Sexism of Che

[commiecrusader]

Reading 'Guerilla Warfare' I realised Che has some pretty strong stereotypes of women, and their role in a Guerilla war.

He seems to suggest women have 'more places to hide' things than men:

The transport of objects, messages, or money, of small size and great importance, should be confided to women in whom the guerilla army has absolute confidence; women can transport them using a thousand tricks; it is a fact that however brutal the repression, however thorough the searching, the woman receives a less harsh treatment than the man and can carry her message or other object of an important or confidential character to its destination.

He also propogates the stereotype of women as cooks and cleaners:

Also in this stage a woman can perform her habitual tasks of peacetime; it is very pleasing to a soldier subjected to the extremely hard conditions of this life to be able to look forward to a seasoned meal which tastes like something. ... The woman as cook can greatly improve the diet and, furthermore, it is easier to keep her in these domestic tasks; one of the problems in guerilla bands is that all works of a civilian character are scorned by those who perform them; they are constantly trying to get out of these tasks in order to enter into forces that are actively in combat.

Women's role as a teacher/counsellor:

A task of great importance for women is to teach beginning reading, including revolutionary theory, primarily to the peasants of the zone, but also to the revolutionary soldiers. The organization of schools, which is a part of the civil organization, should be done principally through women, who arouse more enthusiasm among children and enjoy more affection from the school community. Likewise, when the fronts have been consolidated and a rear exists, the functions of the social worker also fall to women who investigate the various economic and social evils of the zone with a view to changing them as far as possible.'

Nursy:

The woman plays an important part in medical matters as nurse, and even as doctor, with a gentleness infinitely superior to that of her rude companion in arms, a gentleness that is so much appreciated at moments when a man is helpless, without comforts, pergaps suffering severe pain and exposed to the many dangers of all classes that are a part of this type of war

Not to forget a stereotype, sewing:

Once the stage of creating small war industries has begun, the woman can also contribute here, especially in the manufacture of uniforms, a traditional employment of women in Latin American countries. With a simple sewing machine and a few patterns she can perform marvels.

However, on a positive note:

Women can take part in all lines of civil organization. They can replace men perfectly well and ought to do so, even where persons are needed for carrying weapons, though this is a rare accident in guerilla life

Whilst this somewhat dispells what I am saying, it seems strange to me that such a progressive person would still pursue such stereotypes as those above.

[Rage Against the Right]

Some Latin American men a different view of the role in women in society. I'm not tryin to be racist at all but a lot of them have somewhat chauvanistic views.

[Ĉħé_Ĝűĕ]

agreed!

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Rage Against the [email protected] 13 2005, 08:48 PM
Some Latin American men a different view of the role in women in society. I'm not tryin to be racist at all but a lot of them have somewhat chauvanistic views.
Lets not use this as an opportunity to make the "white" men look any better now. ;)

The only difference in the suggested role of women to that society to ours is that, no longer confined to being house keepers and nurses, the women are treated and objectified like ornaments.

[bubbЯubbgoeswoo]

Well at the time those may not have been common skills of a man, not saying that justifies it.

[comrade_mufasa]

lets not think that he was sexist. he never said that women were less then men he just had is ideas about what women should do. the roles he put for the women were very important like:

A task of great importance for women is to teach beginning reading, including revolutionary theory, primarily to the peasants of the zone, but also to the revolutionary soldiers. The organization of schools, which is a part of the civil organization, should be done principally through women, who arouse more enthusiasm among children and enjoy more affection from the school community. Likewise, when the fronts have been consolidated and a rear exists, the functions of the social worker also fall to women who investigate the various economic and social evils of the zone with a view to changing them as far as possible.'
this would have to be the most improtant role in any revalution "the education of the people"

[encephalon]

I thnk it's more likely that che was describing the contemporary specialization of labor between the different sexes and how they could be used to further the revolution (social roles are probably the hardest thing to get people to outright reject, and they do take time from one generation to the next), not prescribing duties to women and men. This is probably shown by the fact that he did think women could and should replace any man in any activity--they could and should, but at the time they didn't. I think he was being more practical than anything, writing for his time and environment.

Also, it needs to be remembered that Che--like all of us--was a product of the time and society that bore him; as was Marx, lenin, etc. We cannot expect society to not affect the individual. Whether it's a good effect or a bad one is arbitrary. It is entirely impossible to shed every influence society has on a person, and can only be done in increments. Marx himself understood this quite well. It's why many people have a very difficult time imagining a world in which money and government doesn't exist. The next stage of human development is born from the previous. Not everything can be shed by everyone simultaneously.

[commiecrusader]

I can understand that these sort of attitudes were present in his time, and that obviously this would affect the way he thinks, but some of his assertions I would suggest are complete bollocks.


The woman as cook can greatly improve the diet
Exactly what makes him think all women are great cooks? lol. My sister has burnt potatoes so bad onto a saucepan jus this week, its been cleaned 4 times and wont come off.


it is easier to keep her in these domestic tasks; one of the problems in guerilla bands is that all works of a civilian character are scorned by those who perform them; they are constantly trying to get out of these tasks in order to enter into forces that are actively in combat.
What makes him think a woman is any less likely to want to fight?


The organization of schools, which is a part of the civil organization, should be done principally through women, who arouse more enthusiasm among children and enjoy more affection from the school community
Whilst women probably do enjoy more affection from the school community, I am sure that when I was a little boy, I would much rather have learnt about Communism and fighting from a hardened Guerillero than a woman who had been put in a classroom because 'she aroused more enthusiasm' lol. A real soldier coming into school would of been sooooooo cool :D

Those are the only bits I think are really stupid I guess, except from the fact that not all women are good at sewing lol.

[encephalon]

I think many people assume his culture, or that which surrounded him, was just as pliable as our own. Marx and Lenin, though both espousing the ultimate liberation of women, also said quite a few things that those in western society (that aren't hardcore righties) would scorn. You cannot kill a culture with deeds nor words nor guns. It has to play out in increments. Che understood that people would reject a complete upheaval of their culture--much like you reject those very things he stated. one has to remember that it was a very different culture than that to which most of us are accustomed.

The women in that area were likely to sew better; not because they were naturally able to do so, but because they grew up doing so. Children were accustomed to women moreso than men as objects of childish affection. Historically, women did the cooking in that culture, while the men did the hard labor. It wasn't about telling people what they should or shouldn't be allowed to do, but what they were most equipped to do in that given culture.

You cannot consider a revolution without first considering the functions people in that culture are most equipped for. It was a matter of practicality: not one of dictating the role each *will* play in a future, but building upon the role different people played in the society in which revolution will occur.

[RedAnarchist]

There was a similar thread a while back about Che's supposed homophobia. Yes, some of his views about gays and women are to us outdated and steretypical, but this is beacuse of the culture he grew up in. In an hundred year's time, we may be seen as conservative! Doesnt mean we are, it just means that as time passes, progressive thought becomes ever more progressive. Two hundred years ago, to be progressive meant that you were anti-slavery etc, but most progressives at the time wouldnt have even considered legalising homosexuality or emanicipating women. One hundred years ago, to be progressive meant you were pro-women's suffrage and Home Rule for Ireland etc, but they wouldnt all have been calling for legalisation of cannabis or fair trade.

Che lived in the 1920's up to the 1960's. Most of us werent even thought of then - many of our parents would have been young children in the later part of his life. What is progressive to those born in the 1920's can be quite different to what is progressive to those born in the 1980's.

[Dyst]

Exactly what makes him think all women are great cooks? lol. My sister has burnt potatoes so bad onto a saucepan jus this week, its been cleaned 4 times and wont come off.
I'm thinking maybe the learn it more in schools than men do? That's the way it is many other places at least.



He seems to suggest women have 'more places to hide' things than men:
Women have got more "hiding places" than men, considering how people would search a person. Some things are just realistic but people seem to degrade it into sexism. However, I agree some of the other text there was kind of sexist.

[Rockfan]

I belive che set up a womens colem in the cuban revolution.

[NovelGentry]

Whilst this somewhat dispells what I am saying, it seems strange to me that such a progressive person would still pursue such stereotypes as those above.

I don't think it has anything to do with "stereotypes" -- he's not saying this is where women should be confined to, the last quote you have as you said dispells that, not somewhat, completely.

What he is doing is trying to make a point that women are NOT to be excluded. He's going into detail where a woman's touch can be a good thing and I have to agree completely.

Women ARE in a better position to "hide" things, if for no other reason than that we live in a world driven by stereotypes and most if not all the people who would be in charge of searching (for a military, or police force, etc) would probably be men. Women are in a very good position to manipulate men and I think for obvious reasons. This does little to say something about the position women should be in and a whole lot to explain that men are stupid and often times sexually driven beasts who can be played like a flute by an intelligent woman.

A lot of the other stuff is built off women's roles at the time. You cannot avoid the current society in determining what people are good at -- I doubt a man would be good at cooking and cleaning if he'd never done it in his life, where more than likely, because of the way society was, women would be.

It's not about saying women are uncapable of things men are, once again, his last statement dispells this. It's more about saying that men are uncapable of certain things women were at the time.

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have a female nurse caring for me and being gentle and compassionate than some guy carving a bullet out of me with a bowie knife while pouring alcohol on the wound and telling me to "stop being such a pussy."

This isn't to say you can't cross-gender the roles. But you can't exactly due that with people who were born into a society where this is how they were brought up. It has to be done gradually by introducing, not because women need to become more rude and less compassionate, but because men at the time had to become less rude and more compassionate.

[encephalon]

glad someone agrees.. I was beginning to worry I was the only one that didn't have a problem with it.

[Raisa]

Its funny with things like sexism and comrades, because we talk so much about class struggle I think we dont pay enough attention to sexist thought and all that. So suprisingly enough there are still people who mean well and want us to be equal yet have sexist expectations of women, and by confining the issue into the box of "identity politics" and leaving it alone, there is nothing to combat the problem. It just sits there in people's minds and they know no better- and we dont even pay attention to it.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 11:33 PM

Women ARE in a better position to "hide" things, if for no other reason than that we live in a world driven by stereotypes and most if not all the people who would be in charge of searching (for a military, or police force, etc) would probably be men. Women are in a very good position to manipulate men and I think for obvious reasons. This does little to say something about the position women should be in and a whole lot to explain that men are stupid and often times sexually driven beasts who can be played like a flute by an intelligent woman.


I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have a female nurse caring for me and being gentle and compassionate than some guy carving a bullet out of me with a bowie knife while pouring alcohol on the wound and telling me to "stop being such a pussy."

This isn't to say you can't cross-gender the roles. But you can't exactly due that with people who were born into a society where this is how they were brought up. It has to be done gradually by introducing, not because women need to become more rude and less compassionate, but because men at the time had to become less rude and more compassionate.
Before I read your statements I was going to ask that we remember that Che's audience was the Latin American revolutionary in the end of the 1950's and early 1960's and women were just begining to push their roles. My friend's mother was a young girl in Cuba at this time, and men were trying to lure female intellectuals out on dates to be date raped so they would be forced to marry them and share the family wealth or be deemed prostitutes, so she locked herself up in her room with her medical books at night and became a doctor.

However I am going to have to disagree with statements Novel Gentry made precisely because of that, that she did become a doctor, and I know other female Cuban doctor's as well. I often hear these sort of accolades that wouldn't it be nice if women would be so kind to do all the shit work, and comfort the men at a lower status, and in our current capitalist society no pay! :D

Being a woman who even as a child wouldn't lift a finger to do women's work in the kitchen, preferring to work on the wood pile, bike ride, fight-- learn judo, or play in the woods, I would be pissed if Che said that to me, I'd tell him I was going into battle as the last in a long line of warriors with some native blood and that was that. As a female warrior my ire would go through the roof, but then he would know it would and no doubt only do something like that to taunt me.

In my relationships, it's the man who usually nurtures me, I'm really trying to learn to be more nurturing, but I'm still more of a firebrand, and I know many women like me who are warrior types, and would still call you a pussy. Call it wrathful compassion!

OKAY NOW ON THE IMPORTANT PARTS:
Women are not being treated with more respect in war then men, in fact they are more likely to be strip searched, and even raped as a form of torture if they are suspected. Che's ploy prob only worked in a society that was old fashioned. Those of you who read the anti-Basque police raping and torturing anti-seperatists testimonies that were here earlier should know.

In fact this is very stupid, because women have a more emphatic nervous system designed to be sensitive to children and a third less muscle mass, they also have a weaker throat area and can be more easily killed in torture. Men enjoy raping women more as a form of torture than raping other men in general, although they do both as a form of humiliation, but rape is one of the worst psychological traumas for a prisoner. Therefore due to the fact that women are more likely to be raped in confinement, I do not feel that women should be used more in this way. Maybe in a different society.

Also some men who are cowards are brave when it comes to brutalizing women, who might be less likely to hit a large male who could retaliate by hitting them back harder. For instance, when one large line backer male friend got arrested in NYC no one not even the guards came within three feet of him, he had a cell all to himself, and could do whatever he wanted, they wouldn't mess with him and got him what he wanted. As a female harassment would be harsher, because they feel they can manipulate you more without you knocking them to the other side of the room. I have experienced as such, only briefly, and have heard reports of worse.

As a female it's bettter almost to fight and die in battle than be back at the homefire to be captured.

You seem to have some cultural stereotypes about what a women's touch is, but that would have nothing to do with someone like myself who is not gentle in this way, although I would have loved to have been raised gently with kindness and be that way, but I'm not I'm more of a warrioress.

As far as all this bullshit about "hiding things" they're going to check a women's putang first thing, and it's very dangerous to put many things you would not consider there, also to do so and walk is uncomfortable. If you're so into hiding things in such places men have an opening as well :rolleyes: you know.

As far as women becoming rude like men, honey my culture made me rude from the day I was born yelling at cabbies on my bicycle as a messenger, I would love to be gentler, does that mean I'm not a woman, fraid not, sir.

[NovelGentry]

However I am going to have to disagree with statements Novel Gentry made precisely because of that, that she did become a doctor, and I know other female Cuban doctor's as well. I often hear these sort of accolades that wouldn't it be nice if women would be so kind to do all the shit work, and comfort the men at a lower status, and in our current capitalist society no pay!

I think you read me wrong. I'm not saying women CAN'T break free of gender roles. But do you really think your mother's example is the norm for women at the time? More to the point, do you think at that time had women decided to try and break free of gender roles it would have been "allowed." It WAS allowed under Castro's Cuba post-revolution, but it would have been unthinkable on a massive scale before that.


I'd tell him I was going into battle as the last in a long line of warriors with some native blood and that was that.

And he would have supported you fully and probably respected you with the utmost sincerity.


Call it wrathful compassion!

I'd still prefer that to the condescending lack of compassion amongst other males.


Che's ploy prob only worked in a society that was old fashioned.

Well what do you know... it WAS. But it wasn't because they wanted to treat women with respect it was because "A woman... doing an important job... hahaha, yeah right."


As far as all this bullshit about "hiding things" they're going to check a women's putang first thing, and it's very dangerous to put many things you would not consider there, also to do so and walk is uncomfortable.

I don't think this is what was meant, but I suppose I could be wrong.


does that mean I'm not a woman

No, but the fact that you'd "love to be gentler" might. As opposed to most men who would never admit to such a thing, even if they wanted it.

Once again, this doesn't outline a problem with women, it outlines a problem with men.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:06 AM

I think you read me wrong. I'm not saying women CAN'T break free of gender roles. But do you really think your mother's example is the norm for women at the time? More to the point, do you think at that time had women decided to try and break free of gender roles it would have been "allowed." It WAS allowed under Castro's Cuba post-revolution, but it would have been unthinkable on a massive scale before that.


Call it wrathful compassion!

I'd still prefer that to the condescending lack of compassion amongst other males.

I do not find condescending natures to be ornately male or female, or compassion or lack of it. Hopefully all beings try to further compassion.



No, but the fact that you'd "love to be gentler" might. As opposed to most men who would never admit to such a thing, even if they wanted it.

Once again, this doesn't outline a problem with women, it outlines a problem with men.

I still find you are using outmoded views of male and female. I know many males who are trying to increase their compassion. I think in general modern society has enabled outward expression of traits in individuals that before may have been suppressed as being belonging to the other sex.

And this is more the point, having dissected many fish, I know that they and other animals often have the traits of the other sex, sometimes fish even switch sexes or have both genitalia.

That being said, what is male and what is female. Females due to childbirth have a higher pain threshold, and more heartiness to stay up long hours. I just want to get away from cultural stereotypes which have often disabled female and male workers from being their true selves.

In other words focus on the office, and review the applicants based on ability and knowledge without looking at sex, and often you will find a mixed crew.

Working as a maintence person in Alaska, I was able to lift much more than many on the Japanese crews, women of some ethnicities are larger than men of other.

I think temperment and heartiness, and a strong spirit are the most necessary things for battle, and none of these things are sex specific.
Also I was not referring to my mother but a friend before, and when Che speaks of women spiriting things away in the way they know I think that was precisely what he was referring to, although maybe also the keeping of notes in brassieres and garters, or underwear was also thought of. Of course all of these are very old fashioned ideas when women have to drop their drawers in front of an attendent to take a pee test just to get a job these days, let alone a time of war, such ideas are old fashioned indeed, and hazardously so.

[encephalon]

[I still find you are using outmoded views of male and female. I know many males who are trying to increase their compassion. I think in general modern society has enabled outward expression of traits in individuals that before may have been suppressed as being belonging to the other sex.

That's the point: it was not what you call "modern society," and western culture us far different from that of hispanic culture. The question does not concern our culture, but that which Che found himself in at the time.


And this is more the point, having dissected many fish, I know that they and other animals often have the traits of the other sex, sometimes fish even switch sexes or have both genitalia.

This is *not* a matter of sexism, at least it isn't from my point of view--and from what I understand, it isn't from NovelGentry's, either. This has nothing to do with the biological differences between men, women, or transvestites. It has to do with making the most of a culture in the name of revolutionary work. Gender roles are not biological dictates, they are cultural.

Whether we like it or not, those that support revolutions do grow up in the culture we are trying to revolutionize, and subject to its specification. Cuban women, as a whole, did not cook better than the men because it is natural for women to cook. They cooked better because it's what they were raised to do, just as they were for caring for children. This is not to say that women couldn't do otherwise, but that, given the social roles in which they were trained, most women in that area were by default more qualified for those positions, whereas the men were trained from a young age to be rough and fight.

Can a person overcome their cultural bias? Of course, at least to a certain extent. I've never met anyone nor heard of anyone completely ridding themselves of the influence their culture bestowed upon them. To Che, it wasn't a matter of sex, but a matter of tactics. If you had to choose who would guard your back between someone who was trained to use a rifle from a very early age, and someone who didn't touch a gun until they were 30--who would you choose, provided you trusted them both equally?

It's preposterous to say that this was a matter of sexism. He was simply using that which the particular culture trained people--by sex, position in life, youth and so on--to further the cause of the revolution. You cannot honestly expect him to choose women who, for the most part, were trained to be housewives over those who were trained, for the most part, to do the fighting, to go into battle with him. He would have risked his life even more, as well as allowed the slaughter of those who followed him. It would have been foolish.

You cannot take culture out of the equation when people are involved in any way, regardless of what you're considering. It's what makes people, including revolutionaries. A culture can change, yes, but you can't just remove it from the people that grew up with it. It made them.

[pandora]

Your response shows a certain lack of understanding of the campesina and her work in the field, her ability to use a knife and gun in hunting, and the women who did fight in the mountains and in battles with Che.

Also in the Mexican Revolution, and currently in many chauvanistic countries, women fight alongside, or without men when they are not available.

I am shocked that anyone who has had to do a battle of wits with the other sex would not recognize women's abilites as tacticians, able to combine both celebral contexts more fluidly women's abilty to problem solve tactically in quicker then men's physically, also traditionally women have been very strong in communications even without the strong benefits careerwise that have been unavailable until late.

Women are certainly used in battle now, and women often have had to go to battle in times past in every society I can think of so the point is mute. In a real battle for ones home, women are according to gender preferences the more ruthless fighters. I would be more apt to have a woman who has had a few children guard my back with a rifle then some young buck who's just gotten out of college.

The point is experience. Someone raised on a farm is going to be better in the mountains. Among the Taino Indians in Enrique's Rebellion against Columbus which was done in the mountains in similar fashion to the Cuban Revolution, women fought.

Foodstocks and smaller details were covered by the elderly and children. So I think that destroys your hypothesis

[encephalon]

I am shocked that anyone who has had to do a battle of wits with the other sex would not recognize women's abilites as tacticians, able to combine both celebral contexts more fluidly women's abilty to problem solve tactically in quicker then men's physically, also traditionally women have been very strong in communications even without the strong benefits careerwise that have been unavailable until late.

I am shocked that anyone who has had to do a battle of wits with the other sex would not recognize women's abilites as tacticians, able to combine both celebral contexts more fluidly women's abilty to problem solve tactically in quicker then men's physically, also traditionally women have been very strong in communications even without the strong benefits careerwise that have been unavailable until late.


Is your problem with Che's comments being possibly sexist, or just the fact that women of that culture, in his view, played a less militant role in his scheme? Becuase, quite frankly, half of the previous post you wrote is blatantly sexist, just as much so if not more than Che's comments.

So, just so everything is clear, you aren't just stating that women can do anything that a man can do (which I agree with; I speak of limited social functions)--but are actually better suited than men? For that is exactly as you state it.

This isn't a matter of sex. It's a matter of who was predominantly well suited for each revolutionary task without being trained. Training requires vast resources and time. Furthermore, Cuba has had a largely paternalistic society throughout history, even before the western invasion. This does not mean it was regarded as natural for a woman to cook and teach, nor does it mean that women could not use guns, nor does it mean that women did not fight alongside Che. If you truly doubt the paternalistic nature of cuba in history, I will provide anthropological and historical texts to support it. It was not a matter of sexism, nor can it be approached outside of its cultural context: they did not share, as a whole, the same cultural values of the west, then and surely not as our culture approaches our issues now. Applying our own cultural standards on another culture would be like applying modern capital economics, based on property, to a communist world. It is entirely out of context, and this must be understood.

Foodstocks in early colonial america was also handled by the elderly and the children. However, it was cultural practice for the woman to be head of that. Though there were certainly cases where this was not true, in colonial america as well as cuba, it was the norm.

In much of the first half of the 20th century, women were treated as property on a holistic basis. This does not mean there wasn't individual variation, but that as a whole, women were treated as less important in carribean culture. They filled entirely different social roles than the men. Che knew this quite well, even if he thought it should be overcome (and the lot of women as a whole in cuba has improved).

You are super-imposing our american liberal western perspective on something that must be understood within the context of its own culture, not ours. Genital mutilation in African tribes, for instance, works much the same way. To us, it is a horrendous act (unless it's circumcision.. that's okay, evidently), but the most of the women it is a social act of empowerment, however twisted and oppressive it may be. It must be understood within their own cultural context to be understood at all by us. Only then can such things be eradicated.

It was not an issue of man vs. woman. It was an issue of pragmatism, and by making it a modern feminist issue it is pulled out of context. Indeed, if we pull it out of context then many things Che said in regards to women could be deemed highly sexist, and he'd come off as a complete pig. But he was not fomenting revolution in modern america, canada, britain, australia or any other modern wester country, and it cannot be approached as if he were.

[NovelGentry]

I for one applaud the last post.

[prettyred]

word

[Big Boss]

Ha! that was a very good response by you, encephalon

[Taiga]

Encephalon, applauds. I agree, it was just pragmatism, not a sexism.

[pandora]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 12:55 PM



So, just so everything is clear, you aren't just stating that women can do anything that a man can do (which I agree with; I speak of limited social functions)--but are actually better suited than men? For that is exactly as you state it.It was not an issue of man vs. woman. It was an issue of pragmatism, and by making it a modern feminist issue it is pulled out of context. Indeed, if we pull it out of context then many things Che said in regards to women could be deemed highly sexist, and he'd come off as a complete pig. But he was not fomenting revolution in modern america, canada, britain, australia or any other modern wester country, and it cannot be approached as if he were.

I find that there are women who are better suited to every job than some men, but not on the basis of sex but on physical dimensions. You have to look past the gender to the individual and their strengths. For instance, if you were to play soccer against a female member of a world class team, even early in her career that goalie, for instance, would out play you.



Applying our own cultural standards on another culture would be like applying modern capital economics, based on property, to a communist world. It is entirely out of context, and this must be understood.

Foodstocks in early colonial america was also handled by the elderly and the children. However, it was cultural practice for the woman to be head of that. Though there were certainly cases where this was not true, in colonial america as well as cuba, it was the norm.

In much of the first half of the 20th century, women were treated as property on a holistic basis. This does not mean there wasn't individual variation, but that as a whole, women were treated as less important in carribean culture. They filled entirely different social roles than the men. Che knew this quite well, even if he thought it should be overcome (and the lot of women as a whole in cuba has improved).


Unfortunately here you show some cultural ignorance, the comment I made before regarding the Taino Indians and Enrique's rebellion was in the Caribbean and by Caribbean people. In Taino society women had many rights and female queens, the Spanish culture was imposed on locals through the cutting off of hands.

When I speak of Enrique's Rebellion I speak of the foundation for both Jose Marti and Fidel, Enrique was the grandson of the the queen of the Tainos who was lured into a hut with 100 of her court and burned to death by Columbus and his men.

The Taino had an amazing society off of which much of Caribbean society is based, people kept ponds in front of their house with fish and ducks for eating fully stocked. As such they had much leisure time and swam and lay on hammocks. The women were beautiful as were the men, both went topless and had golden bodies. They would swim up to Columbus's boat, or travel in canoes.

When Columbus tried to kidnap one of their people they followed him to another island and stole their man off the boat. They were a very kind people, but Columbus's men had them search their rivers for gold, if they came back with less then a bell full their hands were cut off, and they often died. Because of this harsh treatment Enrique rebelled. The Spanish had known who he was and had enslaved him and raped his wife, I believe she was even killed. He reacted by gathering a band of several hundred warriors, male and female, and going into the mountains to do raids on the Spanish.

Conditions grew worse and more people came to the mountain, the elderly and children were put in charge of food stuffs, and helped construct barricades with boulders. The men and women fought. They did so well, that an official stalemate was finally offered by the Spanish government, but by then all those who did not fight with Enrique had been wiped out and slaves were brought in instead. Welcome to Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Cuba was similar. The Caribs were a little more warlike, and able to resist the Spanish a bit more initially so their population stayed high.

All these societies were primarily Matriarchal. The Goddess is still powerful in native religions of that region, particularly Voo Doo, so I have no idea what you are talking about. All patriarchy was artifically imposed by the Spanish through the Church, but the Goddess reimerged in these cultures through cults of the Goddess and Mother Mary. How can you say a temporarially imposed culture by a European power is more authentic then the culture a region inhabited and in many ways still inhabits for thousands of years?

Also why must four people make a little cheering squad for a man supporting genital mutilation? Is this site really so sexist? Do you think this person is really so insecure in his masculinity that you all must back him up so! :lol:

[NovelGentry]

Also why must four people make a little cheering squad for a man supporting genital mutilation? Is this site really so sexist? Do you think this person is really so insecure in his masculinity that you all must back him up so!

I'm not sure why you expect us to buy that he's "supporting genital mutilation" just because you say he is. He's making a general point about culture and how it relates and saying that we cannot impose OUR cultural norms over another cultures to say "this doesn't make sense." Of course it doesn't make sense to us, it's not our culture.

Regardless, Che's words are still hardly an issue, particularly a sexist one. It's in the light of "No one makes a meal like Mom" not like "Mom's sole purpose in life is to be in the kitchen cooking me dinner."

[pandora]

I understand your point, the fight against genital manipulation is a different one because many female refugees who were mutilated from these countries rail against it. One can support them in their struggle without being culturally illiterate.
At one time enuchs were made through barbaric means whereby afterwards they were left in the sand to heal and all but one out of ten died in the process. Was the outlawing of the making of enuchs culturally insensitive when in reality families were selling their sons in such servitide as a way of providing for other members, knowing they might be killed, but maybe they had a chance to live and live in luxury.


As far as being slightly insensitive in the way I approached that I will cede that in part but not fully.

As far as appreciation of the kindness of mothers! How kind. Fathers should also be appreciated! But I stand against the bougeious assumptions that farm women in Cuba were not strong workers. I believe Che himself had an affair with a beautiful young farm worker of African heritage whom he very much respected for her abilities around the farm with not just binding wounds and animals, but much work that we may think was more masculine in nature by our faded perceptions, but were all in a day's work for her.

I believe poor women in the past around the world have worked much harder and in more ways imaginable to provide for their families, often men and women work together in partnership, as equals this is the best way to get the job done. :P
It is a gentle form of loving

[encephalon]

Unfortunately here you show some cultural ignorance, the comment I made before regarding the Taino Indians and Enrique's rebellion was in the Caribbean and by Caribbean people. In Taino society women had many rights and female queens, the Spanish culture was imposed on locals through the cutting off of hands.

When I speak of Enrique's Rebellion I speak of the foundation for both Jose Marti and Fidel, Enrique was the grandson of the the queen of the Tainos who was lured into a hut with 100 of her court and burned to death by Columbus and his men.

The Taino had an amazing society off of which much of Caribbean society is based, people kept ponds in front of their house with fish and ducks for eating fully stocked. As such they had much leisure time and swam and lay on hammocks. The women were beautiful as were the men, both went topless and had golden bodies. They would swim up to Columbus's boat, or travel in canoes.

...All these societies were primarily Matriarchal...



Let me first start by saying that it is dangerous to romanticize any society, no matter how wonderful it seems to you.

Second, what most people call Matriarchy is Matrilinearity, and does not refer to a social organization in which the feminine is in control, but refers to the nature of property inheritance and family structure. This does not mean women were valued moreso than men. Instead of property being passed to the son, property is passed to the husband of the eldest daughter, or a similar relation.

Third: Taino culture was obscenely patriarchal as well as patrilinear. Western culture also has wonderful examples of women taking charge. This does not mean it was the norm. Taino culture was divided into 3 classes, headed by a male chief. Women were treated as property in much the same sense they were in african tribes, though not nearly as extreme. And the Caribs enslaved women of other tribes on a regular basis. Most tribes had women working in the fields while the men went to war and/or hunted. Columbus and those that soon followed were apalled by this, for European culture thought fieldwork was a man's job. They thought, in fact, that the women were more enslaved by their own tribe than they were by the westerners, and saw it as an act of liberation. They failed, obviously, to understand the fact that different cultures assign different gender roles, and anything different than their own (sub-)culture was horrendous. Though I don't think it's to the same extent, this seems to be akin to what you are doing.

By saying that Taino culture was matriarchal simply because they worshipped a goddess (among MANY gods and goddesses), you are stating that greece and rome were also matriarchal societies--which is not true. Western civilization stems primarily from that of Rome.

Patriarchy was not instituted by the church. It was an integral part of caribbean society long before the west came along.


I find that there are women who are better suited to every job than some men, but not on the basis of sex but on physical dimensions. You have to look past the gender to the individual and their strengths. For instance, if you were to play soccer against a female member of a world class team, even early in her career that goalie, for instance, would out play you.


You are saying to look past their gender, but you find that women "are better suited to every job than some men"???

If I were a member of a world class team as well, then it is likely we would be on equal footing in soccer. Which is exactly my point: women aren't naturally better at soccer, nor are men naturally better at soccer. People are better than others based upon the amount of training they've had in whatever respective role is in question, not their sex. By disagreeing with this alone, which you seem to be, you are entirely sexist and no better than the conservative christian in that regard, who thinks women belong in the kitchen. It's complete hypocrisy.


Also why must four people make a little cheering squad for a man supporting genital mutilation? Is this site really so sexist? Do you think this person is really so insecure in his masculinity that you all must back him up so!

I do not support genital mutilation. Which, by the way, circumcision is included in that category. Genital mutilation is not simply a female phenomenon. What I was pointing out is that in cultures that practice female genital mutilation, it is regarded in much the same way as we regard circumcision. It is a social rite with religious undertones. The difference lies in the time-frame at which this is practiced: circumcision is done at birth, when no choice exists at all, while the other is done at the transition of a girl into supposed womanhood, however the respective culture defines it. People cringe when someone has an infant girl's ears pierced, yet there is no problem with cutting off part of an infant boy's penis that is designed to protect the rest of it.

The point was, however, that we cannot understand or question the merit of the values of another culture by simply applying our own cultural standards. THAT is exactly what Columbus did, and exactly what you are trying to do concerning Che's comments on division of revolutionary labor among the sexes.

Had Columbus been of Che's disposition, he would have looked at the culture and noticed that the women had worked in the fields all of their life, not because they were forced to but because it was part of their culture. Of course, if he had any semblance of Che in him he would not have been working for Spain, the biggest imperialist country at the time.

Do not call me a sexist because you fail to accept the notion that there might be cultural values other than your own, and those can't be simply thrown away at a moment's notice and replaced with something else. It takes generations. I am the one claiming men and women are equal here, not that one sex is better than another.

The Tainos: Rise & Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus, by Irving Rouse (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0300056966/ref%3Dase%5Fescapetopuertori/103-7844349-4408632)

[Big Boss]

What happened to the tainos was truly a sad thing. They were victims of imperialism to the fullest. Also about women, I think they can do stuff like men can. They can be exceptional guerrilla fighters in every way. But it is also true that they can't do stuff like men can for example they don't have the same strenght capacity as a man (I'm not to sure about this). I don't think lesser of them though. Without some fisical differences we are quite the same.

[pandora]

First off I said the Taino were matriarchal because they were ruled by a queen in addition to having Gods and Goddesses, although they did not refer to them as such, but also because their society was peaceful and stressed understanding and had a tradition of kindness to outsiders.

The Caribs were more warlike, but still fairly evenly balanced between masculine and feminine, the Caribs supposedly ate their captives in war between the islands. I don't know if I believe that, but by being more hostile to outsiders led to their survival better against the Spanish and Portuguese invaders (although many of the invaders were under the Spanish they were from many countries: of course Italy but more commonly Portugual)

As far as strength test that is relative depending on race and culture, and size, etc. for instance, Venus Williams could beat up Spike Lee and John McEnroe.
When i worked in Alaska the Japanese men I worked with from a Japanese company were very upset that I could easily pick up a crate that they used four men to life. But some of that was culture. In American culture people are required to lift heavy amounts on their own, but working with many Asian workers I found such independent activity is frowned upon, and multiple people lift heavy tasks often together to symbolize community. Not that women and men who are farmers do not carry heavy items long ways, but usually the burden is shared if possible to strengthen the sense of community.

Our entire way of looking at this question from that perspective in culturally specific. In a communal society, say in Saharan Africa, where all members of the tribe go into the well to lift out water and engage in backbreaking work there is no difference between the task of male or female. All able bodied adults lift and pull in a human chain to lift the water one to the other, or get in the crop or plow the field. In Kenya women were traditionally the owners and farmers of the land. Many tribes throughout Africa were matriarchal, this did not change until colonization, European women at the time did not work or have power. One of the eight most significan ways that the Europeans took power from Africa was by importing sexism. Others were installing hierarchy, building railroads for export, stealing the resources, etc.

This is important to recognize that Europeans were taken back by the power of women in many tribal societies. That women in Taino culture were naked from the waist up, that WOMEN CONTROLLED THE LAND. At this time it was illegal throughout most of Europe for women to own land. If their were no sons the land went to the Crown! Or was given to a "Kindly Uncle" who usually either married the female heirs off or kept them as household servents and govornances for their children. In Africa and in the Americas their was often either a Matriarchal culture, or a balance between masculine and feminine where each held private counsel, women had control over the land inhabitied and home, and men held most of the Shamanistic roles, although there were female Shamans as well.

I think each of these societies developed their codes in such different ways that it is very narrow minded to view them through European terms. Regardless, most economists and historians agree that women lost power for instance the Cherokee women in significant ways when they were suddenly forced to take on European culture causing severe depression among many tribal women and an upset of culture. This was certainly the case for the Cherokee women as well and has been well documented.

[encephalon]

First off I said the Taino were matriarchal because they were ruled by a queen in addition to having Gods and Goddesses, although they did not refer to them as such, but also because their society was peaceful and stressed understanding and had a tradition of kindness to outsiders.

Please provide a source for your insistence that the Taino were ruled by a queen. Everything I have ever read regarding the Taino insists that they were ruled by chiefs, had a noble class and a lower class.


I think each of these societies developed their codes in such different ways that it is very narrow minded to view them through European terms. Regardless, most economists and historians agree that women lost power for instance the Cherokee women in significant ways when they were suddenly forced to take on European culture causing severe depression among many tribal women and an upset of culture. This was certainly the case for the Cherokee women as well and has been well documented.

I do not disagree with the fact that women did indeed lose a lot of power. European gender roles were much more restrictive than that of nearly any Amer-Indian society. And, I've been saying that we can't view other cultures through European lenses, so I agree with that as well. This does not change the fact, however, that in south american and carribean cultures during Che's time, it was generally the men who were raised to do the fighting--though not all of the time, for there are always exceptions--and it was generally the women that took care of family matters.

Facing the issue of revolutionary roles, it would have made much more sense for the revolutionaries to use these established geneder roles as a pragmatic approach to furthering the revolution rather than picking through people one at a time and training them regardless of their background.

[David "Che" Klein]

I put foward the view that Latin American men (like myself) have been subjected to a society that involved a lot of "Machismo". "Machismo" in other words is the extent to which men treat women as they want and the woman having nothing to say about it or complain.

Back in the 1950 it was very popular in Latin America for women to cook, clean clothes etc and i believe that Che was born in that society and therefore it was normal that women did that. For almost EVERYONE back at that time, treating women that way was completly normal. For example, these days, women voting is seen as normal, even WOMEN WORKING is seen as normal and I am sure that back in the 1950 this was not possible, therefore, we cannot blame Che for such a view if women cooking and cleaning was seen as normal in the Latin American Society as a whole.

Che Guevara was a man and no man is perfect. ( keep that in mind)

[Big Boss]

The Taino villages were ruled by Caciques and the towns were called the Yucayeques. Women bore children, helped in the household and worked on the fields planting seeds. That is everything they did. They were not queens of anything. Believe me, I know.

[Quixotic]

The man had flaws, he was not a god.

[Big Boss]

I'm not saying he is a god but that the taino system was like that we can't do anything about it. Man does have flaws just like women has theirs.