Misguided post on feminism

I take the definition of feminism as meaning men and women are equal, so in that respect I'd consider myself a feminist, as well as most other people. But I don't see that as being related to much of what goes by the term "feminist" - kinda like anarchism but even worse

I guess I'd take the whole "men and women are equal" thing as a base, and then use that to analyse all the various different ways gender is used as a divisive and oppressive mechanism, and think about how that's happened, and think about how to change it, and that's feminism.

I think that patriarchy can only be smashed by the power of the working class; but conversely I don't think the working class will get anywhere worth being unless patriarchy is smashed.

If someone were to call me a feminist I wouldn't get offended, and I probably wouldn't correct them unless for some reason I felt it was an urgent political point at the time. But to me feminism at it's core is an inter-class movement, which by propping capitalism up, prolongs patriarchy. False human communities like gender are pure constructs of the ruling class; ruling class women benefit from the existence of patriarchy. Working class men have an interest in fighting patriarchy, the same way that working class whites have an interest in fighting racism - any "benefits" they have are purely ideological/spectacular. Look at the program of 1st and 2nd wave feminism: votes for white/rich women, etc culminating in offers of compromise: rights for rich/white women, and in return they will support eugenics against the poor. Emma Goldman certainly wasn't with them (though I'm unsure of whether she called herself a feminist or has rather been claimed as one) and the Free Women of Spain certainly weren't feminist. It's no wonder that working class black and indigenous women promote words like "womanism" to distinguish themselves from feminists.

Loren Goldner has a good essay polemicizing against the idea that "race, gender, class" are three different oppressions which are linked, arguing for what some might call "class reductionism", located here http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/universality.html

Edit: Accidental double post.

i agree with that - deleuze and guattari said something like 'flags, money and armies get a lot of people sexually aroused' - theres's definately fluidity to it and i'd guess what is inherent is simply 'potentiality', and sexuality is not just expressed in terms of people (of any gender) but also objects and narratives (the flags etc).

true numerically, but not in terms of power, which of course is the point of feminism Again, deleuze and guattari talk about the need to 'become woman' or 'become minority' - minority being not a numerical concept but one of power. In this sense the working class, although neccessarily numerically superior, is always a minority, but this is thus a call to arms not a put-down or accidental patriarchal slip

or just anarchism

Not perfect, but here are two suggested readings that deal with feminism:

"The Poverty of Feminism" by Dominique Karamazov (1977)

http://www.prole.info/articles/povertyoffeminism.html

and

"For a World Without Moral Order" from La Banquise (1983)

http://www.prole.info/articles/withoutmoral.html

there's also a pamphlet i've seen around called "I, Claudia: Feminism Unveiled" I don't think it's online

Exactly, I think the idea of equality is a difficult one although it is hard not to use is as a base. Equality is not possible in many ways but it is also not necessary, I suppose equality of opportunity is what I would hope for and equality, as far as possible, in origins.

I'm not an especially big book person, but it seems to me as though most feminist stuff is about ceratin topics from a feminist perspective. Like Kill the Body and the Head will fall, I can't remember the author, is about wimmin's agression, viollence and athletics. I was personally introduced to the sort of radical feminist thought through zines about wimmin's health. If zines are your scene then you might check that out someplace that sells them.

As far as all-round feminists goes, my favourite author is bell hooks. Other feminists I must take what I can and leave the rest ( I tend to learn better through conversation and experience than reading books so I don't have a large pool to pull from), but I think hooks hits the nail on the head more often than not. She has compelling thoughts about the intersection of race, class and gender. She writes frequently about issues such as mentioned here about feminism being disproportionately organised by and effective for rich white wimmin. The only complete book I've read is Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics I thought it was pretty good.

Wimmin are trained to deffer to men, to spend a great deal of time on their appearance, to believe themselves to be physically weak, to value a role as a nurturer over their own well-being,

Men are trained to value strength, to be decisive, to expect adequate compensation for their effort, to desire control of wimmin.

Men gain from this dynamic:

- Free housework and other care from wives/girlfriends/mothers/daughters

- Men often make more money for doing the same job. Also, male-dominated industries tend to be hirer-paid and respected than wimmin-dominated (doctors vs nurses for example)

- Disproportionally large decision-making power, all else being equal

- More value give to men's opinions

- Men see images of themselves and their ideas reflected as normal and varried while wimmin are shown most often in a very small number of roles and their ideas are marginlised

- Easier for men to get hired in positions of authority, or get good jobs

Hey I just remembered about the "Male Privilage Checklist" (here: http://colours.mahost.org/org/maleprivilege.html)

Feminism, in the grand scheme of things is better for men than patriachy. Obviously gender is used to divide the workforce and make us weaker against the ruling class, as is racism. Also not all men like having all that extra decision-making power, they don't all want to be strong. Sexism by necissity creates a binairy system where both ends are denied their full humanity. very few people will comfortabley fit molds given to them.

However, other things (such as race and class) being equal I think most men get a better deal than most wimmin. And they have also been deeply socialised to accept this as a given, not to notice it (just like a lot of white people don't noticed white supremacy and most of the ruling class would probably tell you they just worked really hard to get there or they dserved it). These facts make it very difficult to convince men that it is a good idea to give up privilage, much less begin to formulate strategies on how they can do that on a practical level.

It's also important to remember that historically wimmin's opression is much, much older than capitalism. Patriarchy is not jsut an apect of capitalism. Rather, capitalism evolved out of patriarchal systems and so is inevitably influenced and supported by sexism.

I also recognise the importance of race, class, ability, education, immigration status, sexuality etc in propping up capitalism. Along with sexism they serve to divide humanity in it's struggle for peaceful and free existence.

However, if we managed to rid ourselves of capitalism, we would still be encountered with all the problems mentioned above, except (maybe?) class. Patriarchy has endured many power systems from religion-based to nationstates to corporations. There is nothing to suggest it will perish with that last one.

I don't think that feminism can happen passively just because a community believes in theory that wimmin and men are equal. Without an ongoing analysis of the situation and challenging of the self, sexism goes unnamed and unchanged. It does not dissapear on it's own.

A feminist analysis is certainly extremely valuable to any purporting to fight for liberty. However my experience with whether this has been taken on board by the radical community is sort of spotty. I haven't seen that feminism has coherently meshed with anarchist thought.

You are not a feminist just because you believe that. Feminism is about introspection and action. Feminism isn't an ideology it is a practice.

Why do you think that?

Yeah I have never been qite comfortable with the idea of "sisterhood". Which is that a solidarity exists between the classes amongst wimmin, drawn from our common experiences. Except this gets called on very often by class-privilaged wimmin when they need support for making gains for themselves, and conviniently gets ginored when the womyn needing solidarity is their cleaner.

Even if they are "purely ideological/spectacular" they are still effective at what they do, they are still ingrained socialisation, they propogate themselves in our child-rearing and they will take a ot of work to rid ourselves of.

I can't rememebr if I already posted these but:

The F Word: http://www.thefword.org.uk/

UK webmag about feminist issues.

Alas, a Blog: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/

American feminist blog. One of the best male-feminist works I have seen (not all posters are men but it's run by same guy who wrote the male privilage checklist I poster earlier)

fyi

Yes, but it's not older than class society. In fact, women have been oppressed at different places, in different times, and in different ways (and that's still true). However, the general form of women's oppression is always derived from the class contradictions in the society. An uprooting in the dominant class has also tended to uproot women from the current form of oppression - witness the rise of the modern urban nuclear family.

http://fruitiondesign.com/dealwithit/article2.php3

I'd just like to say that Gwen's analysis of this was superb to read,

and that I think the OP is confusing actual, radical, feminism with the recuperated, "safe", version that is being used to divert revolutionary power into liberal reforms and fringe asylums.

http://www.spunk.org/library/anarcfem/sp000060.html

Cheers

What is the OP?

original post/er perhaps??

Yeah I meant the original poster sorry

Gwen/Norm, why do you think so many poor women, and especially women of color, call themselves "womanists"?

I've never heard anyone call themselves a 'womanist'

Maybe its an American thing?

Those americans!

http://www.ou.edu/womensoc/feminismwomanism.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womanist

Because it suits them better than the word feminism?

I don't have a problem with it.

But just because poor wimmin of colour do something doesn't mean I have to.

Is it just me, or does '...of colour' make anyone else cringe slightly?

no it makes me want to vomit.

Just reeks of "oh aren't those funny people so bright and colourful, always dancing and singing, like innocent children. Of course we could never behave like them, nothing would get done etc etc".

It just sounds like something my great nan would have said - "Oh, you know they have a coloured nurse at the doctor's now!"