Men as the origin of Authority

[Faux Real]

Today, in my pols theory class, we were going about on an article about a feminist critique on Machiavelli. Near the end of it, our professor states something that I had never quite heard or thought about before.

He stated that the concept and beginnings of authority and the state(government type) stems from when men began viewing women as inferiors/subordinates/etc. This is presumed to be around the age of the first of the 'great' civilizations. Ever since then, he said, that same concept has been carried on throughout the millenniums up until today, although it slowly, but surely has been withering away. I think it will end with socialism/communism/anarchism.

Do you agree with his assessment?

[Tower of Bebel]

Foolish professor. He's even too lazy to explane why men began to see women as inferior. As materialists we say material conditions are the roots of this hiërarchy. Your professor is an idealist and he fails.

EDIT: this "withering away" has only occured in the West me thinks. This is because of the welfare state. Neoliberalism however is a threat to women, as it wants to break down the welfare state. Another reason of the growing equality might have been the example of teh Russian revolution and the constant need for women in factories and offices, yet most women are given the typical "female jobs".

[rouchambeau]

I can't say how I feel one way or another an your professor's opinion. If you want to learn more about what he is saying you should look up "Radical Feminism" which is the theory that states all oppression stems from men's oppression of women.

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:39 pm
I can't say how I feel one way or another an your professor's opinion. If you want to learn more about what he is saying you should look up "Radical Feminism" which is the theory that states all oppression stems from men's oppression of women.
Yes, he said something about how the state is the manifestation of their hierarchical view over women. It is a bit interesting...but seems too simple. My professor says he has been greatly influenced by Marxism so I gave it a little thought.

On another note apparently Rosa Luxembourg was a 'Radical Feminist'.

As materialists we say material conditions are the roots of this hiërarchy.
He did say that! My explanation isn't as good as his and I forgot most of the substance he discussed.

this "withering away" has only occured in the West me thinks. This is because of the welfare state. Neoliberalism however is a threat to women, as it wants to break down the welfare state. Another reason of the growing equality might have been the example of teh Russian revolution and the constant need for women in factories and offices, yet most women are given the typical "female jobs".
Agreed 100%!

[BobKKKindle$]

Yes, he said something about how the state is the manifestation of their hierarchical view over women. It is a bit interesting...but seems too simple. My professor says he has been greatly influenced by Marxism so I gave it a little thought.

Again; This is a non-materialist form of analysis; the state does not just exist as a result of ideology, rather, it is an institution that exists in order to support the material interests of the bourgeoisie as a political manifestation of the wealth of the ruling class. The most important antagonism in any society is class division; the development of a society composed of the female sex would not end the exploitation of the capitalist system and the division of society into classes.

Radical feminist ideology contends that all men are somehow complicit in and derive benefits from the exploitation of women; whilst excusing all women of any form of injustice. This is simplistic and crude; sexism undermines the interests of the working class as men share some of the values of their employers and consequently are unable to develop solidarity with women in the workplace; conversely, women in positions of power within corporations facilitate the exploitation of workers and, historically, some women have tried to justify and maintain the existing system of patriarchy and class oppression.


He did say that! My explanation isn't as good as his and I forgot most of the substance he discussed

Ask him to explain what the material basis of the female gender role is then. Marxists contend that the female gender role and the sexual division of labour that arises from the popular conception of women as somehow incapable or weak serves the interests of capita; the unpaid domestic labour women perform in the home facilitates the generation of surplus value in the workplace.


This "withering away" has only occured in the West me thinks.

What withering away? Women in so-called western democracies are still subject to exploitation; in the form of domestic violence and sexual abuse and, as you recognized, the prevailing female gender role which supports the sexual division of labour. Are you suggesting that the western liberal model is something to which women in developing countries should aspire?

Women elsewhere, for example, in the Arab states, are beginning to assert their own demands and political identity without the support or advice of western 'progressives'. I am sorry if I have misinterpreted your view, but you sound utterly ignorant of the role of women in western society and what actually constitutes womens' oppression.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:29 am
Today, in my pols theory class, we were going about on an article about a feminist critique on Machiavelli. Near the end of it, our professor states something that I had never quite heard or thought about before.

He stated that the concept and beginnings of authority and the state(government type) stems from when men began viewing women as inferiors/subordinates/etc. This is presumed to be around the age of the first of the 'great' civilizations. Ever since then, he said, that same concept has been carried on throughout the millenniums up until today, although it slowly, but surely has been withering away. I think it will end with socialism/communism/anarchism.

Do you agree with his assessment?
Yes, it's somewhat correct, he's told you almost half the story. He described what we would call the 'suprestructure' (values, beliefs, ideas) of society but not its economic basis.

What he didn't explain is why men began to place women into an inferior social position. That had to do with the rise of the family and private property. The rise of private property relations meant women had to be subjugated, as the institution can't exist without a family strucuture and children to inherit. This was the primitive beginninings of the state, as naturally it requires organised force (that's basically the starting point of what a state is) to maintain rule by one group over another and the exploitation of man by man.

That's a very basic outline, and I'm probably not explaining it well or omiting important info, but look up Engels' The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State if you'd like to know more, I gave it a go and it's very readable yet scholarly.