| Theory |
|
Women and Communism -- Speculations April 18, 2004 by RedStar2000 |
The subject of women in the revolutionary movement and in post-capitalist society is one that comes up now and then...but rarely gets explored in much depth.
I'm not sure why this should be the case. Do male revolutionaries think it is just "not very important"? Are they entirely ignorant of the multitude of feminist critiques of the masculine left? Is it something that just won't "catch on" until there are large numbers of women communists?
Whatever the causes might be, I have accumulated some rather scattered posts on the subject. They are, admittedly, not very "deep"...but they're about all there is right now.
I hope I get the chance to "do better".
==========================================
The intersection of patriarchy and class is a very thorny problem...as shown by some of the posts.
Modern capitalist society, with its mythology of the worker "freely choosing" her line of work, is a relatively recent phenomenon.
Patriarchy goes all the way back to the very roots of class society; women (and herd animals) were the first form of property.
So patriarchy has immense "social inertia" behind it...women have, in one sense or another, been "bought and sold" throughout recorded history.
Prostitutes belong to different classes, of course and can even move from one class to another.
At the very bottom are the streetwalkers...whose conditions are truly wretched and whose lives are "nasty, brutish, and short". They are used and abused by pimps until their looks deteriorate to the point where they can no longer acquire customers...and then discarded. I strongly suspect that alcoholism and drug addition are universal "at the bottom of the industry".
Things are "better" as you climb the social ladder. The prostitute that works for an "escort agency" or in a well-run brothel earns substantially more money than she could make in any other employment.
Things look better still for the exotic dancer or pornographic actress.
Perhaps the top of the ladder is to become the owner of a brothel, porn studio, or nightclub...moving firmly into the middle class (small bourgeoisie).
To go higher still, she must become "respectable" by marrying one of her wealthiest customers. By that point, she will probably take a public position against prostitution and demand that it be suppressed in defense of public morality.
The matter of whether or not women in the sex industry "enjoy" their work is speculative...above the bottom level, it might well be a case of "all the other options look worse"--involve harder work for less money or require credentials that are difficult or impossible to obtain.
Thus, capitalism.
What about "after the revolution"?
The answer depends on the nature of the new society that you plan to establish. If it's not very different from capitalism, then a lot of the same social phenomena will just "tag along" naturally.
Since many people on this board envision a lengthy "transition period" between capitalism and communism--called "socialism--in which money still circulates and commodities are produced for sale (and profit) instead of use, it logically follows that the more money you have, the better off you are.
What "better off" will mean depends upon what kinds of luxuries the new "socialist state" decides to produce (or import).
Even if the "socialist state" decides to avoid the production/importing of luxury goods altogether (none has ever done so), there is still the matter of quantity of ordinary goods and services that may be purchased...unless everything is rationed. Again, previous "socialist states" usually rationed only what was in short supply; commodities that were abundant could be purchased in abundance...if you had the money.
For example, why stand in line at the state grocery store when, if you have the money, you can eat at a nice restaurant every night?
Thus, "socialist states" create (or, more strictly, allow to remain) the essential economic foundations of prostitution...at least of some kind.
There may be no streetwalkers or escort services or pornography, but there will be a "sex industry" because some women can live "better" that way than they can any other way.
This is not to suggest that economic motives are the only motives that people ever act on...but, as a Marxist, you have to start with that.
What about the possibilities of ideological struggle against patriarchy itself? That's something that a "socialist state" ought to be able to do. To the extent that such a struggle was successful, the "male demand" for "commodity sex" should decrease.
I mentioned at the outset that patriarchy is far older than capitalism. If you look at the "socialist states" of the last century, I think you would have to agree with me that while there was considerable rhetoric in favor of women's equality, the implementation...left something to be desired.
It strikes me that to really undermine patriarchy requires more than rhetoric. Men and boys have to see living examples of female competence and public respect for that. And that doesn't mean a token female here and there; they must be part of the social landscape.
If around half the members of the central committee of your "vanguard party" are female, that sends a message. If around half the members of your "socialist parliament" (whatever it's called) are female, that sends a message. If pretty much every social institution that people come into contact with is about 50% female--from top to bottom--the growing boy cannot avoid the conclusion that women are people worthy of respect...not property to be used and discarded. The evidence of his own eyes is overwhelming.
Even if this horny young lad does decide to purchase sex from a prostitute, he will be her "favorite kind of john". He will treat her with respect...because he's never seen anything different.
As it happens, I'm not a supporter of "transitional socialist states". I think we start establishing communism on day one of the revolution...and accept that whatever problems emerge, the revolutionary working class has the will and the capacity to overcome them.
From my position, therefore, prostitution isn't a problem. Since there will be no money, you can't buy other people.
Like everything else, they're priceless.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on January 19, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
...the fact that there is still money (under socialism) does not mean that money rules.
And a few lines later wrote...
quote:
...for a period, there will be money. and the many problems that money symbolizes.
This is called self-contradiction.
There's really only one problem with money under "socialism"...the more you have of it, the better you will live.
That's been the case, as far as I know, in every country that has ever claimed to be "socialist".
That doesn't mean that "money rules" in the same sense that it does under capitalism...no amount of hard cash would have been likely to save Trotsky's ass from the wrath of Stalin. No Cuban "dissident" (i.e., mercenary), no matter how much money he receives from his relatives in Miami (or directly from the CIA) is going to be permitted to buy part-ownership of a new 50-story hotel in Havana (and least not yet).
But money doesn't have to SHOUT...it can whisper and whisper very persuasively: "if you had more of me, then you could have more ***goodies***."
quote:
...in fact, socialism (i.e. after the revolution) is a society of profound and earth shaking revolutionary change.
Indeed it is at the beginning. But I think you will find that even when seismographical events are at their most profound, there will still be some folks who can hear the whisper of money.
And if money is still around "after the revolution", their numbers will grow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on January 22, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a brief statement by Bob Avakian which says that "Communists are the vanguard of the proletariat in rising up to rid itself of these social relations of modern-day capitalist slavery."--that is, relations of which the presence of money is the symptom.
But what of people who would be living under Avakian "socialism" in which money would still exist?
It's all well and good to say that communists would not be "selfish" or "out for no. 1", etc. -- even though we know from experience that some would.
But what about everybody else? If money still circulates, then many will see no particular reason not to be "out for no. 1". Ideology does not put food on the table or purchase a new computer or get the house re-wired.
And what of workers...who still find themselves working for wages, producing surplus-value (appropriated by the state instead of by a corporation or an individual capitalist), being subjected to the arbitrary and capricious authority of party-appointed managers, etc.?
Want to go to the Mayday parade and look at the giant floats of the "great leader"?
Can't do it; I found somebody in the black market who'll buy a crate of these stupid widgets we make here...so I'm going to sell them to him and use the money to buy a bottle of decent booze.
The whisper of money.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on January 23, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would suggest that there are different "arenas" of struggle...and that different tactics are appropriate for different arenas.
On message boards, for example, I'm pretty "hard-line" and "confrontational". These are places where "left" ideas are supposed to be subject to critical examination.
If someone expresses an openly misogynist or homophobic opinion--or even implies such an opinion--I'm usually "on them" like the proverbial ton of bricks.
In a one-on-one intimate relationship, on the other hand, a "gentler" form of struggle might be more appropriate...unless his behavior is intolerable--in which case, you should leave at once and never look back!
If it can be arranged, it might be helpful to have a group of your women friends confront him about his behavior--perhaps he might learn from them what he won't or can't learn from you.
If you are in a political group that thinks "women's issues" are "trivial", you have a real problem. What radical women have traditionally done in this situation is organize a "women's caucus" or "faction" within the group and then demand that women's concerns be taken seriously or else!
Or else what? We walk!
Or even further: we take over! There was a situation in an underground newspaper in New York City (back in the late 1960s) where the women on the paper just seized it from the guys and ran it themselves.
I have to admit that I am "biased" in favor of confrontation. It seems to me that a "brother" who "fucks you over" is not really a brother at all--regardless of the fact that he's memorized the Communist Manifesto and even regardless of the fact that he's memorized a lot of feminist rhetoric.
For Marx and Engels, social behavior was the real key to understanding...not what rhetorical garments someone happened to be wearing at the time.
If some particular guy behaves like a patriarch towards women, then his real allegiance is to patriarchy...no matter what he might claim to the contrary.
If some political group treats women as if they were an "add on" to the revolutionary process--nice to have but not really all that important--then you cannot avoid the conclusion that they will do little or nothing on behalf of women ever.
I know it's a crude measure, but I always suggest that people should look at "mixed groups" and actually see if women are proportionately represented at all levels of the organization.
If they're not, you may assume the worst.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on February 11, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
By 'proportionally' it seems that you feel women should be promoted to positions of leadership within an organization on the basis that they are women. It’s actually identity politics and not revolutionary politics to judge people on the shallow basis of gender or nationality vs. what they stand for.
Consider a political group consisting of 90 males and 10 females (a fairly typical situation, in my experience).
This group decides it needs an "executive committee" to handle day-to-day decision-making since it's awkward to get all 100 people to a meeting more than once a month.
I would expect that one of those 10 women would be "qualified" to sit on that executive committee...and perhaps two.
If there are none at all, what conclusions are possible? (1) The political education of women in that group has little urgency...so even when women join it, they remain "backward" and "unqualified"; (2) Those guys simply won't vote for a woman, regardless of how qualified she might be; (3) Election of a woman might be perceived as a concession to "identity politics" and therefore no women can be elected; (4) Those guys perceive that women are "not really serious" about politics the way men "are"; (5) etc., etc., etc.
You would have to know a lot about the group and its politics to know which of those explanations predominated...but all of them seem to me to be "bad" ones.
Consider a different group with the same composition; but their "executive committee" is half male and half female. What's going on? Well, they rigged their voting system so that the top female candidates were "automatically" elected. Why would they want to do something like that?
Perhaps they desired to present an image to the working class of a group that was really serious about female equality...and the importance of women's contribution to the revolutionary process. Perhaps they felt that even if some of their female executive committee members were "not as sharp" or "not as experienced" as some of the guys who got squeezed out, that it was more important that women should learn how to play a "leading role" in class struggle.
By itself, of course, this is just "formalism". As are "public declarations" of a "political line". It's still pretty easy for an "alpha-male" type to dominate an "executive committee" even if half the members are female. It's also pretty easy to have a program in favor of female equality while the actual practice of the group is patriarchal.
But I think these "formalities" do have their place in the revolutionary process. It's a "good thing" to (at least!) be "formally" in favor of women's liberation. It's a "good thing" to (at least!) "formally" indicate that by moving women into "leadership" roles.
Those "formalities" are not a substitute for the genuine practice of equality...but they're a pretty good sign that your group is trying to go "in the right direction".
And their absence is not "a good sign" at all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on February 12, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
We should actively encourage women to take a more equal part in politics, especially the left-wing ideologies.
I'm afraid it's a little bit more serious than simple lack of encouragement.
Look at the "urinal thread" in Opposing Ideologies. Look at any of the "abortion threads"...especially the posts that refer to women with unwanted pregnancies as "irresponsible sluts". Or the posts that talk about the "crucial importance" of female virginity and "modesty".
It occurs to me that most intelligent, radical women would not feel very comfortable in a political environment where this kind of crap is considered "acceptable".
"Revolution, communism, blah, blah, blah"...but, meanwhile, "ladies", don't forget which gender really counts here.
I don't mean to single out Che-Lives in this regard...from what I have seen, it is universal in the left.
The short version: women don't get no r-e-s-p-e-c-t!
Until that really changes, there will never be very many women in the left...except, of course, in radical feminist groups and on radical feminist message boards, where their numbers will be quite substantial.
The "male left" is, for the most part, "female unfriendly".
Change that...and the sisters will join us.
----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on March 26, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Is the Right "female friendly"? How bout the center? You guys make it sounds as if it's exclusively a problem of the Left.
To the "right" and the "center", it's not a problem...in their view, only a small minority of women "should" be interested in politics. You know, "traditional values" and all that.
There's been much chatter in this thread thus far about women "not liking to argue politics" or "always losing debates", blah, blah, blah.
May I suggest that not only is this approach unlikely to be attractive to women, but that political message boards are not "pissing contests".
Yes, I know they often look that way...but that's not their real "social role". What we are supposed to be doing here is "figuring things out"...trying to achieve a better and more revolutionary understanding of social reality -- and not just see who "swings the biggest dick".
The fact that most women seem indifferent to bourgeois politics and the media accounts of same seems to me a plus...they appear to grasp the fundamental irrelevance of that crap a good deal better than many male radicals.
"Should we vote for Kerry or Nader?" If women yawn at such a question, I join them in that response.
Or consider the comment about women just being interested in spending some guy's money on clothes and shoes.
Among women in the upper middle class or upper class, there's probably considerable truth in that observation...they don't have much else to do. After all, their husbands "hired" them for ostentation, for display.
Being the wife of a rich guy is a career choice -- a kind of combination model-courtesan. The pay is pretty good...but it's a very boring and mindless job.
Working class women do not buy new shoes "once a week"...or even once a year. And if they do seem to buy new shoes or clothes more often than men, keep in mind that clothing and shoe manufacturers deliberately make articles for women that are shoddier -- wear out more quickly -- than they make for men...and then charge women a higher price for the crap they sell them.
Remember also that women are "judged" by their appearance far more rigorously than men are. I'm sure no guy, making a decision on what to wear, ever worried that if he wore this or that article of clothing, that people would think he was a "slut" or that he'd look so "drab" that he'd fade into the background. Women have a lot more to think about when they get dressed than men do.
There's one way in which women are very much like men; both genders thrive on positive feedback. If a woman makes a contribution to a discussion and her views are ignored, she's unlikely to want to repeat the experience...especially when she notices that ten minutes later, some guy says the same thing she did and receives positive responses.
I don't mean to suggest that feminist groups are some kind of "egalitarian paradise" for women...they have their "heavy hitters" and "utility infielders" as well. But, as a woman, if you join one of those groups, you are not immediately sent to fetch coffee and donuts as a matter of routine.
I recall a sentiment that was expressed in the early women's movement (late 60s or early 70s) that went something like this: a woman must contribute twice as much as a man to a political group in order to be taken half as seriously -- fortunately, that's not difficult.
Perhaps things are better now than they used to be...but I'm skeptical that there's been much improvement.
----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on March 26, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------
If you can find a copy, I would highly recommend Robin Morgan's Going too Far...she was part of the early rise of the women's movement and this book gives, I think, a real taste of "what it was like".
Now and then over the last 30 years, a few left groups have experimented with "affirmative action"...that is, whatever kind of "leadership" bodies they establish, they write it into the rules that half the body must be female.
When I first encountered this, I thought it was "formalistic" -- that the guys would still run things and the women would be "window-dressing".
Now, I think differently. When women are "up front" in a left group on an equal basis with men, well...being determines consciousness (as I endlessly repeat). After they're there for a while, they start to assert their views in a more vigorous way and while they may be initially deferential to the men, they don't stay that way.
So if I were starting a left group now, I would specify that women members be 50% of any kind of "leading" body...and then let time do its work.
Not to mention the good effect this will have on the guys...after a while, they will be used to seeing women "up front" -- it won't be such "a big deal" to actually listen to what a woman revolutionary has to say.
It will be normal.
----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on March 28, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------
With five plus decades of observing relations between men and women in class society behind me, I'm inclined to say that things are so bad that improvement following a revolution is inevitable.
1. In class society, "nice guys" do "finish last"...unless they are unusually lucky. Most women sense that "nice guys" are not ruthless enough to "succeed" in class society.
2. On the other hand, male "success" in class society translates (normally) into enhanced appeal to women.
3. Men who treat women badly can be thought of as "potential successes" in class society; if they treat the ones they "love" badly, think how much more ruthless they'll be with their competition.
4. Relationships in class societies tend to devolve into business partnerships...increasingly with actual written contracts (pre-nuptial agreements).
5. Children are increasingly perceived as property...to be invested in and jealously guarded...especially from an estranged partner.
6. The financial pressures on working class families and the strain of unassisted child care combine to drive out all affection between the partners...there's simply no time or energy left for "love".
7. Sexuality itself becomes more and more a commodity for sale in the marketplace...even while most people actually have less and less real sex.
8. The same is true even of non-sexual intimacy; if you want a real friend in class society, hire a therapist.
And so on...! I'm sure the young "fall in love" as enthusiastically as they ever did...but their probable future must cast a grim shadow over even the most ardent lovers.
As to the potential improvements possible in post-revolutionary society, much depends on how much is retained from the old society. If, as the RCP has proposed, we should retain many of the features of class society (in somewhat different forms), then things are unlikely to improve significantly.
Only if we proceed forthwith to communist society after the revolution can we hope to see significant improvements in the relations between men and women.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on April 14, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
How do those people who have learned to act one way in this society unlearn it?
That's the central question for sure.
One of the important reasons that the Leninist paradigm posits the need for a "transitional workers' state" is to "teach people how to act like communists". It's not just a matter of economics; the entire bourgeois paradigm must be overthrown.
It is assumed that even the decades leading up to proletarian revolution plus the actual experience of the revolution itself "will not suffice" to change "the way people think" about many things...habits of thought deeply ingrained by the experience of living in class society.
I think that's wrong.
I think the entire bourgeois paradigm will be rendered contemptible before the revolution actually takes place...initially among conscious communists but spreading throughout the proletariat.
This is what happened, after all, with the rise of the bourgeoisie. Feudalism was overthrown ideologically before it was smashed in reality. (I think it has even been suggested that the internet will play the same role in proletarian revolution as printing did in the bourgeois revolutions.)
Since we know that reactionary ideas do not "go away by themselves", I anticipate the most fierce ideological struggles against all aspects of bourgeois ideology within the revolutionary movement even while it grows. In fact, the faster it grows -- right up until the eve of the revolution -- the more fierce I expect those struggles to be. When the idea of "a new world" starts to assume tangible probability -- when it really counts -- the "best" revolutionaries will fight the "worst" revolutionaries with special urgency.
"All the old shit must go -- no exceptions!"
I know this sounds "very far out" both in terms of present reality and in the expectations of the Leninist paradigm: but I actually expect most of the working class to have become (more or less) conscious communists by the time the revolution actually occurs. I think this transformation will have taken place over the two or three preceding decades (prior to the revolution itself). Only a small part of the working class will still be imprisoned by reactionary ideas...and they will be demoralized in the course of the pre-revolutionary struggle (as will the capitalist class itself, of course).
Thus, proceeding "straight to communism" will seem "obvious" to most people -- though there will be many struggles over "what that means" and many practical obstacles to be overcome.
What "are" communist relationships between men and women? What's the best way to raise communist kids?
There are "preliminary skirmishes" on these matters now...I expect to see some real struggles as the revolutionary process matures.
Children's Liberation and Communist Society
quote:
How do you get rid of class contradictions to be able to go straight to communism anyway?
Technically, as soon as the bourgeoisie are dispossessed, they cease to be a class.
But you are likely speaking of ideological conflict with those who would (if they could) seek to restore capitalism or, if that can't be managed, defend the ideological heritage of class society (religion, patriarchy, racism, etc.).
I think communist society will be one that is "rich" in ideological controversy and struggle. It may be non-violent -- because all physical power is in the hands of the armed working class and we know what fate those who are active counter-revolutionaries can look forward to. But it will be verbally quite heated. People will be "on the lookout" for ideas that could be used to "ease" the way back to class society...and will struggle against those ideas with real conviction.
Also, let's face it, defining the structure of communist society in real-world terms is, in itself, controversial. People will want to try different approaches. Successes and failures will be widely publicized.
Though I have often been accused of suggesting that communism would be established "overnight" or that there would be "no period of transition", that is a mis-reading of my views. There will be a "period of transition" and it will probably be very chaotic, at least initially.
It will likely resemble the Paris Commune in 1871 or Barcelona in 1936. It won't look anything like the USSR in 1921 or China in 1950.
I don't think we can really say at this point what the shape of communist society will "ultimately" be...it's just too far away right now. But we know, or should know, some important negatives: no market, no money, no wage-labor, no political elite, no "political center-of-gravity" (state), no professional army or police, no public presence for religion, etc.
Even if you can't always pin down exactly what you do want, it never hurts to be absolutely clear about what you don't want...and will not accept!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at AnotherWorldIsPossible on April 15, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Ok, here's what I know. Women control EVERYTHING! All guys get so pussy whipped it's not even funny.
This is such a stupid statement that it's almost funny...
quote:
So you know what, they should really stop crying and bitching...
Yes, they should be seen but not heard.
quote:
PS: I'm super ultra bitter today!
Yeah...must have gotten your brain caught in your zipper.
quote:
Would you please explain to me how you don't believe women are natural nurturers?
Many women are; many women aren't. The patriarchal stereotype denies choice. If you (female) are a "lousy" "nurturer", then you must not be "a real woman"...but rather some "unnatural freak".
quote:
...typical feminist bullshit that serves only to divide the sexes even more.
More than what?
Do you posit "unity" between masters and slaves as a "desirable" situation?
Or "unity" between bosses and workers?
Then why suggest that there should be some kind of "mystical unity" between men and women under patriarchy?
If memory serves me, even Marx got this one wrong: the original wording of the Communist Manifesto was "workingmen of all countries, unite!"
Not much excuse either; in 1847, there were huge numbers of women and children working in the factories of Manchester and Birmingham, et.al., and Engels (at least) had seen them with his own eyes.
Now, we should know better. Patriarchal attitudes towards women -- sexism -- should be seen as just as obnoxious to the idea of communism as racism.
If Marx and Engels had little excuse, we have none at all.
quote:
I agree, but if this is the extent to your oppression you are really hard up for something to complain about.
If this is the extent of your "agreement", then you are really hard up for an opposing argument.
"Quit your bitching" might have been a more straightforward phrase to express your view.
quote:
Come on, women in America have it better than women in any other country on the planet. You get knocked up, you can gouge a man's paycheck for child support. Your man starts acting up? You can beat his ass with a 2X4 and if he so much as grabs your wrist to stop the beating, you can call the cops and he'll spend the night in jail. And if you get tired of him, you can just withhold the pussy until he can't stand it any more and cheats on you, then you can divorce him and take half of everything he's got, including his kids. You think that this type of shit flies anywhere else but here?
I am ALL FOR equal rights, equal treatment, and downright equality between men and women. I love women, and treat them like objects I do not. But the more laws and protections you put on the books, the more some triflin ass whores will abuse them.
Equal rights for women...except for "triflin ass whores"???
How about equal rights for African-Americans...except for "shiftless, lazy, thieving, violent n*****s"???
Sound better that way?
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on April 26, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Evolutionary psychology isn't even considered.
Nor is evolutionary "biology", "socio-biology", racial "science", or astrology. Junk science is of no use in these discussions.
quote:
Assholes are protective and bring in the bacon...what better traits can there be in a mate?
In my observation, assholes are abusive and unreliable in "bacon-bringing".
quote:
But feminism has become a haven for dykes who want to be free from societal pressures to shave their armpits.
Another brilliant point. Since "armpit shaving" is a North American cultural practice, one would presume that there'd be no feminists in Europe -- women don't "have" to shave their armpits there.
quote:
But..a lot of the oppression women feel in developed countries is more [or] less psychologically handed down or is on a personal level than a real deepseated universal physical oppression. Oppression stems from having no choices to change a given situation or limited choices without any good options.
I find this to be internally inconsistent. Women in developed countries have a different set of bad options than women in undeveloped countries do.
But they are "real" and "physical" nonetheless. To suggest that women in developed countries suffer "psychological" oppression only is, in my opinion, simply wrong.
If you are suffering from physical abuse at the hands of your "partner", it does not matter if you live in Mecca or Minneapolis...the pain feels the same.
If you stay with an unsatisfactory "partner" because you have children and lack any economic resources to support them, you are trapped just as surely, whether you live in Islamabad or Indianapolis.
If you live in a society that defines "woman" in a constricted and inferior fashion (patriarchy), then you are oppressed no matter where you live. The opportunities that should be yours won't be there.
The official American "image" is that of "equal opportunity for all"...the social reality is far different. I think this is more or less true of all capitalist countries.
I won't dispute the obvious point that women in Toronto are a good deal better off than women in Teheran...but I don't think we should kid ourselves that bourgeois "equality under law" has any relevance to bourgeois reality.
All you really have to do is look around you...who are the figures of authority and who are not? Who are the "movers & shakers" and who are the moved and shaken? Who are the real "players" and who gets played?
Finally, it should always be remembered that "feminism" is an extremely diverse movement with many theoretical "schools of thought"...some of which are bourgeois and others of which are, at least potentially, proletarian and revolutionary. A blanket condemnation of feminism "in the name of Marxism" is just foolishness.
quote:
There is no way you are going to end all oppression...
Oh? I thought, "naively", that communist revolution was about exactly that.
It sort of makes you wonder? Who will the lucky winners (no longer oppressed) be and who the sad losers (still oppressed)?
quote:
By the way, if you are trying to end the perception of women as sex objects, you are going to have to stop men from being perverts, in which case I suggest you start with the castrations.
This is an interesting example of where the anti-feminist position leads: towards a degrading view of both genders.
Women are "whores" and men are "perverts".
How inspiring.
---------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on April 26, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------
quote:
If you think communism, especially a communist revolution, is capable of ending all oppression you are naive indeed.
Very well, "naive" I'll be.
But who are the "lucky winners" whose oppression comes to an end?
And who are the "sad losers" who have to stay oppressed even though there's been a communist revolution?
---------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on April 27, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------
quote:
I was referring to the deep rooted, all-pervasive psychological baggage about women that they exclusively have to deal with, with no escape because THOSE attitudes ARE the cultural norm of this society. It has the most destructive, disempowering, paralyzing grip because it is complexly psychological in its nature and dictates almost everything SHE thinks about herself without her even having to make a conscious decision of its validness. She doesn't need a man to beat the shit out of her every day because she does it to herself without even thinking by believing those things must be true. And I'm saying she needs to change that running script going on in her head.
I agree that many (perhaps most?) women have such a script running in their heads; in fact, everyone who doesn't have significant wealth and power in class society has a version of that script -- "the reason that I'm dogdirt is that I really am inferior -- the bad things that happen to me are ultimately my fault!".
Nevertheless, psychological "scripts" don't "fall out of the sky"...they have a real material basis or they just wither away.
In order to "blame yourself" for "bad things" there must first be actual bad things that really happen to you.
Bad things really happen to women -- especially working class women and women of color...in every country.
Nothing is "just psychological".
quote:
I'll answer your question...Women will be the sad losers in the communist revolution. The laws might change, but the everyday attitudes will remain the same.
Well, that's not an acceptable outcome...at least to me. Any "communist" revolution that does not tear down "all the old shit" is, in my opinion, a waste of time.
Here's a few words from the old buzzard himself...
quote:
Incidentally, the ladies cannot complain about the ‘International’, since it has appointed a lady, Madame Law, as a member of the General Council. Joking aside, very great progress was demonstrated at the last congress of the American ‘Labor Union’, inter alia, by the fact that it treated the women workers with full parity; by contrast, the English, and to an even greater extent the gallant French, are displaying a marked narrowness of spirit in this respect. Everyone who knows anything of history also knows that great social revolutions are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress may be measured precisely by the social position of the fair sex (plain ones included).
Marx To Ludwig Kugelmann In Hanover, London, 12 December 1868
quote:
Oh, and Redstar, I don't think you have any idea what evolutionary psychology is about. It is certainly not junk science.
It certainly is junk science; its central thesis is that all human social behavior is guided by the over-riding goal of inclusive reproductive fitness.
See: Alas, poor Darwin : arguments against evolutionary psychology / edited by Hilary Rose and Steven Rose, ISBN #0609605135.
Its real message, typical of junk "social science" generally, is that the elite "deserve" to be there...because they "really are superior".
quote:
Why is it that women get attributed with all this beautiful zest for life while nobody recognizes the cool things about being male?
As I noted in an earlier post, feminism is multi-faceted. The goddess-worshiping celebration of mystical femininity is one of those facets...and, from a political standpoint, of marginal interest.
This thread didn't begin with a critique of that particular kind of feminism...but rather with a sweeping attack on women in general.
I don't think there's anything particularly "cool" about being female or male in class society.
But there is a "male counterpart" to the mystical feminine thing...I forgot what it's called, but it's a bunch of guys who go off in the woods, get naked, build a campfire, and pound on home-made drums. There's even a book about it; I think it's called Iron John or something like that.
quote:
Well I'm glad I was able to piss all you tight asses off.
Indeed? And what have you gained from your efforts?
quote:
The feminist movement needs to change society from the bottom up, and for the most part it has been working top-down, which results in the problems I've been highlighting at the expense of the e-ostracization from the che-lives community.
I'm sure your well-meaning advice will warm the hearts of feminists everywhere...except for the "triflin whores" of course.
quote:
But I'm sick of all this party-line spewing garbage.
But what of your party-line?
Some garbage smells better than others?
quote:
Like everything else I've said for about 8-9 posts, it was tongue in cheek.
I think "head up ass" would be a more accurate description.
quote:
Nobody has given me any substantial counterargument to my only real beef in this thread, which was with Senora Che's sig and her first reply on page 1: both argue that men are incapable of seeing women as anything other than objects to be used for our own purposes, whether personal or political.
The quotation in question is an observation on the social role of the female body.
Whether or not individuals may privately consider individual women "more" than just their bodies is irrelevant; in the public discourse, the female body is a social construct with controversial "attributes".
Indeed, you demonstrated your personal acceptance of some of those attributes in your previous posts--e.g., armpit shaving, "dykes", "triflin' whores", etc.
You not only did not furnish any genuine counter-argument to the quotation, you provided a personal example of "how it works".
And now you wish to imply that you were "just joking" to "piss us off"?
Why aren't we laughing?
quote:
and PLEASE stop this womyn stuff...
"Womyn" is a linguistic innovation...everyone who speaks the language has the right to think up new words or new spellings for old words.
They look "odd" or "funny" at first, but if they "catch on", then in the course of time they will seem "normal" and the old words or spellings will look "archaic".
If you've read material from even as late as the 19th century, you may (if you're paying attention) be struck by some of the "odd" usages...language changes.
If you don't "like" the innovation, don't use it.
quote:
The Left seriously needs to stop shrinking from the challenge of criticizing the behaviors of oppressed groups be they women, minorities, or the working class. Too often it is held as unquestionable truth that all oppressed people are noble, willful people who constantly form brilliant and admirable resistance to their oppression.
I agree completely! But there is a very obvious difference between thoughtful, informed critiques and (as in this thread) patriarchal rants and verbal abuse.
Referring to feminists as "Dykes with hairy armpits" or "triflin' whores" does not meet my minimum standards for a thoughtful and informed critique.
quote:
I started this thread in 'chit chat', its content pretty much guaranteed it wouldn't be a serious discussion about feminist theory. But who cares? Why be serious about everything? This is the internet, nothing wrong with shooting the shit every now and then. Lighten up.
No, you started this thread as a "rant" against "uppity women".
You even boasted of your success in "pissing people off".
Who cares? I do!
quote:
.."This has befallen us.. We are powerless. We are oppressed." however true that is... don't succumb to that way of thinking, immobilized, unable to move forward. It's called Negative Action in activist theory; where one can only state the historical outline and causes without offering up any solutions. It absolutely has no constructive import whatsoever Nothing I can think of is more disenfranchising and negating than women taking ourselves out of the equation by refusing any responsibility or control over the situation but rather feeling at the behest of an invisible multi-headed monster which calls the all the shots. I am tired of women feeling pissed upon. They are pissing on themselves with their own mindset and bringing us all down as women.
Yes, there very definitely is an important segment of feminist "theory" that does emphasize "woman as helpless victim".
It's a rotten perspective, no question about it. That particular strain of feminism often allies itself with the religious fundamentalists in seeking legal protection for women from "insatiable male depravity". Some of them indeed maintain that "all heterosexual activity under patriarchy is rape" -- an astonishing assertion.
My guess is that this strain of feminism is primarily academic in origin...it seems to have little contact with the real world where women do resist patriarchy in many ways, large and small.
(I also frankly suspect some of them of careerist motives.)
But I think it would be unfair to seize upon this particular version of feminism in order to criticize the whole...most feminist writings do (in my opinion) encourage active resistance to patriarchy.
---------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on April 28, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------
quote:
First of all, I think it is counterproductive to deny the basic animal essence of human behavior. Pretending that the way we engage in reproduction is somehow different and superior to that of other animals is self-deluding arrogance.
"Basic animal essence"? What the hell is that?
"Self-deluding arrogance"? And what is the source for this phrase?
And who is "pretending" what? The diversity and complexity of human courtship and mating is obviously far different than that of all other known species.
Good grief!
quote:
...much of human behavior can in fact be best explained by reproductive goals we may not be fully aware of.
If we're not aware of them, then how can they explain anything?
Except in the fertile minds of "evolutionary psychologists", of course.
quote:
Why is it so hard to accept that we choose our mates based on traits we know will increase the chance of offspring's survival whether those traits are physical or social?
Yes, the thought of making babies with a good chance of survival is always uppermost in our minds...or some minds...or perhaps just the minds of "evolutionary psychologists".
Not to mention the "trivial" fact that if that thesis had any validity, then there sure are a lot of folks making "bad choices"...perhaps they are "genetically inferior".
quote:
Evolutionary psychology has nothing to do with what people "deserve" or anyone being "superior", it is only an explanation of animal behavior.
Does the phrase "alpha-male" ring a bell?
quote:
Studies do in fact show that capital (monetary or social) is the prevailing factor in how attractive women find a male to be.
No, what they actually show is how willing women are to overlook personal attractiveness in the pursuit of survival in class society.
A very different thing.
quote:
This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution.
Yeah, Dawkins is a sneaky bastard, isn't he? He lays out his thesis (that we are all unwitting robots at the service of our genes) in a "deadpan" fashion and lets the reader "draw his own conclusions" about the kind of society that is "fit and proper" for "what people are really like".
"They're selfish because they're governed by selfish genes."
I can't understand why they don't serialize his books in the Wall Street Journal.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on April 28, 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 |
| The only thing that "unifies" anarchists, as far as I can tell, is opposition to a centralized state apparatus.
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 3 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
