Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 14:21:38 -0500
From: Yoshie Furuhashi <Furuhashi.1-AT-osu.edu>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Men and Feminism (was All Work...)


Doug comments on Rob's citation of Ebert:
>Rob Schaap wrote:
>
>>Here's Ebert's succinct 'red feminism' rationale:
>>
>>'patriarchy [is] a regime of exploitation that naturalises socially
>>constructed gender differences in order to deploy the social relations of
>>production in class societies in ways that reproduce and legitimate the
>>domination and exploitation of one gender by another.  Patriarchy organises
>>asymmetrical, unequal divisions of labour, accumulation, and access to
>>economic resources that guarantee not only the political privilege
>>(domination) of male over female but, more important, the economic
>>subjugation (exploitation) of the 'other' gender as the very grounds of
>>social arrangements.  In other words, patriarchy - as a historically
>>diverse ongoing system of gender differences for exploitation - is
>>necessary to the very existence of class societies, including contemporary
>>global capitalism.'
>>
>>Anyone have a problem with that?
>
>Yeah, I do. Why is a gender-neutral class society unimaginable? In the
>First World over the last 20-30 years, we've seen a reduction in gender
>differentials at the same time we've seen an intensification of class
>differentials. What is the theoretical limit on that continuing to happen?

It is imaginable, in that we can imagine a capitalism in which every class
and strata are characterized by equal representation of each gender. The
same can be said for race and capitalism. However, such total equalization
between genders and races can only happen in our imagination, not in an
actually existing society.

We have seen gender differences diminish in terms of wages (mainly because
highly educated women gained some ground in professions vis-a-vis their
male peers and also because unions in the manufacturing sector became weak
so the wages for those male bastions went down).

But I don't see differentials diminishing forever toward near zero under
capitalism because of the following reasons:

1) care-giving responsibilities that mainly fall upon women (so their labor
market participation gets inevitably interrupted, unless they are well off
enough to afford the services of other women whose pay is kept low).

2) capitalist desire to manipulate male workers' backlash against women's
real and perceived gains in employment, sexual freedom, cultural
recognition, etc. to solidify *male cross-class solidarity* (which is of
course harmful for women but also damaging in terms of male workers'
ability to recognize their class interest + need for cross-gender
solidarity).

3) ideology and processes of socialization that track, for instance, women
to become a nurse and men to become a doctor.

4) the end or erosion of the state programs which used to partially lighten
the female burden of the reproduction of the working class.

5) the imminent end of affirmative action (in the U.S.).

6) cutbacks of the public sector employment (where women found some avenues
of economic advancement).

7) sexism that diminishes regard for female accomplishments.

8) sexual harrasment at work which reduces female workers' ability to do
their jobs and often results in termination of their employment.

9) ideology and processes of socialization that encourage women to take
care of their men physically + emotionally, so that while men can
concentrate on their work, women do not have similar support at home.

10) difficulties that women have in finding mentors, entry into job-info
networks, etc. at school and work.

I think #1 and #4 are of particular importance.

Yoshie




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