Anarcha-Feminism and Marxist Feminism?

[Jacky Hearts]

Wasn't sure whether to post this here or in theory or in learning, so I just guessed.

So I've come across multiple people describe themselves as an Anarcha-Feminist (which I admit sounds pretty damn edgy). My curiosity was, what does that actually mean? As far as my reading of prominent thinkers people associate with this idea (Emma Goldman for example) and when I have asked people about it, it doesn't sound at all different to conventional Anarchism. The same applies to Marxist Feminism which I have only read about/heard mentioned to a much lesser extent, but again seems to just apply the ideologies theory to gender inequality, which I thought was just logic.

Is there a difference which I am unaware of?

[Zoop]

Anarcho-feminism is an intrinsic characteristic of anarchism. Seen as though patriarchy is inherently hierarchical, anarchists reject it, and out of this springs anarcho-feminism. It is an anti-authoritarian, anti-capitalist, anti-oppression way of addressing gender issues- and addressing other issues with a radical critique of patriarchy.

You'll notice then, that anarcho-feminism differs greatly from the types of feminism peddled by liberals.

This basically covers it:

mGfEcNO6K48
Also be warned: that video contains clips from the asinine, liberal scumbag "theamazingatheist"

Don't say I didn't warn you.

[G4b3n]

All anarchists are anarcha-feminists. If they choose to identify with that label it probably just means that they as an individual put extra emphasis on feminist politics and women's struggles. Same goes for Marxists. If a radical is not a feminist, then they are probably ignorant but if they are not ignorant of proper radical analysis then they are a brocialist piece of shit, no other way to put it.

Also, what is edgy about anarcha-feminism? I don't get it.

[mushroompizza]

I guess you can be an anarchist or a Marxist and not be a feminist, your stupid but you can do it. I guess Anarchist/Marxist Feminists like Feminism and Anarchism/Marxism.

[Comrade Jacob]

To be a Marxist or an Anarchist you are automatically a feminist imo. Consciously or not.

[Jacky Hearts]

So general consensus is that the term 'Anarcha'-Feminism and Marxist-Feminism are just labels people use to highlight and put emphasis on the problems of sexual inequality today? That's what I thought. Just checking because I didn't want to seem like a dumb-ass.

[#FF0000]

To be a Marxist or an Anarchist you are automatically a feminist imo. Consciously or not.

Yeah I don't think so. I think that if one is an anarchist or a Marxist and isn't feminist, they're inconsistent and missing a huge part of the larger picture, but I think it's possible to be an anarchist or Marxist and be completely ignorant of issues relating to women's struggle in capitalism.

I think it's important to be conscious of this because it's real easy, otherwise, to give oneself a pass on poor and divisive behavior just because "well, I'm a Marxist so I'm a feminist by default".

[#FF0000]

So general consensus is that the term 'Anarcha'-Feminism and Marxist-Feminism are just labels people use to highlight and put emphasis on the problems of sexual inequality today? That's what I thought. Just checking because I didn't want to seem like a dumb-ass.

Well, no. I don't know about anarcha-feminism (I don't know any actual scholars or writers who call themselves anarcha-feminists -- only of people to whom the label's been applied after they were already dead), but Marxist Feminism is it's own distinct branch of feminism, which investigates how women are oppressed in capitalism from a marxist perspective.

If you want to look into Marxist Feminism, one contemporary writer who's very well-regarded right now is Silvia Frederici, who wrote a book called Caliban and the Witch, where she argues that "primitive accumulation" wasn't just a prerequisite for capitalism as Marx posited, but a process that repeats over and over in a capitalist society, and then ties this to unpaid "reproductive" labor done typically by women, e.g. housework.

[Jacky Hearts]

Yeah I don't think so. I think that if one is an anarchist or a Marxist and isn't feminist, they're inconsistent and missing a huge part of the larger picture, but I think it's possible to be an anarchist or Marxist and be completely ignorant of issues relating to women's struggle in capitalism.

I think it's important to be conscious of this because it's real easy, otherwise, to give oneself a pass on poor and divisive behavior just because "well, I'm a Marxist so I'm a feminist by default".

But isn't feminism, if you don't narrow the branch of feminsim, simply reducable to a vague belief that the subjugation/oppression of women is wrong; because there's so many sub-branches of Feminism that this is the only thing they have in common. So don't you think, even if you're ignorant of the issues women face, still believing that their shouldn't be sexual oppression constitutes being inherently feminist, even if you're unaware of the vast array of problems which still exist today?

[#FF0000]

But isn't feminism, if you don't narrow the branch of feminsim, simply reducable to a vague belief that the subjugation/oppression of women is wrong; because there's so many sub-branches of Feminism that this is the only thing they have in common. So don't you think, even if you're ignorant of the issues women face, still believing that their shouldn't be sexual oppression constitutes being inherently feminist, even if you're unaware of the vast array of problems which still exist today?

I don't think so, because even ardent anti-feminists will say "I don't believe women should be oppressed -- I just think they belong in the home and subservient to their husband".

[Jacky Hearts]

I don't think so, because even ardent anti-feminists will say "I don't believe women should be oppressed -- I just think they belong in the home and subservient to their husband".

Then how else could feminism be described, considering that it's a hugely divisive ideology in which it's various branches have literally nothing else in common?

[Sewer Socialist]

This is why the most common definition of feminism is not a useful one: "the belief that men and women should be equal", which is something accepted by anti-feminists, and countered by their assertion that women already are equal to men. Further, beliefs and ideas are nothing without action and organization.

I would say that feminism is the movement to destroy patriarchy and sexual oppression, which necessitates the identification of such things.

[Jacky Hearts]

This is why the most common definition of feminism is not a useful one: "the belief that men and women should be equal", which is something accepted by anti-feminists, and countered by their assertion that women already are equal to men. Further, beliefs and ideas are nothing without action and organization.

I would say that feminism is the movement to destroy patriarchy and sexual oppression, which necessitates the identification of such things.

Characterising feminism as a movement makes more sense, I agree. Especially as particular branches of Radical Feminism criticise the idea of sexual equality altogether and advocate other solutions to patriarchy (which in their view is a result of the fundamental psychological need of men to develop a pervasive power to subjegate women), such as living in seperate communities or, in some cases (mainly Eco-Feminists), the establishment of a matriarchy.

[Quail]

If you want to look into Marxist Feminism, one contemporary writer who's very well-regarded right now is Silvia Frederici, who wrote a book called Caliban and the Witch, where she argues that "primitive accumulation" wasn't just a prerequisite for capitalism as Marx posited, but a process that repeats over and over in a capitalist society, and then ties this to unpaid "reproductive" labor done typically by women, e.g. housework.

She's written some pretty good essays too, if like me you prefer to read in bitesize chunks :)

[PhoenixAsh]

The difference is quite substantial. Marxist feminism sees patriarchy as an exponent of material reality and as part of the class struggle/class society. And explains patriarchy female an economic materialist perspective

Anarcho feminism sees patriarchy primarily as a hierarchical social structure seperate from capitalism.

Traditionally Marxism rejects feminism as a separate struggle from the class struggle. That changed a bit in recent decades. But there are maby Marxists who as an extent view feminism as either an inherent part of class struggle or as subordinate to it. So yes...you can be a Marxist and not a feminist.

Anarchism is a whole different creature...and yes...The are most definately anarchist movements which reject feminism.

[PhoenixAsh]

Sexism also features in the writing of Marx/Engels. Factory work is for example described as not a place for women. Early Marxist writings are also very shaky on the subject sometimes....there are enough marxist writers that are thoroughly sexist.

The same goes for Anarchy. And several years ago there were several debates about sexism within the Anarchist movements and the perpetuation of gender roles.

Not very long ago we had to deal with several ML parties covering up rape within their ranks.

Being one thing doesn't automatically make you the other

[Quail]

Anarcho feminism sees patriarchy primarily as a hierarchical social structure seperate from capitalism.

I'm not sure that's true. Most of the anarchist feminists I know have considered the ways in which capitalism and patriarchy interact. They just don't reduce patriarchy entirely to economics, as some marxists tend to do.

[PhoenixAsh]

There is definitely interaction but traditionally it is seen as a structure that is not intrinsically linked with capitalism and theoretically could continue after capitalism. ...although there are several different concepts so some might view it as intrinsically linked.

[Jacky Hearts]

Being one thing doesn't automatically make you the other

But wouldn't you argue that if you take both ideologies to their logical conclusion then it kind of does. If it doesn't then it's the individual being inconsistent in their views.


I'm not sure that's true. Most of the anarchist feminists I know have considered the ways in which capitalism and patriarchy interact. They just don't reduce patriarchy entirely to economics, as some marxists tend to do.

Hah, my first politics teacher used to tell us that, if you don't know what Marxists think about a particular issue, just assume they blame it on economics.

[#FF0000]

There is definitely interaction but traditionally it is seen as a structure that is not intrinsically linked with capitalism and theoretically could continue after capitalism. ...although there are several different concepts so some might view it as intrinsically linked.

I don't think any feminists, including marxist feminists, see sexism/patriarchy as a structure that is intrinsically linked to capitalism, though. Patriarchal structures have existed since the agricultural revolution. All that's changed so far is how patriarchy fits itself into each new mode of production.


But wouldn't you argue that if you take both ideologies to their logical conclusion then it kind of does. If it doesn't then it's the individual being inconsistent in their views.

I don't mean to speak for Quail, but I'd agree that bringing things to their logical conclusions leads one to a feminist perspective, but one can certainly be an inconsistent marxist or anarchist.

[Sewer Socialist]

Yes, most Marxists agree with the origins of patriarchy as outlined in Origin of the Family by Engels, which links the origins to class society and private property, not simply capitalism, which is a specific evolution of those two. The patriarchy does take different forms throughout the different modes of production, alongside the particular form of the family unit, but Marxists mostly agree that has always been some form of patriarchy in all class societies.

To answer the original question, I don't really know; there's a significant amount of overlap, and I have trouble differentiating the two myself; part of the issue, I think, is that anarchists will vary quite a bit on how much they agree with Marxism, and I get the impression that anarcha-feminism is a broader term than Marxist Feminist. I'm not sure where, if at all, a Marxist feminist position would be generally rejected by anarcha-feminists.

[human strike]

Anarcha-feminism and Marxist feminism arise as terms because those movements have traditionally neglected women's liberation. Because I'm lazy I'm going to suggest some essays and articles that help us understand the origins of these terms, but you can ask me questions if you're feeling too lazy to read them:

Heidi Hartmann, The Unhappy Marriage Of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union (http://faculty.ycp.edu/~dweiss/phl380_feminist_thought/hartmann%20unhappy%20marriage.pdf)
Maxine Molyneux, No God, No Boss, No Husband: Anarchist Feminism in Nineteenth-Century Argentina (http://anarchiwum.bzzz.net/yak/no-god-no-boss1.pdf)

In discussions on the history of Anarcha-feminism people often all about Mujeres Libres, a group active during the Spanish Revolution of 1936. Interestingly though the Mujeres Libres rejected the feminist label as they saw feminism as a middle class movement concerned only with the interests of middle class women. As working class women Mujeres Libres saw their movement as distinctly different - they saw themselves as anarchists but anarchists that needed to organise separately from men to take on their own specific liberation as women. Martha Acklesberg, who is probably the best point of call for any reading on the history of feminism/women's liberation and anarchism, has written some good stuff on that.