From: DRoy501203-AT-aol.com
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 1997 12:10:21 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re:  M-FEM: Re: Another View of PK (fwd).



In a message dated 97/10/18 2:11:21 PM, cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu wrote:

>No long-term studies have been done on the longevity of peer marriages.
>For one thing, they're so new!  However, feminist family sociologist
>Pepper Schwartz thought they were much more stable than the traditional
>types

Since marriage exists within a patriarchal capitalist paradigm--it will
inevitably be structured to meet the needs of that ever so flexible and
dominant ideology.  It remains a fundamentally exploitive arrangement because
exploitation of labour--within or outside the domestic sphere is fundamental
to capitalism.  Tinkering with one institution within an oppressive structure
will not free anyone.

>IMO, that's because we do not have an egalitarian marriage movement
>within feminism yet.  We desperately need an innovative, organized
>movement for peer marriage and dating.  It would concentrate more on
>cultural change than legislative change 

Perhaps this is the case is because liberal minded feminists recognize the
fundamentally patriarchal and oppressive nature of the institution.  As for
those sisters of the "free floating" feminist persuasions (ie without a
concomitant material analysis)--this is perhaps illustrative of a flaw in
their analysis.

>For instance, the movement could have seminars on "how to have a peer
>marriage", it could consistently challenge patriarchal self-help books like
Mars >and Venus, critique marriage counselors who trivialize power problems
as
>"communication problems", etc. 

Maybe---but whatever consciousness raising needs doing, women and  men would
need to be engaged in this liberation process in order for it to be
successful.  Many forms of feminism have Balkanized men and women (M Fem and
some anarcho perspectives excluded.) 

"Feminist" marriage counsellor is almost an oxymoron from a variety of
perspectives. My work experience with feminist counsellors  (I'm a community
worker and CPS social worker) suggests that there is little commonality to
those using this label (at times it seems more like a marketing tool.)  For
example, in one recent experience a feminist counsellor insisted a female
"client"  disclose a sexual secret (that led to dissolution of the
relationship and a significant loss of material status), denigrated her
childcare/nurturant/home  skills by insisting she work outside the home
("even if its at 7-11") and further privileged herself as an "expert" with
respect to her client.  

>The problem in discussing this issue is America's individualistic
>mindset.  Women are supposed to "negotiate" with their husbands, which
>puts all the responsibility on you-know-who. 

Possessive individualism is a fundamental capitalist value.  What AH seems to
be noting is the pervasive influence of Pat Cap and the patriarchal
preference for  "privatization" of  systemic/public troubles (in social work
terms.) 
  
>Thus, we need a separate movement concentrating on family issues in the
>same way that feminism had to have a separate battered women's
>movement

And, sadly, it would have about as much success. With all respect to the
sisters working in transition houses and with battered women---this movement
has not stopped (or even reduced) men beating/killing women. Transition
houses are the food banks of the women's movement--and are more illustrative
of extremely small "l" liberal tinkering than liberation.  

Pat Cap is violent, oppressive and exploitive. Women and men  are raised with
the values inherent in this abusive system and behaviour follows.  Neither
mainstream culture nor many feminist position note that men are most often
the victims of male violence and children suffer most at the hands of women.
  This argument is not intended to deny the oppression of women--neither is
it intended to disempower or absolve individuals from responsibility  for
their actions, but rather to suggest that our starting point for
understanding our oppression under patriarchal capitalism needs to be
reconsidered. 

>The best way to fight them is with our own peer marriage movement.  It's
>one thing to criticize, it's quite another to offer attractive
>alternatives.  Success is the best revenge.

I don't see any "alternatives" offered here. Perhaps our starting point needs
to be both simple and large. On a personal level--real respect for all life
(animals too--but that is another discusssion). On a political level--to
continue  our resistance and multi-gendered/racial/class/etc. struggle toward
full  emancipation from patriarchal capitalism and achievement of genuine
human liberation.

As for praxis.....

David Roy
Vancouver Island