From: Zeynep Tufekcioglu <zeynept-AT-turk.net> Subject: M-G: A MALECKI IN CHADOR! Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 12:13:44 +0300 Adolfo quotes the following from a post of mine (first in a series of posts about women in Turkey), >>3. Left groups. Basically socialist groups over a wide spectrum, from mild >>to revolutionary. There used to be Adolfo's type back in the 70's, i.e. >>claiming that formal equality is enough to correct the results of thousands >>of inequality. (Which, rests on a bit deterministic viewpoint, i.e. change >>the rules and the existing opportunities, minds and people will change >>almost automatically. In fact, I think history (both Soviet Union and China) >>clearly shows that old bourgeois ideas have a long durability. Unless one >>fights them back *actively*, instead of *passively* waiting for them to >>disappear, by granting equal formal rights, such inequalities don't >>disappear. Conveniently not including the parts where I try to explain why a bourgeois state resists positive discrimination (affirmative action) and how such measures can only be applied under a socialist state. And then goes on to blame me for supporting bourgeois affirmative action, whatever that means, referring to himself in the third person, a la Bob Dole. Anyway, I'm including the the whole of my post, in case he cares to learn to read, it may come in handy. (P.S. In case anybody is wondering if this is the same Adolfo against whom I argued in the past that there was no hope from any alliance with any section of the bourgeoisie ("national" or not), yes, that's him) Zeynep X-Sender: zeynept-AT-mail.turk.net To: marxism-international-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU From: Zeynep Tufekcioglu <zeynept-AT-turk.net> Subject: M-I: Faces of Women in Turkey -I- Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 18:09:16 +0300 Sender: owner-marxism-international-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Reply-To: marxism-international-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU This year's 8th of March, The International Women's day, had occurred during a secular - anti-secular polarisation in the country. The pro-islamic Welfare party, (21% of the vote) which is in coalition with the conservative-secular TP (True Path, 20%) attempted to push some mildly islamic positions, such as the right of the state employees to wear a headscarf, in line with islamic tradition, in official places. The country was already troubled by the exposure of the links between the state paramilitary forces, fascists, drug dealers, deputies, police (the now infamous Susurluk accident). The military and the media pushed a rather artificial agenda, such that the real divide was between Welfare party (who wanted to make the country into a Sharia ruled country) and the secular forces (military, Kemalist/ Ataturkcu political parties, state institutions such as the judiciary). I'll skip how real the Islamic threat is. It certainly is reactionary, and it should certainly be opposed. BUT, the National Security Council was trying to make it look like it was the MAIN contradiction in the country. One the one side, the Islamists, and on the other side, the Secularists. The Military started playing for the role of leading the secular camp. For some time now, we are being pumped with the importance of Women's Rights. How Ataturk had granted women their rights, and how the Islamists were trying to take it away. We should all rally to the cause of Ataturk and Women. (Of course the issue is more complicated since Welfare has a large constituency of voluntary militant women, who *want* to wear the Islamic dress as a protest against the corruption and the degeneration). Welfare has actually played well on the existing dislike with the corrupt and degenerate bourgeoisie, by equating western=secular values=corruption. Various women's groups started visiting Ataturk's mausoleum, his statues (there is an Ataturk statue at every corner, thank you very much), with flowers and teary eyes. "You gave us our rights, now they are trying to take them away). In all fairness, Ataturk and the modern bourgeois state is of course an improvement for women over the theocratic Ottoman rule. However, it was limited from the beginning and very bourgeois in character, i.e. largely confined to formal equality before law, without taking into consideration that the bourgeois system produces large inequalities which are simply reproduced if one treats everyone as *formally* equal. (That's the argument for positive discrimination, which some people who seem to be so far away >from witnessing real inequality and injustice, can't recognise. Positive discrimination is recognising unequal conditions and handicaps require an unequal treatment in order to *really* equalise the conditions. Marx called formal equality "a right in the bourgeois sense", as distinct from socialist equality, which recognises inequality and treats it unequally in order to achive real equality. Very few bourgeois states accept positive discrimination, and when they do, it is the result of real struggles by the oppressed minorities, like the civil rights movement in the US, and even when they pretend to apply positive discrimination, the bourgeoisie immediately starts looking for ways to block it, to keep it in all but name while emptying it of content. Of course, they often get the help and support of the priviliged strate of the working class. Real positive discrimination can only be implemented under a socialist state). A friend of mine teaches (as a part of apprentice education) 13 year old girls, who are working 12 hours a day, 5 days a week and attending school for one day a week, to pretend they are students being trained (hence, it is not child labour, but education) The girls will do back-breaking work until they are 16-17, be married off for a life-time of back breaking work. They are formally equal under the law. So, when the Women's Day was approaching, bourgeois circles also took notice. Women's Day is traditionally celebrated by leftists in Turkey. Before going on any further, let me eloborate the type of women's groups in existence. 1. Bourgeois, "Thank you, thank you so much, Ataturk for giving us our rights" groups. 2. Independent feminists who take a stance against the the state and don't buy the "Ataturk line". They oppose the war in the Kurdish areas, for example, but they fail to recognise how class oppression feeds to and from gender oppression. 3. Left groups. Basically socialist groups over a wide spectrum, from mild to revolutionary. There used to be Adolfo's type back in the 70's, i.e. claiming that formal equality is enough to correct the results of thousands of inequality. (Which, rests on a bit deterministic viewpoint, i.e. change the rules and the existing opportunities, minds and people will change almost automatically. In fact, I think history (both Soviet Union and China) clearly shows that old bourgeois ideas have a long durability. Unless one fights them back *actively*, instead of *passively* waiting for them to disappear, by granting equal formal rights, such inequalities don't disappear. Now, after long decades in which large numbers of women joined the revolutionary camp and hence challanged the traditional roles assigned to them, and due to the criticism of their male-feudal stance on many subjects, all revolutionary groups recognise women's rights to be an issue closely and inseparably connected to working class emancipation, but not the one and the same thing. (This is a bit like the evolution of the left regarding the national question). Back to International Women's Day. There were two applications for a march. One from the left groups, a march titled "International Proletarian Women's Day" and from the 2nd category feminists for, "International Women's Day". Mind you, the state hates them both, but of course, the 2nd category feminists is much more acceptable then the left. "International Women's Day" got the permission for the march, and the left decided to join that march. (This is often done, when group A get permission, others go to that march, unless there is an irreconcilable problem. Trade Unions often get the permission for May Day Marches, and everyone else goes there). So, 8th of March came. The state wanted us to walk with banners for secularism, the independent feminists did not want men to attend and the left was determined not to allow that. Next post, I'll tell you who came and what happenned, as it was a very interesting march, demonstrating some of the real problems regarding the issue of bourgeois feminism and the left. Zeynep --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005