From: cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox)
Subject: M-FEM: Joanne's Reply to Mike Kobeski. Cox Commentary.
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 13:01:02 -0600 (CST)


Joanne had indicated to  me earlier that she would probably not have
time for further responses to Mfem material. She had sent this response,
which I don't believe I forwarded. On Oct. 31 I responded to it with
the message below, and since the 3-way interchange raises various 
matters of interest I am forwarding to the list now. I have not received
any further response from Joanne. Incidentally, one use of Joanne's
postings is to reveal what I would call a principled "petty bourgeois
feminism." We can use it as a sort of benchmark whenever that rather
vague term gets thrown around.

Carrol
Forwarded message:
Subject: Your Reply to Mike Kobeski
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:26:05 +1800 (CST)

Joanne,

	I believe I haven't forwarded this post yet. I thought I
would respond to it myself first.

YOu wrote:
> 
> Carrol Cox wrote:
> > 
> 
> > From: "Michael D. Kobeski" <mikeski-AT-eskimo.com>
> 
> > My initial reaction is agreement. It's a mistake to assume that every
> > unequal division of labor in a relationship is exploitative. Some women
> > are better cooks or nurturers or whatever than the men they choose. Some
> > men are better. Some women are better bread winners. A successful
> > relationship happens when each individual in the pairing is allowed to
> > pursue those activities to which s/he is best suited for. 
> 
> Mike, it just so happens that male Marines who are expected to keep the
> barracks spic-and-span suddenly become incompetent when get discharged
> from service.  Now why would they suddenly forget how to do housework?  
> Because if they're married, they believe they have a divine right to
> domestic service from their spouses.  Let's not confuse healthy inter-
> dependence with all these lingering patriarchal privileges.

It seems to me that both you and Mike get involved in a discussion 
over details and hypothetical individuals that is at best irrelevant
from either a Marxist or a feminist prospective. From a marxist
perspective both isolate the individual from all material social
relations; from a feminist perspective your lines argue what ought
to be taken for granted (the fact of male supremacist practices) 
offer what needs explanation in place of explanation. Male dominance
is a social and historical fact: to argue it gives credence to 
reactionaries by taking their inanities seriously. But, as a fact,
it explains nothing but rather demands to be explained.

> >That means that
> > in a non-patriarchal society, some marriages would exist in which the
> > female partner performed most of the domestic chores. And some would exist
> > in which men performed more.
> 
> That would be true . . . up to a point.  But a majority of jobs would
> be structured with the view that workers have family responsibilities.
> Yes, I know it's utopian, but we need some sort of vision for the
> future.  I know I'm at least 500 years ahead of my time in this
> respect, but that's OK. :-)

Under what conditions would "a majority [but not all?] jobs be
structured" in a given way, who would do the structuring, by what
process would that "who" achieve social/economnic/political power,
and how would that process change the premises upon which the
present speculation proceeds. I myself would assume that that
process would involve, at some point, the dissolution of "family" 
as we know it, and that speculation on what would replace it is
not now possible.

And it is not OK to be 500 years ahead of time, for that leads to
either the generation of immense present misery, at worst, or at
best indifference to present misery. Daydreams of the future that
are not grounded in currently possible forms of struggle (which in
turn embody their own *present* motivation) are inadmissible.

>   
> > 
> > But our society has not reached such a degree of perfection. Gender roles
> > are determined not by an individual's abilities, but by issues of class
> > and patriarchy and their interelationship. Social change has had an
> > effect. 
> 
> That's why I'm talking about an egalitarian marriage movement.  It would
> consist of educational programs for children, adolescents, single
> adults, married couples, etc.  These programs would be funded by
> foundations, government grants, etc.  The content of the programs would
> stress guidelines, role modeling, community support, etc.  

Again, in contemplating hypothetical results, questions of political
power and its achievement are subordinated to mere speculation. The
speculation as offered is not grounded in concrete critique of what
is.

****<I've run out of time and energy temporarily. One more comment is
inserted some 50 lines further. cbc.>*******

> 
> Also, the movement would consist of organized criticism of self-help
> charlatans like John Gray, sexist marriage counselors, etc.  Obviously,
> this organized criticism wouldn't totally abolish the sexist "experts".
> But it would help enlighten the fence straddlers.  Remember, my motto
> is "He(sic) who saves a life saves a whole world."
> 
> In a sense, it would be somewhat like the "self esteem" movement for
> young girls and teenage women today.  That movement is non-legislative,
> it relies on education via community groups and schools, and tries to
> provide moral support.  It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. 
> I wish "Take Our Daughters to Work" was available when I was growing up
> in the 70's.   
> 
> >The post-World War II generation was exploited by much more rigid
> > career limitations than today. Now oppression is more likely to take the
> > form of increased domestic responsibilities that eventually restrict
> > career possibilities.
> 
> That's why I'm trying to propose something that goes beyond "how to get
> your husband to do the dishes", "thank your hubby whenever he *decides*
> to do a chore", "even if he does a lousy job with the kids, say he's
> a wonderful father".  I'm also trying to say, "We feminists need to do
> more about this issue than write good sociological books like The Second
> Shift".
> > 
> > The root of the problem is not the attitude of individual husbands. It is
> > a societal preconception that certain forms of labor are less valuable
> > than others. It is rooted in society's miconception of the capabilities of
> > each gender. It is oppression based on both class and sex. And it is more
> > fundamental than any one individual relationship.
> 
> Exactly!  That's why we need a non-legislative movement for peer
> marriage.  BTW, a fair marriage covers more than housework and
> childcare.  This educational movement would cover issues of sex, birth
> control, conflict resolution, etc. It would also cover dating issues.

These issues cannot be seriously confronted until the right to abortion
has become absolute (by which I mean not only unimpeded by law or
economic concerns but not subject to moral pressure). But that is
impossible in abstraction from a general social movement which
struggles coherently around issues of economics, race, and gender, 
in other words, in abstraction from mass class struggle which would
dissolve the moralistic blockages to unity thrown up by the 
present ruling class and its lackeys.

> (On another subject, I would hope we could a healthier way of courting
> than the relationship "marketplace". But that's for another discussion) 
> 
> > 
> > Thats why attempts to solve these problems need to be larger than an
> > attempt to change one's own reality. We can't focus only individually
> > because that ignores the true basis of the problem.
> >
> With this "harvest" of organizations designed to perpetuate patriarchal
> marriage, I'm realizing we need to "fight fire with fire" by having our
> own movement.  With non-legislative groups like the Mars and Venus cult,
> the Promise Keepers, The National Fatherhood Intiative, not to mention
> therapists who use euphemisms like "communication problems", we need
> our own egalitarian marriage movement.
> 
> Yes, the structure would be good ole American liberal, "enlighten them
> through education".  But I'd push for the education to include an
> understanding of patriarchy and feminism.  Marxists would probably find
> it inadequate, but at this time in history, we need it.
> 
> We've got to start somewhere, Mike . . .
> 
> Joanne Callahan
> jmcalla1-AT-airmail.net
>