File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/97-04-02.183, message 29


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 ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005