Are all communists feminists?

[Scortwych131]

Ok so recently I've been thinking about this question. I personally class myself as a feminist and a communist and I know that definition of communism is for a classless society, that everyone is equal and all property is owned by the state; but if we look at feminists, they strive for social equality which is also granted through communism, hence the 'classless society'. But there are also feminists that are right-wing as well as left.

What opinions have you guys got on this? :)

[Blake's Baby]

Feminism doesn't address the issue of class inequality. If class is still assumed to exist, then what feminism is demanding is that working class women be regarded as equal to working class men, and bourgeois women be regarded as equal to bourgeois men. The fact that working class women will not then be equal to bourgeois women doesn't matter.

Communism, by destroying class society, would in my view do more to end inequality than any other social movement.

[Redistribute the Rep]

A consistent communist is. Women are the majority of the working class and will be needed for a successful revolution to occur.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

"feminism" is not a single, unified, consistent set of theory. Some feminist thought is in line with Communist thought, particularly more revolutionary feminists. This does not mean bourgeois feminists, TERFs and others are supported by Communists.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Feminism doesn't address the issue of class inequality.
Bourgeois liberal feminism isn't the only form of feminism, though.

[LionofTepelenë]

I don't call myself a feminist, but I do want solidarity for women in actual conditions of misogyny and sexism whether in the 1st or 3rd world. But feminism is a very broad ideology like communism, certain varieties cross lines.

[Rafiq]

Note: I am keen here on emphasizing the implications here for men, not because there are none for women, but because the problem with 'male-feminism' and the inability to properly reconcile feminism with Communism is owed, quite obviously, to this fundamental problem of men being unable to comprehend the implications of feminism frankly and without the opportunism and ingenuity of so-called 'allies'.

Each social order, by its own inner logic, entails a sexual order of things with it. This is both for the reproduction of this social order physically, as well as constituting the mode of life for the men and women which constitute it as it pertains to the very social expression of sexuality - sexuality which like every other aspect of life, expresses and is synonymous with the social relations of power in general.

To put it quite simply, in capitalist society sexual relations manifest themselves at every level in the constitution of distinct sexual subjects. Each masculine subject contains within it the femininity it distinguishes itself from, and vice versa.

Here it is important to move outside and beyond conventional and cliche'd notions that sexual relations are reducible to sexual reproduction as such. The basis of capitalist relations themselves, as they (seemingly only) manifest at the level of the non-sexual, are not incidental to some hidden prerogative to reproduce the conditions of society. Instead, the actual act of sexual reproduction can be said to at least today be incidental to prevailing sexual relations in general.

Keep in mind here, I am being careful in what I say. Sexual relations themselves are completely posited along the archetypal bourgeois family, and ultimately organized as the mode that which human life in capitalist society is reproduced, yes. But it is not as though sexual relations are like a 'superstructure' as such. Instead, sexual relations exist IN CONGRUENCE, that is, as synonymous with social relations in general, as embedded in them.

We say that the proletarian is the least common denominator. But it is women, and the suffering of women which is the least common denominator of the very existence of the proletarian. Keep in mind, again, one must conceive this at the level of a true abstraction. The point is not that as is conventionally thought, women workers of color ought to be at the vanguard of the struggle. The point is that even as it concerns male proletarians themselves, their suffering, their discontent is of a sexual character too: The humiliation and degradation of working people, male working people, is owed to their inability to be 'real men' as such, this humiliation possesses a sexual character insofar as they are 'lesser men' than the bourgeois man, they are unable to achieve manhood as such.

Let us allot our attention to the seeming paradox of the 'manly' worker against the effeminate rich man, and furthermore, the propensity for the rich to more and more be 'real men' insofar as they mimic the 'vulgarity' of the poor. We relate this back to the postmodern culture of transgressions that which the ruling classes will also listen to the music of the ghettos, etc. - in all its falseness. This would require an entire new topic of its own - but perhaps I will elaborate upon it another time.

What makes the women-proletarian, the prostitute even, the least common denominator of the universal suffering of the proletarian, is that this kind of suffering is at its most raw and its most bear: Without the layer of tension that which the bourgeois-masculinity of the worker struggles with the condition of the worker. The implications of this are far different from what others may think. The solution is not to insist upon this femininity, but on the contrary, to recognize that the key to a new proletarian masculinity (one that is contingent, i.e. eventually poised to wither away as all gender will) lies in the sexual emancipation of not simply women as such - but women from femininity itself. Women's sexual emancipation is emancipation from bourgeois femininity, not its affirmation. The celebration of bourgeois-femininity is the celebration of sexual slavery and servility towards the bourgeois man. True sexually revolutionary acts today are no longer those of juvenile transgressions, but on the contrary those of desexualization: Ruining the magic of hypersexualization so that it is not simply a matter of men suppressing their desire for women (which is always conformed to a culture of rape), but even worse, it is the destruction of this desire, it is the ruining of it. Nothing is more humiliating for the bourgeois man than this, for him to be unable to fulfill his desire in a politicized way*, and here lies the key for a new proletarian sexual identity, one that contrary to what the hysterical Left demands of them, is not the embrace of the timidness, weakness, servility and submission of bourgeois-femininity but strength, vitality, bravery, etc. - all things we would otherwise assume to be exclusive to males .The emancipation of women - emancipation of women from bourgeois-femininity is the affirmation of these for women.

*A good example of this ruining in a politicized way is the phenomena of feminism itself. Bourgeois masculinity is threatened and virtually destroyed by the culture that which politicizes sexual predation as harassment. Whether the anti-feminist likes it or not, the 'magic' of 'picking up girls' IS RUINED, simply because it is not assumed to be a natural given but something that is controversial or questionable. This is what infuriates them - they can't 'pick up girls' without looking fucking stupid, without looking like the rabid predators engaging in a ritual that they are. It's ruined because the act of 'picking up women' is no longer allowed to be a spontaneous behavior, but something which's fakeness is exposed, something they are doing just to fulfill a certain ethical duty. This is why they now have to justify themselves: "Well, if I see an 'attractive' (this passive aggressive wording) woman, there's nothing wrong with me approaching her" and so on. This is both an acheivment and a problem of bourgeois-feminism.

The first problem: Because at the onset of these men being forced to politicize or question their sexual behavior, their masculinity is destroyed (And this negation is not the problem, but what comes in its place): This makes them effeminate, female-sexual subjects as it concerns the symbolic order, but ones who still posses the power of the master - the signifier - they simply are revoked from the responsibility of assuming it directly, as it was with the old aristocrats - they function the same as the oppressor-sex, the difference is that they do not have to directly assume responsibility for it as subjects, it is something granted to them by merit of possessing certain extra qualities (money, or even looking a certain way sometimes). Yes, as they say, so-called 'manhood' is dead, but a new one has emerged. The problem with this is simple: We see the rise of a new, more rabid and disgusting male sexual identity which is aristocratic, i.e. effeminate. People have already spoken about it in the media. This is the kind of sexual identity that reigns today among the bourgeoisie, and among the tech-aristocrats in Silicon Valley.

The second problem: Because bourgeois-femininity itself remains unchallenged, it is still possible for these kinds of rules to be transgressed. In other words, while we should not oppose this culture as such (but elaborate it), in capitalist society as it becomes mainstream the result is that a new male sexuality arises which affirms the subservience of women within the contours of these rules which is still yet a relationship of oppression - but transgressed and traversed by the dynamic male sexuality which transforms these accepted rituals (i.e. not harassing women) into obstacles to traverse, into formalities wherein the symbolic sexual order remains insofar as they abide by commonly accepted standards and rules. The new politically correct male subject, so long as he abides by the formal rules (Which we do not oppose - we do not oppose formal democracy either - but these are not enough is the point) of sexual engagement, as achieved by women, is still the same male subject, only this time more passive aggressive and more dishonest. Rape culture persists because the 'magic' of sexuality remains under such formalities, the symbolic order, that is, wherein man's sexual domination of women is still operating even abiding fully within the framework of such formalities. Take the example of money: Women's sexuality is still posited upon the lines that it can be bought, which is why all such formalities be damned upon the introduction of money: Money transgresses all formal bounds,

The point is simple: The new aristocratic masculinity is the true enemy today, the new proletarian sexuality is subsequently a return to love as the unifier between the two sexual subjects, but an unconditional love, so all-encompassing that it escapes the very bounds of bourgeois-sexuality as a whole, the kind that which cannot be contained or tamed by it, that which the liberation of women is no longer a charity - as opposed to this revival of new kinds of arranged sexual bonds, ones that derive from the mutual egoist-hedonism of subjects, with all the worldly considerations it entails, and so on (which is THE SEXUALITY OF THE 21st CENTURY, fundamentally neo-feudal and anti-democratic). The subjugation of women ought to instill disgust in the Communist man sexually as well as spiritually, not becasue he is a kind man, but because it affirms the subjugation of the proletarian in general to the ruling class. The humiliation and degradation of women, by the new Communist man, ought to make him feel sick to his stomach, because it affirms his own humiliation and degradation, his own potential to be a 'b itch' himself. Again, this freedom is not free - it is sustained by strength and self-discipline.

For Communist men, what that means in practical terms in our society, is not to disrespect the formal rules of sexual engagement - the point is to avoid it inevitably creating the basis of a new passive aggressive aristocratic-masculinity by seeing them as an obstacle to sexual desire which one must debate, ration, with all the fake and pathetic attempts at charm, etc.. What that means is simple: One no longer can even have the mentality in the first place of 'picking up women' that which they traverse formal rules which act as an obstacle to, one can in their very sexual expression actually, god forbid, be drawn to women who they can genuinely relate to as equal subjects, who will no more go out of their way to seek them out than they would go out of their way to seek out friends. And of course, no one is laying out rules - this is purely theoretical and should get the lot of you simply to think about your own stupid rituals. By all means, I am the last person to care about what the lot of you choose to do as such a private manner, the point is that even as you do it, go out to 'pick up girls', you are basically a clown. Again, for fuck's sake, it doesn't mean I claim one cannot seek out others, keep in mind the phrase 'pick up girls', which is predatory, quite different from simply having fun with others.

Which also destroys the basis of righteous sexuality in the first place on the part of men. The abdication of the righteous insistence upon sexual desire is synonymous with the abdication of bourgeois-hedonism AS A WHOLE, the egoist-hedonism which is totally fake, and so on. Male entitlement to women's sexuality is an extension of bourgeois hedonism in general, of their entitlement to 'be happy' and to seek pleasure in general, and so on as consumer-egoist subjects. Without abdicating upon this fake hedonism, 'male-feminism' will always be fake and passive aggressive, insofar as sexual pleasure remains solely possible within the confines of the ruling sexual symbolic order. This is why one can sympathize with the so-called 'socialist puritanism' of the Bolsheviks today, which might I add was quite synonymous with a culture of 'promiscuity' too, a true sexual freedom which was not hypersexualized or sexually obsessive - if one 'can't get any', that is not an abomination to life itself and shouldn't bother anyone at all - one should have the mentality that if they were totally rendered sexually inactive, they could still be fully constituted ethical subjects, unleashing their highest creative power, fully spiritually constituted, and so on. Real love exceeds far beyond the confines of meager and base physical pleasure.

So the Communist feminism can be powerful in that it reveals and totally exposes, shames the sexual desire of the bourgeois-masculine subject by insisting on the partisan nature of sexuality in general as not simply a given of ones desire for base physical pleasure, but that which perpetuates the existing order of things, and so on. Women have this power - and can be a very empowering thing - to utterly humiliate men by exposing the falsity of their 'natural urges' as totally staged and acted behaviors. The key to a new feminism is a critique of bourgeois-hedonist egoism synonymous (i.e. creating) with a revived proletarian masculinity that berates the spinelessness and impotence of the aristocratic-masculinity of our existing order.

Like the Spartan masculinity (Sparta, wherein there existed degrees of sexual egalitarianism) against the more 'effeminate' masculinity of the Athenians which coincided with the most base oppression of women - that is the character of a proletarian masculinity that is no longer sexually oppressive.

[#FF0000]

...and I know that definition of communism is for a classless society, that everyone is equal and all property is owned by the state

That isn't quite it -- communism is a classless and stateless society.

But yeah, I think it's fair to say that communists ought to be feminists, in that they work against the unfair treatment of women.

[Rafiq]

For a more quick summarization:

Manhood in our society is no longer a given, which is an achievement of feminism. The problem is that emerging kinds of sexual domination reaffirm women's oppression not as it was before, where even though we can now question masculinity, it reemerges, because insofar as one has a penis, money, etc .one has access to act as a 'man'. And yet a proper distance is created between the subject and their manhood, which makes their manhood aristocratic and effeminate because they have to actively justify it rather than assume it as it was before. Anti-feminists act like free rational agents who happen to be men, by have no direct connection to their purported manhood. Even those men who try and act tough and shit - well, they are quite aware that it's all an act and righteously insist upon their act. Before, people - while still having to actively act as men, were unaware it was an act they righteously insisted upon. Thats' why MRA's are so fucking disgusting - they know it's an act, and insist upon it.

The key to women's sexual emancipation is therefore confronting this archetypal aristocratic male subjecting and making them own up to, as subjects, their own identities - accentuating and emphasizing this 'act' as something they are directly responsible for, so that they are shamed and humiliated, no longer able to keep up the distance they have with it, where this distance is closed and they become fully responsible for it - the fedora wearing manly men.

The result of the abdication of this 'act', far from being a fall back on bourgeois-femininity, is synonymous with the rise of a new Communist sexual identity which is responsible for itself, which does not take a distance whatsoever, which is synonymous with the subject themselves, and therefore, resembles 'masculinity' as it was before, but is at the same time the destruction of bourgeois-masculinity. A new, 'scary' kind of, almost 'asexuality', which is 'machine' like, the embracing of the contingency of sexuality in general by no longer (perpetually) identifying with it at all, whether from a distance or in an assumed way. The Bolsheviks got quite close to this. So woe upon those pseudo-feminists who wnat to talk about the 'militarism' of the EFF, or the 'masculinity' of the Bolsheviks, because they don't understand: What we are witnessing here is the true emancipation from sexual difference in general, wherein ones sexuality was totally contingent, just a kind of incidental aspect of their existence which is conceived as a potential obstacle to their ultimate goal of the overthrow of the existing order. It is incidental that our heroes were men, lurking behind their 'manhood' was something irreducible to it.

The logic is that this is only a new 'manhood' insofar as it must distinguish itself from bourgeois masculinity. What it represents is the destruction of sexual difference and the destruction of manhood, as the proletariat is the class which represents the destruction of class difference and therefore class.

The message of psychoanalysis shouldn't be that behind everything, "it's just sex". The point is the opposite. Behind sexuality itself, there is a symbolic order irreducible to it.

[Blake's Baby]

Bourgeois liberal feminism isn't the only form of feminism, though.

That's not the point. 'Feminism' as a broad category doesn't address class issues. In so far as there is a 'revolutionary feminism' it does, but in that case, I'd see class struggle as being more important. The working class is infinitely varied but unified by exploitation; a radical restructuring of society that ends the unequal treatment of women but doesn't end class exploitation is, in the end I'd argue, no use to women.

[#FF0000]

I don't think many feminists would disagree with that, beyond "class struggle being more important". The struggle of women is pretty integral to the class struggle, I'd say, and ignoring the particulars of women's struggle is just going to hamstring an organizer.

[Blake's Baby]

Its axiomatic that class struggle and class exploitation are what unite the working class. 'Women' as a social category are not a revolutionary subject. Queen Elizabeth and Oprah Winnfrey will not be joining the rest of us on the barricades.

That's why class struggle is more important than formal equality under capitalism.

The majority of women are members of the working class. Establishing equality without ending class society will merely result in the majority of women being oppressed slightly differently.

[Quail]

I would argue that class struggle and the struggle against sexism are pretty inextricably linked. Fighting against sexism often means fighting against capitalism and vice-versa.

[Blake's Baby]

I agree; I don't think there's a way to achieve sexual equality inside capitalism, and I don't think any kind of sexually-discriminatory society can be called 'socialism'.

[Rich Piana]

Every single discussion over this question can be answered with one word: intersectionality

It's something that the vast majority of self-identifying feminists, at least here in the UK, are pretty big on. Although to my understanding the middle class identity politics style of feminism is absolutely rampant in the US.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Always remember one of the favourite buzzwords of some sociologists: intersectionality.

In plain terms, what Quail said. Class struggle, if it is to be successful, will have to intersect with a struggle against sexism, and vice-versa. Patriarchal power structures and sexist ideology are pretty damn lucrative for capitalists, so any consistent challenging of one will challenge the other.

Yes, unions have exhibited patriarchal ideology in the past, but then they've also exhibited racism and other reactionary ideologies. This is directly related to such unions limiting themselves to direction by bureaucratic leaders "negotiating" with capitalists and thus being integrated as an element of the "modern" capitalist system. Insofar as they and their activities are limited to the current system, they will also be limited in their ability to challenge the ideology it perpetuates.

[newhair]

Feminist have a hard way to do. It related to the country's powerful, sound legal.

[logfish111]

Dividing people on gender rather than class is pretty much useless in terms of a class struggle, it's the same with race, nationality etc. That is probably why it is perpetuated by the mainstream media so much, a divided working class is not a threat to capitalism.

[Armchair Partisan]

Feminist have a hard way to do. It related to the country's powerful, sound legal.

I do not understand, can you reword or explain? There might be a language barrier at work here, but yeah.


Dividing people on gender rather than class is pretty much useless in terms of a class struggle, it's the same with race, nationality etc. That is probably why it is perpetuated by the mainstream media so much, a divided working class is not a threat to capitalism.

Except that feminism doesn't "divide people on gender", except for the reactionary manosphere choosing to self-segregate in response. And you don't seriously say feminism is perpetuated by the mainstream media?

As a matter of fact, while it's possible to do feminism wrong (and unfortunately, sometimes people do feminism wrong) incorporating feminism into Marxism is absolutely necessary to unite the working class and to ensure sexism doesn't have to be dealt with after the revolution.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

That's not the point. 'Feminism' as a broad category doesn't address class issues. In so far as there is a 'revolutionary feminism' it does, but in that case, I'd see class struggle as being more important.
Not more important, but certainly women's liberation is meaningless if it doesn't mean the liberation of working class women, who are doubly oppressed as women and as workers.

[Burzhuin]

I think no communists would argue that Women must have the same political rights and for the same labor get equal to men compensation. But it can be realized in socialism as it was in USSR.

[Rudolf]

I think no communists would argue that Women must have the same political rights and for the same labor get equal to men compensation. But it can be realized in socialism as it was in USSR.


lol, i suppose if neither women or men are allowed to have an abortion there's still equal political rights :rolleyes:

[Burzhuin]

lol, i suppose if neither women or men are allowed to have an abortion there's still equal political rights :rolleyes:
Yea, and giving birth to a child too :laugh:

[Rudolf]

Yea, and giving birth to a child too :laugh:


You're aware i'm alluding to the criminalisation of abortion in '36, right?

[Chance]

It depends, if you mean the feminists who spew nothing but hate speech about anyone who is a man, and twice the amount if they are white and straight, I would say absolutely not. But if you mean the first and second wave feminists, I'd say that most communists identify as that. The emancipation of the working class includes the emancipation of working class women as well.

[Armchair Partisan]

For that matter, Burzhuin, I am curious what you think about Article 121, introduced by Stalin to the Soviet constitution in 1933? Do you also think it is the model to be followed in LGBT issues?

[Burzhuin]

For that matter, Burzhuin, I am curious what you think about Article 121, introduced by Stalin to the Soviet constitution in 1933? Do you also think it is the model to be followed in LGBT issues?
Do you mean this:

ARTICLE 122. Women in the U.S.S.R. are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life. The possibility of exercising these rights is ensured to women by granting them an equal right with men to work, payment for work, rest and leisure, social insurance and education, and by state protection of the interests of mother and child, prematernity and maternity leave with full pay, and the provision of a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens.

[Armchair Partisan]

Do you mean this:

No, I do not. I mean Article 121. This. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_history_in_Russia#LGBT_history_under_Stalin:_ 1933.E2.80.931953)

But we can talk about two issues at once, so let's do that. Did women have the right to get an abortion or not? Or are you saying that since men cannot get abortions, gender equality mandates that women shouldn't be able to get them either?

[Burzhuin]

Yes, abortion was prohibited, except for medical conditions. I know the reason behind it. It is not a secret.

[Armchair Partisan]

I know the reason behind it. It is not a secret.

If it is not a secret, can you tell me what the reason is? Do you think this policy is a good idea to introduce in a future socialist society?

[Comrade #138672]

Yes, abortion was prohibited, except for medical conditions. I know the reason behind it. It is not a secret.And once again you are being unclear about your own position on the matter, even though it was explicitly asked for.

[Burzhuin]

If it is not a secret, can you tell me what the reason is? Do you think this policy is a good idea to introduce in a future socialist society?

The reason was to increase population. And I DO NOT support abortion prohibition.

[Burzhuin]

And once again you are being unclear about your own position on the matter, even though it was explicitly asked for.
Read my previous message.

[Comrade #138672]

The reason was to increase population.I think we all know that, but that means they had to take away women's rights. Good to hear you oppose that though. I was starting to get worried.

[Armchair Partisan]

The reason was to increase population. And I DO NOT support abortion prohibition.

I am glad to hear that. Now we can get back to the original problem: you said that gender equality was realized in the USSR, yet women had no right to the autonomy of their own bodies for the nationalistic reason of "increasing the country's population". Do you not see a contradiction in here?

[Burzhuin]

I am glad to hear that. Now we can get back to the original problem: you said that gender equality was realized in the USSR, yet women had no right to the autonomy of their own bodies for the nationalistic reason of "increasing the country's population". Do you not see a contradiction in here?

I never was interested in this particular topic. But I know that abortion were not prohibited when I was in school and later on. I am in my late 50-s so do the math. When abortion prohibition was revoked I have no idea.

[Rudolf]

I never was interested in this particular topic. That's a bit concerning considering this topic is of massive importance to our class.




When abortion prohibition was revoked I have no idea.

In the 50s iirc.

[Recuperation]

An interesting question would be, are all feminists communists? That is to say can one argue in good faith for the liberation of women without also attacking the current mode of production? Lets be clear here, the liberation of women is not the same thing as a gradual improvement in the present living condition of women, just as liberation from the wage system is not the same thing as a gradual improvement in the condition of workers in the wage system.

Obviously a great many feminists if not most attempt to do one without the other, but do we find it convincing in any way?

[#FF0000]

Dividing people on gender rather than class is pretty much useless in terms of a class struggle, it's the same with race, nationality etc. That is probably why it is perpetuated by the mainstream media so much, a divided working class is not a threat to capitalism.

Nah I don't think one can be a very effective organizer without acknowledging that workers of different genders and colors get treated differently, and thus would have some different concerns than white male workers. Of course, pretty much anything that improves the lot of workers in general would improve the lot of women in particular, but ignoring the particularities of gender makes it harder to organize for those gains in the first place.

[logfish111]

Except that feminism doesn't "divide people on gender", except for the reactionary manosphere choosing to self-segregate in response.
The modern feminist movement quite obviously does do this. The mainstream discourse is to portray all men as privileged and all women as oppressed, which is rather insulting to all men suffering under the capitalist system. Say they achieve equality with men, what then? They are still oppressed, just in a different way. They need to get their priorities straight.

Clearly I am generalising here. Not all feminists act this way but you have to admit that these are the only ideas you hear from within the mainstream feminist movement in 2016.


And you don't seriously say feminism is perpetuated by the mainstream media?

The mainstream media have definitely helped mould this division as the dominant discourse within feminism, blaming men in general for the woes of women, rather than the ruling classes. Because they are the ruling class and it benefits them greatly to divert blame.

[Quail]

The modern feminist movement quite obviously does do this. The mainstream discourse is to portray all men as privileged and all women as oppressed, which is rather insulting to all men suffering under the capitalist system. Say they achieve equality with men, what then? They are still oppressed, just in a different way. They need to get their priorities straight.

Clearly I am generalising here. Not all feminists act this way but you have to admit that these are the only ideas you hear from within the mainstream feminist movement in 2016.



The mainstream media have definitely helped mould this division as the dominant discourse within feminism, blaming men in general for the woes of women, rather than the ruling classes. Because they are the ruling class and it benefits them greatly to divert blame.
Claiming that feminists blame men for all their woes is a really lazy generalisation, and sounds like it's come from someone who hasn't really bothered to look into it too deeply. It's not insulting to men suffering under the capitalist system to say that they still have structural advantages over women. Take a man and a woman in the same socio-economic position, and chances are the woman is worse off. Whatever barriers working class men face, working class women also face - plus more to boot. It really angers me when people claim it is "divisive" to point out that we don't all start on an even playing field. A white heterosexual man is running a 100m sprint; a black queer woman is running a 200m obstacle course.

[#FF0000]

Quail nailed it. I might have issues with "privilege theory" but I don't think it should be controversial to all to point out that women have a whole other set of problems to deal with on top of the problems working-class people of any gender face. Nor is it reasonable to say that pointing this out means one thinks men all have it good.

[GLF]

I may be a lone dissenter, but while I don't have a problem with what feminism is trying to produce, I do have a problem with many of the methods - just as I have a problem with "privilege theory" and other such bourgeois divisiveness. It's ideas like this that breed reactionaries. It's ideas like this that divide working class people into multiple camps. This idea that white slaves have it better than black slaves, or that males slaves have it better than female slaves: how fucking genius. If that don't unify the underclasses, what will? No better way to start a slave revolt then to create slave classes among slaves and divide them into camps to war amongst themselves. Derp.

Or wait, here's an idea...let's realize that tribal thinking is a product of capitalism, and that the key to solving issues like racism and sexism is to eradicate the system that produces such issues. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease - a lot of the tactics we see on the left actually foment reactionism among the workers and do absolutely nothing to treat the core problem. You would be amazed at how many of the these problems would just up and solve themselves if we could just end capitalism. And you would likewise be amazed at how many working class people are actually driven firmly into the arms of the far-right because of the tactics of revisionist agitators and centre-left social justice warriors.

[#FF0000]

I may be a lone dissenter, but while I don't have a problem with what feminism is trying to produce, I do have a problem with many of the methods - just as I have a problem with "privilege theory" and other such bourgeois divisiveness. It's ideas like this that breed reactionaries. It's ideas like this that divide working class people into multiple camps. This idea that white slaves have it better than black slaves, or that males slaves have it better than female slaves: how fucking genius. If that don't unify the underclasses, what will? No better way to start a slave revolt then to create slave classes among slaves and divide them into camps to war amongst themselves. Derp.

Yeah, I have to disagree with you here. I don't think that engaging with the fact that black workers have, overall, fewer opportunities and more obstacles to overcome than their white counterparts or organizing around the specific problems women have to deal with is "divisive". This is reality -- and while reality's easy to ignore if you're just discussing problems, it's much harder to ignore when you're trying to do something about them. It is impossible to build a movement which is capable of challenging capitalism that does not concern itself with issues of racism and sexism, because that movement has to start with workers organizing to deal with immediate problems, and that means you will not be able to avoid organizing around sexual harassment, police brutality, discrimination in hiring, and so on. Pretending these issues don't exist, or putting them on the back-burner, is a total non-starter. Further, I think the idea that talking about and addressing issues of racism and sexism is inherently divisive comes with this implicit assumption that white, working class men are for some reason incapable of accepting that other people may face problems that they, themselves, do not. This seems ludicrous to me, because these are issues that ultimately boil down to the simple concept of "fairness".

[GLF]

The problem is not when communists address issues such as racism and sexism because communists understand the bigger picture and have a real solution to solve them. So of course I am in favor of addressing inequality and working to undermine it.

The problem comes from the fact that 99% of those spearheading such movements in the western world are not communists. They are centre-left. They are trying to reform capitalism in their attempts to correct these social ills and all of their "cures" are brought forth from the perspective of fixing a system that is fundamentally unfixable. Capitalism breeds inequality. You can change which demographic is the "N word" but you can never change the fact that every capitalist society must have it's "N word".

I want to address these issues and believe that we should address them. But let's also talk about why they exist in the first place. They don't exist because white people are fundamentally evil enslavers or that black people are fundamentally gullible and exploitable. They exist because of capitalism - but when you take the true culprit off the table, people will look for answers elsewhere and the proles aren't left with anything else. This is how reactionaries are created.

The solution is not to stop talking about inequality such as racism and sexism, but to name the culprit while we do so. Those fighting the hardest refuse to do this and I think it hurts us. I see more racism and far-right activity now than I have ever seen before in my entire life.

[logfish111]

Claiming that feminists blame men for all their woes is a really lazy generalisation, and sounds like it's come from someone who hasn't really bothered to look into it too deeply.

I'm going to have to call you on your blatant ignorance here. I made it clear multiple times that I was talking about what you see from feminists in the mainstream these days. I'm not talking about super underground feminists who are actually reasonable because they get no attention from the mainstream media and therefore they are irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

It's not insulting to men suffering under the capitalist system to say that they still have structural advantages over women.

No. But it is insulting to claim that they suffer due to gender issues and because they are being oppressed by men, rather than recognising the systemic problems of the economic system in which they live. At the end of the day they are fighting the wrong people to try and accomplish the right (although moderate) goals. It won't get them very far.

Take a man and a woman in the same socio-economic position, and chances are the woman is worse off.

Actually, if they are in the same socio-economic position, then they are in the same socio-economic position. This is poor wording.

It really angers me when people claim it is "divisive" to point out that we don't all start on an even playing field.

That wasn't what I was calling divisive, please stop intentionally misinterpreting me.

A white heterosexual man is running a 100m sprint; a black queer woman is running a 200m obstacle course.

So according to you, a white heterosexual man has no barriers in front of him regardless of his economic class? That is what this analogy suggests. This proves my point really because this is also how mainstream feminists see the world.

[Redhead]

My view is that you cant be a communist without being a feminist. If you want class equality but not gender equality you're probably just a tankie wanting to be radical, while not really caring about equality.

[#FF0000]

I'm going to have to call you on your blatant ignorance here. I made it clear multiple times that I was talking about what you see from feminists in the mainstream these days. I'm not talking about super underground feminists who are actually reasonable because they get no attention from the mainstream media and therefore they are irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

Who exactly are you talking about you say "mainstream feminists"? Liberal feminists have a lot of problems, but they don't talk about sexism as if it's a result of men being organized into some massive cabal with the explicit goal of oppressing women. Can you give an actual example here?


No. But it is insulting to claim that they suffer due to gender issues and because they are being oppressed by men, rather than recognising the systemic problems of the economic system in which they live. At the end of the day they are fighting the wrong people to try and accomplish the right (although moderate) goals. It won't get them very far.

What sorts of things do these "mainstream feminists" do to fight men?


Actually, if they are in the same socio-economic position, then they are in the same socio-economic position. This is poor wording.

This is pedantry. You know what Quail meant.

[#FF0000]

The problem is not when communists address...

Yeah, I agree with you here. This is my problem with intersectionalism and all that -- it takes class and makes it another separate category of oppression alongside racism and sexism, as opposed to recognizing that class is the basis of racism and sexism.

[Sewer Socialist]

Yeah, I agree with you here. This is my problem with intersectionalism and all that -- it takes class and makes it another separate category of oppression alongside racism and sexism, as opposed to recognizing that class is the basis of racism and sexism.

While I agree with your criticism of the usage of "privilege" as a term versus "oppression" (or, more generally, the negative instead of the positive), I don't know if you could really say that class is really the basis of racism and sexism. They certainly share common bases, but doesn't sexism predate class?

And with racism - modern racism isn't only related to class. In the USA, it is heavily tied to slavery, colonialism, and settler ideology, but also a product of the nation-state, and imperialism. These things do not really derive from class, but they are similar.

I don't want to seem pedantic, and I know you aren't intentionally dismissing them, #FF0000, but your statement implies that if we eliminated class (in most people's minds, the relationship of employer to employed), the others would vanish. This sort of economism really needs to be made a thing of the past, and we really need to be clear in our rejection of brocialism.

Location C, there are plenty of feminists who reject the language of "privilege"; and I'd be surprised if any of the many feminists on this forum see things the way you describe.

[#FF0000]

That's fair. I think a better way to express what I was trying to say is that race, class, gender, etc. are all inextricably linked.