Date: Wed, 09 Nov 1994 23:20:58 EST From: tgs-AT-cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu Subject: malcolm's last post on marxist-feminism Malcolm. Two problems I have with your analysis 1) AS Lulu has already argued, analyses like yours reduce all base/superstructure models to "mono-causal" explanations. I have no problem with saying or arguing that patriarchal attitudes and oppressions have an autonomy from the capitalist economic system, the capitalists' corporate media, etc. But the questions you leave begging, are a) why does patriarchy achieve such a strong hold when it does in history--i.e., with the development of class society and the state. Why does it become so powerful? Because it serves the rising ruling class, which, according to Reich, is the tribal chieftan--aspiring state power wielder and surplus collecter, who begins to enforce a system of dowries, systems of inheritance, etc. and thus domestication of women and children and their demoralization. 2) You reduce "class location" to common culture, a la Weber's substitution of status for class. Class is not a matter of culture; if you make it so then the concept becomes meaningless. Since the concept of a working class seems so confusing for you, let's talk about the bourgeoisie. You do admit that the bourgeoisie exist, don't you? But do they share a completely homogenous culture? Do Wealthy bankers enjoy the same culture as small factory owners in shithole towns in Pennsylvania (my grandfather and grand uncle , for example) No. ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005