The Working Class Revolution (WCR) Forums v3.0

I'm primarily concerned with answers to these three questions:

1. How do we combat sexism?
2. What are the aims of revolutionary feminists?
3. Are any of those aims achievable separately from class struggle?
   

My initial reaction is that most of the aims of, for example, liberal feminism, are entirely separate from the would-be aims of any revolutionary feminists. Most liberal feminists are concerned by the lack of female CEOs, and objectification in the media, and not much has really been proposed as to how their goals may be achieved.

As revolutionaries, we should recognize that the economic subjugation of women is in no way combatible by any means other than class struggle. There is no way that women and men can be equal when economic necessity ties women to lower-paying jobs, and there is no way to keep women from being exploited in the media while doing so will remain profitable. Capital has no interest in changing the traditional way in which men and women are socialized into differing, divisive roles and as such these roles can only be impacted in a limited way without completely changing the societal structure at work.

If all of this is true, then isn't it also true that the immediate and long-term goals of all feminists can only be realized through working class struggle, and if that is true, then what is the purpose of a feminist movement separate and distinct from the working class as a whole? I do see the value of feminist analysis and the role it plays in theory, but in practice I'm not sure what a "Marxist Feminist" could do differently from any other Marxist other than talk about feminism.

I do realize that there is some futility in asking this sort of a question in a forum that has no more than 5 female members so far, but this is an important issue and I'd like to get some thoughts on the subject.

As a female this is obviously an important issue to me, but I don't see how feminism and marxism could be compatiable. The way I see it, any oppression of women will be eliminated under Socialism anyway. Just like Racism comes about due to the material conditions of Capitalism, sexism can too. Besides, a lack of female CEO's wouldn't matter under Socialism as we desire to eliminate such positions anyway. However, it is the objectification that bothers me.

(13-09-2009 04:48 PM)melbicimni Wrote: [ -> ]I'm primarily concerned with answers to these three questions:

1. How do we combat sexism?
2. What are the aims of revolutionary feminists?
3. Are any of those aims achievable separately from class struggle?
   

My initial reaction is that most of the aims of, for example, liberal feminism, are entirely separate from the would-be aims of any revolutionary feminists. Most liberal feminists are concerned by the lack of female CEOs, and objectification in the media, and not much has really been proposed as to how their goals may be achieved.

As revolutionaries, we should recognize that the economic subjugation of women is in no way combatible by any means other than class struggle. There is no way that women and men can be equal when economic necessity ties women to lower-paying jobs, and there is no way to keep women from being exploited in the media while doing so will remain profitable. Capital has no interest in changing the traditional way in which men and women are socialized into differing, divisive roles and as such these roles can only be impacted in a limited way without completely changing the societal structure at work.

If all of this is true, then isn't it also true that the immediate and long-term goals of all feminists can only be realized through working class struggle, and if that is true, then what is the purpose of a feminist movement separate and distinct from the working class as a whole? I do see the value of feminist analysis and the role it plays in theory, but in practice I'm not sure what a "Marxist Feminist" could do differently from any other Marxist other than talk about feminism.

I do realize that there is some futility in asking this sort of a question in a forum that has no more than 5 female members so far, but this is an important issue and I'd like to get some thoughts on the subject.

Well, the same could really be said - in terms of long-term goals being achievable only under communism - about anti-racists, anti-fascists, etc. as well. For some time now the situation for feminists has ceased to be about gaining equal "rights"; women in the "western" countries now have, on paper anyway, essentially equal "rights".
No one should make the mistake, however, of concluding that such "rights" mean that sexism is no longer a huge, pervasive issue.

You say you're "not sure what a 'Marxist Feminist' could do differently from any other Marxist other than talk about feminism". Most feminist revolutionaries, myself included, aren't interested in "talking about feminism". I think this illustrates a gross misconception common among many male 'leftists' as to what feminism actually is. In fact, most feminist revolutionaries are interested in raising awareness about sexism and adding a female perspective to the omnipresent male narrative which currently dominates all aspects of society.

A huge problem, which revolutionaries seem no less vulnerable to than anyone else, is the way sexism is looked at. In your comment, for instance, you address only the economic manifestations of sexism and, asserting that these largely cannot be resolved under capitalism (and that's one point I'm inclined to agree with you on), you then conclude by expressing the sentiment that there may not be anything else for feminist revolutionaries to do. But this is the error - viewing sexism as limited to economic disadvantages. Economic disadvantage is simply one small aspect of the much broader problem of sexism, which permeates all aspects of life.

Sexism is still very much present in the attitudes of the overwhelming majority of men - revolutionaries included. Its the male narrative which observes the feminists as a bunch of man-hating preachy reverse-sexist bitches. Its a rigged dynamic which by default subordinates the views and actions of women - even on issues directly related to women, like sexism - to the views and actions of men. Its the view that women are emotional and men are logical, that confrontational women are bitches and confrontational men are just assertive. And these views are evident absolutely everywhere, but the problem is that they are implicit. They aren't overt in the way that economic disadvantages are overt, which is why many (or indeed most) males - revolutionaries included - are oblivious to the existence or prevalence of this form of sexism, and this is why they so often unconsciously participate in it.

So what is important to me, in the immediate future, is to attempt to raise consciousness among men within the "revolutionary left" of the implicit nature of sexism and the importance (and present lacking) of a female narrative. It seems to me, if the socialist/communist left is to be the segment of the working class with the most advanced revolutionary consciousness, that this is a worthy and desperately-needed goal considering the prevalence of sexism amongst the "revolutionary left".
After all, patriarchy existed for thousands of years before capitalism and, if it is not addressed and recognized in its entirety now, I see no reason to believe it will suddenly disappear following the abolition of capitalism.

(27-09-2009 11:02 AM)apikoros Wrote: [ -> ]

(13-09-2009 04:48 PM)melbicimni Wrote: [ -> ]I'm primarily concerned with answers to these three questions:

1. How do we combat sexism?
2. What are the aims of revolutionary feminists?
3. Are any of those aims achievable separately from class struggle?
   

My initial reaction is that most of the aims of, for example, liberal feminism, are entirely separate from the would-be aims of any revolutionary feminists. Most liberal feminists are concerned by the lack of female CEOs, and objectification in the media, and not much has really been proposed as to how their goals may be achieved.

As revolutionaries, we should recognize that the economic subjugation of women is in no way combatible by any means other than class struggle. There is no way that women and men can be equal when economic necessity ties women to lower-paying jobs, and there is no way to keep women from being exploited in the media while doing so will remain profitable. Capital has no interest in changing the traditional way in which men and women are socialized into differing, divisive roles and as such these roles can only be impacted in a limited way without completely changing the societal structure at work.

If all of this is true, then isn't it also true that the immediate and long-term goals of all feminists can only be realized through working class struggle, and if that is true, then what is the purpose of a feminist movement separate and distinct from the working class as a whole? I do see the value of feminist analysis and the role it plays in theory, but in practice I'm not sure what a "Marxist Feminist" could do differently from any other Marxist other than talk about feminism.

I do realize that there is some futility in asking this sort of a question in a forum that has no more than 5 female members so far, but this is an important issue and I'd like to get some thoughts on the subject.

Well, the same could really be said - in terms of long-term goals being achievable only under communism - about anti-racists, anti-fascists, etc. as well. For some time now the situation for feminists has ceased to be about gaining equal "rights"; women in the "western" countries now have, on paper anyway, essentially equal "rights".
No one should make the mistake, however, of concluding that such "rights" mean that sexism is no longer a huge, pervasive issue.

You say you're "not sure what a 'Marxist Feminist' could do differently from any other Marxist other than talk about feminism". Most feminist revolutionaries, myself included, aren't interested in "talking about feminism". I think this illustrates a gross misconception common among many male 'leftists' as to what feminism actually is. In fact, most feminist revolutionaries are interested in raising awareness about sexism and adding a female perspective to the omnipresent male narrative which currently dominates all aspects of society.

A huge problem, which revolutionaries seem no less vulnerable to than anyone else, is the way sexism is looked at. In your comment, for instance, you address only the economic manifestations of sexism and, asserting that these largely cannot be resolved under capitalism (and that's one point I'm inclined to agree with you on), you then conclude by expressing the sentiment that there may not be anything else for feminist revolutionaries to do. But this is the error - viewing sexism as limited to economic disadvantages. Economic disadvantage is simply one small aspect of the much broader problem of sexism, which permeates all aspects of life.

Sexism is still very much present in the attitudes of the overwhelming majority of men - revolutionaries included. Its the male narrative which observes the feminists as a bunch of man-hating preachy reverse-sexist bitches. Its a rigged dynamic which by default subordinates the views and actions of women - even on issues directly related to women, like sexism - to the views and actions of men. Its the view that women are emotional and men are logical, that confrontational women are bitches and confrontational men are just assertive. And these views are evident absolutely everywhere, but the problem is that they are implicit. They aren't overt in the way that economic disadvantages are overt, which is why many (or indeed most) males - revolutionaries included - are oblivious to the existence or prevalence of this form of sexism, and this is why they so often unconsciously participate in it.

So what is important to me, in the immediate future, is to attempt to raise consciousness among men within the "revolutionary left" of the implicit nature of sexism and the importance (and present lacking) of a female narrative. It seems to me, if the socialist/communist left is to be the segment of the working class with the most advanced revolutionary consciousness, that this is a worthy and desperately-needed goal considering the prevalence of sexism amongst the "revolutionary left".
After all, patriarchy existed for thousands of years before capitalism and, if it is not addressed and recognized in its entirety now, I see no reason to believe it will suddenly disappear following the abolition of capitalism.

While I concentrated primarily on the economic disadvantages, while I somehow failed to make this argument here (it's a big part of my thoughts on this issue) I also tend to see many other issues as manifestations of the economic struggle. For instance, economic disadvantages tend to result in fewer women in positions of power, which reinforces the subservient positions of women in patriarchal society and the narrative of male dominance.

I don't see feminists as a bunch of "man-hating preachy reverse-sexist bitches", and I don't see confrontational men as "assertive", as opposed to confrontational women, I just see both groups as jerks I could do without knowing. I realize you weren't calling me out specifically, and that my saying this can and will likely be taken by many as an admission of guilt (that's the way things go, and you don't know me, so you can only judge me by my words). Ultimately, what I do see is a great many attempts to, as you said, "raise consciousness" about sexism in the revolutionary left.

My only question is what should conscious men do? And can these sexist attitudes be changed in either the revolutionary left, or the population at large, without first destroying capitalism? It seems to me that these attitudes are the result of a structural disadvantage that is programmed into the capitalist system (and has been programmed into every system before it) in such a way that to change those attitudes, to override the social conditioning, is a task that can't begin to be started without the destruction of capitalist social relations. It seems obvious to me, at least, that the way in which many people go about attempting to raise consciousness about sexism in the revolutionary left is to simply call out sexist attitudes in the most confrontational and personal possible way, wherever they see them. While this approach should work, and believe me, I wish it did, it's pretty clear that it doesn't work. In all likelihood, it doesn't work because of male privilege and the socially constructed idea that men are above reproach. I don't think I can offer a better way of handling this, obviously male and female posters attempting to combat sexist attitudes should not sit around and coddle the "poor man" who has been accused of sexism and play nice about it, but if we find that the opposite approach doesn't work either, what are we to do?

Essentially, my entire question boils down to that....what are we supposed to do? My best answer is to attack sexism at the source, capitalist social relations. I strongly believe, and maybe I'm wrong about this, but I believe that the aboliton of the economic disadvantages, and the creation of a truly egalitarian society, will ultimately result in the end of sexism, so long as the issue is kept in the forefront of peoples minds as they create that society. Maybe this is incorrect, maybe it's naive, but I haven't yet seen a better suggestion.

(27-09-2009 02:02 PM)melbicimni Wrote: [ -> ]

(27-09-2009 11:02 AM)apikoros Wrote: [ -> ]

(13-09-2009 04:48 PM)melbicimni Wrote: [ -> ]I'm primarily concerned with answers to these three questions:

1. How do we combat sexism?
2. What are the aims of revolutionary feminists?
3. Are any of those aims achievable separately from class struggle?
   

My initial reaction is that most of the aims of, for example, liberal feminism, are entirely separate from the would-be aims of any revolutionary feminists. Most liberal feminists are concerned by the lack of female CEOs, and objectification in the media, and not much has really been proposed as to how their goals may be achieved.

As revolutionaries, we should recognize that the economic subjugation of women is in no way combatible by any means other than class struggle. There is no way that women and men can be equal when economic necessity ties women to lower-paying jobs, and there is no way to keep women from being exploited in the media while doing so will remain profitable. Capital has no interest in changing the traditional way in which men and women are socialized into differing, divisive roles and as such these roles can only be impacted in a limited way without completely changing the societal structure at work.

If all of this is true, then isn't it also true that the immediate and long-term goals of all feminists can only be realized through working class struggle, and if that is true, then what is the purpose of a feminist movement separate and distinct from the working class as a whole? I do see the value of feminist analysis and the role it plays in theory, but in practice I'm not sure what a "Marxist Feminist" could do differently from any other Marxist other than talk about feminism.

I do realize that there is some futility in asking this sort of a question in a forum that has no more than 5 female members so far, but this is an important issue and I'd like to get some thoughts on the subject.

Well, the same could really be said - in terms of long-term goals being achievable only under communism - about anti-racists, anti-fascists, etc. as well. For some time now the situation for feminists has ceased to be about gaining equal "rights"; women in the "western" countries now have, on paper anyway, essentially equal "rights".
No one should make the mistake, however, of concluding that such "rights" mean that sexism is no longer a huge, pervasive issue.

You say you're "not sure what a 'Marxist Feminist' could do differently from any other Marxist other than talk about feminism". Most feminist revolutionaries, myself included, aren't interested in "talking about feminism". I think this illustrates a gross misconception common among many male 'leftists' as to what feminism actually is. In fact, most feminist revolutionaries are interested in raising awareness about sexism and adding a female perspective to the omnipresent male narrative which currently dominates all aspects of society.

A huge problem, which revolutionaries seem no less vulnerable to than anyone else, is the way sexism is looked at. In your comment, for instance, you address only the economic manifestations of sexism and, asserting that these largely cannot be resolved under capitalism (and that's one point I'm inclined to agree with you on), you then conclude by expressing the sentiment that there may not be anything else for feminist revolutionaries to do. But this is the error - viewing sexism as limited to economic disadvantages. Economic disadvantage is simply one small aspect of the much broader problem of sexism, which permeates all aspects of life.

Sexism is still very much present in the attitudes of the overwhelming majority of men - revolutionaries included. Its the male narrative which observes the feminists as a bunch of man-hating preachy reverse-sexist bitches. Its a rigged dynamic which by default subordinates the views and actions of women - even on issues directly related to women, like sexism - to the views and actions of men. Its the view that women are emotional and men are logical, that confrontational women are bitches and confrontational men are just assertive. And these views are evident absolutely everywhere, but the problem is that they are implicit. They aren't overt in the way that economic disadvantages are overt, which is why many (or indeed most) males - revolutionaries included - are oblivious to the existence or prevalence of this form of sexism, and this is why they so often unconsciously participate in it.

So what is important to me, in the immediate future, is to attempt to raise consciousness among men within the "revolutionary left" of the implicit nature of sexism and the importance (and present lacking) of a female narrative. It seems to me, if the socialist/communist left is to be the segment of the working class with the most advanced revolutionary consciousness, that this is a worthy and desperately-needed goal considering the prevalence of sexism amongst the "revolutionary left".
After all, patriarchy existed for thousands of years before capitalism and, if it is not addressed and recognized in its entirety now, I see no reason to believe it will suddenly disappear following the abolition of capitalism.

While I concentrated primarily on the economic disadvantages, while I somehow failed to make this argument here (it's a big part of my thoughts on this issue) I also tend to see many other issues as manifestations of the economic struggle. For instance, economic disadvantages tend to result in fewer women in positions of power, which reinforces the subservient positions of women in patriarchal society and the narrative of male dominance.

I don't see feminists as a bunch of "man-hating preachy reverse-sexist bitches", and I don't see confrontational men as "assertive", as opposed to confrontational women, I just see both groups as jerks I could do without knowing. I realize you weren't calling me out specifically, and that my saying this can and will likely be taken by many as an admission of guilt (that's the way things go, and you don't know me, so you can only judge me by my words). Ultimately, what I do see is a great many attempts to, as you said, "raise consciousness" about sexism in the revolutionary left.

My only question is what should conscious men do? And can these sexist attitudes be changed in either the revolutionary left, or the population at large, without first destroying capitalism? It seems to me that these attitudes are the result of a structural disadvantage that is programmed into the capitalist system (and has been programmed into every system before it) in such a way that to change those attitudes, to override the social conditioning, is a task that can't begin to be started without the destruction of capitalist social relations. It seems obvious to me, at least, that the way in which many people go about attempting to raise consciousness about sexism in the revolutionary left is to simply call out sexist attitudes in the most confrontational and personal possible way, wherever they see them. While this approach should work, and believe me, I wish it did, it's pretty clear that it doesn't work. In all likelihood, it doesn't work because of male privilege and the socially constructed idea that men are above reproach. I don't think I can offer a better way of handling this, obviously male and female posters attempting to combat sexist attitudes should not sit around and coddle the "poor man" who has been accused of sexism and play nice about it, but if we find that the opposite approach doesn't work either, what are we to do?

Essentially, my entire question boils down to that....what are we supposed to do? My best answer is to attack sexism at the source, capitalist social relations. I strongly believe, and maybe I'm wrong about this, but I believe that the aboliton of the economic disadvantages, and the creation of a truly egalitarian society, will ultimately result in the end of sexism, so long as the issue is kept in the forefront of peoples minds as they create that society. Maybe this is incorrect, maybe it's naive, but I haven't yet seen a better suggestion.

I think that sexism is a huge problem in society, but just like racism, the key to abolishing it is in education.
If the left educates the younger generation that sexism is disgusting, the next generation will be far less sexist, but the left must also be aware that as long as we have capitalism we will have predjudice

(21-11-2009 09:31 AM)RED.ARMY.FACTION Wrote: [ -> ]

(27-09-2009 02:02 PM)melbicimni Wrote: [ -> ]

(27-09-2009 11:02 AM)apikoros Wrote: [ -> ]

(13-09-2009 04:48 PM)melbicimni Wrote: [ -> ]I'm primarily concerned with answers to these three questions:

1. How do we combat sexism?
2. What are the aims of revolutionary feminists?
3. Are any of those aims achievable separately from class struggle?
   

My initial reaction is that most of the aims of, for example, liberal feminism, are entirely separate from the would-be aims of any revolutionary feminists. Most liberal feminists are concerned by the lack of female CEOs, and objectification in the media, and not much has really been proposed as to how their goals may be achieved.

As revolutionaries, we should recognize that the economic subjugation of women is in no way combatible by any means other than class struggle. There is no way that women and men can be equal when economic necessity ties women to lower-paying jobs, and there is no way to keep women from being exploited in the media while doing so will remain profitable. Capital has no interest in changing the traditional way in which men and women are socialized into differing, divisive roles and as such these roles can only be impacted in a limited way without completely changing the societal structure at work.

If all of this is true, then isn't it also true that the immediate and long-term goals of all feminists can only be realized through working class struggle, and if that is true, then what is the purpose of a feminist movement separate and distinct from the working class as a whole? I do see the value of feminist analysis and the role it plays in theory, but in practice I'm not sure what a "Marxist Feminist" could do differently from any other Marxist other than talk about feminism.

I do realize that there is some futility in asking this sort of a question in a forum that has no more than 5 female members so far, but this is an important issue and I'd like to get some thoughts on the subject.

Well, the same could really be said - in terms of long-term goals being achievable only under communism - about anti-racists, anti-fascists, etc. as well. For some time now the situation for feminists has ceased to be about gaining equal "rights"; women in the "western" countries now have, on paper anyway, essentially equal "rights".
No one should make the mistake, however, of concluding that such "rights" mean that sexism is no longer a huge, pervasive issue.

You say you're "not sure what a 'Marxist Feminist' could do differently from any other Marxist other than talk about feminism". Most feminist revolutionaries, myself included, aren't interested in "talking about feminism". I think this illustrates a gross misconception common among many male 'leftists' as to what feminism actually is. In fact, most feminist revolutionaries are interested in raising awareness about sexism and adding a female perspective to the omnipresent male narrative which currently dominates all aspects of society.

A huge problem, which revolutionaries seem no less vulnerable to than anyone else, is the way sexism is looked at. In your comment, for instance, you address only the economic manifestations of sexism and, asserting that these largely cannot be resolved under capitalism (and that's one point I'm inclined to agree with you on), you then conclude by expressing the sentiment that there may not be anything else for feminist revolutionaries to do. But this is the error - viewing sexism as limited to economic disadvantages. Economic disadvantage is simply one small aspect of the much broader problem of sexism, which permeates all aspects of life.

Sexism is still very much present in the attitudes of the overwhelming majority of men - revolutionaries included. Its the male narrative which observes the feminists as a bunch of man-hating preachy reverse-sexist bitches. Its a rigged dynamic which by default subordinates the views and actions of women - even on issues directly related to women, like sexism - to the views and actions of men. Its the view that women are emotional and men are logical, that confrontational women are bitches and confrontational men are just assertive. And these views are evident absolutely everywhere, but the problem is that they are implicit. They aren't overt in the way that economic disadvantages are overt, which is why many (or indeed most) males - revolutionaries included - are oblivious to the existence or prevalence of this form of sexism, and this is why they so often unconsciously participate in it.

So what is important to me, in the immediate future, is to attempt to raise consciousness among men within the "revolutionary left" of the implicit nature of sexism and the importance (and present lacking) of a female narrative. It seems to me, if the socialist/communist left is to be the segment of the working class with the most advanced revolutionary consciousness, that this is a worthy and desperately-needed goal considering the prevalence of sexism amongst the "revolutionary left".
After all, patriarchy existed for thousands of years before capitalism and, if it is not addressed and recognized in its entirety now, I see no reason to believe it will suddenly disappear following the abolition of capitalism.

While I concentrated primarily on the economic disadvantages, while I somehow failed to make this argument here (it's a big part of my thoughts on this issue) I also tend to see many other issues as manifestations of the economic struggle. For instance, economic disadvantages tend to result in fewer women in positions of power, which reinforces the subservient positions of women in patriarchal society and the narrative of male dominance.

I don't see feminists as a bunch of "man-hating preachy reverse-sexist bitches", and I don't see confrontational men as "assertive", as opposed to confrontational women, I just see both groups as jerks I could do without knowing. I realize you weren't calling me out specifically, and that my saying this can and will likely be taken by many as an admission of guilt (that's the way things go, and you don't know me, so you can only judge me by my words). Ultimately, what I do see is a great many attempts to, as you said, "raise consciousness" about sexism in the revolutionary left.

My only question is what should conscious men do? And can these sexist attitudes be changed in either the revolutionary left, or the population at large, without first destroying capitalism? It seems to me that these attitudes are the result of a structural disadvantage that is programmed into the capitalist system (and has been programmed into every system before it) in such a way that to change those attitudes, to override the social conditioning, is a task that can't begin to be started without the destruction of capitalist social relations. It seems obvious to me, at least, that the way in which many people go about attempting to raise consciousness about sexism in the revolutionary left is to simply call out sexist attitudes in the most confrontational and personal possible way, wherever they see them. While this approach should work, and believe me, I wish it did, it's pretty clear that it doesn't work. In all likelihood, it doesn't work because of male privilege and the socially constructed idea that men are above reproach. I don't think I can offer a better way of handling this, obviously male and female posters attempting to combat sexist attitudes should not sit around and coddle the "poor man" who has been accused of sexism and play nice about it, but if we find that the opposite approach doesn't work either, what are we to do?

Essentially, my entire question boils down to that....what are we supposed to do? My best answer is to attack sexism at the source, capitalist social relations. I strongly believe, and maybe I'm wrong about this, but I believe that the aboliton of the economic disadvantages, and the creation of a truly egalitarian society, will ultimately result in the end of sexism, so long as the issue is kept in the forefront of peoples minds as they create that society. Maybe this is incorrect, maybe it's naive, but I haven't yet seen a better suggestion.

I think that sexism is a huge problem in society, but just like racism, the key to abolishing it is in education.
If the left educates the younger generation that sexism is disgusting, the next generation will be far less sexist, but the left must also be aware that as long as we have capitalism we will have predjudice

Tho education by the left to their younger generation is a good idea, I have found sexism, racism, and homophobia prevails most prominently in conservative/religious demographics. And what about "Personal Responsibility" vs. "Social Responsibility"?... doesnt everyone have responsibility in learning and teaching younger people about discrimination and oppression. How about the schools sex ed? How about in the home setting? Isnt' there something wrong with a society that can't even have an open and honest talk about these issues?

If we are to rely predominently on "personal" responsibility of education there is the probability of mis-information. And many people are dis-empowered to do anything about it.