Patriarchy - independent from Capitalism?

[BobKKKindle$]

Recently we had a discussion on whether the problems of womens oppression can be resolved within the framework of the capitalist system - it was suggested by some members that this is theoretically possible. I take the view that is not, because ending the domestic division of labour (which serves as the root cause of socioeconomic oppression, as it does not allow women to participate in public life on an equal basis with men) would require the extensive provision of socialized childcare - something that cannot be attained under capitalism, as this provision would impose an intolerable financial burden on the ruling class which would limit the further accumulation of capital and would, if implemented in one state, would put the bourgeoisie at a disadvantage, at least in the short term, relative to other states - the family serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, because it reproduces the labour of the working class (in the sense that the family, in conjunction with state welfare, makes sure proletarians are able to work efficiently) at no cost to the capitalist, and so (indirectly) facilitates the accumulation of surplus value. Even in periods of relative economic prosperity, state expenditure on socialized childcare has been low, because the family is such an important part of the system and serves the interests of the bourgeoisie.

Firstly, would someone care to critique my view? Can it be argued that Capitalism is capable of providing socialized childcare? Or, do some believe that women can be liberated without ending the domestic division of labour? If so, how?

However, the real issue I want to discuss is that of the relationship between Capitalism and Patriarchy. It has been some suggested by some members that patriarchy is an independent social system with relative autonomy from capitalism - what is the basis for this position? What is the material basis of this system of "patriarchy" - and how does patriarchy interact with Capitalism? Are the interests of the Patriarchy and Capitalism ever opposed?

Also, do working-class men ever derive benefits from womens oppression?

[bcbm]

I take the view that is not, because ending the domestic division of labour (which serves as the root cause of socioeconomic oppression, as it does not allow women to participate in public life on an equal basis with men) would require the extensive provision of socialized childcare

Um... it seems that you're essentially arguing here that the only options are women taking care of children, or communal/socialized childcare. Is that correct?


However, the real issue I want to discuss is that of the relationship between Capitalism and Patriarchy. It has been some suggested by some members that patriarchy is an independent social system with relative autonomy from capitalism - what is the basis for this position? What is the material basis of this system of "patriarchy" - and how does patriarchy interact with Capitalism?

I think the relationship is muddled. Patriarchy obviously predates capitalism by some several thousand years (if not more in some groups), but capitalism has certainly exploited it, or if not exploited, continued to use it to strengthen the position of those (men) in power.


Are the interests of the Patriarchy and Capitalism ever opposed?

Depends how far we want to take patriarchy. If we believe a patriarchal society would prefer to keep women exclusively in the domestic sphere than, yes, they would be opposed because this effectively cuts capitalists off from half of their potential workforce.


Also, do working-class men ever derive benefits from womens oppression?

Depends what you would consider benefits. Like racism it can give a feeling of power to those without it. There's also benefits involved in, say, women doing most of the domestic labor.