Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 11:01:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Siddharth Chatterjee <siddhart-AT-mailbox.syr.edu>
Subject: M-I: Feminist Demands




On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Carrol Cox wrote:

>     I have often admired Siddarth's communications, but the issue
> of women and working class struggle is not "merely" a theoretical
> issue but one that confronts us every day, and the two most serious
> threats to working class unity in the United States are and ALWAYS
> have been male supremacy (and its ideology sexism) and white
> supremacy (and its ideology racism). Racism is probably the
> more serious *Immediate* barrier, sexism the more deeply rooted
> and in the long run the most serious barrier to socialist
> revolution.

The above is correct. The arguments that campaigning against racism,
sexism, caste oppression and homophobia will divide the working class
is completely unprincipled, especially in a situation where white
male workers benefit from such a hierarchy. All talk of *real* working
class unity can happen in the process of and after dealing with these
struggles. This question is similar to whether conscious first-world
proletariat should support the movements of workers and peasants in
semi-colonial countries. 

> 
>     The feminist spooks and fantasies Siddarth dreams up are so
> many weak defenses of the male ego that wants to have its marxism
> without actually practising working class unity or actually struggling
> for the future of the class.
> 

But that does not mean that "feminist" spooks only exist in the
imagination and that any criticism of bourgeois feminism is a weak defense
of the male ego. Women can have egos too as recently exhibited in
this list. And when some of their actions and ideas are criticized
sharply, they are over quick to label such criticism as sexist
and offensive and coming from a male chauvinist view point. This was
made crystal clear in Zeynep's latest snipe when she said something like
"you are naturally like that". How can a woman, who proclaims herself
to be a revolutionary, use this shallow argument (with no attempt at self
analysis or criticism) - that is, take refuge in the essentially bourgeois
conception of "eternal human nature"? And when the word "bourgeois
feminism" is used to describe such behavior why do these women and their
supporters run to take refuge in their feminism - that is, they are
being attacked not because of their political views but because of
their gender? It is a great mistake to confuse this criticism with 
those made regularly by the right-wing patriarchs.

Also as I asked Doug, please enlighten me on how the feminist forums
are addressing the issue of the exploitation of hundreds of millions of
women by the present world economy. Do such organizations consider these
issues or is the only issue "can I get a side seat at the table of
the master"? And please state your opinions of such prominent women as
Hillary Clinton, Gloria Steinheim, Indira Gandhi, Tansu Ciller, Margaret
Thatcher, Golda Meir, Barbara Ehrenreich, Camile Paglia, Mother Theresa,
Jean Kirkpatrick, Madeline Albright and others. As you know, some of
these women have spoken out for women's liberation from male oppression.
Does bourgeois feminism exist or is it a mere concoction?    

<snip>
> 
>     Unless Siddarth can get his contempt for women under control,
> he too will become a scab and a class traitor.
> 
>     Carrol

I do not know where in my posts I have shown a contempt for women or
how you arrive at this conclusion. I have upheld proletarian and
peasant women as comrades (having some personal experience in this
regard). As to my comment about "beauty and flirting behavior" - can
anyone deny that such behavior exists? But this behavior is for survival
and long historical programming and not due to revenge-seeking by women
as I may have incorrectly implied earlier.

I have never been a scab, comrade. But a class traitor, yes. Though, not
to the class you are thinking of.

S. Chatterjee 




     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---