| Theory |
|
The Struggle Against Patriarchy May 20, 2004 by RedStar2000 |
The nature of patriarchy and of women's resistance to it is often a "difficult" problem for the predominately-male left to deal with. There are many currents of feminist thought on the subject and it's easy to "lose one's way" in the "clutter".
Finding the proletarian "needle" in the bourgeois "haystack" is the subject of this collection of (unusually long) posts.
============================================
quote:
The ultimate goal of patriarchy is providing males with [the] widest possible sexual access to females.
Almost, but not quite. Its original "intent" was to provide ruling class males with not only the "widest possible sexual access to females" but exclusive possession of chosen females and paternal "certainty" for the transmission of inherited property to male heirs.
The "original purpose" is largely attenuated, but the ideological superstructure of patriarchy lingers on...in many ways.
quote:
American women, unless they are asexual or lesbian, are supposed to go through 10 or 15 years of sex community services before patriarchy allows them to restrict their number of partners to one or none.
One way to look at it, I suppose. To the extent that both men and women see each other as commodities (an outlook more "in tune" with modern capitalism), there's probably a good deal of "comparison shopping" that takes place...including the obligatory "test drives".
Not to mention much of the rhetoric that surrounds contemporary relationships; e.g., "is your emotional investment in your partner paying off?"
Those who most forcefully articulate explicitly patriarchal ideology in our era are generally doing so as part of one or another version of religious fundamentalism. Far from suggesting that women should provide "10 or 15 years of sex community services", they still maintain the "traditional value" of female servitude to her father and then to her husband and then, if she lives long enough, to her sons.
Birth control and abortion rights are anathema to patriarchy -- females must "never" be allowed to control their own fertility...that (from the patriarchal standpoint) would be like giving your chickens the right to decide whether or not they should be killed and eaten.
Patriarchy, like all pre-capitalist "certainties", is severely strained under modern capitalism. As Marx pointed out on numerous occasions, the market acts like an "acid"...eating away at any idea that is not directly related to the accumulation of wealth.
There are certainly modern "secular" versions of the patriarchal message -- consider MIM's formula of celibacy/monogamy as "revolutionary virtues", for example.
But they have a "tough time" of it. When modern capitalism says "go for it!", even the secular patriarch has difficulties trying to justify "don't go for it!"
The ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of its ruling class. (You know who said that.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on May 9, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Patriarchy is much more ancient than classes in society.
I don't see how that could be known.
quote:
The real cause of patriarchy is found neither in economic relations, nor in superstructure, but in profound difference in male and female gender interests determined by their reproductive roles.
This would be, if I'm not mistaken, the "evolutionary psychology" hypothesis: that males desire multiple female partners in order to insure a wide distribution of their genes whereas females prefer a single long-term male partner to provide resources for child-raising and the survival of the female's genes.
I do not find the evidence for "genetic determinism" to be compelling.
See: Alas, Poor Darwin: Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology edited by Hilary Rose and Steven Rose
quote:
If you ever watched monkeys in the zoo, you would understand what I mean. Groups of monkeys are always led for some reason by big male monkey.
Actually, there are many species of "monkeys" which have many different social behaviors.
Some of them are led by a "big female monkey".
quote:
...[Females] are being taught by pornographic male owned media how to enjoy their oppression.
A curious statement, that. I suppose someone could be taught to tolerate their oppression. "Enjoying it"? That seems rather unlikely.
quote:
Redstockings mentioned 40 years ago that women cannot escape their oppression by changing their masters more frequently. I don't think Redstockings were religious fundamentalists.
No, they certainly were not. And their point is well taken, then and now.
But what are the practical options?
1. A woman can marry and submit to one master.
2. A woman can have multiple partners, rejecting any that she perceives to be oppressive ("trying to be a master").
3. Or she can abstain from any sexual involvement with men altogether.
It seems to me that the first of those options is the "most patriarchal". Of the remaining two, I suppose it depends on the woman and what her experiences with men have been.
quote:
You think that [a] woman who goes through mandatory sex services administered by patriarchy and had to resort to abortion as a result is "in control of her own fertility?"
That's a bit hyperbolic, don't you think? The "service" is not "mandatory", after all...though it is encouraged by a significant part of the patriarchal media, to be sure.
Do you discount the possibility that some young women experiment with sex, decide they like it, and choose to engage in it with attractive partners as often as possible?
quote:
According to recent polls, 50% of women cite the reason for abortion being abandoned by or having problems with their husbands or boyfriends.
Yes, that sounds reasonable.
quote:
Maybe it's [a] good idea to ban it -- it would revolutionize first world women and make them realize that only socialism would free them from pornography and unwanted sex.
Now you've lost me completely. Are you suggesting that all women who have sex and conceive children do so unwillingly?
And further, that if they were unable to terminate unwanted pregnancies, that they would turn to socialism?
quote:
I think we have a slight disagreement on what exactly patriarchy is. Patriarchy is the system which advances males gender interests at [the] expense of female gender interests. Monogamy/celibacy line restricts male pursuit of their gender interests, [and] therefore, helps to reduce female oppression. Thus, such a line cannot be patriarchal.
Only if you assume that little or no sex is in the "female gender interest".
Perhaps it is -- as a guy, how would I know? -- but my impressions are much to the contrary.
The basis of MIM's line seems to be that women "don't want" (or shouldn't want) a lot of sexual encounters.
That does not seem to me to be a sustainable assertion in general...though it might be true for the women who would join a group like MIM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on May 13, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Patriarchy survives changes to the mode of production.
Agreed.
quote:
I think MIM would say that there are patriarchal forms specific to capitalism, but patriarchy is not coterminous with capitalism, although patriarchy's existence is threatened by the end of capitalism.
Likewise agreed...though we might have differences about specific manifestations.
What strikes me about patriarchy under capitalism, for example, is the model of intimate relationships as "emotional business partnerships" with children as "investment opportunities" or "human resource development".
The traditional family has been "re-modeled" in the image of capitalism itself. Naturally, as Marx noted, the man is the "bourgeois" and the woman and her children are the "proletariat".
quote:
We should object to evolutionary psychology not because it is bourgeois or offensive, but because it is incorrect.
Agreed...I find the evidence and arguments in its support quite unconvincing.
quote:
It's enough to say that some workers enjoy going to work even if they're exploited.
Is it the work itself they enjoy or is it being exploited?
Obviously, it's the work itself. Given the chance to do that work without being exploited, what do you think they would choose?
quote:
Girls and women are trained to seek and enjoy intimate relationships that are oppressive in practice.
Not a reasonable parallel...unless you posit that there is something inherently "oppressive" about sexual activity itself.
There is, of course, a strain of feminist theory that argues precisely that -- "all heterosexual activity is rape" -- but I do not find this even remotely credible.
It could fairly be argued that the oppressive atmosphere of patriarchy "taints" every intimate relationship to one degree or another...but how far would you want to go with that?
As communists, we know not to "aspire" to being bosses or cops...but does that mean that a communist that quits a worse job for a better one has "succumbed" to "sub-reformism"?
If a woman leaves a more oppressive man for a less oppressive man, has she likewise succumbed to "sub-reformism"?
quote:
However, monogamy under patriarchy is generally preferable to polygamy and serial monogamy under patriarchy for the reasons that: 1) polygamy is no escape from patriarchy, 2) frequently changing partners tends to be economically and socially disadvantageous.
You left out polyandry; I don't know of anyone who advocates polygamy.
As to the economic and social disadvantages of serial monogamy, I'm not sure if that can be justified any longer. The days in which an ordinary worker could earn enough to reliably support a female partner and children are, I suspect, behind us now.
Even if I'm wrong about that now, I think the trend is very clearly in that direction. My impression is that most young women realize that they will probably have to work throughout their adult lives...regardless of whether they choose to have children or not.
It looks to me like the 21st century will resemble the 19th century a good deal more than the 20th as far as the working class is concerned.
quote:
There are various other reasons for revolutionaries to practice monogamy. MIM doesn't emphasize these, but there is a security risk in having multiple intimate partners or serial partners. Whether a comrade would like to have multiple partners is secondary to this security concern.
A remnant of the Leninist "conspiracy theory of revolution" no doubt.
In a mass revolutionary communist movement, there would be no such "security concern".
quote:
I don't know if MIM has ever said this, but personally, I think revolutionaries should try to only date other radical people.
I quite agree with you about this. Intimate relations are fraught with difficulties in class society...a common political outlook would go far to overcome them.
quote:
Women are expected to provide sex to men before they are best used for reproduction and raising families. So, for example, women who go to college are expected and pressured to have hook-ups and experiment with different men while they are in college.
This appears to be a crucial point in the discussion. Is "pressure" the same as "compulsion"?
We are all, by virtue of living in any human society, subjected to "pressures". The pressures come from a multitude of directions and have a multitude of "agendas".
Nevertheless, each of us "weighs" those pressures in our own minds and decides which ones we will embrace and which ones we will reject.
That would be the case, I think, even in classless society (although the pressures would be very different, no doubt).
Also, the formula "expected to provide sex to men" is a curious one...would it not be equally reasonable to say that young men are "expected to provide sex to women"?
The sub-text of your formula suggests that for women, sex is an "unpleasant duty" that they must fulfill in order to get what they "really want"...a long-term monogamous partnership.
It makes one wonder: do women in MIM "close their eyes and think of the third-world proletariat"?
quote:
On the other hand, her observation that the imperialist bourgeoisie support abortion for their own and often reactionary reasons--especially in the Third World--is correct.
The imperialist bourgeoisie never does anything for what we would perceive as "good reasons". Their intentions are always reactionary.
But they are not "gods". Sometimes, what they do turns around and bites them in the ass.
quote:
If someone doesn't join MIM because they insist on having multiple sexual partners, may I suggest that MIM wouldn't have been able to rely on them anyway? That goes for the RCP and any other organization that emphasizes the importance of line.
You mean that emphasizes obedience to arbitrary, not to say despotic authority.
quote:
What is your line?
That women must decide for themselves, of course.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on May 15, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
In "Combating Subjectivism," what MIM is criticizing is precisely the attitude that lifestyle is all-important.
Their "lifestyle" appears to be all-important to them. Otherwise, why the fuss?
They have a view of "how people should live". So do the religious fundamentalists. There are a lot of parallels.
quote:
However, there is a distinction between life before the seizure of power and life after the seizure power.
Sure...and there's a "distinction" between life before "Jesus" returns and after "Jesus" returns.
quote:
The rest of "Combating Subjectivism" is focused on criticizing Liberals and other subjectivists who put forth arguments against the proletarian state influencing culture and lifestyle.
"Influence" is putting it rather mildly, don't you think? Particularly given their open admiration of "Comrade Stalin".
You know what I think? I think they positively burn with holy lust to "smite the sinners".
Visions of labor camps permeate their dreams.
quote:
To the extent that smoking cigarettes is part of a revolutionary youth culture, it should stop being a part of it. However, MIM doesn't make a big deal about it and is not trying to prohibit people generally or even comrades from smoking right now.
Of course not...they have no power to prohibit squat.
But give them their chance and what will they do?
And, judging by the tone of your remarks, what will you do?
The "War on Drugs -- Episode II"?
quote:
Here, MIM is just criticizing the attitude that whatever feels good should be permitted or permitted after the seizure of power.
"Feeling good" being evidently a "counter-revolutionary" sensation in and of itself.
Neo-puritans!
quote:
These drugs are not going to exist forever.
Wanna bet?
quote:
I don't think the DoP is going to spend a lot of resources maintaining the weed supply.
Supposedly around 25 million people smoke weed these days (35 million smoke cigarettes) in the United States. Your version of the "DoP" ain't going to be real popular, is it?
Better get to work building more labor camps...a lot more!
quote:
The question is: is this what the people need? Is this what they want? Should the DoP spend resources to produce abstract art when it could produce something else?
Beats me. I wouldn't miss it...but some folks like it quite a bit.
You seem to think that the "DoP" is going to make a great number of decisions about what people "need" or "want" -- even on trivial matters -- instead of letting folks work those things out on their own.
Is there going to be a "DoP" clothing line? A "DoP" record label? A "DoP" publishing house?
Don't misunderstand me; I'm just as opposed to "free speech" for reactionaries as you are...and perhaps even more so.
But once the obviously reactionary is suppressed, what then?
Is the diversity of "lifestyles" within the working class worthy of respect?
Or do you, like MIM, have a "vision" of "how people should live"...one which you, also like MIM, would enforce at gunpoint?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on May 15, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIM wrote...
quote:
Neither do we think that revolutionary feminism means giving up sexual intimacy just because all sex is currently rape. Giving up intimacy is a real option for people right now, especially in the imperialist countries -- but the only complete answer is eliminating the underlying power structure.
The use of the word "rape" is the crucial factor here; who wants to be a "rapist"? Or be known as one?
This is moralistic guilt-tripping, pure and simple.
And the goal is spelled out in the very next sentence; people, especially "in the imperialist countries" should consider celibacy as "a real option".
(A curious distinction, by the way. Patriarchy is far more vigorous and brutal in the neo-colonies than in the imperialist countries. Perhaps giving up intimacy here derives from their "parasites must make sacrifices" outlook.)
quote:
How often is it that a person is born in capitalist society but escapes the influence of capitalism?
The probability is zero, of course. It never happens.
The degree of influence is highly variable, obviously, and must depend on a very large number of factors, starting with class.
quote:
All sexuality under patriarchy is shaped by patriarchy, defined with respect to patriarchy or otherwise marked by patriarchy.
No question about it. But what can we, who are outside of any particular relationship, constructively say on the matter?
I tell women not to put up with abusive relationships. "Dump the bastard!" is my universal advice.
But if a relationship is working well and the people involved actually enjoy being part of each other's lives...of what use is the observation that their relationship is still shaped by patriarchy? It most likely is, to be sure, but in the absence of evidence of clearly oppressive attitudes, what is there to say?
quote:
MIM says that all sex (while patriarchy exists) is rape as a way of saying that rape isn't just the violent stereotypical rape that you hear about in the media. That's the important point. It is not saying that every instance of heterosexual sex is outright sexual assault.
Then why use the word?
Why were they not content with the reasonable summary that you yourself made and that most astute observers would regard as a truism: "All sexuality under patriarchy is shaped by patriarchy, defined with respect to patriarchy or otherwise marked by patriarchy."
Because if you say it that way, no special guilt can be attributed to anyone except those that explicitly argue the "virtues" of patriarchy.
A rape, on the other hand, necessarily implies the existence of a rapist...who is guilty of a crime. Or even a "sin".
All of the reactionary attitudes of capitalism (and many pre-capitalist formations) influence us to one extent or another. We consciously attempt to struggle against those influences as best we can.
But we are not "born into original sin" and we are not "guilty" in some kind of metaphysical sense simply because we live in the era that we do.
MIM's use of the word "rape" in this context implies exactly that! By virtue of existing, we are "guilty"...of rape, of racism, of parasitism, whatever.
Neo-puritans!
quote:
That quote from MIM also demolishes the idea that MIM is the new sex police.
I disagree. They admit themselves that they harass people within their group to such an extent that they leave or perhaps are even expelled.
If we were ever so unfortunate as to fall into their hands...what would stop them from imposing their view of sexuality (or anything else) on all of us?
It would be "for our own good", in their eyes. In fact, they'd even have the nerve, most likely, to call their new morality "scientific".
quote:
It is saying that what people subjectively feel is good sex should not get in the way of the DoP as it revolutionizes intimate relationships under socialism.
Indeed...that sounds like "sex police" to me.
How about the DoP not getting in the way of what people subjectively feel is "good sex"?
As long as coercion in some form is not involved, why should the DoP care what people do in their bedrooms?
quote:
As an example--and I don't think any party has actually said this--there may be a need to prohibit hook-ups at parties with alcohol.
I can see why no party would say it...it is hilarious.
Only the attempted enforcement of such a law would not be funny...as people who left a party with someone they didn't arrive with were dragged off to prison for "attempted hook-up" (a.k.a. "Fourth Degree Felony Conspiracy to Commit Rape").
quote:
Unless you believe that seeking sexual relationships, under patriarchy, is in no degree a matter of socialization for girls and women.
"No degree" would be obviously absurd. But would you want to argue the opposite absurdity: in the absence of patriarchy, women and girls would never seek sexual relationships?
This seems to be a kind of underlying assumption in MIM's outlook. The "only" reason women desire sex is "because" of patriarchal brainwashing.
Women are "victims" of "male lust"...and after the revolution, MIM will put a stop to it.
quote:
MIM is concerned with polygamy as practice.
Another "loaded" word, not as bad as "rape" but still "less than admirable".
We're not really speaking of men acquiring multiple wives here...but that's the "halo effect" of using the word "polygamy".
What we're really speaking of here is young men and young women who have not "settled" on a "long-term" relationship and who, consequently, have multiple partners.
MIM finds this rather unspectacular behavior "alarming" and even "reprehensible". They'd like to stop it if they could.
Every religious fundamentalist would agree with enthusiasm.
quote:
Frankly, I think the real choice is between long-term relationships and flat-out hook-ups, which have health issues as well as economic, social, stability and security disadvantages.
If you are speaking here of casual sex ("sex for fun"), I think those "disadvantages" are mostly in your own mind. Yes, there are health risks...but they are minimal. Otherwise, I don't see that the other "disadvantages" amount to anything of substance.
quote:
You have to recognize that what MIM is saying is just advice right now. We're not going to be seeing them on televangelist TV any time soon if that's what you were getting at.
Yes, I am getting at exactly that. Televangelists are "just giving advice" too...until they can have their moral code enacted into law.
Do you imagine that MIM is not equally ambitious?
quote:
MIM has a manual for their own comrades. The RCP has something similar.
Do they let people read it before they join up or do they spring it on them afterwards?
I hope that someday someone will put both of those manuals on the internet; I think they would be very revealing.
quote:
I mean, be serious, when's the last time you saw official MIM enter a forum out of the blue and start telling people to be monogamous--or handing out pamphlets?
Actually, I think they want people to be celibate or "a-sexual".
On this board, they've mostly concerned themselves with the "sins of the parasites" (that's us)...and they rarely visit Che-Lives at all.
I do not know what they do on other message boards.
quote:
Suffice it to say that MIM does not view Stalin that way, so it's not like MIM is consciously trying to emulate Stalin as a totalitarian or whatever.
No? Consider this little sparkler...
quote:
They disagree with MIM, because we of the Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao tradition said, to the followers of Hitler in the 1930s and 1940s: you had your chance to see the light, but you kept on with your imperialist rampaging. Now the solution to your problem is going to come from both inside and OUTSIDE Germany. As we all know, Soviet troops in Germany itself were the MAIN force of the solution to the problem.
http://awip.proboards23.com/index.cgi?board=theory&action=display&num=1083385186
I think it's fair to say that MIM has a genuine admiration for "Stalinist methods"...and who would like to gamble on when they would use them and when they would not?
Not me!
quote:
If the proletariat can't decide what cultural changes are necessary after the seizure of power, who can?
Good question. Do you think MIM's "scientists" are going to let a bunch of proletarian "laymen" have any input on their decisions?
Do bears shit in outhouses?
Proletarian revolution will certainly involve some massive cultural "shifts"...but I frankly expect them to be, over-all, in an explicitly libertarian direction.
Unless, of course, some outfit like MIM were to get its paws on a state apparatus of repression. Then, the place would be like Iran or "Saudi" Arabia.
Or North Korea!
quote:
On the other hand, patriarchal propaganda about the romantic benefits of oppressive sex (shaped by patriarchy) seems to do the job just nicely.
Oh? If the "romantic benefits" were "fake", then only women who were unusually stupid would embrace them more than once.
How about this alternative: intimate relationships for both women and men involve a mixture of "romantic benefits" and "oppressions".
People try for the best "mixture" they can find...even though we know that under patriarchy, even the "best" is "not good enough".
That will not stop people trying...nor should it.
MIM thinks, "down deep", that it should.
quote:
Women who refuse to have sex often have their stature [?] and even their sexuality questioned.
Yes, that certainly happens, probably with considerable frequency. But do you think women seriously ponder the opinions of assholes?
As to what women say about men who sexually reject them...well, I'll leave that to your imagination.
RCP wrote...
quote:
]The question of who does what at what time, and which works get emphasized and promoted, is primarily a question of division of labor and of what is possible and most needed at any given time, as assessed both from a short-term and from a long-term view of the revolutionary process.
In other words, nobody knows now and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
Fair enough, I suppose. But there's an implication there that is...disturbing.
I get this picture of the "DoP Labor Allocation Agency" assigning people to "what is most needed" without regard to the desires, skills, talents, etc. of each individual person.
In capitalist society, we have some limited choices -- constrained though they are by the barriers of class, color of skin, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, etc.
It does not sound as if your version of the DoP will allow any choices at all.
Would you like to live like that?
In my version of the DoP, people work at what they actually want to do. If I want them to do something "that's really needed", I can only try to persuade them of the imperative necessity. I can't "assign" anyone to do anything.
That's the kind of DoP that I want to live in!
quote:
Just because something exists doesn't make it valid or worthy of keeping forever.
Agreed.
quote:
In response to your question, I would ask, are the practices beneficial to the proletariat and other oppressed people after the seizure of power worthy of respect?
-- emphasis added.
But what is beneficial? And who decides?
quote:
Nobody's going to be shot for taking drugs...
There are worse things than being shot; labor camps for example.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on May 15, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Frankly, you seem to be taking the approach of "look how scary MIM's line is" and "look how scary you are," rather than "this is how MIM's line is incorrect." This is wrong method. For that matter, this is not about my personality or what "you" or I would do, but about whether MIM's line on gender here is correct.
Is a "scary" line likely to be "correct"?
A political line on any question doesn't just hang out there, up in space...it has practical consequences assuming there's any attempt made to implement it at all.
Consider this from MIM...
quote:
A Central Committee member tripping out on drugs or caring for children s/he shouldn't have had in the imperialist countries --such a Central Committee member is little use to the proletariat.
Emphasis added.
Repudiate sub-reformism; fight revisionism!
Note the moralizing -- "children s/he shouldn't have had" -- but note further that she's "out of the picture" as far as the Central Committee is concerned...regardless of any other hypothetical considerations.
Does this suggest implications for women with children -- especially children they "shouldn't have had" -- in MIM's version of the DoP?
quote:
If you could point me to where MIM says this, it would be helpful.
My help is not needed; you said so yourself.
quote:
In fact, MIM says that 'asexuality' is the most politically advanced sexual practice while patriarchy still exists.
Now, is this rhetoric...or do they really mean that?
If all that they say on this matter is simply rhetoric, than we are arguing over trifles.
But I take them at their word: this is their line.
If you have a line on a question, two consequences naturally follow: (1) You advocate that line with all the energy that you have available to deal with that question; (2) You implement that line in any situation where you have the actual power to do it.
(If you don't do both of those things, then you are just word-mongering, right?)
Ok, we live in patriarchy now and even an ultra-leftist like me would not claim that patriarchy will utterly vanish on the day after proletarian revolution.
So, what happens now and what will happen after the revolution?
MIM advocates celibacy now (and probably attempts to implement it within their group); after a revolution put them in power, they would either try to implement it more widely or...or what, "give up?" Criticize themselves for a nutball line? Modify it in some fashion?
Or establish the "DoP Sex Police"?
quote:
MIM characterizes sex under patriarchy as rape because they think it is oppressive while patriarchy exists. They are just making a sociological observation.
Then, I repeat, why use the word "rape"? With the obvious implication that where there is rape, there must be a rapist.
This does not strike me as "sociology"...it strikes me as morality.
Even as "sociology" it's pretty bad; the act of sexual intercourse may well take place in an oppressive social context...that does not make the act itself oppressive.
A worker who creates value through productive labor may do so in an exploitative social context -- wage-labor -- but what s/he actually did may not only be not oppressive but even enjoyable.
Most normal humans actually enjoy purposeful activity that "creates something" where there was nothing before; most normal humans actually enjoy sexual intercourse. It is the social context that is oppressive...not the acts themselves.
quote:
What they're concerned about is whether gender-oppressed people can fully consent to sex.
How...paternalistic of them. They consider themselves qualified to decide who is "capable of consent" and who is "not".
Perhaps they should re-phrase their line: "All sex under patriarchy is statutory rape."
quote:
Postmodernists, post-feminists, etc., like to talk about women's 'agency' and how they are capable of resisting oppression.
I have little regard for post-modernists and no knowledge of "post-feminist" theory at all.
But it seems to me self-evident that women are both capable of resisting oppression and actually do that in real life.
Does anyone actually dispute that?
quote:
Whether some individual women successfully overcome oppression is beside the point. Generally and systematically, they are still oppressed in sex.
That's a confused way to put it -- "oppressed in sex". Women are "generally and systematically" oppressed as women...not in any particular sexual encounter.
And they certainly do resist, both individually and collectively, that oppression.
quote:
...people might still prefer having sex to having no sex, but [that] doesn't mean that the sex doesn't have an oppressive aspect.
It could have...some guys are rather insensitive to their partner's enjoyment of the act.
Yet I think that's widely regarded as a rather "primitive" and "backward" attitude. I think that most normal men either see or will learn that mutual pleasure is the "best" sex.
quote:
I'm going to ask you straight out: do you think that women are no more oppressed than men in sex?
If they are, it's by a shrinking amount...as I indicated above. Women are less and less inclined to "tolerate" an insensitive partner and men seem more willing to learn to be sensitive.
Even Playboy advises repeatedly: the better you guys treat women in sex, the more and better sex you will get.
Patriarchy dies hard...but it's dying.
quote:
Also keep in mind that MIM is only giving advice to revolutionaries when it talks about monogamy even though it would be ideal for everyone.
Keep in mind that a line is, sooner or later, implemented, or else it's just someone flapping their lips.
If monogamy is "ideal for everyone", just what will they be willing to do to enforce that should they have the opportunity?
quote:
There are other disadvantages...such as lost leisure time and time that could be spent on the revolution.
Oh, I suppose that could be true once in a while..."Get out of that bed, you two, there's newspapers to be sold!".
I don't think very many people will "delay" the revolution because they're too busy having sex or trying to find someone to have sex with.
quote:
Monogamy provides a degree of stability.
Yes, it does...provided the relationship is going well. If it's not going well, stability vanishes and turmoil takes over.
quote:
...although MIM says they don't get involved in choosing partners for their comrades.
I wonder about that...it would be consistent with their over-all framework to "offer advice" at the very least.
quote:
Additionally, if you make a habit out of not having sex with different people, it's more difficult for a pigs and reactionaries to falsely accuse you of sexual assault or prostitution.
"More difficult" is not the same as impossible. The history of capitalist "justice" is one in which revolutionaries have always been falsely accused and frequently convicted.
The "added" risk in this case is trivial.
quote:
A refutation of this position must somehow show that there is another practice less prone to oppression and pig repression.
Here's my line: women should resist patriarchal oppression, individually and collectively, by any means they think appropriate.
And then we'll see how things go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on May 16, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
The "consequences" of a position don't make it factually correct or incorrect. Agreed?
No, I must disagree. The consequences are the real world "check" on whether or not your position makes sense.
A brilliantly argued and impeccably logical position -- "a beautiful theory" -- can nonetheless come to grief over the ugly facts of material reality.
It's probably happened to all of us who've spent some time thinking about theoretical questions...the brilliant "insight" that the real world declines to confirm.
And it's back to the drawing board, dammit!
In revolutionary politics, we often use, well or poorly, Einstein's method of the "thought experiment".
We take a position and try to imagine how it would work if actually implemented.
If difficulties arise, that may be a sign that there's something profoundly wrong with the initial position.
We know, from real life, that human sexuality (like all human behavior) is extraordinarily complex. Thus any attempt to define a "revolutionary position" on sexuality -- one that's "best for everyone" -- is fraught with difficulties and the potential for unintended consequences is almost infinite.
Thus, prudence is required. Those who would condemn, legislate, regulate or ban sexual practices take a great risk.
That doesn't mean we don't do it; MIM does it, the RCP may do it, I certainly do it. Maybe most people have ideas along these lines even if they're not coherently thought out.
Here are my proposals...
1. All sexual acts must be explicitly consensual.
2. You may not have sex with anyone over whom you have any kind of authority.
3. If you have reached puberty or beyond, you may not have sex with anyone who has not also reached puberty.
I think these proposals would allow the widest latitude of sexual freedom while prohibiting the use of physical or psychological coercion.
quote:
And it didn't say people with children were automatically excluded.
Isn't that the implication of the clause "of little use to the proletariat"?
quote:
Again, what should be important is not the tone you perceive in MIM's writing, but the correctness of their positions. Looking at the substance of what they're saying, it's clear they're not moralizing.
Well, we disagree. And, if it hasn't been obvious up to now, I think their positions are incorrect...and indeed wacko.
I don't "believe" in "central committees"...but if you're going to have one, does it make any sense at all not to elevate your most qualified people regardless of their personal idiosyncrasies?
Come on! Did Lenin oppose Alexandra Kollentai's elevation to the politburo because she had kids and liked to "fool around"?
Which raises another consequence, by the way. Although the statement is "gender neutral", in practice, it would be women with children who were excluded from the Central Committee.
And then there's the "filter down" effect...if it's known that certain characteristics promote or inhibit one's advancement in the party, some will act accordingly in order to "rise" in the hierarchy.
That's not necessarily a "bad thing" in terms of seriousness, depth of commitment, etc. But when it extends beyond that, things get rather "weird". I strongly suspect that more than one MIM member has a "party lifestyle" for when s/he's around other MIM people and a very different lifestyle when s/he's not under observation.
quote:
Sub-reformism doesn't automatically follow from a position on contemporary culture or lifestyle. I don't know where you're getting this from.
If it doesn't, then what real world meaning does their line have?
If they are so unserious as to say all these things, but do nothing to implement them even in their own circles...why are we discussing them?
It's like discussing their "support of the real proletariat in the third world"...paper declarations that are nothing but a waste of trees or server memory.
Neither of us knows the grubby details, of course...but they have admitted that they have problems with their line among their own actual or potential members.
It sounds to me like they're trying to be "sub-reformists" in practice...though perhaps with little success.
quote:
Like I said, the issue now is whether asexuality (or monogamy as a second best) is objectively the most politically advanced sexual practice.
You want to argue this abstraction?
Ok, I think the very idea of a "most politically advanced sexual practice" is wacko!
It makes no more sense than a "most politically advanced recreation", a "most politically advanced diet", or a "most politically advanced bowel movement".
The error is methodological. Marxism is a tool most suited for investigating "big questions"...the tinier the detail, the less useful it becomes.
Patriarchy is a "big question" and Marxism provides useful insights. Individual sexual behavior is a "tiny question"...and the attempt to use what they consider Marxism breaks down into a muddle of "individual morality" whether "advanced" or "retarded".
Relativity doesn't "work" at the quantum level; it's the wrong tool for the job. Marxism doesn't "work" at the level of individual sexual behavior; it's the wrong tool for the job.
quote:
Proletarian feminists used the word before MIM.
Is Andrea Dworkin "proletarian"?
Andrea Dworkin wrote...
quote:
A commitment to sexual equality with males is a commitment to becoming the rich instead of the poor, the rapist instead of the raped, the murderer instead of the murdered.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/andrea_dworkin.html
quote:
I think the vast majority of sex has an oppressive aspect even it isn't outright sexual assault, and even if children, women and gender-oppressed people generally immediately consent to it ("yes," "okay," "fine," "I guess").
Well, this is an empirical disagreement...and one which I see no way of resolving.
If you are convinced of that position, then you should obviously limit yourself to masturbation.
quote:
To clear this up right now, do you think there's any particular sex that is oppressive?
See my own proposals at the beginning of this post.
quote:
The existence of individual sex acts under patriarchy, despite the abuses, displeasures and lifestyle restrictions that children/women disproportionately experience, implies that patriarchy is functioning.
I find your statement bewildering; do you mean to suggest that patriarchy would cease to function if all sex stopped?
quote:
The way we can tell there is something called patriarchy is by looking at the patterns in the individual cases.
No, it's the collective patterns that are significant, not the individual patterns.
One act of (real) rape is not patriarchy; thousands of rapes per year suggest patriarchy continues to function.
Or, an example closer to home, one Leninist party with no females on its central committee could be an aberration; hundreds of Leninist parties with few or no females on their central committees suggests that Leninism is "strongly associated" with patriarchy (not "caused by", just "strongly associated with").
quote:
Taking what you're saying to its logical conclusion, a woman [who] is violently sexually assaulted wouldn't be oppressed as a woman. They would just be violently sexually assaulted. The sexual assault isn't oppressive to *her*. It is just happening in an "oppressive context."
No, a violent sexual assault is oppressive in and of itself...no matter who it happens to.
But (outside of prison) the collective pattern shows that women are the overwhelmingly majority of victims of violent sexual assaults.
Therefore she is being oppressed specifically as a woman and not simply as a random victim of violent sexual assault. She was "targeted" because she was a woman.
She was a victim both of her individual rapist and of patriarchy as a social construct. In the eyes of religious fundamentalist patriarchs, she "probably had it coming" because of her "dress", her presence in an "inappropriate" location, her "failure" to secure a male guardian, etc.
quote:
It would only be possible to say: "She's not oppressed until she is outright raped, or sexually harassed, or discriminated against in another way."
Not exactly; there is the "atmosphere" of patriarchy that is certainly oppressive without regard to what may or may not actually happen in her life. I think that women "sense" that they are going to face problems in their lives that they would not face if they were men.
And I don't see why they wouldn't feel oppressed by that.
quote:
I mean going out every other night, or going to parties and drinking, under the pretext that you're just having fun, but in reality you're making yourself sexually available to men. You're throwing yourself at them.
Do men not "throw themselves" at women?
You appear to think that "sexual availability" is something..."bad"(?) in and of itself.
Why?
quote:
MIM is saying...that revolutionizing intimate/sexual relationships MUST go beyond eliminating the most egregious sexual abuses.
Well, "eliminating the most egregious sexual abuses" would be a pretty good start.
But what "lesser abuses" does MIM want to "eliminate"?
You repeatedly assert that "MIM *is not* out to force people to be celibate", but if force is not to be used, what's left?
A campaign around "Celibacy--the Revolutionary Choice!" might be good for a few laughs...but it's not going to "eliminate" anything.
quote:
Under socialism, people will need to re-examine their own sexual practices in order to make them less oppressive if they are oppressive. Asexuality, or monogamy as a second best option, is a good way to refrain from participating in sexual relationships that are probably oppressive. Or you may say, facilitating an "oppressive context" by precluding activities that women would like to do if it weren't for patriarchy. These activities could even include kinds of sex that are more pleasurable for women.
Your crystal ball is clearer than mine on this matter...I have no idea what people "will do" following proletarian revolution in the way of sexual behavior.
I can only predict what I will say: "Have a good time, kids, and drive safely."
quote:
...do you think the socialist state should do anything to promote less oppressive sexual practices?
What could it do, short of legislating prohibitions or providing material incentives? A "just say no!" campaign?
quote:
This is misleading. MIM says that it is the most advanced sexual practice and advises its own people to do it. But that doesn't mean it thinks people should focus on being asexual or even monogamous. There is a difference. Look at everything MIM's written on sub-reformism.
I have, including the document you mention in your last post.
I think their line is sub-reformist...a contradiction which they can only avoid by not taking their line seriously.
As long as it remains a moral injunction -- "Be celibate...it's the right thing to do!" -- there is no problem.
But where's "the unity of theory and practice" in that? In some way, their line must come "down to earth" and "get its feet muddy".
I think that's already happened within their own circles...and, clearly, they are already having difficulties.
They will have more.
quote:
But MIM does NOT call all sexually active men 'rapists,' which technically would be linguistically consistent with the use of 'rape.'
I agree, they have left the logical corollary -- "all sexually active heterosexual men are rapists" unspoken...it is, for the moment, a "sub-text".
"Sub-text" doesn't mean "invisible" -- it means that when MIM "gives advice" to its members, the "hint" of what an active sex life makes you (namely, a rapist) is present in the room even though unspoken.
You don't want to be a "rapist", do you? Or even be thought one? Not even "sociologically".
quote:
Instead, it says that socially constructed men are "gender oppressors," which means something broader than oppressive sexual practices.
Well, we probably are. Certainly people raised in a racist society carry a residue of racism with them all their lives.
But the point is not to act like a racist.
Likewise, whatever patriarchal crap might still be floating around in your head, the point is not to act like an oppressor towards women.
If you think "your sins are so great" that any contact with women that you have will be oppressive, then perhaps a secular monastery would be the appropriate choice.
Another point just occurred to me: if all the guys in MIM were celibate, who would the women in MIM go out with?
quote:
I just think we need to get over how offensive this or that language is. This is wrong method and is getting in the way of the debate.
You misunderstand my objection. It's not the "offensiveness" of MIM's language that I challenge; it is its accuracy.
quote:
If I say anything that looks even remotely angry or unusual to you, is this sort of stuff going to continue or not?
Depends on what you say. You must understand by now that I have entirely rejected the Leninist paradigm; you are discussing these matters with someone whom Lenin would have vehemently denounced by name in Left-Wing Communism; An Infantile Disorder.
The "DoP" in Leninist language, for example, has some pretty grim implications...which you can't expect me to pass over in silence.
quote:
You have to understand that this is exactly the same kind of shit anti-communists throw at us all the time.
I don't really concern myself with what anti-communists have to say...they are either uninformed proletarians or professional liars. The former I will attempt to inform as best I can; the latter I simply ignore unless there's something to be gained by directly attacking them. I certainly waste no time "responding" to their idiocies.
The example you gave from my site could be interpreted the way you suggest; but if it were incumbent upon me to reply, I'd simply point out that the "low estimate" from the UN demographics people predicts a global population of 2 billion by 2200.
If the "low estimate" turns out to be correct, I wouldn't "have" to "kill" anybody.
Wouldn't that be nice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on May 16, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
However, the worst implementation of a theory does not make the theory incorrect, period, otherwise we must deny the existence of all kinds of oppression.
Suppose the only form that implementation could take is the "worst".
Either you advocate your line and otherwise do nothing...or you do something.
Either MIM is just talking...or they actually try to put their line into practice. If they were allowed to have power in post-capitalist society, they would "have" to legislate their morality in order to enforce it.
I don't see how you can escape that dilemma.
quote:
Men, socially (as in not just people with penises but people who are men in all their characteristics), always exert a force over gender-oppressed people whether they choose to or not.
Emphasis added.
I think this is a good example how trying to defend MIM's approach lands you in a metaphysical muddle.
Now you wish to say that we are no longer talking about human males but "any human" who displays "male characteristics".
So a woman who is not interested in "girly stuff" is not "a real woman"?
You've actually incorporated a patriarchal definition of gender into your analysis...as if it has some kind of "objective reality" instead of being a complex of social constructs.
As to the "authority" that any randomly chosen male under patriarchy "exerts" over any randomly chosen female...I think there probably is a little, but it's very tenuous -- certainly far too amorphous to psychologically coerce a woman into unwanted sex.
quote:
Force isn't just physical or verbal force, but also having your opportunities for non-sexual activities (and other sexual activities, like homosexual sex) restricted. Even though some women are able to negotiate this force, limit it, reshape it, etc., these pressures still exist and influence relationships that would otherwise be different without patriarchy.
No doubt...but what is the trend? If, as I have suggested, patriarchy (a pre-capitalist paradigm) is weakening, then what must be happening now are relationships that suffer less from the distortions caused by patriarchy than used to be the case.
We can see with our own eyes (or at least an old guy like me can see it) that women don't act as oppressed by patriarchy as they once did. They assert their autonomy (their "male characteristics"?) far more vigorously.
I see no reason why that trend should not accelerate.
Perhaps I could put it this way: MIM and their supporters have an a-historical view of patriarchy in which women are "permanent victims" and all we can do is personally not participate in the victimization.
Real communists see patriarchy as a paradigm that can actually be defeated in struggle; it sees women not as passive victims but as a force of active rebellion against their oppression.
I think women are winning that struggle.
quote:
Young people who are minors and socially children are gender-oppressed. It doesn't matter if they are pubescent. Sex between adults and youth is oppressive, and there is no way you can get around this by referring to concepts of immediate consent, lack of institutional authority, or lack of physical force. Frankly, the idea of puberty as a dividing line is totally artificial. You might as well say sex with five-year olds is okay since even they are 'sexual.' The party should stay out of the bedroom, you say, which apparently includes bedrooms where adults have sex with minors.
Sex between five-year-olds is ok.
As to artificial dividing lines, what else is the very concept of "minor"? The name itself designates someone "not fully autonomous". Puberty at least is an objectively real "dividing line" between childhood and the capacity for adult sexuality.
Is your version of the DoP going to outlaw adolescent sexuality?
Well, the Christian fascists will support you...no one else will.
quote:
If you are saying that being mature enough for sex means anything goes, this is wrong and is tantamount to defending relationships that are prone to open violence...
All intimate relationships may degenerate into open violence; should that happen, then the relationship should end and the person guilty of violence should be prosecuted.
There is no "bubble of perfect safety" in life; everything we do is potentially "dangerous". If you think that you are "protecting" adolescents from violence by making their sex with somewhat older adults (almost always their preferred choice) illegal...then you are mistaken.
quote:
Once again, oppressed people must reserve the right to end oppression using principled methods. You're saying, don't even try to influence intimate relationships, family forms, etc., in any way.
There's nothing "principled" about legislating consensual sexual behavior.
It's just plain meddling...no matter how many red flags you wrap it in.
On the other hand, I would certainly abolish marriage as a legal concept...people should be able to form and dissolve their personal relationships without regard to the views of strangers.
quote:
So, what you're saying, redstar, is that all of this [Shanghai] would have happened by itself without the party influencing anything.
Well it's been happening in San Francisco for some time (just to speak from personal experience). Women are remarkably "forward" in public there by American standards...and men do not regard it as a "sexual come-on".
This may be due, in part, to the fact that upwards of 10% and perhaps more of the men in San Francisco are gay; but I think it's mostly due to the fact that the women's movement there has been pretty strong for a long time...and it's had a marked impact on men as well as women.
I don't remember any party being involved.
quote:
Supposedly, the people would have spontaneously ended patriarchy without the party guiding discussions and responding to criticism the people themselves raised about women's oppression.
Who knows? In China, after all, it's still the practice to preferentially abort female fetuses...suggesting that patriarchal attitudes remain deeply ingrained there.
A peasant society "in transit" to modern capitalism has historically been quite patriarchal; perhaps in the cities it's considerably better for women than it is in the countryside.
The suicide rate for women there, by the way, is among the highest in the world; and China is the only country where the suicide rate for women is higher than the suicide rate for men.
Not much for the party to boast of there.
quote:
The line that oppression spontaneously ends itself forever at the individual scale is wrong on every level.
That's a "bland" way of putting it; it ignores both the individual and the collective struggle that takes place constantly to overcome that oppression.
"Ending it forever" is another matter entirely...and probably takes an epoch to manage.
quote:
You're saying that the party shouldn't even say anything whatsoever about culture or lifestyle. If it does say anything, you're saying that the only option available to it is to make things illegal--as if physical coercion is the only way social relationships can be revolutionized.
Well, that's the Leninist tradition, is it not? If you're going to argue that "things have changed" and modern Leninist-Maoists don't believe in coercion with regard to lifestyles and culture any more...well, I'll concede your sincerity but I frankly don't believe things would work out that way in practice.
The party, after all, occupies a "sacred" place in the Leninist paradigm. For it to allow ordinary working people to openly ignore or even defy its "leading role", even in "secondary" matters, subverts its own authority.
I don't think that in the long run you can "permit" that to happen.
quote:
Oppressors benefit from oppression regardless of whether they think about it.
No doubt; but if you're speaking of economic benefits, that is something that can be legislated. There's nothing like a good strong affirmative action program with teeth to dramatically reduce the material foundation of oppression.
Psychological "benefits" will diminish accordingly.
quote:
Do you believe that most men don't benefit from patriarchy because most men might not consciously perpetrate outright abuses and discrimination against women? (Are you saying that patriarchy benefits only a minority of men?)
I think that's the trend. As to the absolute numbers, I have no idea.
I do recall reading once that in recent years the wages of single female workers have reached near parity with the wages of male workers...it is women with children who lag far behind, obviously reflecting the burden of child-raising placed almost exclusively on women by patriarchy.
What I notice about the present period is that when men attempt to impose patriarchal demands on women, women increasingly reject those demands.
As patriarchal demands yield a smaller and smaller "pay-off" (sexual, psychological, material), more and more men will "give them up" as "hopeless".
So even if patriarchy still has some benefits for the majority of men, those benefits are shrinking "spontaneously" and will eventually disappear for all except ruling class men.
quote:
MIM upholds monogamy as one of the best practices while patriarchy exists, but does not encourage people to preoccupy themselves with making a lifestyle change in order to be monogamous.
We are not privy to their internal dramas...so I don't see how it could be said what actually goes on out of the public eye.
You have a more generous estimate of their practice than I do.
quote:
It just leaves open the possibility that people after the seizure of power will choose monogamy as a way of limiting patriarchy, and it objects to the position that monogamy is no less oppressive than polyandry/polygamy.
I think, if anything, the objective evidence suggests that monogamy is the most oppressive relationship option for women.
Some 60% of all marriages in the U.S. end in divorce and the vast bulk of cases are initiated by women. My personal experience and observation suggests that when unmarried couples break up, the split is also usually initiated by the woman.
MIM's position appears to be empirically wrong.
quote:
But let's face it, a person who is socially a man might feel uncomfortable with any such name.
And if you feel "uncomfortable", what will you do? If you want to be accepted as "a good comrade" in MIM, you'll have to change your behavior...or at least get really good at hiding it.
Thus you actually admit what you first denied; MIM does enforce its line on its members. They can't use physical coercion at this point; but they can bring to bear considerable social pressure...and they do!
quote:
Does that mean we should drop the analysis of patriarchy?
No, it means they should change their analysis.
Fat chance, right?
quote:
Many of the people involved in any revolutionary organization in the United States are petty-bourgeois in their class origin. However, it would be wrong to say that an organization should stop using the term 'petty bourgeoisie' simply out of a concern for hurt feelings.
Not the same thing; you know that. Dropping the "hint" that someone is a "sociological rapist" involves a bit more than "hurt feelings".
quote:
So, are you saying that women who aren't openly discriminated against or assaulted only "feel" oppressed, that they aren't really oppressed?
Well, if they feel compelled to do something or refrain from doing something because of that feeling, you could argue that their oppression has become, at least at that moment, objectively real.
If a woman doesn't go out at night by herself because of "what might happen", that's oppression. If she arms herself and goes out anyway, she is objectively less oppressed.
If things have changed to such an extent that she can go out as freely as any man, then objectively she's not oppressed.
quote:
I think what you're advocating borders on removing any reference to patriarchy from communist programs.
Not at all; I just think the existing references -- like those of MIM -- are wrong.
I think the focus should be on women's resistance to the objective manifestations of patriarchy and the communist program should be one of abolishing those manifestations.
Presuming that women will have full political and economic equality in post-capitalist society (not just "legal equality"), I have every confidence in their ability to autonomously decide on the nature and frequency of their intimate relationships.
The party's "guidance" in such matters is superfluous.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on May 16, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Notice the stark contrast behind your line and the communist line of engaging in line struggle with the masses.
What kind of "line struggle" exists between a vanguard party in control of a state apparatus with police and prisons and the masses who have none of those powers/resources?
How does that differ, in fact, from the present situation? The capitalist class engages in "line struggle" with the masses on a daily basis through the media, the educational system, etc.
But should the masses have the temerity to disagree...it stops being a "line struggle" and starts being something very different.
A passage from "the arms of criticism to the criticism of arms" as Marx put it.
quote:
Having a penis does not automatically make a person a beneficiary of patriarchy, which is why MIM says that children in general, as well as some homosexual and other biological men, are gender-oppressed.
Children are oppressed by patriarchy because they are children.
Gay men are (sometimes) oppressed by patriarchy because their existence is seen as threatening to patriarchal values.
When MIM admits that "some men" don't benefit from patriarchy, they concede the substance of my view and leave the matter to a dispute over numbers and trends.
"Man" is a biological post-pubescent male human, period. "Male characteristics" are, for the most part, social constructs.
quote:
Look how you presume to be "revolutionary" but are actually obstructing women's struggle by denying women the use of the state for anti-patriarchal propaganda.
What kind of "propaganda"? If you or some group of women who agree with you want to start a campaign of "just say no to sex", hell, go ahead.
Everyone will have a good laugh and your "proletarian state" will look ridiculous.
If, prior to revolution, it becomes widely known that this is what you intend, you will not even be given the opportunity to govern.
quote:
You seem to like to read in a lot of things...
Yes, I do. Like Marx, I try to read what people say critically...I don't just take what people say at "face value".
And I do look for the implications of any given political line...how would it actually work in the real world?
Theory is not scripture...something I think the generality of Leninist-Maoists have difficulty in grasping.
Here's a good example. I wrote this...
quote:
We can see with our own eyes (or at least an old guy like me can see it) that women don't act as oppressed by patriarchy as they once did. They assert their autonomy (their "male characteristics"?) far more vigorously. I see no reason why that trend should not accelerate.
How did you respond to this observation?
quote:
Reforms are possible under capitalism, but these are limited.
I was speaking about women's resistance and you introduce the subject of reforms.
I'm speaking of direct action and you go off on a rap about domestic violence laws and the failure to enforce them.
And worse...
quote:
In fact, the vast majority of open domestic violence goes unreported despite its illegality. You're saying this is acceptable, that attitudes between men and women don't have to change, that "folks" will figure this out for themselves, that no proletarian state is needed for this because patriarchy will be ended individual by individual, or home by home, spontaneously.
You have mixed everything up here. I am in favor of community intervention to protect victims of domestic violence (a "proletarian state" isn't required for that purpose). I think the attitudes between men and women are changing now and will continue to change as a consequence of women's resistance to patriarchy (whether or not there is a "proletarian state").
quote:
Puberty starts at maybe 10 for girls and 12 for boys. I don't think anyone else on this board but you, redstar, says that adults having sex with 12+ minors can be non-oppressive.
Who's the adult? Given that people tend to choose their mates from the cohort (age-group) closest to themselves, and given further that people don't just leap into bed with the first person to come along after they reach puberty, what's the practical implication of my proposal?
That 10-year-old girl will probably wait until she's 12 or 13 before she has sex with anybody...and her partner is likely to be 14 or 15. That 12-year-old boy is probably more eager...and will probably court another 12-year-old (unsuccessfully). Most likely, it will be an older girl who initiates him.
You have a problem with this?
You think this is "oppressive"?
You want to stop adolescents from having sex?
In the name of revolution?
quote:
This is just the capitulationist line that women's oppression will exist forever and there's nothing outside legislating against outright sexual assault and open discrimination that the party can do to stop it.
Well, the "party" could encourage women to directly resist manifestations of patriarchy, individually and collectively...instead of babbling nonsense about "all sex is rape under patriarchy".
quote:
This is just oppression that she's worked around. The oppression is still there, she's just defending herself against it. You are confusing resistance with an end to oppression.
How else does oppression end?
quote:
If a woman could walk on the street at night, without a gun, and not get any shit for it whatsoever, that would be a change, even if only a quantitative one.
I said that too, and didn't have to cloak it in "dialectical" mysticism...
quote:
If things have changed to such an extent that she can go out as freely as any man, then objectively she's not oppressed.
quote:
Finally, the oppressiveness of sex under patriarchy doesn't stand or fall on the individual sex act being immediately coercive in any way, psychologically or physically.
I think this is the most revealing statement that you've made in this exchange.
You dismiss coercion entirely...leaving the concept of oppression hanging in some metaphysical space without any connection to the material world.
It's like "original sin".
quote:
Since the DoP is going to promote changes to family and intimate practices after the seizure of power--not just by physical force--Marxists should ask themselves this question: is my personal need for sex (how I used to get or have it as a gender oppressor if I am one) more important than the need to end gender oppression? Why or why not?
Yeah, ok. Comrade Joe and Comrade Jane meet at a party function, get to talking, the physical chemistry is there, and...
Comrade Joe: "But wait, Comrade Jane, is our need for sex more important than the need to end gender oppression? Why or why not?"
Comrade Jane's response: (1) rolls on the floor, laughing her ass off; (2) walks away in disgust, muttering something about neo-puritanical nutballs; (3) says "if you need to be whipped first, I can do that."
quote:
And that certainly doesn't mean that patriarchy will last forever (or take an "epoch" to end--are you kidding me; those conditions Mary Lou Greenberg saw in China were there within two decades of liberation).
Yes, and mostly lost within three decades after "liberation". (Not to mention the fact that homosexuality was and remains a criminal offense under Chinese law.)
quote:
For example women who participate in pornography for money are not just degrading themselves, but are being exploited within a process that has a huge impact on how women are GENERALLY viewed and treated.
Women who work in the sex industry are exploited as workers and oppressed as women. But you cannot say they are "degrading themselves" any more than any other form of wage-slavery is inherently degrading.
(Joining a police force or becoming part of the repressive state apparatus, on the other hand, is self-degradation...they are saying "I'm proud to be a slave".)
I'm also very skeptical of the view that pornography has a "huge impact" on the general "male view" of women and how they should be treated. It has an impact, no question about that. But I think it's modest compared to mainstream commodity advertising...which tells men that by purchasing this product (shirt, suit, wine, car, whatever), that model can be yours too.
quote:
The issue around sex in society is not whether we are "pro-sex" or anti-sex.
So you say...but the views expressed in this thread look like anti-sex to me.
quote:
So the key issue around sex is not whether you are "getting any" -- but whether the sexual relations that happen are part of breaking down women's oppression or reproducing it.
A neat distinction; how is it measured?
In cases of obvious abuse or where there is presumptive evidence of coercion, that's not a problem. But what about all the other millions of sexual acts that take place daily or even hourly?
Which ones are actually breaking down women's oppression (or at least not adding to it) and which ones are reproducing women's oppression?
What can you do besides ask her opinion?
quote:
People who view sex as mainly a matter of personal satisfaction -- quickly move on to think pornography is ok, prostitution is ok, in fact anything this individual might personally "want" is ok -- as long as some other individual can be convinced (paid? seduced? pressured?) into participating.
Ok, how do you convince them that they're "wrong" to want whatever it is you disapprove of?
Remember that there will still be money in your version of the DoP...so people will be able to buy sex and others will be willing to sell it. Appeals to "communist morality" are no more likely to succeed in the future than appeals to "Christian morality" succeed now.
So what do you do? Sure, you can outlaw this or that practice and lock people up if you catch them...and some "wants" are so reprehensible that few would object. I have no problem, for example, with summary execution for violent rapists (assuming the DNA evidence is conclusive).
But then matters begin to get "murkier"...how, for example, will you apply your version of Marxism to the thorny question of seduction?
Both men and women do it, all the time, and as far as we know, have always done it.
I don't think either Karl or Fred would envy you your "chosen task".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on May 18, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
============================================= |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| Those who are most likely to make up the violent portion of fascist and semi-fascist political groups are veterans of military service. They like a political system of order-givers and order-takers. Thats where they feel truly comfortable and most at home.
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 2 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
