File spoon-archives/marxism-thaxis.archive/marxism-thaxis_1997/marxism-thaxis.9712, message 311


From: "jurriaan bendien" <Jbendien-AT-globalxs.nl>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Men and Feminism (was All Work...)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 00:31:18 +0100


Yoshie wrote:

> Hmmm. I find it strange for a marxist, male or female, to be so strictly
> empiricist. I often heard marxists (sometimes rightly) criticize identity
> politics for privileging personal experience over theory. Theory and
> experience should illuminate each other, don't you think?

Was Marx an empiricist when he said that all social life is essential
practical, and that all ways of thinking which leads theory to mysticism
find their resolution in practice, and in the comprehension of this
practice ? Was Engels an empiricist when he said that "the proof of the
pudding is in the eating" ? Was Gramsci an empiricist when he said that
Marxism is a wisdom of practice ?  Did not Mao say that if you want to know
a pear, you have to taste a pear ? When you are an academician it is easy
to fetishize theory, and to prattle about the relationship of theory and
practice.  Much more difficult is to make practice the only truth
criterion.  Naturally I am well aware of debates within the philosophy of
science, which show that progress comes through competition between rival
theories with the data, and so forth.  I have also read Imre Lakatos on
Popperian "crucial experiments".  But I have also read sufficiently in the
psychology of percepction and neurology to know that a person processes far
more experience than he or she is consciously aware of at any time. Deeds
speak louder than words, this is why the criterion of practice is decisive.


Yoshie:

 So why not leave
> aside polemics and address conflicts and divergences among feminists
> squarely?
> 
Why should I ? Feminists do that already and good luck to them.

Yoshie:
 
 You mean male profession of feminism, even socialist feminism, is the same
as the lack of manhood? (And what constitutes "male adequacy" in your
opinion?) Would you also say that anti-racist whites suffer from their
"personal inadequacy" as whites?

I say a man who calls himself a feminist is either a whimp or hasn't
thought it through, or both at the same time.  Male adequacy is when you
are happy to be a man and can function adequately in that role.
"Anti-racism" as such is a fad, a fashion, it's hip to be anti-racist.  But
it doesn't necessarily mean anything as far as I am concerned.  Probably
many anti-racist leftists do suffer from personal feelings of inadequacy,
judging by the drivel they put out.  I do not call whipping up hysteria
about a motley bunch of fascist social failures a genuine stand against
racism for instance.  In my experience the real anti-racists were the ones
who fought against racism when it wasn't popular to do so.

Yoshie:

> I just so happen to be female, but even if I were a heterosexual male, I
> would still be a feminist and marxist, other things being constant. In
> fact, I think that when properly understood and put into practice,
feminism
> and marxism together will liberate men as well as women.

Well good on you.  I believe feminism and marxism are not reconcilable if
"properly understood".  A man who says he is a feminist is a whimp in my
opinion.  While alliances are possible between them something like
Marxist-Feminism is a halfway house.  Some people like to live permanently
in that halfway house, that's up to them. 

Yoshie:

> Gender roles for men, it seems to me, are also constricting and
oppressive,
> even though many men, having internalized those roles early on and also
> having some privileges that are denied women, may experience their gender
> as "normal" and find their lives as men "fulfilling." 

So what's new - hasn't this been known and ably articulated by a plethora
of writers for centuries ?  I realise it may be hip to make this sort of
comments in a radical salon, but politically it is neither here nor there.

Yoshie:

(The same can be said for how class is lived by many workers; that's why we
don't have socialism yet.)

I don't believe this is the case.  Why we don't have socialism yet is
because (1) the technical infrastructure and human development for
socialism has been lacking, (2) the working class lost many fights, and
some very badly (Stalinism etc.) (3) capitalism proved far more capable
than most Marxists thought of integrating people in capitalist society, (4)
Marxism has been frequently insufficiently flexible in taking account of
new conditions, rather, there has been a clinging to old traditions without
really knowing why.  

Yoshie:

 But once you closely examine what it means to be a man under
> patriarchal capitalism, being male, I believe, turns out to be as
> alienating as being female.

I have no way of telling whether this it true or measuring it, but I see no
reason to deny it.
>
Yoshie:

 However, is capitalism alone responsible for gendered divisions of
 labor?

No.  Gender divisions of labour precede even class society, although in
pre-class society and even some proto-class societies there does not seem
to be so much social status difference attaching to it usually. Capitalism
has done more than any other mode of production to revolutionise gender
divisions of labour and that is why it is a revolutionary mode of
production in this sense.  Capitalist relations for the first time make
possible full social equality between men and women.  But this is not
achieved, far from it, because, in fact, specific gender divisions allow a
high extraction of surplus value then would be the case if social equality
prevailed (and you can find some pretty extreme cases of that in the
so-called "Third World" - I don't really like that term because it suggests
their world is a "different world" from our world and that we are the
"First World" is historically inaccurate).  
 
> >I would say that a Marxist who doesn't recognise the interests of women
as
> >women is simply a fool who hasn't grown up.  However the "emancipatory
> >theory" Justin talks about is usually just waffle or only alluded to,
never
> >stated beyond declarations of "the need for it",
> 
> Then why not go beyond allusions and actually discuss it here? I saw
Rob's
> post to that effect, and I believe we'll have enough participants.

The onus is on those who propose the need for it to discuss it and ask for
comment.

> Ha ha. Don't be defensive, Jurriaan. Nobody is questioning your "manhood"
> or sexual aptitude.

What makes you think I am defensive ? I am a sexually disappointed man, but
not a sexually insecure man.  I have had times of sexual insecurity in th
past, when I didn't know what to do, but now I am just sexually
disappointed. 
And, by the way, I wasn't trying to skite when I mentioned "bedtime
pursuits".  I was referring to the empirical fact that I went to bed with,
and had relationships with, a lot of feminists including socialist and
green feminists.



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005