Sexism: can it disappear within capitalism?

[RedWorker]

Free yourself from any political bias and answer these questions:

Can sexism disappear within capitalism? Why and/or why not?

Does the economic power of men in capitalism slow down or halt the elimination of sexism?

How do you explain that there is progress eliminating sexism in capitalism?

If we make the conclusion that sexism can disappear in capitalism, is it still women's (in general) objective interest to struggle against capitalism, perhaps because it can speed up the elimination of sexism?

If sexism cannot disappear in capitalism then obviously women's (in general) objective interests are to struggle against capitalism, even if this is not the interest of an individual capitalist woman.

Are the conclusions of this debate the same in relation to homosexuals, transsexuals, etc. or not? What are the differences?

[ComradeAllende]

Can sexism disappear within capitalism? Why and/or why not?

I highly doubt it. "Ending sexism" would require a substantive discussion on the patriarchal system and the way it oppresses and benefits certain groups of people (like white heterosexual males or black trans women). There is, as many leftists have long argued, a substantial amount of sexism inherent in the capitalist system, which decides which activities are to be rewarded economically (financial speculation, wage labor, etc) and which are to be ignored (reproduction). We still can't even maintain a productive dialogue about race without the reactionary bourgeoisie throwing "model minorities" and the culpability of working class whites in our faces, let alone those disgusting racial stereotypes that do nothing but cloud judgement and promote bigotry (particularly against black youth). At least socialist movements offer some form of coherent discussion on sexism and the oppression of women (and some men) under patriarchal relations; capitalism avoids the conversation when it can and narrows the discussion to purely political (rather than economic) issues when it has to deal with the issue.[/QUOTE]


Does the economic power of men in capitalism slow down or halt the elimination of sexism?

I believe that it slows down the process of eliminating sexism, especially when the power (economic or otherwise) of men is perceived to be declining. This alienates the economic/politically vulnerable men (usually working class or lower-middle class) from the feminist cause. This is partially because their vulnerability stands at odds with the economic masculinity (security) that capitalism (particularly neoliberal capitalism) supports and because they feel that female progress is coming at the expense of traditional male gender roles.


How do you explain that there is progress eliminating sexism in capitalism?

In the same way that you describe racial progress in capitalism. In other words, its piecemeal and overly-focused on individual cases of bigotry rather than systemic roots. Chattel slavery was abolished, in part, because of the ethical and economic contradictions that it posed with capitalism ("free" industrial labor vs slave agricultural labor), yet other forms of servitude and economic dependence remain, such as the disparity between black and white household wealth and the protean anti-black prejudice that still exists in white communities. Capitalism profits off of sexism (and racism, and nationalism, etc) because it divides the working class into factions and impedes the growth of class consciousness and political action (whether revolutionary or reformist).


If we make the conclusion that sexism can disappear in capitalism, is it still women's (in general) objective interest to struggle against capitalism, perhaps because it can speed up the elimination of sexism?

Even if you could make that conclusion, substantive change would only be achieved at a snail's pace, condemning future generations of women to suffer under a repressive (albeit degenerating) patriarchal system. Historically, social justice movements only achieve great change when they make radical demands.


Are the conclusions of this debate the same in relation to homosexuals, transsexuals, etc. or not? What are the differences?

They are the same for the most part; however, when referring to genderqueer individuals (or whose identities are neither binary-specific nor static), they are doubly (or even triply) oppressed by sexism. In the case of trans women, for example, they face discrimination because of their identity as females as well as their nonconformist stance towards the traditional roles of their assigned gender, not to mention general ignorance when it comes to the realities of being transgender.

[Hatshepsut]

If we make the conclusion that sexism can disappear in capitalism, is it still women's (in general) objective interest to struggle against capitalism, perhaps because it can speed up the elimination of sexism?

Yes, because the system of perpetual and heritable title to land, money, and other material things, the cotter pin of capitalistic economic relations, incidentally underlies almost every other form of social injustice given that white men held most of these titles. For long time, only men could inherit in continental Europe although I don't think this was the case in non-Salic England. The passage of laws allowing women to own property, to divorce husbands, and to receive child support or state assistance has helped ameliorate sexism, which I don't see as intrinsically linked to capitalism per se (mainly because patriarchy is far older). So have laws against employment discrimination. Yet laws or changes in family customs are the only things that can operate against sexism in a capitalist system.

The creation of devalued categories of people is contrary to basic philosophy in modern socialism and communism. This is much stronger than merely taking a "neutral" stance toward it as capitalism does. Neutrality can evaporate quickly into a laissez-faire atmosphere once ways to profit from sexism and racism, through predatory lending for instance, evolve and money interests get in the game of seeking to maintain privilege. Although no socialist country has achieved perfect practice with respect to the fundamental human right to equality, all of them have written provisions for women and minority races in their constitutions, a thing the USA doesn't have and that countries like Norway have adopted only recently. Women will fare much better under a system where economic security is less dependent on personal connections.

[Rafiq]

Women can enjoy complete political and even economic equality in capitalism, which should be fought for, but it will never constitute sexual equality - or sexual emancipation.

[cyu]

Not sure what the point of asking the question is. Sexism: can it disappear within slavery? Sexism: can it disappear within Nazism? Sexism: can it disappear within a shopping mall?

[RedWorker]

Women can enjoy complete political and even economic equality in capitalism, which should be fought for, but it will never constitute sexual equality - or sexual emancipation.

Elaborate.

[cyu]

Don't know what Rafiq is referring to, but one might imagine a society with rich and poor, where both men and women are trapped in abusive relationships, because they can't afford to leave the relationship without losing the ability to survive. Poor parents might sell children of both genders into sex slavery.

[Rafiq]

Elaborate.

That is to say, formally laws can be enacted which make women "formally" equal, but this will not change the role of the female gender in capitalist society. Sexual emancipation, conversely, constitutes the emancipation of sexuality from capitalism. Even if women are equal in the economic sense, the structural role of the female gender will endure. A women, for example, can be a capitalist - but not AS a women.

What it means to be a women in capitalism can not, and will not ever change within the confines of capitalism - not even with any kind of political correctness. Actually, what we should expect (in the absence of a Left) for the future is the kind of disgusting, slimy Silicon Valley politically correct sexism, wherein all of the cheap jokes, impassioned outbursts of chauvinism, etc. no longer exist, but sexism is justified in terms of caste (I.e. the logic of caste is a Fascist kind - that one should "do their duty" for the organic whole regardless of the essential ramifications).

Remember the greatest expression of racism is not in the ignorance of the common person. It is expressed through intellectuals like Richard Lynn, Arthur Jenson, Charles Murray, etc. - the "reasoned" racism. Likewise, sexism will live on through a kind of logic best encapsulated by scum like Steven Pinker - it will be "politically correct" but implying reactionary political constellations.