From: "jurriaan bendien" <Jbendien-AT-globalxs.nl>
Subject: Re: M-TH: Men and Feminism (was All Work...)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 01:18:36 +0100


Fergal wrote:

> But even if [feminism] is "sectional" so what ?.
> Nobody is asking you to give up on your aspiration for a classless
> society with different social relations just because you take on board
> certain feminist demands. 

Agreed.  There are just some things I am objecting to, such as (1) Justin's
degrading of the perspectives Marxists around the world developed on
women's liberation through a century of struggle, (2) his ready acceptance
of facile diatribes by feminists about "deficiencies" in Marxism concerning
the emancipation of women, (3) the continual reiteration of "the need for a
feminist perspective" which either doesn't materialise, or if it does
consists of rather wonky, vague and abstract (apparently "radical") theory
which has been concocted largely out of insights taken from the Marxist
tradition in the first place. 
	Justin argues that Marxism ignores women and is "deficient" in that
respect, I am saying that is not the case, that it is the other way round,
that Marxists have been in the forefront of the struggle for women's
rights, and that before he starts prattling about the exploitation of
domestic labour which Marxists allegedly overlooked he ought to acquaint
himself with the history of struggles and the literature produced by
Marxists on that subject.    

I have an innate distrust of a politics 
> which always postpones demands in the here and now for the day
> when the grand programme is realised in all it's magnificent and
> baroque glory. Without making too many assumptions it is probable
> that as a Marxist you have spent time defending somebody's right to 
> keep some shit job, like going down a coal pit, or fighting to get some 
> miserly pay rise. 

You'd be correct on that one.

The world of work for the majority of people promises 
> only leaden hours of boredom and alienation but it would be pointless 
> and stupid to arrive at a picket line and mouth off only about this to
people
> who are concerned about their livliehood. If you simply said to a striker
> that Marxism already contains a programme/strategy/tactics for the 
> liberation from work as we understand it so forget your poxy job/pay
> rise and only come off the picket line when we have realised this 
> programme of total liberation I suspect you would get short shrift.
> This type of activity doesn't necessarily make _the_revolution but it is 
> important nonetheless.

I agree, but that is a question of political approach.  The claims being
made on this list go much further.  Marxism is allegedly "deficient" and
something new has to be grafted on to Marxism to patch things up. What I am
saying is that Marxism has a very rich tradition of theory and practice on
women's liberation, which Justin and friends with all their moral
ostentation largely ignore in their haste to make new "feminist"
theoretical innovations. Take for example the question of domestic labour:
even in the 1970s Marxists were publishing analyses on it.
	What I am saying is that feminism is not a coherent analysis or theory or
programme.  There are all sorts of feminisms and who knows what they mean -
mostly, they mean what the women want them to mean.  This is why it is
necessary for example for some feminists to tack "Marxist" onto "feminism",
but on closer inspection "Marxist feminism" adds nothing to Marxism except
the injunction to consider the position of women seriously (1) in analyses,
(2) in society and daily life (3) in political organising.  The presumption
is that this is not being done. The feminists start off from the
presumption that the Marxists aren't taking them seriously.  But it is
mostly just a presumption, it isn't based on fact. It isn't Marxists who
are at fault, it is the capitalist order which is at fault.
	I am quite capable of taking feminists seriously.  But it doesn't mean I
start calling myself a "feminist".  This is stupid.  I cannot liberate
women. Women have to liberate themselves, they have to assert their own
validity. 
But as regards "feminist political correctness", that can get stuffed as
far as I am concerned.
 > 
> Similarly, why is it going to knock us off course to the crystal palace
if we 
> engage with feminist ideas?. What is wrong with  discussing , analysing 
> and dealing with  the exploitation of women in it's specificity?. This
> doesn't mean that the interconnections between class and gender politics
cannot be explored. I know you know this, I am just wondering why you have
to be so absolutist about the subject.

I am not absolutist on the subject at all.  I just object to these people
who with their meagre reading effort and limited political experience start
to make all these declarations about the "deficiencies in Marxism" and want
to graft their own "innovations" on to it.  I am saying, innovation is
fine, but you have to be very knowledgeable about what went before and
respect the theoretical structure of Marx's work and all the work Marxist
have done in the field.  Otherwise you may just be recycling stuff that was
already tried long before,   like Justin reinventing the wheel with his
recycled discourses about feminism. 
> 
> The only really effective campaign the radical left has been involved in
the
> 26 counties of Ireland in the past 8 years or so has been in the area of
> abortion rights and divorce. Now, I met feminists during this time who
like the Spice girls thought that the election of  Margaret Thatcher (oh,
Brighton was unlucky) was somehow a blow for Grrrl Power but very, very
few. Many of the women and men who would call themselves feminist were
perfectly capable of understanding the limitations of feminist demands
while understanding how important this concrete struggle was. Not only that
but it was also instructive to note how Sparts would come to demos and
harangue women for selling feminist magazines as it was _petty  bourgeoise_
> and they didn't finish all their articles with mantras about the
programme
> of Lenin and Trotsky. Perhaps it was then that I realised the distinct
limitations of certains forms of Marxist discourse and practice. 

I fully support the struggles of Irish people against reactionary abortion
and divorce legislation. But I do so as a Marxist, I don't have to be a
feminist for that and feminism adds nothing to the argument as far as I can
see.
 As regards the International Spartacist League, I regard them as sectarian
nutters who are hardly representative of Marxism or even of Trotskyism.

Demanding the impossible is all very  well but a bit of imagination and
openess is needed for this demand to be listened to.

I agree.
> 
> Briefly, just a couple of more things: in general I find a lot of what
you
> write to thaxis stimulating but the wimp stuff is plain silly even if it
is
> tongue in cheek. 

Well the "wimp stuff" is both tongue-in-cheek and not tongue-in-cheek. 
Feminists often portray manliness and masculinity as "terrible sins" and
"politically incorrect" whereas I believe there is nothing wrong with that,
provided it is not at the expense of women.  I feel it is good and positive
to assert yourself as a man, but like I said, provided it is not at the
expense of women. That idea is what is missing in the feminist perspective.
 

Finally, with regard to your point about anti-racism and state
> recuperation of this activity well you have a point. Does any one
rememeber the Touche pas mon impot anti-racist campaign in France?. 

Yes I remember it, although I wasn't in Paris at the time.

But to be truthful I couldn't give a tinkers fart about various European
states queuing up to be virtuous about how right on they are about racism
if they spend a inordinate amount of time and money building fortress
> Europe and spouting racist inanities when it suits them come election
time.

My sentiments entirely.

 


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