Was it wrong of me not to "celebrate" International Women's Day?

[Prentasid]

I have been thinking about this the last few days. I'm a male, but I didn't "celebrate" or congratulate any woman out there. Some got angry at me for not saying congratulation to them.

I have never "celebrated" the International Women's Day. I have never celebrated for gays, black people, etc.

I believe that we are all the same; we are all human beings. That's why I don't celebrate it. There is no big deal if you are a woman, if you are gay or if you are black. You are a human being.

I know that we should fight for woman's right, but I don't feel it's necessary the right way to do it.

What do you believe? Did you celebrate the International Women's Day? If not, why?

I just had to get it out. I've been thinking about it for some days now.
Maybe I should start celebrating?

[Red Economist]

As a guy, I've been thinking this too. it is something I should take more seriously. But, I think it's what you do the other 364 days that counts towards making a real difference.

It's like Christmas- why be nice to people only once a year when you can try and keep it up every other day too? Having days like this is a 'nudge' for the population, but on it's own it won't do anything beyond get people to think about it.

[tallguy]

I have been thinking about this the last few days. I'm a male, but I didn't "celebrate" or congratulate any woman out there. Some got angry at me for not saying congratulation to them.

I have never "celebrated" the International Women's Day. I have never celebrated for gays, black people, etc.

I believe that we are all the same; we are all human beings. That's why I don't celebrate it. There is no big deal if you are a woman, if you are gay or if you are black. You are a human being.

I know that we should fight for woman's right, but I don't feel it's necessary the right way to do it.

What do you believe? Did you celebrate the International Women's Day? If not, why?

I just had to get it out. I've been thinking about it for some days now.
Maybe I should start celebrating?

Christ on a bike, does it matter? Celebrate...don't celebrate.

What matters is what you do each and every day.

The real stuff.

[BIXX]

As a guy, I've been thinking this too. it is something I should take more seriously. But, I think it's what you do the other 364 days that counts towards making a real difference.

It's like Christmas- why be nice to people only once a year when you can try and keep it up every other day too? Having days like this is a 'nudge' for the population, but on it's own it won't do anything beyond get people to think about it.

Better than I could have said it.

If you were a piece of shit every other day and you chose the one day to be great, it would really mean nothing.

[Comrade Jacob]

Don't feel bad, I remembered but didn't have a clue how to celebrate. How does one celebrate woman's day? Wear a ribbon?
I am in no way bashing it even if it comes off that way.
I think it matters a lot more if you fight for women's rights and human-rights on a daily basis than doing the day thing.

[#FF0000]

I believe that we are all the same; we are all human beings. That's why I don't celebrate it. There is no big deal if you are a woman, if you are gay or if you are black. You are a human being.

This is true but this is not how society is structured. In society, it matters very much whether or not you are a woman, gay, black, an immigrant, whatever. These things, unfortunately, have a huge impact on one's access to educational resources, healthcare, their relationship to the criminal justice system, etc. etc. etc.

As for your question, I really don't know if there's a way to celebrate International Women's Day. I think people usually just acknowledge it.

[Pinto Morais]

Some got angry at me for not saying congratulation to them.

Seriously? That reminds me of those people who do something for you and get really angry if you don't thank them with enough enthusiasm. It is like they are only helping you in order to get your thanks.

[Sam_b]

It's pretty easy for white men with privilege to believe that "we are all the same", right? It is, in fact, a "big deal" to be in a patriarchal society full of oppression for women, LBGTQ people and POC; and to be able to have a space in order to bring this to attention, which is what happens on IWD in a lot of communities with activist and cultural events. If you're a man I don't think you should be particularly granted a say in the supposed "right way" for women to conduct liberation.

[Slavic]

It's pretty easy for white men with privilege to believe that "we are all the same", right? It is, in fact, a "big deal" to be in a patriarchal society full of oppression for women, LBGTQ people and POC; and to be able to have a space in order to bring this to attention, which is what happens on IWD in a lot of communities with activist and cultural events. If you're a man I don't think you should be particularly granted a say in the supposed "right way" for women to conduct liberation.

Your right, unless you are "Insert Identity" then you have no right to talk about "Insert Identity". Shesh its no wonder nothing gets done.

We are the society, we are the community. The more people realize that "we are all the same" the better life becomes.

[#FF0000]

We are the society, we are the community. The more people realize that "we are all the same" the better life becomes.

I don't think that a dude never has anything to add to a discussion about feminism or women's liberation, just like being a woman doesn't necessarily mean one has some special secret knowledge or an inherently more insightful opinion about women's struggles, but I think one needs to be aware of where they stand. The fact of the matter is that society treats people very differently based on their gender/race/sexuality/whatever.

[Sam_b]

Your right, unless you are "Insert Identity" then you have no right to talk about "Insert Identity". Shesh its no wonder nothing gets done.

I didn't say this so you can keep your rolling-eyes smileys for when you actually understand an argument. Talk about women and minorities all you like. But it is not the role of white leftist men to tell women and minorities how to organise themselves. We are not all the same, as much as privileged men with fuck-all understanding of intersectionality would have you believe otherwise. This goes for society, politics and yes, even in leftist organisations.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Your right, unless you are "Insert Identity" then you have no right to talk about "Insert Identity". Shesh its no wonder nothing gets done.

We are the society, we are the community. The more people realize that "we are all the same" the better life becomes.

No one said you couldn't have an opinion, just that you shouldn't expect everyone to agree with it or even listen to it since it's probably lacking a great deal in context

[neola]

You're right! Everyone is entitled to say or express their opinion but not everyone will agree to your opinion.

IMO, I don't celebrate women's day but I acknowledge it. Women's day for me is just acknowledging their rights and role in society. Yet, all men are equal in my views.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I believe that we are all the same; we are all human beings. That's why I don't celebrate it. There is no big deal if you are a woman, if you are gay or if you are black. You are a human being.

Liberal idealism at its finest. You might as well say "we're all human beings, whether we're capitalists or workers."

International Women's Day was created by socialist women, btw.

[Goblin]

I was actually invited to participate in a march, but chose not to go. Eh, blame my laziness. I did acknowledge the day though.

[Rosa Partizan]

I believe that we are all the same; we are all human beings. That's why I don't celebrate it. There is no big deal if you are a woman, if you are gay or if you are black. You are a human being.

This mindset would work out if we lived in an absolutely emancipated, progressive society. But in the world we're having now, it means marginalizing struggles of less privileged people, which basically can be anyone that is not male AND heterosexual AND white AND able-bodied and so on. It's like saying to a black person, I'm colorblind. It's awesome to be colorblind in perfect society. But until then, you can't close your eyes on what is happening to all those marginalized groups.

http://thesojournersguidetothegalaxy...vs-justice.jpg

just imagine the two smaller persons being black or female or trans or whatever, and you get my point.

[BOZG]

The idea that we should "celebrate" International Women's Day is really just a reflection of how low consciousness is when it comes to women's oppression. The idea shouldn't be to "celebrate" women but to commemorate the enormous struggles that have been waged by women, not just for their own rights but for the working class as a whole. And more importantly it should be a day for raising consciousness about women's struggles and using it as a platform to further those struggles

I noticed that the OP is from Norwegian so I presume that some parallels can be drawn with Sweden where there are enormous contradictions when it comes to consciousness. On the one hand, feminism as a concept and ideology is a very real thing. Nearly all political parties identify themselves as feminists which indicates quite a high level of consciousness (even if it's confused) while at the same, the historic strength of Social Democracy and the relative "advancements" in women's rights undermine that consciousness. There's a very real current that things that women's equality has been achieved. And it only adds to this idea that we should "celebrate" women themselves rather than their struggles.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I didn't say this so you can keep your rolling-eyes smileys for when you actually understand an argument. Talk about women and minorities all you like. But it is not the role of white leftist men to tell women and minorities how to organise themselves.

Why not? Using that sort of moralist argument, you could argue that it was wrong for the petit-bourgeois Marx and Engels to tell the proletariat how to organise itself, especially since they opposed the proletarian Weitling. Politesse is not as important as correct strategy (not to mention that this sort of "men have no business telling women how to organise" thinking leads to the acceptance of murderous transphobia by bourgeois feminists).

Of course, the notion that "we are all the same" is simply not true. And the notion that existing structural oppression can be fought by ignoring it is at best misguided, and at worst a "left" cover for bigotry.

[Sam_b]

Using that sort of moralist argument, you could argue that it was wrong for the petit-bourgeois Marx and Engels to tell the proletariat how to organise itself, especially since they opposed the proletarian Weitling. Politesse is not as important as correct strategy (not to mention that this sort of "men have no business telling women how to organise" thinking leads to the acceptance of murderous transphobia by bourgeois feminists).

You could argue, but I don't think it's correct. Considering for instance that the Critique of the Gotha Programme clearly expresses emancipation as an act in which the working class takes on itself, we can clearly see where Marxist sympathies lie or should lie. If this is not enough Marx makes it plain and clear throughout, for instance:

The international activity of the working classes does not in any way depend on the existence of the International Working Men's Association. This was only the first attempt to create a central organ for the activity; an attempt which was a lasting success on account of the impulse which it gave but which was no longer realizable in its historical form after the fall of the Paris Commune.

This is not the most obvious choice of quote here; indeed it would be that "the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class itself", from both a political and economic position. What I believe Marx to be saying here is that, as an emancipatory force, the First International is actually irrelevant when compared to the activity as a class on the whole, as it is the class itself that will work toward its own emancipation.

Now let's transport this theory to the discussion point at the moment. I don't think 'moralism' should be banded about here without actually looking into the fact that moralism itself is grounded in ethics, it's being used here merely as a disparaging term. We listen to oppressed people, that should be the bottom line; and if we can support them in their emancipation sure, but is it our role to be in some sort of leading position when we have no real understanding of the oppression which we haven't experienced ourselves? The idea of "transphobia and bourgeois feminists" is actually a pretty nasty foil here considering the work that is being done both in the feminist and LGBTQ movement to challenge and eradicate this. We should be supportive of those efforts as allies, but it reeks completely of privilege that men somehow feel the need to centre themselves in a struggle that they cannot fully grasp. Input is helpful, yes, and we should be theorising: but there is a huge difference between supporting women and doing what we can (challenging sexism) and telling them how to organise and having men take the lead as some sort of fountain of knowledge.

In short, 'telling' is perhaps not the best word here, but it needs to be recognised that it is women who need to emancipate themselves, and not have others do a bad job for them.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You could argue, but I don't think it's correct. Considering for instance that the Critique of the Gotha Programme clearly expresses emancipation as an act in which the working class takes on itself, we can clearly see where Marxist sympathies lie or should lie. If this is not enough Marx makes it plain and clear throughout, for instance:

The international activity of the working classes does not in any way depend on the existence of the International Working Men's Association. This was only the first attempt to create a central organ for the activity; an attempt which was a lasting success on account of the impulse which it gave but which was no longer realizable in its historical form after the fall of the Paris Commune.

This is not the most obvious choice of quote here; indeed it would be that "the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class itself", from both a political and economic position. What I believe Marx to be saying here is that, as an emancipatory force, the First International is actually irrelevant when compared to the activity as a class on the whole, as it is the class itself that will work toward its own emancipation.

In the same paragraph, Marx explicitly calls the IWA an "attempt to create a central organ for the activity [of the working class]", in other words a revolutionary leadership. That the emancipation of the working class will be an act of the working class itself is an elementary postulate of Marxist theory, but it doesn't mean that the proletarian struggle should be conducted without revolutionary leadership, or even worse, that the reactionary strata of the proletariat should be allowed to drag the vanguard down. It's a question of social power - only the proletariat can liberate the proletariat, not because of some moral principle, but because only the proletariat has the social power to do so. Groups that are doubly oppressed under capitalism - women, LGBT people etc. - must also rely on the proletariat, again not because the proletariat is Good and Noble, but because these groups do not have either the cohesion (in particular there is a large class split within these groups) or the social power to smash the bourgeois state.

Of course, this is all irrelevant, since Marx clearly did state that the proletariat, if it is to succeed in its world-historic mission of overthrowing capitalism, needs to organise in a specific way. He opposed certain proletarian leaders (Weitling for example) and organisations (the Lassalleans) even though he, himself, was not a proletarian. If men "have no business telling women how to organise", paraphrasing, then Marx had no business telling workers how to organise.

Now let's transport this theory to the discussion point at the moment. I don't think 'moralism' should be banded about here without actually looking into the fact that moralism itself is grounded in ethics, it's being used here merely as a disparaging term.

Well, yes, moralism is usually grounded in some form of ethics, but ethics itself is part of bourgeois ideology, whose social functions include maintaining the rule of the bourgeoisie.

We listen to oppressed people, that should be the bottom line; and if we can support them in their emancipation sure, but is it our role to be in some sort of leading position when we have no real understanding of the oppression which we haven't experienced ourselves?

No, the bottom line should be - we present the communist programme. In doing so we will come into contradiction with the present consciousness of both the workers and the doubly-oppressed groups of workers. This is not something to be avoided - in fact it is to be welcomed.

The notion that someone has "no real understanding" of oppression that they haven't experienced themselves is probably one of the most harmful myths in the present socialist movement. The facts - the wages, the laws, the events, all of these are a matter of public record. The only reason people claim that oppression needs to be experienced in order to be understood is that people conflate personal experience of oppression with oppression itself, emotion and impressions with the material fact of structural violence.

One of the best treatments of women's liberation I have read was written by a (Black) man; conversely, many women if not most do not understand the special oppression of women at all.

The idea of "transphobia and bourgeois feminists" is actually a pretty nasty foil here considering the work that is being done both in the feminist and LGBTQ movement to challenge and eradicate this.

"Is being done." And in the mean time, should we allow radfems into socialist spaces unchecked, because to do anything else would be to tell women how to organise themselves? As if.