Kate Millet - "Sexual Politics"

[BobKKKindle$]

What do people think about Millet and her contributions to feminism? Millet argued that social differences between men and women are the result of a conditioning process which assigns roles and values to each sex. This is an important observation because conservative theorists have often attempted to argue that the social position of women is the result of inherent biological features which cannot be changed, and so instead of trying to attain higher social positions and break traditional perceptions of how women should behave, women should simply accept that their most important function is to care for children and provide support for men, who are more suited to participation in public life. Millet also analyzes the prevalence of misogynistic themes in contemporary literature, drawing attention to the widespread notion of female betrayal in historical myths and parables, as exemplified by Eve who was allegedly responsible for mankind's expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

Millet's main flaw, however, is that she does not sufficiently acknowledge the intersection of class and gender oppression, instead arguing that class is used to turn women against each other and obscure their shared identity as women suffering from patriarchy. Socialist feminists recognize that the form and extent of womens oppression is dependent on their position in the class structure of capitalist society, and ultimately patriarchy can only be abolished through socialist revolution, due to the links between capitalism and the nuclear family, which functions as the main component of patriarchy.

[Yehuda Stern]

Millet's main flaw, however, is that she does not sufficiently acknowledge the intersection of class and gender oppression, instead arguing that class is used to turn women against each other and obscure their shared identity as women suffering from patriarchy.This pretty much sums it up - I've never heard of her before, but from what you say she sounds like another feminist advocating a cross-class alliance of women instead of a solution to gender oppression through a proletarian revolution. That's pretty run-of-the-mill feminism - Dworkin argued similarly.


Socialist feminists recognize that the form and extent of womens oppression is dependent on their position in the class structure of capitalist society, and ultimately patriarchy can only be abolished through socialist revolutionThis is true only in abstract. In practice, socialist feminists almost always succumb to the crude supra-class theories of gender oppression of Dworkin and co.

[Black Dagger]

That's pretty run-of-the-mill feminism - Dworkin argued similarly.

Eh, Dworkin really isn't 'run-of-the-mill feminism' :tt2:

[mikelepore]

The cultural anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan, whose 1877 book "Ancient Society" was praised by Marx and Engels, learned a most interesting fact when he studied the Iroquois tribe, and set out to compare its ways to the tribal societies on all continents, including the pre-political Greeks and Romans, etc. He discovered a common pattern: that the tribe's sachem (peacetime leader) and chief (war leader) were elected by a majority vote of all of the adult male and female members of the tribe. That discovery debunked the supposed biological determinism that conservatives pointed to when subjugating women. Unfortunately, this fact didn't cause much embarrassment or render much enlightenment on the part of U.S. politicians, who didn't enact the right of women to vote until 1919.

[jake williams]

About "cross-class feminism" versus "socialist feminism": I really don't like the forced dichotomy. In fact, on one level I'm very disturbed by both sides because they carry a certain sort of absolutism about themselves, that they have the one great truth of how to resolve the problems of the world and that all other concerns are mythology. You see this in Marxist analysis a lot, but that's another story. The first says that "class" is just a myth set up to divide women, the second effectively implies that sex division is a non-issue and we ought focus all our attention on getting workers to power - and while even monstrosities like the USSR made huge strides for women, these are still typically patriarchal politics and movements. I will certainly allow that the latter has more sophistication and applicability, and doesn't simply disregard patriarchy as the first does class, but there are nevertheless uncomfortable and very evident similarities.

The approach I would advocate is to recognize that as broad classes of phenomena, sex/gender discrimination and class discrimination both exist, and while there is much interrelation, there is also some independence. While a socialist utopia would be free of patriarchy, that's because it's a utopia and not because it's socialist. Many streams of socialist thought are anti-patriarchy, and that's good, but there are many beliefs which are considered socialist (one needn't get into the name game) and which are neither sufficient nor necessary for an end to sex discrimination. The point that class effects the form and extent of patriarchy is certainly valid, and important, but it's not the whole picture.

Now the inverse question comes - is there effectiveness to "cross-class feminist" activism? Could such a thing be useful? Naturally none of us would prefer such a method of organizing because I think it's safe to say everyone participating in this discussion would like to abolish class differences rather than ignore them, but is there something to be had if one is short on friends and options and has to pursue this sort of softened centrist activity? Perhaps. I find it very plausible that such a thing could make valuable contributions, especially in narrow circumstances as opposed to a broad trend in a movement. In fact I'm tempted to the believe that we could strongly mediate if not eliminate patriarchy, at least in the industrialized West, whilst still maintaining our present capitalist institutions. It's even possible it could be done just about everywhere, the only reason I don't say so is because I could conceive of details involving facts I don't know enough about.



Eh, Dworkin really isn't 'run-of-the-mill feminism' :tt2:
I wish that were truer than it is. Unfortunately Dworkin and her type are at a type of intellectual vanguard of current mainstream feminism, which I might very broadly generalize as being fundamentally about anti-rape and anti-violence activism. My basic point is that except at the margins the major trend of activist feminism right now is about ending rape and other violence against women by men. That's about all of it really, and it's unfortunate, but it seems to me at least to be the fact of the situation. I say it's unfortunate not because it does not address absolute and real atrocities and our society, but the focus and methods I don't think are really appropriate, my point is it should be done differently.

[Black Dagger]

Unfortunately Dworkin and her type are at a type of intellectual vanguard of current mainstream feminism

:confused:

Dworkin is a radical feminist, rad fems are not the intellectual 'vanguard' of anything. Though they certainly have a prescence on US college campuses and 'the feminist academy' - but they're certainly not the vanguard of 'mainstream feminism' - that would be something of a contradiction in terms.

I mean, 'mainstream feminism' is a pretty fuzzy concept - there is no unitary movement, so there is no 'vanguard'. Of course there are intellectual trends in feminist theory etc. - say poststructuralist feminism - which has has a strong following these days, but really 'feminism' has such a diverse support base, i don't think it's possible to point out 'leaders'.


My basic point is that except at the margins the major trend of activist feminism right now is about ending rape and other violence against women by men.

Ok, but that doesn't entail that all these activists are 'Dworkinists' or even something similar- least of all the activists who live outside the USA. I just think you're generalising about feminism and feminists way too much here, as well as overstating the importance of Dworkin and radical feminism to activist women everywhere.

[counterblast]

Socialist feminists recognize that the form and extent of womens oppression is dependent on their position in the class structure of capitalist society, and ultimately patriarchy can only be abolished through socialist revolution, due to the links between capitalism and the nuclear family, which functions as the main component of patriarchy.

To simplify sexism as "merely an extention of classism", ignores the reality of SO many women. I'm growing really tired of this notion of "class rules all" that I run into in (mostly white) communist circles.

Sexism, Racism, Homophobia, Transphobia, Ableism and a billion other forms of oppression can still exist inside a classless, socialist society. Until people start recognizing this, any revolution will ultimately be male/white/straight/cis/able dominated.

EDIT: And for clarification, I'm not saying sexism/classism don't intersect; but to say the entirety of sexism is derived from class relations, is really supposititious.

[BobKKKindle$]

Socialist feminists do not believe that sexism is merely another form of classism which will automatically disappear when classes have been abolished, which is what several members seem to believe based on the comments they have made in this thread. This position is generally associated with Marxist feminism, which is not the same as socialist feminism although both traditions have adopted a critique of capitalism and advocate the abolition of the capitalist system.


Sexism [..] can still exist inside a classless, socialist societyThis is clearly true, and so socialists should recognize that patriarchy is an independent system of social oppression (a recognition which is often absent from the Marxist feminist tradition) which can persist when socialists do not adequately target the social and cultural roots of sexist prejudices but merely focus on institutional changes which have a limited impact on the way people think about gender, as shown by historical experience, but at the same time we should also acknowledge that the elimination of sexual oppression requires the abolition of capitalism, and so as long as capitalism continues to exist, women will continue to suffer the burden of patriarchal oppression (especially in the economic sphere) despite the capacity for limited reforms. The main reason for this is that capitalism is dependent on the main component of patriarchy - the nuclear family, as this social institution ensures the efficient reproduction of labour power, and is also an effective mechanism for the dissemination of bourgeois ideology, through the socialization process.


EDIT: And for clarification, I'm not saying sexism/classism don't intersect; but to say the entirety of sexism is derived from class relations, is really supposititious.There appears to be a misunderstanding between us - never in my opening post or in any of my other posts did I suggest that the "entirety of sexism is derived from class relations". The basic concept of patriarchy is premised on the recognition that sexual inequality is a separate form of social oppression.


In fact I'm tempted to the believe that we could strongly mediate if not eliminate patriarchy, at least in the industrialized West, whilst still maintaining our present capitalist institutionsThis is problematic, because, as noted above, the basis of patriarchal oppression is the family unit, especially the domestic division of labour which imposes limits on the ability of women to participate in society on an equal basis with men, because they are faced with the burden of carrying out domestic tasks such as caring for young children and preparing meals for the other members of the family unit. What this means is that the issue of how patriarchy can be eliminated is closely linked to our capacity to develop alternative social arrangements which transcend the limitations of the nuclear family and are more conducive to sexual equality. The most effective alternative is the socialization of functions which are currently carried out through individual family units, in the form of free nurseries and eating facilities, as these services will allow women to take up professions and activities which are currently the exclusive preserve of men.

How does this relate to capitalism? Capitalism is fundamentally unable to provide these services as they would impose an intolerable financial burden on the bourgeois state (especially given the recent trend towards reductions in public expenditure) whereas the family ensures the reproduction of labour power at no financial cost and also ensures that there is a broad market for consumer goods which would not be required in the same quantities under a more efficient system of social provision. As a result, these services can only be provided under socialism, and thus socialism is a prerequisite for gender equality.

[counterblast]

There appears to be a misunderstanding between us - never in my opening post or in any of my other posts did I suggest that the "entirety of sexism is derived from class relations". The basic concept of patriarchy is premised on the recognition that sexual inequality is a separate form of social oppression.

This statement;


Socialist feminists recognize that the form and extent of womens oppression is dependent on their position in the class structure of capitalist society[...]

From what I can gather, it seems you're suggesting that certain aspects of sexism are limited to those women in certain classes... which would imply sexism and class are codependent...

If it means something different, perhaps you could clarify for me?

[BobKKKindle$]

it seems you're suggesting that certain aspects of sexism are limited to those women in certain classesNo, this is incorrect, all women suffer from oppression regardless of which class they belong to, but the impact of a given form of oppression on each individual woman is influenced by class position. For example, all women are oppressed when abortion is not provided by the state as part of a universal health system, but wealthy women are able to get around this problem by purchasing an abortion at a private clinic or, when abortion is subject to legal restrictions, can travel overseas to a country where abortion is available. These options are not available for proletarian women as they do not have the necessary financial resources and cannot afford to take time off work, and so they are more likely to endure the risks of an illegal abortion, or may be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes. A further example is domestic violence, as this form of oppression (which can be understood as the direct use of force against women to keep them in a state of fear and maintain the dominance of the male within the household) is more common in working-class families due to the influence of economic factors which give rise to intense feelings of frustration and despair which are often released through violence against vulnerable family members.

[counterblast]

For example, all women are oppressed when abortion is not provided by the state as part of a universal health system, but wealthy women are able to get around this problem by purchasing an abortion at a private clinic or, when abortion is subject to legal restrictions, can travel overseas to a country where abortion is available.

This isn't sexism, this is an issue of class dynamics and class privilege, as this logic could be applied with ANY medical treatment. It doesn't become a "sexist" issue simply because the issue at hand is abortion. The sexist aspect of outlawing/limiting abortion is the fact women (of any class or with any type resources at their disposal) are allowed something less than complete control of their bodies. To over simplify the scenario by saying "rich women can get abortions, while poor women can't", portrays sexism as an extention of classism, while neglecting to question "why would any woman --affluent or not-- have to go overseas to remove a parasite from her body in the first place?". Sex and class must be addressed on completely seperate but equally important fronts.