are the model upon which the Spartacist League supposedly structures itself, had a section devoted to the issue (the Zhenotdel, chaired, successively, by Inessa Armand and Alexandra Kollontai).

Alright, but no one has argued against either struggling against the oppression of women, or the tactical necessity of separate woman organisations in some contexts (but note: this is a tactical necessity, not a strategic one). Communists don't oppose all-woman organs on principle, they oppose any sort of unity between proletarian and bourgeois women.

[Diirez]

From what I can tell, these are women against radical/extremest feminism.
For instance, one of the pictures mentions #KillAllMen. I think the biggest 'issue' for feminism really is the misandry that has been infecting the movement.

Also the extremest views on things. For instance, "Catcalling isn't even close to the same as rape..." I haven't seen anything by anyone that claims that catcalling is rape, but this woman has the right point. Catcalling isn't the same as rape, it IS sexual harassment and should be looked down upon as rape, but you can't call it rape.

Everything else on this website is just horrifying. Things like women should learn to protect themselves instead of blaming/being afraid, women should buy their own birth control and 'traditional family values.'

In short, some of these women are only hearing about the focus of misandry feminism and not the egalitarian movement of equality that the majority of feminism advocates.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

From what I can tell, these are women against radical/extremest feminism.
For instance, one of the pictures mentions #KillAllMen. I think the biggest 'issue' for feminism really is the misandry that has been infecting the movement.

Except, of course, men are not structurally oppressed, and if some beautiful soul is sad because a woman said men should be killed, that's not our problem. No, actually, that's not a problem at all.

[Left-Wing Nutjob]

I do wonder how many of these anti-feminist women come from bourgeois backgrounds...

[Ro Laren]

I think the fact that MRA's and their ilk bring up Valerie Solanas all the time says a lot about how much of a misandrist feminist movement there really is. Because she's so relevant and everybody takes her seriously.

[Diirez]

Except, of course, men are not structurally oppressed, and if some beautiful soul is sad because a woman said men should be killed, that's not our problem. No, actually, that's not a problem at all.
Uh yeah that actually is a problem. That's the biggest fucking hypocritical thing I have ever heard. It's fine for women to say sexist things to men, but not men to say sexist things to women?

If you really want to understand why people are turned away from Feminism and move to humanism or some other egalitarian movement it's because of this. That's not equality, that's just reversed sexism.

[PhoenixAsh]

Uh yeah that actually is a problem. That's the biggest fucking hypocritical thing I have ever heard. It's fine for women to say sexist things to men, but not men to say sexist things to women?

If you really want to understand why people are turned away from Feminism and move to humanism or some other egalitarian movement it's because of this. That's not equality, that's just reversed sexism.

This ignores of course the fact that there is a structural repression of women and an enforcement of socialized gender roles in which the woman is structurally cast off as inferior to a man.

For a man to say sexist things would fall into the category of structural oppression of woman and is based from a position of social superiority and dominance within patriarchy.

So there is a fundamental difference between the two.

And...fyi...feminism is an egalitarian movement. But good of you to make it expressly clear where you are coming from.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

No, as the findings are correct.
Which findings? Are you referring to matriarchal societies or human nature?

I am condemning the fundamental implications drawn from them in relation to the struggle for women's emancipation today. In reality it is meaningless. The struggle is not to "go back" to some kind of sexual ecology. We applaud the achievements of capitalism and of civilization. The point is to appropriate them and succeed them.
Despite the "achievements" that women won through hard struggle and social reforms, Marxists should not one-sidedly "applaud" them. It is not to say that women do not deserve equal pay and what have you, but to recognize that these achievements are contradictory and perhaps even harmful under capitalism. To paraphrase Lenin, women are doubly burdened, with both the care of children and paid work (not to mention household work). So how exactly will Marxists win working women to socialism if we trouble ourselves to point out all the "positives" without paying heed to how they help retain class and gender oppression? It will not make for a very convincing program, in my opinion.

Furthermore, the use of the word "civilization" only further confuses the issue. That is, what aspects of civilization are you talking about?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Uh yeah that actually is a problem. That's the biggest fucking hypocritical thing I have ever heard. It's fine for women to say sexist things to men, but not men to say sexist things to women?

If you really want to understand why people are turned away from Feminism and move to humanism or some other egalitarian movement it's because of this. That's not equality, that's just reversed sexism.

There is sexism and then there is 'sexism', though. Isolated cases of 'sexism' are completely different in character, scope and effect to structural sexism, which has real, long-lasting, social, economic, political and psychological impacts on an entire group of people.

A woman thinking that she wants to kill the white man sitting next to her may simply be the encapsulation of her feelings of rage against men in general; a psychological act of resistance, if you will. As long as it is a thought that is recognised as not entirely accurate (i.e. she is not going to actually attempt to kill the man) and needing philosophical clarification (i.e. an attempt to figure out what led to that thought), then I think the thought process itself is understandable.

If a woman physically assaults a man because he is a man and no other reason, then that is an individual act of sexism. Wrong it is, but its effect is probably not that great, and temporary. It can be dealt with through legal justice, re-education etc.

If men (notice the plural) ensure through a political system of patriarchy that ensures their continue social, economic, and political dominion over women (again, notice the plural), then that is qualitatively different to the previous incident of individualised 'sexism': the sexism has become structural and generalised. Its effects are great, and not at all temporary.

I think it is worth again and again making the distinction between the impacts of individual acts of 'sexism' and structural sexism as a generalised occurrence, to effectively counter this reverse sexism crap.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

If men (notice the plural) ensure through a political system of patriarchy that ensures their continue social, economic, and political dominion over women (again, notice the plural), then that is qualitatively different to the previous incident of individualised 'sexism': the sexism has become structural and generalised. Its effects are great, and not at all temporary.
Viewing sexism as consciously systemic introduces a lot of problems. Though there is economic data that shows how much less women are paid in the workplace relative to men, the tales of "individualized" sexism are all that we have to go on in terms of conscious social oppression. So how can we view patriarchy as a separate "political system" of domination when its effects are felt quite unevenly and sometimes not at all? For the latter, I speak of those women who openly oppose feminism.

[#FF0000]

Uh yeah that actually is a problem. That's the biggest fucking hypocritical thing I have ever heard. It's fine for women to say sexist things to men, but not men to say sexist things to women?

Sexism isn't just people saying mean things to each other -- it's an entire structure of systemic discrimination and oppression of women.


If you really want to understand why people are turned away from Feminism and move to humanism or some other egalitarian movement it's because of this. That's not equality, that's just reversed sexism.

"Humanism" has nothing to do with what you're talking about, actually.

[Rosa Partizan]

reversed sexism is no thing, the same goes with misandry. When we talk about sexism, racism, etc. we talk about structures deeply engrained in society, we talk about widespread mindsets that enforce certain institutional disadvantages for POC, women etc. We talk about double standards when it comes to judging people for doing the exactly same things. We talk about conditions when women just cannot win in societie's eyes, be it for aborting or be it for deciding to be a single mom, while a single father will be "a hero that was left alone by some *****". We talk about that "guy that gets all the hot girls" and look down at "the woman that's putting out for anyone". We talk about that "tough guy that's making his way to the CEO position" and badmouth "this ***** obsessed with her career instead of caring for her family". I could do this for the next 2 hours now, but you know how it goes, I'd bore the fuck out of people with 20000 examples like these.

Why should you call this struggle humanism when it's obvious that it's downwatering what the real problem is about, namely structural oppression of women's sexuality, bodies, careers, life plans, positions in society etc. It's the same as saying "I don't see color in people". Way to ignore everything that people have to go through because of one distinctive attribute, asshole. Way to ignore where they came from, what struggles their ancestors fought so that they at least were able to be recognized as human beings at all. Yes, of course, marginalized people can badmouth you, can discriminate you, but guess what, this still won't come remotely close to what they experience, be it women or POC (WOC are even more fucked up). So yes, let's be whiny about a woman that will have some huge impact on your life, because I mean, women structurally assaulting and killing men is such a common thing, right.

http://media.tumblr.com/41d6a0ed09cfd870f067c507fdd9d02b/tumblr_inline_mp34ccERgS1qz4rgp.jpg

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

reversed sexism is no thing, the same goes with misandry. When we talk about sexism, racism, etc. we talk about structures deeply engrained in society, we talk about widespread mindsets that enforce certain institutional disadvantages for POC, women etc. We talk about double standards when it comes to judging people for doing the exactly same things. We talk about conditions when women just cannot win in societie's eyes, be it for aborting or be it for deciding to be a single mom, while a single father will be "a hero that was left alone by some *****". We talk about that "guy that gets all the hot girls" and look down at "the woman that's putting out for anyone". We talk about that "tough guy that's making his way to the CEO position" and badmouth "this ***** obsessed with her career instead of caring for her family". I could do this for the next 2 hours now, but you know how it goes, I'd bore the fuck out of people with 20000 examples like these.

Why should you call this struggle humanism when it's obvious that it's downwatering what the real problem is about, namely structural oppression of women's sexuality, bodies, careers, life plans, positions in society etc. It's the same as saying "I don't see color in people". Way to ignore everything that people have to go through because of one distinctive attribute, asshole. Way to ignore where they came from, what struggles their ancestors fought so that they at least were able to be recognized as human beings at all. Yes, of course, marginalized people can badmouth you, can discriminate you, but guess what, this still won't come remotely close to what they experience, be it women or POC (WOC are even more fucked up). So yes, let's be whiny about a woman that will have some huge impact on your life, because I mean, women structurally assaulting and killing men is such a common thing, right.

http://media.tumblr.com/41d6a0ed09cfd870f067c507fdd9d02b/tumblr_inline_mp34ccERgS1qz4rgp.jpg

This is awesome and I agree 100% wifey

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Viewing sexism as consciously systemic introduces a lot of problems. Though there is economic data that shows how much less women are paid in the workplace relative to men, the tales of "individualized" sexism are all that we have to go on in terms of conscious social oppression. So how can we view patriarchy as a separate "political system" of domination when its effects are felt quite unevenly and sometimes not at all?


Every time there is an economic downturn, women get laid off first and, more than that, more than wages, women are discriminated against in the workplace (we can see this through both statistics and large amounts of anecdotal evidence).

Women are raped a great deal more than men. Until 1996, in England, a man could legally rape his wife. Women are domestically abused a great deal more than men. When a woman is raped, it is common for the authorities to interrogate the woman over whether she was drunk, what she was wearing etc. Women have to deal with sexism on a daily basis, be it somebody staring at her tits, pinching her ass (without her consent), making lewd/threatening comments, cat-calling etc. In the media and commonly in social circles, women are castigated if they follow their sexual desires (as a 'slut', 'whore', 'slag' etc.), whereas men are not.

Let's not pretend, then, that 'individual' cases of sexism are all we have to go by. Patriarchy and the oppression of women is structural, widespread and endemic.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Every time there is an economic downturn, women get laid off first and, more than that, more than wages, women are discriminated against in the workplace (we can see this through both statistics and large amounts of anecdotal evidence).



Women are raped a great deal more than men. Until 1996, in England, a man could legally rape his wife. Women are domestically abused a great deal more than men. When a woman is raped, it is common for the authorities to interrogate the woman over whether she was drunk, what she was wearing etc. Women have to deal with sexism on a daily basis, be it somebody staring at her tits, pinching her ass (without her consent), making lewd/threatening comments, cat-calling etc. In the media and commonly in social circles, women are castigated if they follow their sexual desires (as a 'slut', 'whore', 'slag' etc.), whereas men are not.



Let's not pretend, then, that 'individual' cases of sexism are all we have to go by. Patriarchy and the oppression of women is structural, widespread and endemic.

No one here would deny that women have it much rougher than men in class society, so your recounting of "sexism" in unemployment and the like is beside the point. What I'm criticizing here is your idea of "patriarchy" existing as a separate, conscious, and distinct "political system", from class exploitation.

In my view, the very idea of "patriarchy" presumes that men exist as a separate class relative to women. If we follow such a concept to its logical conclusion, then we may have to conclude that the social interests of both sexes are diametrically opposed; men are cast as the villains, unconsciously participating or otherwise. This can be compared to Zionism, which also needs its "enemies" in order to justify its existence.

And who exactly does this "political system" consist of? Men would be the obvious answer, but which men, and how did such a thing come to exist in the first place if it as pervasive as you suggest? What is its origin? Your idea, as you have presented it, does not take into account how such conditions were created; that is, how men are placed differently than women relative to the forces of production. You seem incapable of realizing that sexism can only exist, as it is anchored in a deeper structure of power. Instead you insist on its irreducible autonomy.

Men have an interest in defending their unearned advantages relative to women. Thus they benefit as men. Unfortunately they do not benefit as workers under capitalism. The harms of identity oppression in general are a detriment to the entire working class, and should not be abstracted out of class exploitation in order to lay blame at the feet of certain individuals or an entire gender. Perhaps this was not your intent, but it certainly seems to be going in that direction.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No one here would deny that women have it much rougher than men in class society, so your recounting of "sexism" in unemployment and the like is beside the point. What I'm criticizing here is your idea of "patriarchy" existing as a separate, conscious, and distinct "political system", from class exploitation.

You are right that patriarchy does not exist in a vacuum. It is widely documented that the influx of women into the house as home-makers was largely in line with the rise of industrial capitalism and the need for domestic labour to be completed wage-free, amongst other things.

But that does not mean that patriarchy does not exist at all. The social dominion of men over women exists alongside the social dominion of the bourgeoisie over the workers, of whites over blacks etc. Though it won't make a nice headline nor fit into a nice box, a proper analysis of the social system we live under has to accept that there are inter-related forces at play and that, whilst our politics accepts the primacy of class struggle over other arenas of struggle, it would be foolish and ignorant to suggest that these other arenas of struggle do not exist. Sexism, in its structural sense, is deep enough, and has been going on long enough, covers deeply enough the broadest institutions of economic, political and military power, to say that it is a system of oppression in and of itself, that system being patriarchy.


In my view, the very idea of "patriarchy" presumes that men exist as a separate class relative to women. If we follow such a concept to its logical conclusion, then we may have to conclude that the social interests of both sexes are diametrically opposed; men are cast as the villains, unconsciously participating or otherwise. This can be compared to Zionism, which also needs its "enemies" in order to justify its existence.

This is a logical fallacy, because you are pre-supposing that the logic we apply to the class struggle (the ruling class, and all classes, need to be abolished) and applying it to a different arena of struggle. Feminism doesn't fight for the abolition of men, or women (though perhaps it does fight for the abolition of gender roles); rather, it fights for equality between men and women.

Uniting the feminist struggle with the class struggle (and indeed the race struggle), we can see that most men wouldn't lose out in a gender-equal society. Would a black proletarian male, for example, be better or worse off under a post-class, gender-equal, racially emancipated society?

Arguably, the only men who would lose out under a gender-equal society would be ruling-class men, and that's an issue more related to class than to feminism.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Though it won't make a nice headline nor fit into a nice box, a proper analysis of the social system we live under has to accept that there are inter-related forces at play and that, whilst our politics accepts the primacy of class struggle over other arenas of struggle, it would be foolish and ignorant to suggest that these other arenas of struggle do not exist. Sexism, in its structural sense, is deep enough, and has been going on long enough, covers deeply enough the broadest institutions of economic, political and military power, to say that it is a system of oppression in and of itself, that system being patriarchy.
You are misreading me again, and selectively at that. I never said that “other arenas of struggle” do not exist. What I am denying is that they constitute a separate system of power that lies beyond class exploitation. Identity oppression, as I said before, cannot exist without drawing its strength and nourishment from class society, which is responsible for making unearned advantages possible. This is not a judgment as to its importance, but dependence. Thus, we could accept that sexism is a power-structure that reveals itself in certain contexts as an alienated expression of class power. But a single structure does not a system make.

While reifying gender oppression as “patriarchy”, or racism as “white privilege” can successfully expose the different ways that capitalism confronts certain groups of workers, it is not enough. Of course Marxists should always keep those ways in mind, for the particularities of identity oppression deeply etch themselves into the minds of those affected. But this reification obscures the fact that pitting these workers against one another defuses the struggle against the bourgeoisie, something that privilege theory ignores. It is for these reasons that the concept of “patriarchy” should be rejected, along with privilege theory in toto.

This is a logical fallacy, because you are pre-supposing that the logic we apply to the class struggle (the ruling class, and all classes, need to be abolished) and applying it to a different arena of struggle. Feminism doesn't fight for the abolition of men, or women (though perhaps it does fight for the abolition of gender roles); rather, it fights for equality between men and women.
I do not agree with this. Feminism by itself ultimately fights for the “separate but equal” treatment of the sexes. This is not to dismiss its rich history or the theoretical advancements it has made, but to recognize that without a socialist program “feminism” is doomed to be channeled into bourgeois reformism. And what is this "logical fallacy" you speak of?

Uniting the feminist struggle with the class struggle (and indeed the race struggle), we can see that most men wouldn't lose out in a gender-equal society. Would a black proletarian male, for example, be better or worse off under a post-class, gender-equal, racially emancipated society?

Arguably, the only men who would lose out under a gender-equal society would be ruling-class men, and that's an issue more related to class than to feminism.
This is completely irrelevant to my criticism of your concepts, which you have still not fully answered.

[Luís Henrique]

I think the fact that MRA's and their ilk bring up Valerie Solanas all the time says a lot about how much of a misandrist feminist movement there really is. Because she's so relevant and everybody takes her seriously.

Here in revleft she seems to have her following. Mostly male, I fear.

Luís Henrique

[Atsumari]

Don't hate, SCUM was pretty badass satire, something Paul Elam will never be good at.

[Ro Laren]

I just wasn't aware anyone took it as anything other than satire.

[#FF0000]

Here in revleft she seems to have her following. Mostly male, I fear.

Without even thinking about her politics, I just can't bring myself to dislike someone who shot Andy Warhol.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Communists (women and men) oppose feminism because it is a bourgeois ideology that offers no solution to the oppression of women. Feminism, since it preaches the unity of interests ("sisterhood") of women of all classes, has always and everywhere been the enemy of the revolutionary labor movement. Only the revolutionary labor movement, in abolishing the family, can remove the material basis for the oppression of women.

There is no such thing as socialist feminism, just as little is there can be socialist nationalism.

Good job telling everyone what they really believe (or implicitly calling them a "fake communist" or something silly like that)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Uniting the feminist struggle with the class struggle (and indeed the race struggle), we can see that most men wouldn't lose out in a gender-equal society. Would a black proletarian male, for example, be better or worse off under a post-class, gender-equal, racially emancipated society?

Arguably, the only men who would lose out under a gender-equal society would be ruling-class men, and that's an issue more related to class than to feminism.

Except, of course, no one is arguing for a "gender-unequal" (communists are more likely to use the term "women's liberation" than the juridical "equality") society. The problem with feminism is not that it fights for women's liberation, but that it does so poorly and on the basis of a liberal program, occasionally hurting workers, communists and minorities (e.g. the feminist-inspired anti-porn laws in Canada were, surprise surprise, disproportionately used against gay pornography).

Another problem is this notion of "gender-equality" as separate from socialism, as if the class struggle and the struggle for women's liberation were separate, and you could have a socialist society where women are oppressed (is it any surprise that a lot of Stalinists and Maoists got on board with this kind of thinking in the seventies?), or a "gender-equal" capitalist society.

All of this is the result of the feminist policy of liberal coalitionism, building de facto popular fronts between proletarian women and their bourgeois "sisters".

[Luís Henrique]

I just wasn't aware anyone took it as anything other than satire.

I would say it is impossible to take it in serious except as satire.

Unhappily, we have the word of Solanas herself that it wasn't satire at all.

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The problem with focusing on Solanas, and whether she was being ironic or not, is that this reduces the question of oppression to, for lack of a better term, the feels. Someone said mean things about men, so that's as bad as misogyny. Well, no. Even if Solanas was being dead serious, as you might have noticed men are not being killed for being men, men are not being systematically raped, the bodies of men are not controlled by the bourgeois state to the extent that bodies of women are etc. etc.

[Luís Henrique]

The problem with focusing on Solanas, and whether she was being ironic or not, is that this reduces the question of oppression to, for lack of a better term, the feels. Someone said mean things about men, so that's as bad as misogyny. Well, no. Even if Solanas was being dead serious, as you might have noticed men are not being killed for being men, men are not being systematically raped, the bodies of men are not controlled by the bourgeois state to the extent that bodies of women are etc. etc.

That's the problem with focusing on RadFems as well. Plus that it will always lead to... focusing on Solanas.

Feminism is a very broad movement, which includes mutually incompatible views. To concede that only RadFems or liberals are "truly" feminists is a bad move, in a world in which there are plenty of Marxist feminists, and many more feminists that are open to the discussion on how class oppression and exploitation intertwin with gender oppression. Especially since as gender-centered feminism seems to systematically lead to discussions about whether transwomen, prostitutes, lesbians, etc., are "actually women", or whether they suffer from a "false conscience", or even are gender traitors, etc.

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The quote function refuses to work for me. Why universe ha... I already used that one, huh.

Anyway.

I don't think anyone is focusing on radfems per se - everything I, Viva La Cuarta, and MEGAMANTROTSKY have said applies to feminism in general (feminism in the sense of a separate political movement, not "feminism" as another term for women's liberation).

That said, I don't think the focus on radfems and their violent transphobia is the same as complaints because Solanas said something mean about men, because yeah, trans* people are oppressed, structurally, and radfems are not helping, to put it politely.

I'm curious, how many "Marxist feminists" could you cite? Because as I recall it Marxist feminism was a very small current, and today it's probably restricted to the FSP. Maybe Solidarity, but Solidarity are such faddists it's a bit embarrassing. If the old lolbertarian argument about admiralty courts became popular among liberals tomorrow, Solidarity would take it up, and then maybe the USEC would make sympathetic but noncommittal noises.

Some feminists talk about something similar to class oppression, "classism", but this is perceived as simply one form of oppression, if that, instead of the root cause of social oppression. Not to mention that when feminists talk about "class", it is often only a "class" in the popular sense of an income bracket, not the Marxist term.

[Rafiq]

Which findings? Are you referring to matriarchal societies or human nature?

On the existence of matriarchal societies.


Despite the "achievements" that women won through hard struggle and social reforms, Marxists should not one-sidedly "applaud" them. It is not to say that women do not deserve equal pay and what have you, but to recognize that these achievements are contradictory and perhaps even harmful under capitalism. To paraphrase Lenin, women are doubly burdened, with both the care of children and paid work (not to mention household work). So how exactly will Marxists win working women to socialism if we trouble ourselves to point out all the "positives" without paying heed to how they help retain class and gender oppression? It will not make for a very convincing program, in my opinion.



We aren't talking about a tactical use of propaganda in "convincing" worker's anything. What the fuck are you talking about?

No one is denying that women under capitalism are oppressed. No one is denying sexual relations as essentially a form of prolonged and legitimized slavery (under capitalism). The premises of women's liberation derive from capitalism as a pre-requisite, of today's conditions. Just as Communism derives from premises now in existence. So in retrospect to hunter-gatherer societies, or even pre-capitalist societies, yes capitalism is infinitely more progressive. Hunter gatherer societies existed for some two hundred thousand years (could be wrong) and essentially didn't do shit. Their inability to improve their condition actually led to agriculture.

Women don't need to be legitimized by some kind of pre-cartesian tradition of societies in which women had a distinct "place" (Be it matriarchal, or otherwise). Women's liberation doesn't need to be legitimized by some transhistorical notion of our "nature" or by some social ecology bullshit.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think anyone is focusing on radfems per se - everything I, Viva La Cuarta, and MEGAMANTROTSKY have said applies to feminism in general (feminism in the sense of a separate political movement, not "feminism" as another term for women's liberation).

The problem is that that definition of "feminism" reduces it to... radfems and liberal feminists.


That said, I don't think the focus on radfems and their violent transphobia is the same as complaints because Solanas said something mean about men, because yeah, trans* people are oppressed, structurally, and radfems are not helping, to put it politely.

Which is the reason, or one of the reasons, that both radfems and Solanas are a consistent strawman, or strawwoman, against feminism, or, if you wish, women's liberation: they are consistently awful, and display a level of hate against certain categories of persons, and use such absurd reasonings to try to give such hate a "rational" basis, that can only cause repulse against them and whatever they associate with.


I'm curious, how many "Marxist feminists" could you cite? Because as I recall it Marxist feminism was a very small current, and today it's probably restricted to the FSP.

Marxism in itself is a quite small current. Especially if we start excluding subcurrents we don't like; are Stalinists Marxist? Left socialdemocrats? Maoists? Pabloites? Mandelians?

Some that come to my mind:

Alexandra Kolontai
Clara Zetkin
Dora Montefiore
Eleanor Marx
Evelyn Reed
Inessa Armand
Lise Vogel
Martha Gimenez
Roswitha Scholz
Teresa Ebert

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, no, most of these people were explicitly opposed to feminism, and none of them thought feminism simply meant women's liberation. Zetkin as I recall it was particularly scathing toward the feminists of her period.

I think that anyone who finds women's liberation because of radfems hasn't really thought things through to say the least. But radfems do tell us something about feminism, particularly since most of their worst qualities are shared by other strands of feminism. I mean, radfems didn't find themselves in bed with conservatives pushing for anti-porn laws that were then used to target gay people, more "mainstream" feminists did.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

We aren't talking about a tactical use of propaganda in "convincing" worker's anything. What the fuck are you talking about?
What I'm pointing out isn't obscure, Rafiq. My point was that if Marxists were able to hold a dialogue with working women, I'm not sure it will amount to much if their civil advancements are described as "progressive", full stop. As I said before, every social advancement, however needed, is contradictory. If we accept that progress does not move in a straight line, it would be prudent to note that women's entrance into the workforce, insofar as they are proscribed to bourgeois gender roles of housework and childcare, actually end up increasing their workload and drudgery. Naturally I can't speak for working women, but if you were to show them a book on feudalism and tell them "well, it could be worse!", I'm convinced that you'd be rebuffed.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Well, no, most of these people were explicitly opposed to feminism, and none of them thought feminism simply meant women's liberation. Zetkin as I recall it was particularly scathing toward the feminists of her period.


And Marx was pretty scathing toward the Marxists of his period. But it's no longer that period anymore, and the terms have evolved

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And Marx was pretty scathing toward the Marxists of his period. But it's no longer that period anymore, and the terms have evolved

They haven't, though, every socialist group I am familiar with, except the FSP, uses the term "feminist" in the same sense in which Zetkin or Lenin would have used it.

[Redistribute the Rep]

They haven't, though, every socialist group I am familiar with, except the FSP, uses the term "feminist" in the same sense in which Zetkin or Lenin would have used it.

Well what a scientific, systematic study you have conducted, I'm sure it wasn't subject to any confirmation bias.

[Lily Briscoe]

Here's an article by a 'marxist' group that takes the 'traditional view' of opposing 'feminism': http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2008/apr/international-womens-day

It's complete trash.

It's true that the tradition among 'marxist' organizations has generally been to define 'feminism' in a particular way and to oppose it. This made a much greater deal of sense historically when feminism was a tangible movement with clear political positions. But in 2014, 'feminism' is something so heterogenous and broad that it's kind of nonsensical to talk about 'supporting' or 'opposing' it. It is much more important/meaningful to talk about perspectives on actual analyses put forward by feminists and issues with, you know, political content than making some huge point of defining the term 'feminism' in a particular way and declaring your support for or opposition to it on that basis. Shallow platitudes like this:
Communists (women and men) oppose feminism because it is a bourgeois ideology that offers no solution to the oppression of women. Feminism, since it preaches the unity of interests ("sisterhood") of women of all classes, has always and everywhere been the enemy of the revolutionary labor movement. Only the revolutionary labor movement, in abolishing the family, can remove the material basis for the oppression of women.

There is no such thing as socialist feminism, just as little is there can be socialist nationalism.

...just become kind of embarrassing..

[Tolstoy]

It may seem odd, but hell ive met blacks who said they opposed (and quite vociferously so) affirmative action and more poor people who hate the welfare system than one could ever imagine.

What it essentially is I think is an attempt at gaining the respect of the opresseor group and further, some people perceive recognizing opression as taking pity and thus resent the notion that they constitute an oppressed community (which I credit to how liberals frequently infantilize in the their support of the LGBT community, blacks and women)

[Chaos316]

Some Black people go out of their way to do respectability politics, where they think if they dress nice, "talk right", and other things, White people will like them more. They're probably against affirmative action because they have internalized the myth, that it doesn't recognize their talents, and contributes to more racism.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

It's true that the tradition among 'marxist' organizations has generally been to define 'feminism' in a particular way and to oppose it.... But in 2014, 'feminism' is something so heterogenous and broad that it's kind of nonsensical to talk about 'supporting' or 'opposing' it. It is much more important/meaningful to talk about perspectives on actual analyses put forward by feminists and issues with, you know, political content than making some huge point of defining the term 'feminism' in a particular way and declaring your support for or opposition to it on that basis.
I think you got your "description" of feminism mixed up in your notes on postmodernism.

[Lily Briscoe]

What are you talking about (or is that just supposed to be some condescending zinger)?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well what a scientific, systematic study you have conducted, I'm sure it wasn't subject to any confirmation bias.

Then perhaps you can point us in the direction of a socialist organisation other than the FSP or Solidarity that understands feminism to be synonymous with women's liberation. I am familiar with all the major Trotskyist and Maoist organisations in the US, Latin America and Europe, with most anti-revisionist ones and so on - still, I put that "I am familiar with" there so someone doesn't bring up some Malawian post-situationist propaganda group with tendencies toward Marcyism and accuse me of lying.

I suspect, of course, that you will not be able to name one such group. That is the general problem with RevLeft, it lives in a small but cozy bubble of its own, where feminism means women's liberation, privilege theory is unquestionable, a "state capitalist" analysis is assumed almost by default, "anti-imperialist" is an insult, and Lihite "orthodox Marxism" (ha-ha) is an actual ideology. Completely disconnected from the actual socialist movement.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

What are you talking about (or is that just supposed to be some condescending zinger)?

Using your logic, my post can mean whatever you want it to mean. If you're suggesting that the feminist movement is too broad to be defined or judged, you're rendering it immune to criticism. It's designed to dismiss contrary arguments as stawmanning rather than any principled debate.

[Quail]

I'm not sure about elsewhere, but among UK anarchists feminism is used synonymously with women's liberation quite commonly. Some of us even call ourselves anarcha-feminists. (I also know people who call themselves socialist/marxist feminists so I don't think it's even limited to the anarchist movement.) As others have mentioned above, the word "feminism" describes a huge range of different viewpoints, some "misguided" for want of a better word, some downright reactionary, but some combine the struggle against patriarchy with a solid class analysis.

Just putting that out there because I don't have time to write a proper response.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm not sure about elsewhere, but among UK anarchists feminism is used synonymously with women's liberation quite commonly. Some of us even call ourselves anarcha-feminists. (I also know people who call themselves socialist/marxist feminists so I don't think it's even limited to the anarchist movement.) As others have mentioned above, the word "feminism" describes a huge range of different viewpoints, some "misguided" for want of a better word, some downright reactionary, but some combine the struggle against patriarchy with a solid class analysis.

I think it is more or less the same elsewhere; in Brazil it is. "Marxists" that oppose feminism seem very rare atm, mostly being Stalinist anti-revisionists.

On a side note, where does the "a" in "anarcha-feminist" come from? Because in gendered languages it would be "anarco-feminista".

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Probably because -o denotes the male gender (usually) in Romance languages.

It's not as bad as womyn, but it comes from the same perspective.

Now, about Brazilian Marxist parties, which of them have accepted feminism? Because, as far as I know, it's not just the "anti-revisionists", but also the vanilla Marxists-Leninists (those who haven't formed social-democratic parties), Trotskyists (the League for the Fourth International) and "Trotskyists" (the USEC section) that reject feminism.

[motion denied]

To be fair, those "anti-rev Marxist-Leninists" are oh so hardcore that they're almost indistinguishable from NazBols. They not only oppose "feminism" but other "post-modern crap" such as homosexuality, drug and alcohol use, promiscuity, the decadent West and its decadent culture, etc. In short, they're trash. I've met some.

I'm not saying anyone here is like them, of course.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

To be fair, those "anti-rev Marxist-Leninists" are oh so hardcore that they're almost indistinguishable from NazBols. They not only oppose "feminism" but other "post-modern crap" such as homosexuality, drug and alcohol use, promiscuity, the decadent West and its decadent culture, etc. In short, they're trash. I've met some.

I'm not saying anyone here is like them, of course.

That sounds like the MR8, which I don't think was officially anti-revisionist. Although, yeah, can't see fans of Hoxha having much good to say about homosexuality.

The point is, though, that there are people who oppose feminism because they oppose women's liberation, and there are people who oppose feminism (in the strict sense, not in the loose sense of women's liberation) because they think women's issues are too important to be left to the liberal bourgeoisie. I remember a good article by the ICL, about Afghani feminists and how they cheered religious fundamentalism and the repression of women's rights. That's the difference between the two types of anti-feminism.

[Lily Briscoe]

Using your logic, my post can mean whatever you want it to mean. If you're suggesting that the feminist movement is too broad to be defined or judged, you're rendering it immune to criticism. It's designed to dismiss contrary arguments as stawmanning rather than any principled debate.
Right, because pointing out the fact that there isn't actually any basis in reality for talking about some monolithic 'feminist movement' in 2014 is so 'postmodern'.

This is an "exchange" that I have absolutely zero interest in continuing beyond this point, just so you know.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Right, because pointing out the fact that there isn't actually any basis in reality for talking about some monolithic 'feminist movement' in 2014 is so 'postmodern'
I wasn't aware that feminism did not have essential qualities that were common to all of its variants. Nor was I aware that these essential qualities made it monolithic.

This is an exchange that I have absolutely zero interest in continuing beyond this point, just so you know.

Then you won't mind if I have the last word.

[Luís Henrique]

I wasn't aware that feminism did not have essential qualities that were common to all of its variants.

"Feminism is the radical idea that women are human beings."

This seems to be common to all variants of feminism.

It seems also quite difficult to "oppose", except from the point of view of male supremacism.

Luís Henrique

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

"Feminism is the radical idea that women are human beings."

This seems to be common to all variants of feminism.
Oh, gee. I never thought of it like that. You're aware that reducing feminism to a single "pure" statement doesn't account for how the other variants were made possible, right? Even if we grant that you have described an essential quality of feminism, it is not the only one. How did feminism become to prone to petty-bourgeois vacillation and outright reaction at times if your statement actually fully encapsulates it?

It seems also quite difficult to "oppose", except from the point of view of male supremacism.

Luís Henrique
I think you might have forgotten the title of this thread.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Feminism is the radical idea that women are human beings."

And liberalism is opposition to established monarchical and religious authority. How can you oppose that?

In other words, I think most posters on this thread are not taking the matter seriously.

[Luís Henrique]

I think you might have forgotten the title of this thread.

Nah, this thread is about people who oppose feminism because of things like:

- feminism is lesbianism
- feminism is against gentlemanship
- feminism is going to make abortion mandatory
- feminism is an attempt to eradicate all males
- feminism has nothing to do with my achievements as a woman (which I attained completely alone and without any relation to society and the way it is structured)
- feminism is unnecessary because women have already achieved social equality with men
- feminism implies women reject their individual responsibilities
- feminism is against monogamy
- feminism is against stay-at-home moms
- feminism is about blaming males

etc.

Of course, all of these ideas rely on construing a "feminist movement" that is not just about equality between men and women.

But if feminism is merely that - the radical idea that women are human beings - then those people are opposing a strawman.


You're aware that reducing feminism to a single "pure" statement doesn't account for how the other variants were made possible, right? Even if we grant that you have described an essential quality of feminism, it is not the only one.

So what are the other qualities that are shared by all variants of feminism?


How did feminism become to prone to petty-bourgeois vacillation and outright reaction at times if your statement actually fully encapsulates it?

Gee, even proletarian class struggle is prone to petty-bourgeois vacillation and outright reaction, as we can clearly see by merely looking at the current state of our class' struggles at this moment.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

And liberalism is opposition to established monarchical and religious authority. How can you oppose that?

Liberalism is opposed to monarchical and religious authority?

How many British liberals oppose the British monarchy and its religious implications?

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

How many Afghani feminists in the RAWA opposed the Mujahedin and their refusal to treat women as human beings?

[Luís Henrique]

You revolutionary anti-feminists should probably try to post some of your reasonings on the womenagainstfeminism tumblr.

It would be interesting to see how you would be received there.

Because all the opposition to feminism that I can see there is firmly on the side of reaction. And I think this defines opposition to feminism quite well, too: antifeminists oppose women's liberation, and working class liberation, gay liberation, trans liberation, etc. Where are the progressive antifeminists?

Or perhaps you think that those people in the tumblr just need a little push to become engaged in the struggle for socialism?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

How many Afghani feminists in the RAWA opposed the Mujahedin and their refusal to treat women as human beings?

The RAWA are feminists?http://ideias.wikidot.com/local--files/memes/RAWAfeminism.png

Luís Henrique

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Well, yes, they define themselves as feminist and share key feminist positions etc.

And yes, I think most tumblr anti-feminists are reactionary filth. Probably all of them. I would say the same of most anti-liberals. And most who are opposed to anti-fascism. That doesn't mean liberalism or anti-fascism of the popular-front type are compatible with socialism.

Oh, and: http://www.rawa.org/rawa/2009/07/08/why-is-a-leading-feminist-organization-lending-its-name-to-support-escalation-in-afghanistano.html

[VivalaCuarta]

Of course fascists and reactionaries of all sorts, including reactionary women who take to the blogosphere, are against feminism.

But the feminists in Germany supported the Nazis, just like feminists in the U.S. support Democrats.

Not so long ago it was impossible to voice a Marxist class analysis of Occupy without a legion of its "Marxist" defenders pointing out that it was a very heterogeneous movement, how could one "write it off" as a middle class movement, etc. etc.

But for all its undeniable heterogeneousness, it offered no coherent program for the solution to the economic crisis other than that of its most reactionary, conservative, nationalist elements. Those who tailed after it were blinded by their opportunist appetites.

Likewise, feminism.

[Redistribute the Rep]

But the feminists in Germany supported the Nazis, just like feminists in the U.S. support Democrats.

... Except the Nazis undid many of the feminist gains of the Weimar Republic and publicly burned the books of prominent feminists.



Not so long ago it was impossible to voice a Marxist class analysis of Occupy without a legion of its "Marxist" defenders pointing out that it was a very heterogeneous movement, how could one "write it off" as a middle class movement, etc. etc.


No one is saying you can't criticize feminism or voice a class analysis. It's just that when this 'analysis' involves simplistically trying to discredit feminism by associating it with Nazis and Democrats... it's pretty weak. One may just as easily discredit socialism due to some socialists support for Stalin and others. And feminism is not comparable to Occupy because feminism isn't a "heterogeneous movement" it is quite literally thousands of movements.

[Luís Henrique]

But the feminists in Germany supported the Nazis,

Source, please...

Luís Henrique

[VivalaCuarta]

I would suggest reading "From Weimar to Hitler: Feminism and Fascism" in Women and Revolution No. 22 (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/w&r/WR_022_1981_81.pdf), Spring 1981, published by the Spartacist league when the SL was still a Trotskyist organization.

The article cites a number of historical studies and commentaries from contemporary feminist journals.

And for those who retroactively claim Clara Zetkin as a "feminist," it quotes her address to the Communist International:


There is only one movement; there is only one organization of women communists within the Communist Party, together with male communists. The tasks and goals of the Communists are our tasks, our goals. No autonomous organization, no doing your own thing which in any way lends itself to splitting the revolutionary forces and diverting them from their great goals of the conquest of political power by the proletariat and the construction of communist society.

[Chaos316]

I agree with you guys about feminism not truly fighting for women's rights, but what do you think about the argument that feminism should be renamed equalism or humanism.

Because this sounds a lot like it. Like we're using socialism as a substitute for it. I just want to know how it is not similar.