Socialist Feminism and LGBT oppression

[BobKKKindle$]

Socialist Feminists are distinct from Marxist feminists in that they do not believe Capitalism creates the oppression of women as such, but rather the character and degree of oppression differs depending on the class position of the women in question and as such there exist clear links between the struggle against capitalism and the struggle against patriarchy.

Can a similar situation be said to exist in the case of homosexuals - do bourgeois homsexuals face different challenges and obstacles to proletarian homosexuals or, in contrast to the oppression of women, is the oppression of homosexuals uniform?

[TC]

Why do you even have to ask such a question? Of course bourgeois homosexuals face different (specifically fewer!) obstacles than proletarian homosexuals. They have money, money eliminates obstacles. Thats obvious even to people who aren't marxists.


The only instances where the oppression associated with demographic groups applies irrespective of class status is when theres an extreme degree of state organized repression (not merely non-state institutional discrimination), such as in Saudi Arabia for instance.

Generally oppression doesn't come from the coercive mechanisms of the state itself but through socio-economic pressure pervasive in society, in which case the individual's status is a product of their class, finances and personal power not their demographics (demographics merely dictate the distribution pattern of individual's distribution of class, finances, power, etc, not the status of any individual: institutional racism means that disproportionately few black people are bourgeois, but the rare black bourgeois individuals are not affected by this once their status is secure because money and power flows from them).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Marxist feminists in that they do not believe Capitalism creates the oppression of women as such,

This is totally incorrect, no Marxist feminist believes that capitalism created the oppression of women...they/we believe that the relation of productive forces create all power dynamics in society including those characterizing patriarchy; it was specifically the development of heavy agriculture that marked the beginning of the oppression of women as such, industrial capitalism merely inherited pre-existing institutions it did not create them and in fact some of the bourgeois's economic needs serve to undermine elements of patriarchal relations (such as, as Engel's observed, the political emancipation of women followed directly from a need to expand the labour force in order to stave off the problem of a declining rate of profit) for their own benefit, while strengthening others (such as attempts to ensure that birth rates don't fall below replacement level, which would also lead to a declining rate of profit).


Industrial capitalism and patriarchy (an institution pre-dating capitalism) have distinct interests, one does not support the other directly, rather there are institutional tensions when their interests conflict and capitalism always wins (because capitalists are so much more powerful than husband/father-providers), but when capitalism has no vested interest and patriarchy does, patriarchy remains powerful (as in the case of dependents under employable age), as well as the places where they have common interest (such as population rate, education, social control). The exact way that capitalism relates to patriarchal social relations depends on the exact economic situation as well, whether the economy is expanding or declining, whether they need a larger workforce or a smaller one, etc, so while capitalism often supports particular patriarchal relations its much more complicated then a simple causal relationship.

[BobKKKindle$]

Why do you even have to ask such a question? Of course bourgeois homosexuals face different (specifically fewer!) obstacles than proletarian homosexuals. They have money, money eliminates obstacles. Thats obvious even to people who aren't marxists.

You assume that money 'eliminates obstacles' but you have not really explained how this is the case - how does wealth enable a bourgeois homosexual to overcome problems such as homophobia, particuarly in everday public interaction where the class status of the individual cannot be identified or is not relevant?

In the case of women the relationship is easy to identify - to take one example, women are less likely to be subject to domestic violence if they are living in a family in which financial problems do not exist or are not a pressing concern - this shows how a woman's class status changes the form of repression to which she is subject. However, whilst LGBT issues are of course an integral part of leftists politics, I do not think the links between class and sexuality are so strong or as clear - unless of course you are actually able to explain why instead of putting forward assertions.


This is totally incorrect, no Marxist feminist believes that capitalism created the oppression of women...

I was not suggest that Marxists feel Capitalism created the oppression of women - sorry if I did not quite make this clear. What I was trying to suggest was that Marxists feel that the repression and role of women is shaped by changes in the requirements of the ruling class and Capitalism as a whole - I think this is a somewhat limited view and is constrained by Marx's materialist analysis, as in some cases patriarchy, can 'overpower' Capitalism - something which you deny through the use of the absolute 'always' - to take a very specific example, it should be noted that during the Second World War Hitler restricted women to domestic labour even though in the later stages of the war there was a clear requirement for factory labourers - in this case the broad interests of the german bourgeoisie were threatended due to an ideology - patriarchy. I would also contend that, although class is the most important social antagonism, sexism is not simply something that benefits the ruling class and thus cannot be considered a 'sub-part' of the class antagonism - proletarian men also benefit from the repression of women.