Gender Equality: Equal Responsibility (also), PLEASE!

[maxham]

In this modern society, since the last century, gender emancipation had became one of the the groundbreaking for social justice. Women were treated equally as men do. Generally, it's OK.

But, if we analyze, VERY, VERY CAREFULLY, we could also discover various imbalances between the rights & responsiblities in the gender emancipation itself, especially at the women's side. For instance, we all realize that most of the world's societies were patriarchial societies, in which the wife & their children followed the father. Now the imbalances were CLEARLY expressed through the "property separation epsitle" which states that, the husband/father must guarantee the living costs of his household, while the MOTHER MAY WORK FOR HERSELF. This' the 1st imabalance: a household is the RESPONSIBILITY FOR BOTH COUPLE MEMBERS, NOT ONLY THE FATHER OR MOTHER! BOTH COUPLE MEMBERS MUST SUUPPORT EACH OTHER, NOT ONLY RELYING FROM THE FATHER ONLY!!!!

The 2nd mistake coudl also be found if a couple divorced: the children must be funded by their father, BUT, THE MOTHER ALSO NEEDS TO FUND THEIR CHILDREN ALONG WITH THE FATHER, ESP. IF THE MOTHER IS WORKING!!! As I've stated before: A HOUSEHOLD'S RESPONSIBILIES DEPENDS ON THE BOTH COUPLE MEMBERS, NOT ONLY RELYING FROM ONE OF THEM....

I also still believe that the "Ladies First" &/or "Gentlemen" culture also became the barrier for gender equality, cuz there's still some privileges for women, but in gender equality, both sexes must have a same amount of rights & responsibilties, which means, no privileges for one of them or privileges for all...

[Mujer Libre]

So... what are you saying? Are you saying that "feminism has gone too far" and that women are now privileged over men?

Because if you are- you're wrong. As for men funding the household- what a crock. One reason men may tend to contribute more money to the running of a house is because they earn more. 'Male' work is valued more highly than 'female' work. Also, women do, according to a recent study in Australia, something like 60 hours a WEEK of unpaid (and unappreciated) work at home, while men don't get close. The problems here are clearly with capitalism, which has divided labour along gendered lines, perpetuating sexism, and heteropatriarchy, which perpetuates these divisions and back them up with societal assent.

And yes, divorce law can be silly, but that's because heteropatriarchy is silly.

[Black Dagger]

In this modern society, since the last century, gender emancipation had became one of the the groundbreaking for social justice. Women were treated equally as men do. Generally, it's OK.

It sounds like you're saying that womens emancipation has been achieved already? If so, how do you explain continued pay gap between male and female workers and other forms of discrimination? Social violence towards women? Or the imbalance of responsibilities in the home? Where women still do the majority of work. Or the lack of reproductive rights for all women? Etc. etc.


Now the imbalances were CLEARLY expressed through the "property separation epsitle" which states that, the husband/father must guarantee the living costs of his household, while the MOTHER MAY WORK FOR HERSELF. This' the 1st imabalance: a household is the RESPONSIBILITY FOR BOTH COUPLE MEMBERS, NOT ONLY THE FATHER OR MOTHER! BOTH COUPLE MEMBERS MUST SUUPPORT EACH OTHER, NOT ONLY RELYING FROM THE FATHER ONLY!!!!

The 2nd mistake coudl also be found if a couple divorced: the children must be funded by their father, BUT, THE MOTHER ALSO NEEDS TO FUND THEIR CHILDREN ALONG WITH THE FATHER, ESP. IF THE MOTHER IS WORKING!!! As I've stated before: A HOUSEHOLD'S RESPONSIBILIES DEPENDS ON THE BOTH COUPLE MEMBERS, NOT ONLY RELYING FROM ONE OF THEM....

What is the "property separation epistle"? I've googled the term and found 0 results. Given i've no idea what that is, i'm not really sure what you're talking about specifically. So could you please explain that term?

Second, of course the support of a family should be a joint effort - that is conducive to a more equitable relationship generally.

But what you're talking about is not some kind of 'anti-male imbalance' - quite the opposite.

It actually sounds a lot more like legislated patriarchy.

Cementing the role of the man as the 'breadwinner' - the patriarch of the family - it's protector and provider - with the work of women being regarded as of only peripheral interest if any at all. Women can work for some 'spending money' but the responsibility for taking care of the family (at least in financial terms, child-rearing is 'women's work') is the mans - even an essential part of what makes him a 'real man.'

If you have a problem with those ideas then you have a problem with patriarchy, as those are patriarchal values and that is a patriarchal conception of the family - not one that reflects 'gender emancipation' at all.

[jake williams]

heteropatriarchy
I'm cautious about the term because of some interesting things I've seen involving patriarchy and gay male privilege. Other than that though, you and BD are right.

[ev]

The problems here are clearly with capitalism, which has divided labour along gendered lines, perpetuating sexism, and heteropatriarchy, which perpetuates these divisions and back them up with societal assent.

You hit the nail on the head.

Legislation must be introduced that abolish these divisions, ensuring women get the same pay as men for the same labour and are in treated equally in the workplace, the courts and all other sectors of society. This is the only way in the framework of today's society that will allow the status quo to be changed.

[Lynx]

The 2nd mistake coudl also be found if a couple divorced: the children must be funded by their father, BUT, THE MOTHER ALSO NEEDS TO FUND THEIR CHILDREN ALONG WITH THE FATHER, ESP. IF THE MOTHER IS WORKING!!! As I've stated before: A HOUSEHOLD'S RESPONSIBILIES DEPENDS ON THE BOTH COUPLE MEMBERS, NOT ONLY RELYING FROM ONE OF THEM....
In Canada, the custodial parent receives child support. For example, if the father is awarded custody, the mother would be required to pay child support. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I also still believe that the "Ladies First" &/or "Gentlemen" culture also became the barrier for gender equality, cuz there's still some privileges for women, but in gender equality, both sexes must have a same amount of rights & responsibilties, which means, no privileges for one of them or privileges for all...
To the extent that chivalry is tied to etiquette, I don't believe this is true.

[S. Zetor]

I think a lot of the misunderstading about women being privileged over men is due to a failure to see patriarchy as a social system, instead of a more liberal-influenced model of male individuals having rights that females don't (and vice versa).

This gentleman behaviour is a good example of that.. now, from a more liberal-influenced viewpoint it might seem that the women have the privilege to have a door opened to them, while men don't have this - on the contrary they're the ones duty-bound by their gentlemanliness to serve the woman in this way.

But I think this is better seen as a social system where the woman has her place, and the man his place, that never shall they meet. In this gentleman scheme I think the door-opening is connected to the image of the woman being helpless, constantly in need of male support (and thus control), and not some independent right that women have while men don't.

Also re the child custody in case of divorce, why it's mostly mothers who get the children.. maybe it has something to do with who does all the housework, who raises the kids etc., while the man is out there working on his career and winning the bread etc.. Also this is a problem of a social system, what is the man's job and position and society and what is the woman's, and not some question of individual rights in a particular case that's not connected to anything else.

Politically speaking, I think the right demand is not so much "decide more child custody cases in favour of fathers!" but rather something that attacks the gender roles, like "Fathers too have the right to stay at home with children!" That (or something to the same effect) will put the conservative masculinist-equalrightists on defense..

And also there's the classic equal pay slogan that's equally (if not more) important, as a lot of the basis of the breadwinner model and the woman staying at home is the simple calculation that the family loses less money if the one that earns less, i.e. the woman, lets go of her job in favour of childraising (if there's no good daycare system in place)..

[Pogue]

Can we really call domestic violence evidence of sexism in society, when such actions are based upon an individuals choice to be a violent sexist, and such behaviour is not displayed by most men nor endorsed by society?

[StalinFanboy]

Different groups need to be treated differently in this society in order for there to be equal opportunity in life. An example would be the fact that there are businesses that don't like to hire women or don't promote them for biological reasons (ie pregnancy).

[TC]

Blackdagger I thought your post was really really really excellent so please take the following as something that I saw as arising from it, not in opposition to it.


It sounds like you're saying that womens emancipation has been achieved already? If so, how do you explain continued pay gap between male and female workers and other forms of discrimination? Social violence towards women? Or the imbalance of responsibilities in the home? Where women still do the majority of work. Or the lack of reproductive rights for all women? Etc. etc.

I think its a mistake to include 'social violence towards women' as evidence of this. In fact that there is much more social violence towards men, we just don't see it that way, because our patriarchal social system conditions us to notice the fact that a person subject to violence is female in light of her being female, but not if they're male. This is because despite being a minority of the population, male dominance in society leads them to be the expected type in any scenario.

As an experiment google "male [role with even gender distribution]" then google "female [role with even gender distribution]". Female tourist gets far more hits than male tourist for instance: when tourists are male its less worth mentioning.

I went in detail to try to explain this point because its important to show how the assumptions of McKinnon-esq radical feminism are actually in opposition to the marxian/structualist/materialist type feminism that analyzes patriarchy as an institution with a material base in family relations rather than some generalized social disadvantage against women...and without an accurate assessment of how patriarchy is structured we can't dismantle it.




What is the "property separation epistle"? I've googled the term and found 0 results. Given i've no idea what that is, i'm not really sure what you're talking about specifically. So could you please explain that term?

Its...really not obvious what he meant, but he actually meant to write "estoppel", which is a legal concept where if one person leads another person to expect and depend on them in particular ways that affect their behavior to their detrement, it can create certain rights to carrying it out.

If for instance, a husband says to his wife "I'll be the man and spend time at the office advancing my career, social life, interacting with the real world, and support you financially, if you look after our brats and my sexual and creature comfort desires at the expense of your social life, productive work life, leaving you with few friends and no resume and no means to self support!" And the wife says "Well honey sounds like a raw deal but since you're a bit older and a bit further on in your job and make a bit more money now, i guess doing it the other way around wouldn't make sense, and I wouldn't want you to feel all imasculated anyways" and then, then years down the line when they divorace, his earning capacity has increased five fold and hers has remained stagnent or reduced from lack of work...then she would be entitled to financial support in virtue of the detrement she suffered due to her reliance on his promise.





Cementing the role of the man as the 'breadwinner' - the patriarch of the family - it's protector and provider - with the work of women being regarded as of only peripheral interest if any at all. Women can work for some 'spending money' but the responsibility for taking care of the family (at least in financial terms, child-rearing is 'women's work') is the mans - even an essential part of what makes him a 'real man.'

If you have a problem with those ideas then you have a problem with patriarchy, as those are patriarchal values and that is a patriarchal conception of the family - not one that reflects 'gender emancipation' at all.

I don't really have anything to add except that you put that very well.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

So... what are you saying? Are you saying that "feminism has gone too far" and that women are now privileged over men?

It's not "feminism going too far." It's sexism towards men persisting.

[TC]

I'm cautious about the term because of some interesting things I've seen involving patriarchy and gay male privilege. Other than that though, you and BD are right.


Patriarchy is a phenomenon of male privilege generated by the gendered division of labor in the family and the resulting inequalities in public life; this necessarily only privileges straight men because gay men are neither in a dominant nor subordinate position in patriarchal family relations.

[Jazzratt]

It's not "feminism going too far." It's sexism towards men persisting.

Sexism toward men, racism toward whites what's next - hetrophobia? Cisphobia? And you're a "leftist" (albeit a 'free market' one, :laugh:)?!

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Sexism toward men, racism toward whites what's next - hetrophobia? Cisphobia? And you're a "leftist" (albeit a 'free market' one, :laugh:)?!

Yeah, because sexism towards men doesn't exist/should be laughed at. :rolleyes:

I correct myself: yours is the worst post. I'm sorry to see that you're a sexist who finds amusement in different people having their own problems.

As for compelling yourself to belittle market socialists, I can only ask that you get over your childish dilemma with anything that doesn't agree with your technocratic ideals. Two different populations (anarchist forum and communist club) on this forum already acknowledged that mutualism is a true leftist position to uphold.

[Jazzratt]

Yeah, because sexism towards men doesn't exist/should be laughed at. :rolleyes:

Sexism against men manifests as personal prejudice, it's unpleasent but really not going to change much. It's not going to result in men being paid less for their work than women are, it's not going to result in men finding it harder to be taken seriously as academics and it's not going to stand in the way of a man getting on with his life.


I correct myself: yours is the worst post. I'm sorry to see that you're a sexist who finds amusement in different people having their own problems.

That someone carrying so much privilege thinks a few people making fun of them is a big problem is their asinine complaint - not mine.


As for compelling yourself to belittle market socialists, I can only ask that you get over your childish dilemma with anything that doesn't agree with your technocratic ideals. Two different populations (anarchist forum and communist club) on this forum already acknowledged that mutualism is a true leftist position to uphold.
Sorry but having some people accepting your idea doesn't mean I have to agree with it, I'm sorry if you're so precious about your theory that anyone questioning it must be vociferously attacked as creating false dilemmas but I'm not going to be saving your ego for you. Personally I support quite a few (non-market)economic set ups that are not logical energy-based systems, but you wouldn't understand that given that you're a randroid with a lick of red paint.

[Junius]

Originally posted by Jazzratt
Sexism against men manifests as personal prejudice And where does this 'personal prejudice' come from? Some feminists whom rejected Marx's historical materialist conception of history, thus formulated ahistorical theories of patriarchy; that patriarchy was to be explained in biological differences or the man's natural need to control a woman's sexuality/reproductive capacity. In other words, they formulated unscientific theories to explain what is ultimately a social phenomena!

If you see matters of sexism as nothing but individual personal prejudice, and not founded in society itself, then you see sexism as something superfluous to the system. In other words, a variety of liberal feminism.

Men do not, and have never, had a privileged position in history which, independent of social relations, gives them the power to contort social relations to their advantage. Men are social beings with social values. Just like women. So, it is manifestly untrue to say that 'sexism against men manifests as personal prejudice.' Sexism against men manifests itself in society itself.

But to get to your point:


it's unpleasent but really not going to change much Uh, an individual man calling a woman a 'slut' is 'not going to change much.' Just like an individual woman claiming all men are unintelligent isn't 'going to change much.'

And nor does individual personal prejudice result in women being paid less. These things have their basis in society. Not the whims of an individual.

But if you think that Marxists are concerned with fighting individual name-calling then you're deluded.

Patriarchy defines a man's life from his birth. It will define his education, his job, his working hours, his relations with his children, his emotional expression, it will help define his political views, his interests and dislikes, it will define his health, his date of death, his place in society. Hence, its 'going to change' quite a lot. Is it less socially disadvantageous than limits placed on working women? Yes. Should it nevertheless be confronted and challenged? Absolutely.

---

I think S.Zetor's post is good. Social relations of reproduction between men and women are mediated by their relations to the conditions of production. Production determines the material limits, the structural limits, of reproduction. This is so because before someone decides to have children they must eat. They must have an adequate wage. Even before that, they are influenced as to why they have children, by the society in which that 'decision' is made. No abstract planet on which to explain social differences, nothing but hard reality.

When we look at the family, and along with it gender roles, sexuality and so forth, in this manner, we make a judgement that has its basis in society itself. We can then also begin to analyse particular circumstances and come to a conclusion as to the current role of the family, or the roles of females or males, and hence, a conclusion as to whether it benefits workers, capitalists or both. And hopefully to a conclusion as to how these things could ever be resolved.

In this sense, we don't see marriage as something forced by the ruling class, or invented with a conspiracy in mind. But as a response to the capitalist system being unable to provide work to all, male and female, or unable to provide a system of social care and a continuing desire for an expanding labor force and an unreserved labor surplus. Of course, communal arrangements of care for children and household work are possible, but they often challenge property relations also, and hence typically fail.

Its not the female subordination to the male which requires her to do the bulk of the housework. It is the male worker's subordination to capital which requires it of her, it is capital's limits and greed which compel these social forms, which, of course, can be somewhat relieved by class struggle, just like limits on child labor were imposed by class struggle as explained by Marx in Capital.

This is also why most forms of feminism are pawns of the bourgeoisie; they fail to critique capitalism and are unapologetic about property relations. Its also why if you're a Marxist it is superfluous to say you are a 'feminist.'

[Jazzratt]

And where does this 'personal prejudice' come from? Some feminists whom rejected Marx's historical materialist conception of history, thus formulated ahistorical theories of patriarchy; that patriarchy was to be explained in biological differences or the man's natural need to control a woman's sexuality/reproductive capacity. In other words, they formulated unscientific theories to explain what is ultimately a social phenomena!

This is not what I'm trying to say, the whys of patriarchy are much more simple than that and have nothing to do with men being inherently evil and wishing to control women, there is no need to be so obtuse.


If you see matters of sexism as nothing but individual personal prejudice, and not founded in society itself, then you see sexism as something superfluous to the system. In other words, a variety of liberal feminism.

No, I see matters of anti-male sexism as matters of personal prejudice with no formal state or societal mechanism to back them up and therefore completely and utterly irrelevant. This is what I am driving at, and what seems to have escaped you; the societal privilege of males over females manifested in the world around us has a much greater effect than personally expressed misandry; which is what all misandry, ultimately, is.


But to get to your point:

Uh, an individual man calling a woman a 'slut' is 'not going to change much.' Just like an individual woman claiming all men are unintelligent isn't 'going to change much.'

And nor does individual personal prejudice result in women being paid less. These things have their basis in society. Not the whims of an individual.


Oh for christ's sake, did no one ever teach you to read. I am pointing out that because the disadvantages women face due to institutional sexism are rooted in society they are more worthy of concern than anti-male prejuidice which, while insulting, is generally based on individual whim.


But if you think that Marxists are concerned with fighting individual name-calling then you're deluded.

I'm aware they are not, GeneCosta however appears to be doing just that with his insane attacks on "anti-male sexism" as he sees it.


Patriarchy defines a man's life from his birth. It will define his education, his job, his working hours, his relations with his children, his emotional expression, it will help define his political views, his interests and dislikes, it will define his health, his date of death, his place in society. Hence, its 'going to change' quite a lot. Is it less socially disadvantageous than limits placed on working women? Yes. Should it nevertheless be confronted and challenged? Absolutely.

The detrimental effects of patriarchal on men, especially as regards their social relations with women and their attitudes is, of course, to be challenged but talk of "feminism gone too far" or "anti-male sexism" is the rallying cry of unreconstructed fucksticks. I am not interested in dealing with the lesser issue of the "discrimination" the poor menfolk have to suffer because it is not, truly, to their economic or social disadvantage.

[Junius]

Originally posted by Jazzratt
No, I see matters of anti-male sexism as matters of personal prejudice with no formal state or societal mechanism to back them up


Originally posted by Jazzratt
I am pointing out that because the disadvantages women face due to institutional sexism are rooted in society they are more worthy of concern than anti-male prejuidice which, while insulting, is generally based on individual whim. Then you'd be wrong. All sorts of laws, societal expectations, economic conditions, state-sanctioned rules all contribute to a gender divide which is harmful to both female and male workers. Sorry, but if you think that's a result of 'individual whim' then you're an idealist.


Originally posted by Jazzratt
I am not interested in dealing with the lesser issue of the "discrimination" the poor menfolk have to suffer because it is not, truly, to their economic or social disadvantage. Actually, I would say that men being expected to work heavy labor jobs and to work full time, which necessarily limits their life, to, typically, have a distant and defined relationship with his son or daughter, to not talk about his feelings, to have preconceived ideas on what interests him and what doesn't, to essentially be a tool of capital is of true economic and social harm. Then again, I think being a worker is being in a position of economic disadvantage.

[Pawn Power]

I think its a mistake to include 'social violence towards women' as evidence of this. In fact that there is much more social violence towards men, we just don't see it that way, because our patriarchal social system conditions us to notice the fact that a person subject to violence is female in light of her being female, but not if they're male. This is because despite being a minority of the population, male dominance in society leads them to be the expected type in any scenario.



I understand what you are getting at and agree to an extent. It is true that there is often a more emphasized portrayal of violence against women in many situations, for example the featured death of women and children in war, as if they innately went together. A paternalistic society sees women as needed to be protected/guarded from from men.

However, I think that "social violence" towards women is a relevant example to us. Not because it is necessarily greater in all regards but that it demonstrates patriarchy. What more, a lot of violence against women goes unnoticed/ unreported. A new report (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/18/us-soaring-rates-rape-and-violence-against-women) on rape and violence against women confirms this: "The new numbers indicate that previously, the government significantly underestimated the number of individuals affected by domestic and sexual violence in this country."

Social violence, including sexual violence exhibits a particular breed of violence that is not a demonstration of sexism simple because women are "victims" of this violence but because this violence is targeted at women because of they are women.

Perhaps, I misinterpreted what you were saying but I think that social violence must be included when talking about patriarchy and sexism.

This group, INCITE Women of Color Against Violence (http://www.incite-national.org/index.php?s=1), does a lot of organizing around issues of violence against women and puts for some excellent analysis on the subject. I mention them because I think everyone should check out their work and because perhaps some of my thoughts might be influenced by material they wrote.

[TC]

And where does this 'personal prejudice' come from? Some feminists whom rejected Marx's historical materialist conception of history, thus formulated ahistorical theories of patriarchy; that patriarchy was to be explained in biological differences or the man's natural need to control a woman's sexuality/reproductive capacity. In other words, they formulated unscientific theories to explain what is ultimately a social phenomena!

If you see matters of sexism as nothing but individual personal prejudice, and not founded in society itself, then you see sexism as something superfluous to the system. In other words, a variety of liberal feminism.

This seems very confused.

Just as critical race theorists recognized a distinction between racism in the head and racism in the world, between personal prejudice and institutional racism, there is likewise 'sexism' in the sense of social systems that reproduce gender inequalities, and 'sexism' in the sense of personal bigotry. Sexism against women comes in both forms, sexism against men only in the later form. That was Jazzratt's point and thats a view not only consistent with but necessitated by Marxism.



Men do not, and have never, had a privileged position in history which, independent of social relations, gives them the power to contort social relations to their advantage. Men are social beings with social values. Just like women. So, it is manifestly untrue to say that 'sexism against men manifests as personal prejudice.' Sexism against men manifests itself in society itself.

Of course its in society in the sense that people are in society, but sexism against men does not have material ramifications for socioeconomic power dynamics as sexism against women does. The sum of all social forces do not produce a society where women are paid more and overwhelmingly overrepresented in positions of power, a society with incentives structured towards female dominant households, offices, and states. Its not even equal.

A marxist understands the difference between structural and superstructural phenomenon and recognizes that while there is a dialectical relationship between the two they are catagorically different.


Uh, an individual man calling a woman a 'slut' is 'not going to change much.' Just like an individual woman claiming all men are unintelligent isn't 'going to change much.'


of course not, but thats not what we're talking about. We're talking about the fact that women spend a grossly disproprotionate amount of time in unpaid non-productive work at their social detrement and the benefit of the majority of men, that this then has secondary negative effects on women who avoid doing that in creating social expectations and norms, and that this system is designed to reproduce itself because there are real power relations with interests in preserving it.




When we look at the family, and along with it gender roles, sexuality and so forth, in this manner, we make a judgement that has its basis in society itself.

Your position seems to assume that the family comes from soceity, from capitalism, etc, rather than being part of society, part of capitalism. The capitalist mode of production both produces and is produced by the family in that these are interdependent institutions with overlapping membership.


We can then also begin to analyse particular circumstances and come to a conclusion as to the current role of the family, or the roles of females or males, and hence, a conclusion as to whether it benefits workers, capitalists or both.

Or, I'm afraid, that it benefits some workers more than others, that it sometimes benefits capitalism and sometimes doesn't and benefits some sectors and not others. The political economy is simply so much more complex than you seem to assume.



In this sense, we don't see marriage as something forced by the ruling class, or invented with a conspiracy in mind.

Just as species evolve to fit ecological niches through selection by the survival of the fittest genetic competition, social institutions develop to fit social niches, selected by class struggle given the resources available to the class forces. In this regard they do not need a designer to have what is in effect, a design.


But as a response to the capitalist system being unable to provide work to all, male and female, or unable to provide a system of social care and a continuing desire for an expanding labor force and an unreserved labor surplus.

Its not the female subordination to the male which requires her to do the bulk of the housework. It is the male worker's subordination to capital which requires it of her, it is capital's limits and greed which compel these social forms, which, of course, can be somewhat relieved by class struggle, just like limits on child labor were imposed by class struggle as explained by Marx in Capital.


Not to be offensive but please do some background reading; what you're describing is not only explicitly contradicted by Marx and Engels but its totally reductionistic and incompatible with Marx's general theory of history and social structure.

Its not a question of the 'capitalist systems failure to provide work' but rather that capitalism requires an industrial reserve army of the unemployed in order to keep wages down otherwise: the system doesn't work with zero unemployment because then market forces favor job seekers in terms of bargaining power.

The 'expanding labor force' is also by 'design' in that it serves the function of ensuring that there isn't overinvestment in 'dead capital' to 'living capital' (i.e. reinvestment to labor) or the declining rate of profit will make all capitalist enterprize eventually have a profit rate of zero (since profit is derived from the difference between surplus value and total investment and surplus value is derived from living labor only).

This...would be apparent if you actually read Capital instead of just citing it (incorrectly I might add). Incidentally, Marx said no such thing about child labor in Capital. Can we make a rule that if you're going to repeat something you've read on revleft attributed to a dead commie god, people at least have the sense not to cite to specific works.

[Guerrilla22]

The 2nd mistake coudl also be found if a couple divorced: the children must be funded by their father, BUT, THE MOTHER ALSO NEEDS TO FUND THEIR CHILDREN ALONG WITH THE FATHER, ESP. IF THE MOTHER IS WORKING!!! As I've stated before: A HOUSEHOLD'S RESPONSIBILIES DEPENDS ON THE BOTH COUPLE MEMBERS, NOT ONLY RELYING FROM ONE OF THEM....

Actually studies have shown that when couples seperate or a child is brought into a single family member household, women actually incur a far greater financial cost on average than males. I didn't take the time to find a source, but I assure you this true. So it is definitely not fair to assert that women are not supporting their children financailly because men are forced to pay child support by law.

Aside from that, child support often is not nearly enough to support a child, nor is it necessarily paid, despite the fact the law requires men to do so.

[TC]

However, I think that "social violence" towards women is a relevant example to us. Not because it is necessarily greater in all regards but that it demonstrates patriarchy.

If you have a scientific perspective on society, one thats informed by the data rather than imposed on it, you can't look at one set of relations (i.e. violence) and arbitrarily ascribe it different meaning when its violence against women then violence against men. I'm sorry but it demonstrates no such thing.

The fact that women earn far less on average provides evidence of patriarchal relations because this is a statistic where society materially relates to men differently from women on average. With regard to violence, the statistic favors women.

The fact that patriarchy exists to the detriment of most women and the benefit of some men does not mean that everything bad that happens to any woman is positive evidence of this.



What more, a lot of violence against women goes unnoticed/ unreported.

Sure but thats probably as true, or even more true of men, since being the victim of violence is emasculating in our culture giving men even more of an incentive to underreport than women.


A new report (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/12/18/us-soaring-rates-rape-and-violence-against-women) on rape and violence against women confirms this: "The new numbers indicate that previously, the government significantly underestimated the number of individuals affected by domestic and sexual violence in this country."

Its just, frankly, a joke, to say that rape is an underrecognized problem in society though. It gets a tremendous amount of play in the media, its almost as if they want us to be afraid to walk alone after dark without a male partner, wonder what kindof a social effect that might have!


Social violence, including sexual violence exhibits a particular breed of violence that is not a demonstration of sexism simple because women are "victims" of this violence but because this violence is targeted at women because of they are women.

Not really: rapists rape individual women because they want to rape that individual woman, because they both desire and loathe her. Projecting motive onto rapists as if its a hate crime doesn't explain the fact that rapists tend to rape their female friends, not strangers, and tend to rape their demographic peers, not women at random. That anyone can hypothetically be a victim of any hypothetical rapist doesn't change the fact that some are much more probable.



Perhaps, I misinterpreted what you were saying but I think that social violence must be included when talking about patriarchy and sexism.

You should analyze everything but not assume that the liberals have it right. The fixation on rape and female insecurity in the big scary world without big manly men to protect them at night might actually be more a reflection on the ideology created by patriarchy than a reacftion against patriarchy.