Economic Aspects of "Love"

[American Dream]

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/14923

Refusing to Wait: Anarchism and Intersectionality
November 11, 2009

"Without justice there can be no love."--bell hooks

Deric Shannon (WSA/NEFAC) and J. Rogue (WSA/Common Action)


Anarchism can learn a lot from the feminist movement. In many respects it already has. Anarcha-feminists have developed analyses of patriarchy that link it to the state form. We have learned that no revolutionary project can be complete while men systematically dominate and exploit women; that socialism is a rather empty goal if men's domination of women is left intact.

This essay argues that anarchists can likewise learn from the theory of "intersectionality" that emerged from the feminist movement. Indeed, anarchist conceptions of class struggle have widened as a result of the rise of feminist movements, civil rights movements, gay and lesbian liberation movements, etc. But how do we position ourselves regarding those struggles? What is their relationship to the class struggle? Do we dismiss them as "mere identity politics"?




Why Intersectionality? How We Got here

Many people locate the beginning of the feminist movement in the U.S. with the struggle of women to gain the vote. This focus on electoralism was criticized for its narrowness by many turn-of-the-century radical women. After all, what did the vote provide for working class women? How could voting for a new set of rulers put food in their mouths and the mouths of their families? In fact, many radical women of this time period refused to identify as “feminists”, as they viewed feminism as a bourgeois women's movement unconcerned with the class struggle (for an interesting discussion of this in the context of early 1900s Spanish anarcho-syndicalism, see Ackelsberg 2005: 118-119 and 123-124). Indeed, many working class women saw their "feminist" contemporaries as being in alliance "with all the forces that have been the most determined enemies of the working people, of the poor and disinherited"--that is, they saw the early feminist movement as a purely bourgeois women's movement that had no solutions to the pervasive poverty and exploitation inherent in the working class experience in a classed society (Parker 2001: 125).

Anarchists of this time period, on the other hand, at times anticipated some of the arguments to come out of the feminist movement regarding intersectionality. We argued against the class reductionism that often occurred within the broader socialist milieu. Early anarchists were writing about issues such as prostitution and sex trafficking (Goldman 2001), forced sterilizations (Kropotkin 2001), and marriage (de Cleyre 2004 and 2001) to widen the anarchist critique of hierarchy to give critical concern to women's issues in their own right, while also articulating a socialist vision of a future cooperative and classless society. Much of this early work demonstrated connections between the oppression of women and the exploitation of the working class. The refusal of many working class women to join their “feminist” contemporaries likewise demonstrated some of the problems of a universalized identity-based feminism that saw women’s oppression as a hierarchy that can be fought without also fighting capitalism.

This is not to suggest that anarchists weren’t at times reductionist. Unfortunately, many anarchist men were dismissive of women’s concerns. Part of the reason that the Mujeres Libres saw a need for a separate women’s organization around the time of the Spanish Civil War was because "many anarchists treated the issue of women's subordination as, at best, secondary to the emancipation of workers, a problem that would be resolved 'on the morrow of the revolution'" (Ackelsberg 2005: 38). Unfortunately, in some contexts, this attitude isn't just a historical oddity, though it should be. And it was these kinds of assumptions that became an important theoretical backdrop for feminism's "Second Wave".

Competing Visions in the "Second Wave"

During the late 60s through the early 80s, new forms of feminism began to emerge. Many feminists seemed to gravitate to four competing theories with very different explanations for the oppression of women.

Like their historical bourgeois predecessors, liberal feminists saw no need for a revolutionary break with existing society. Rather, their focus was on breaking the "glass ceiling", getting more women into positions of political and economic power. Liberal feminists assumed that the existing institutional arrangements were fundamentally unproblematic. Their task was to see to women's equality accommodated under capitalism.

Another theory, sometimes referred to as radical feminism, argued for abandoning the "male Left", as it was seen as hopelessly reductionist. Indeed, many women coming out of the Civil Rights movement and anti-war movements complained of pervasive sexism within the movements, being relegated to secretarial tasks, philandering male leaders, and a generalized alienation from Left politics. According to many radical feminists of the time, this was due to the primacy of the system of patriarchy--or men's systematic and institutionalized domination of women. To these feminists, the battle against patriarchy was the primary struggle to create a free society, as gender was our most entrenched and oldest hierarchy (see especially Firestone 1970).

Marxist feminists, on the other hand, tended to locate women's oppression within the economic sphere. The fight against capitalism was seen as the "primary" battle, as "The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles"--that is, human history could be reduced to class (Marx and Engels 1967). Further, Marxist feminists tended to believe that the economic "base" of society had a determining effect on its cultural "superstructures". Thus, the only way to achieve equality between women and men would be to smash capitalism--as new, egalitarian economic arrangements would give rise to new, egalitarian superstructures. Such was the determining nature of the economic base.

Out of the conversations between Marxist feminism and radical feminism another approach emerged called "dual systems theory" (see e.g. Hartmann 1981; Young 1981). A product of what came to be dubbed socialist feminism, dual systems theory argued that feminists needed to develop "a theoretical account which gives as much weight to the system of patriarchy as to the system of capitalism" (Young 1981: 44). While this approach did much to resolve some of the arguments about which fight should be "primary" (i.e. the struggle against capitalism or the struggle against patriarchy), it still left much to be desired. For example, black feminists argued that this perspective left out a structural analysis of race (Joseph 1981). Further, where was oppression based on sexuality, ability, age, etc. in this analysis? Were all of these things reducible to capitalist patriarchy?

It is within this theoretical backdrop that intersectionality emerged. But it wasn't just abstraction and theory that led to these insights. As mentioned before, part of the reason feminists saw a need for a separate analysis of patriarchy as a systemic form of oppression was due to their experiences with the broader Left. Without an analysis of patriarchy that put it on equal footing with capitalism as an organizing system in our lives, there was no adequate response to male leaders who suggested that we deal with women's oppression after we deal with the "primary" or "more important" class struggle.

But these tensions were not limited to the Left, they also existed within the feminist movement. Perhaps one of the best examples of this on the ground was in the pro-choice movement in the United States. Before Roe vs. Wade in 1973, abortion law was considered an issue to be dealt with on a state-by-state basis. Feminists mobilized around Roe Vs. Wade to see that legal abortion would be guaranteed throughout the country. The ruling eventually did give legal guarantees to abortion through the second trimester, but the "choice" and "legalization" rhetoric left too much unaddressed for many feminists.

And this experience set the stage for re-thinking the idea of a universalized, monolithic experience of "womanhood" as it is often expressed in traditional identity politics. Black feminists and womanists, for example, argued that focusing solely on legalized abortion obscured the ways that black women in the United States underwent forced sterilizations and were often denied the right to have children (see Roberts 1997). Further, working class women argued that legalized "choice" is pretty meaningless without socialism, as having abortion legal, but unaffordable, didn't exactly constitute a "choice". True reproductive freedom meant something more than just legal abortion for working class women. Many wanted to have kids but simply couldn't afford raising them; some wanted a change in the cultural norms and mores of a society that judged the decisions women made about their bodies; others wanted proximity to clinics for reproductive health--in short, a "reproductive freedom" framework would take into account the interests of all women, not just be structured around white, heterosexual, middle-class women's concerns (the seeming default position of the "pro-choice" movement).

Intersections

These experiences within the feminist movement and the broader Left raised many questions for feminists. How do we create a movement that isn't focused around the interests of its most privileged elements? How do we retain our commitment to socialism without being subsumed into a politic that sees women's issues as "secondary"? What might political organization look like based on a common commitment to ending domination rather than an assumed common experience based on some single identity? These questions began to be answered largely by feminists of color, queers, and sex radicals with the theory of intersectionality--a theory that was critical of traditional class and identity politics (see especially e.g. hooks 2000; Collins 2000).

Intersectionality posits that our social locations in terms of race, class, gender, sexuality, nation of origin, ability, age, etc. are not easily parsed out one from the other. To speak of a universal experience as a "woman", for example, is problematic because "womanhood" is experienced quite differently based on race, class, sexuality-- any number of factors. As such, a non-reflective feminist movement centered ostensibly on the concerns of "women" tended to reflect the interests of the most privileged members of that social category.

As well, our various social locations and the hierarchies they inform intersect in complex ways and are not easily separable. People don't exist as "women", "men", "white", "working class", etc. in a vacuum devoid of other patterned social relationships. Further, these systems of exploitation and oppression function in unique ways. To name two rather obvious examples, class is a social relationship based on the exploitation of one's labor. As socialists, we seek the abolition of classes, not the end of class elitism under capitalism. This makes class unique. Similarly, the idea of "sexual orientation" developed in the 1800s with the invention of "the homosexual" as a species of a person. This effectively created an identity out of preferred gender choices in sexual partners, more or less ignoring the myriad other ways that people organize their sexuality (i.e. number of partners, preferred sexual acts, etc.). It also effectively limited sexual identity to three categories: hetero, homo, and bi--as if there could not be a large range of attractions and variety within humanity. Part of liberation based on sexuality is troubling these categories to provide a viable sexual/social existence for everyone. This makes sexuality, likewise, unique.

These structured inequalities and hierarchies inform and support one another. For example, the labor of women in child-bearing and rearing provides new bodies for the larger social factory to allow capitalism to continue. White supremacy and racism allow capitalists control over a segment of the labor market that can serve as stocks of cheap labor. Compulsory heterosexuality allows the policing of the patriarchal family form, strengthening patriarchy and male dominance. And all structured forms of inequality add to the nihilistic belief that institutionalized hierarchy is inevitable and that liberatory movements are based on utopian dreams.

Proponents of intersectionality, then, argue that all struggles against domination are necessary components for the creation of a liberatory society. It is unnecessary to create a totem pole of importance out of social struggles and suggest that some are "primary" while others are "secondary" or "peripheral" because of the complete ways that they intersect and inform one another. Further, history has shown us that this method of ranking oppressions is divisive and unnecessary--and worse, it undermines solidarity. As well, when organizing and developing political practice, we can self-reflexively move the margins to the center of our analyses to avoid the biases of privilege that has historically led to so many divisions in feminism and the Left.

A good contemporary example of intersectionality in the context of social movement practice is Incite! Women of Color Against Violence. Incite! “is a national activist organization of radical feminists of color advancing a movement to end violence against women of color and our communities through direct action, critical dialogue and grassroots organizing” (Incite! 2009). One reason Incite! stands out against other anti-violence organizations is their systemic analysis. They see women of color who have experienced violence as living in the “dangerous intersections” of white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, and other oppressive structures and institutions. Rather than simply reducing the experiences to the individual, they recognize the systems that oppress and exploit people and have structured their approach in such a way that calls for the “recentering” of marginalized folks, as opposed to a method of "inclusiveness" based on one single identity or social location. Incite! argues that “inclusiveness” simply adds a multicultural component to individualistic white-dominated organizing so common in the United States. Instead, they call for recentering the framework around the most marginalized peoples. This push is to ensure that their organizing addresses the needs of those historically overlooked by feminism, with the understanding that all people benefit from the liberation of their more marginalized peers--while focusing on the more privileged elements within a given social category leaves others behind (as in the examples we gave in the struggle for the vote and the legalization of abortion). Incite! makes a point to focus on the needs of the working class who have generally been neglected (i.e. sex workers, the incarcerated, trans folks and injection drug users). By centering these people in their organizing, they are focusing on the people standing at more dangerous intersections of oppression and exploitation, therefore tackling the entirety of the system and not just the more visible or advantaged aspects. Additionally, Incite! views the state as a major perpetrator of violence against women of color and seeks to build grassroots organizations independent of and against it. Anarchists could learn a lot from Incite! about the importance of addressing the needs of ALL sections of the working class and their attempt to check the tendency of the Left to ignore or dismiss the concerns, needs, ideas and leadership of people living in the dangerous intersections of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, etc.

And What Can Anarchism Provide the Theory of Intersectionality?

We firmly believe that this learning process is a two-way street. That is, when synthesizing our practice to include these concerns raised by feminists, feminism could stand to benefit from learning from anarchism as well. We see the contributions of anarchists to intersectionality in two major areas. First, anarchism can provide a radical base from which to critique liberal interpretations of intersectionality. Secondly, anarchists can offer a critical analysis of the state.

Too often people using an intersectional analysis ignore the uniqueness of various systems of domination. One way this is done is by articulating a general opposition to classism. While we believe that class elitism exists, often this opposition to "classism" does not recognize the unique qualities of capitalism and can lead to a position that essentially argues for an end to class elitism under capitalism. As anarchists, we do not just oppose class elitism, we oppose class society itself. We do not want the ruling class to treat us nicer under a system based on inequality and exploitation (i.e. capitalism). We want to smash capitalism to pieces and build a new society in which classes no longer exist--that is, we fight for socialism. Anarchists, as part of the socialist movement, are well-placed to critique this liberal interpretation of intersectionality (see especially Schmidt and van der Walt 2009).

Likewise, as anarchists, we are well-placed to put forward our critiques of the state. The state, in addition to being a set of specific institutions (such as the courts, police, political bodies like senates, presidents, etc.), is a social relationship. And the state has an influence over our lives in myriad ways. For example, former prisoners are often unemployable, particularly if they have committed felonies. One only needs to take a cursory glance at the racial and class make-up of US prisons to see how intersectionality can be put to use here. Former prisoners, workers who are targeted for striking or engaging in direct actions and/or civil disobedience, etc. all have specific needs as subjects in a society that assumes political rulers and passive, ruled subjects. And the state tends to target specific sets of workers based on their existence within the dangerous intersections we mentioned above. Anarchists can offer to the theory of intersectionality an analysis of the ways that the state has come to rule our lives just as much as any other institutionalized system of domination. And we can, of course, argue for smashing such a social arrangement and replacing it with non-hierarchical social forms.

Refusing to Wait

In many ways, anarchists have historically anticipated some of the ideas in intersectionality. Further, anarchism as a political philosophy--and as a movement against all forms of structured domination, coercion, and control--seems well-suited for an intersectional practice. Unfortunately, we still have debilitating arguments about what hierarchy is "primary" and should be prioritized above others. Like in times past, this leads to easy division and a lack of solidarity (imagine being told to give up some struggle that directly involves YOU for the "correct" or "primary" fight!). Further, the smashing of any structured hierarchy can have a destabilizing effect on the rest, as the simple existence of any of these social divisions serves to naturalize the existence of all other hierarchies.

We've tried here to explain the rise of the theory of intersectionality within feminism and describe its contours. Perhaps more importantly, we've attempted to relate it throughout this piece to political practice and social movement struggles so as to avoid complete abstraction and theorization apart from practice. We hope that more anarchists become acquainted with intersectionality and put it to positive use in our political work. Finally, it is our hope that more people from marginalized groups refuse to wait, that we recognize the value of all fights against injustice and hierarchy in the here and now--and that we build a reflexive practice based on solidarity and mutual aid instead of divisive prescriptions about what struggles are "primary" and which ones, by extension, are "secondary" or "peripheral". Rather, they are all linked and we have good reason to refuse to wait until after "the revolution" to address them!


Bibliography
Ackelsberg, Martha A. 2005. The Free Women of Spain: Anarchism and the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women. Oakland: AK Press.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.
de Cleyre, Voltairine. 2001. "They Who Marry do Ill". Pp. 103-113 in Anarchy!: An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, edited by Peter Glassgold. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint.
_____. 2004. "Sex Slavery". Pp. 93-103 in The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, edited by A.J. Brigati. Oakland: AK Press.
Firestone, Shulamith. 1970. The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. New York: Morrow.
Goldman, Emma. 2001. "The White Slave Traffic". Pp. 113-120 in Anarchy!: An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, edited by Peter Glassgold. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint.
Hartmann, Heidi. 1981. "The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union." in Women and Revolution, by Lydia Sargent (ed.). Boston, MA: South End Press.
hooks, bell. 2000. Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Incite!. 2009. http://www.incite-national.org/. Last accessed, October 2009.
Joseph, Gloria. 1981. "The Incompatible Menage à Trois: Marxism, Feminism, and Racism." in Women and Revolution, by Lydia Sargent (ed.). Boston, MA: South End Press.
Kropotkin, Peter. 2001. "The Sterilization of the Unfit". Pp. 120-123 in Anarchy!: An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, edited by Peter Glassgold. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint.
Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1967. The Communist Manifesto. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Parker, Robert Allerton. 2001. "Feminism in America". Pp. 124-126 in Anarchy!: An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, edited by Peter Glassgold. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint.
Roberts, Dorothy. 1997. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. New York: Vintage.
Schmidt, M. & van der Walt, L. 2009. Black Flame: The revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism. Oakland: AK Press.
Young, Iris. 1981. "Beyond the Unhappy Marriage: A Critique of the Dual Systems Theory." in Women and Revolution, by Lydia Sargent (ed.). Boston, MA: South End Press.

[American Dream]

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/7348

Feminism, Class and Anarchism

Monday February 04, 2008 18:40 by Deirdre Hogan - RAG

"Capitalist society depends on class exploitation. It does not though depend on sexism and could in theory accommodate to a large extent a similar treatment of women and men. This is obvious if we look at what the fight for women’s liberation has achieved in many societies around the world over the last, say, 100 years, where there has been radical improvements in the situation of women and the underlying assumptions of what roles are natural and right for women. Capitalism, in the mean time, has adapted to women’s changing role and status in society. "

It is quite common these days to hear criticisms of “mainstream” or “middle-class” feminism from anarchists or others on the revolutionary, and even the not-so-revolutionary, left. In particular, anarchists are often quick to criticise any feminist analysis that lacks a class analysis. This article argues that feminism in its own right is worth fighting for and that when it comes to ending sexism an insistence on always emphasising class can end up merely distracting from the fact that as anarchists we need to be unambiguous when it comes to supporting feminism. Rather than distancing ourselves from other feminists or seeking always to qualify our support, our emphasis should shift to developing and promoting our own brand of anarchist feminism.

Feminism, Class and Anarchism

The relationship between class society and capitalism

The defining feature of capitalist society is that it is broadly divided into two fundamental classes: the capitalist class (the bourgeoisie), made up of large business owners, and the working class (the proletariat), consisting more or less of everyone else - the vast majority of people who work for a wage. There are, of course, plenty of grey areas within this definition of class society, and the working class itself is not made up of one homogenous group of people, but includes, for example, unskilled labourers as well as most of what is commonly termed the middle-class and there can, therefore, be very real differences in income and opportunity for different sectors of this broadly defined working class

“Middle class” is a problematic term as, although frequently used, who exactly it refers to is rarely very clear. Usually “middle class” refers to workers such as independent professionals, small business owners and lower and middle management. However, these middle layers are not really an independent class, in that they are not independent of the process of exploitation and capital accumulation which is capitalism. They are generally at the fringes of one of the two main classes, capitalist and working class.[1]

The important point about looking at society as consisting of two fundamental classes is the understanding that the economic relationship between these two classes, the big business owners and the people who work for them, is based on exploitation and therefore these two classes have fundamentally opposing material interests.

Capitalism and business are, by nature, profit driven. The work an employee does in the course of their job creates wealth. Some of this wealth is given to the employee in their wage-packet, the rest is kept by the boss, adding to his or her profits (if an employee were not profitable, they would not be employed). In this way, the business owner exploits the employee and accumulates capital. It is in the interests of the business owner to maximise profits and to keep the cost of wages down; it is in the interests of the employee to maximise their pay and conditions. This conflict of interest and the exploitation of one class of people by another minority class, is inherent to capitalist society. Anarchists aim ultimately to abolish the capitalist class system and to create a classless society.

The relationship between sexism and capitalism

Sexism is a source of injustice which differs from the type of class exploitation mentioned above in a few different ways. Most women live and work with men for at least some of their lives; they have close relationships with men such as their father, son, brother, lover, partner, husband or friend. Women and men do not have inherently opposing interests; we do not want to abolish the sexes but instead to abolish the hierarchy of power that exists between the sexes and to create a society where women and men can live freely and equally together.

Capitalist society depends on class exploitation. It does not though depend on sexism and could in theory accommodate to a large extent a similar treatment of women and men. This is obvious if we look at what the fight for women’s liberation has achieved in many societies around the world over the last, say, 100 years, where there has been radical improvements in the situation of women and the underlying assumptions of what roles are natural and right for women. Capitalism, in the mean time, has adapted to women’s changing role and status in society.

An end to sexism therefore won’t necessarily lead to an end to capitalism. Likewise, sexism can continue even after capitalism and class society have been abolished. Sexism is possibly the earliest form of oppression ever to exist, it not only pre-dates capitalism; there is evidence that sexism also pre-dates earlier forms of class society [2]. As societies have developed the exact nature of women’s oppression, the particular form it takes, has changed. Under capitalism the oppression of women has its own particular character where capitalism has taken advantage of the historical oppression of women to maximise profits.

But how realistic is the end of women’s oppression under capitalism? There are many ways in which women are oppressed as a sex in today’s society – economically, ideologically, physically, and so on - and it is likely that continuing the feminist struggle will lead to further improvements in the condition of women. However, though it is possible to envisage many aspects of sexism eroded away in time with struggle, there are features of capitalism that make the full economic equality of women and men under capitalism highly unlikely. This is because capitalism is based on the need to maximise profits and in such a system women are at a natural disadvantage.

In capitalist society, the ability to give birth is a liability. Women’s biological role means that (if they have children) they will have to take at least some time off paid employment. Their biological role also makes them ultimately responsible for any child they bear. In consequence, paid maternity leave, single parent allowance, parental leave, leave to care for sick children, free crèche and childcare facilities etc. will always be especially relevant to women. For this reason women are economically more vulnerable than men under capitalism: attacks on gains such as crèche facilities, single-parent allowance and so on will always affect women disproportionately more than men. And yet without full economic equality it is hard to see an end to the unequal power relations between women and men and the associated ideology of sexism. Thus, although we can say that capitalism could accommodate women’s equality with men, the reality is that the full realisation of this equality is very unlikely to be achieved under capitalism. This is simply because there is an economic penalty linked to women’s biology which makes profit-driven capitalist society inherently biased against women.

The struggle for women’s emancipation in working class movements

One of the best examples of how struggle for change can bring about real and lasting changes in society is the great improvements in women’s status, rights and quality of life that the struggle for women’s liberation has achieved in many countries around the globe. Without this struggle (which I’ll call feminism though not all those fighting against women’s subordination would have identified as feminist), women clearly would not have made the huge gains we have made.

Historically, the struggle for women’s emancipation was evident within anarchist and other socialist movements. However, as a whole these movements have tended to have a somewhat ambiguous relationship with women’s liberation and the broader feminist struggle.

Although central to anarchism has always been an emphasis on the abolition of all hierarchies of power, anarchism has its roots in class struggle, in the struggle to overthrow capitalism, with its defining aim being the creation of a classless society. Because women’s oppression is not so intimately tied to capitalism as class struggle, women’s liberation has historically been seen, and to a large extent continues to be seen, as a secondary goal to the creation of a classless society, not as important nor as fundamental as class struggle.

But to whom is feminism unimportant? Certainly for most women in socialist movements the assumption that a profound transformation in the power relations between women and men was part of socialism was vital. However, there tended to be more men than women active in socialist circles and the men played a dominant role. Women’s demands were marginalised because of the primacy of class and also because while the issues that affected working men also affected working women in a similar way, the same was not true for the issues particular to the oppression of women as a sex. Women’s social and economic equality was sometimes seen to conflict with the material interests and comforts of men. Women’s equality required profound changes in the division of labour both in the home and at work as well as changes in the whole social system of male authority. To achieve women’s equality a re-evaluation of self-identity would also have to take place where "men's identity" could no longer depend on being seen as stronger or more capable than women.

Women tended to make the connection between personal and political emancipation, hoping that socialism would make new women and new men by democratising all aspects of human relations. However they found it very hard, for example, to convince their comrades that the unequal division of labour within the home was an important political issue. In the words of Hannah Mitchell, active as a socialist and feminist around the early 20th century in England, on her double shift working both outside and inside the home:

“Even my Sunday leisure was gone for I soon found a lot of the socialist talk about freedom was only talk and these socialist young men expected Sunday dinners and huge teas with home-made cakes, potted meats and pies exactly like their reactionary fellows.”[3]

Anarchist women in Spain at the time of the social revolution in 1936 had similar complaints finding that female-male equality did not carry over well to intimate personal relationships. Martha Ackelsberg notes in her book Free Women of Spain that although equality for women and men was adopted officially by the Spanish anarchist movement as early as 1872:

“Virtually all of my informants lamented that no matter how militant even the most committed anarchists were in the streets, they expected to be ‘masters’ in their homes – a complaint echoed in many articles written in movement newspapers and magazines during this period.”

Sexism also occurred in the public sphere, where, for example, women militants sometimes found they were not treated seriously nor with respect by their male comrades. Women also faced problems in their struggle for equality within the trade union movement in the 19th and 20th centuries where the unequal situation of men and women in paid employment was an awkward issue. Men in the trade unions argued that women lowered the wages of organised workers and some believed the solution was to exclude women entirely from the trade and to raise the male wage so that the men could support their families. In the mid-19th century in Britain a tailor summarised the effect of female labour as follows:

“When I first began working at this branch [waistcoat-making], there were but very few females employed in it. A few white waist-coats were given to them under the idea that women would make them cleaner than men …But since the increase of the puffing and sweating system, masters and sweaters have sought everywhere for such hands as would do the work below the regular ones. Hence the wife has been made to compete with the husband, and the daughter with the wife…If the man will not reduce the price of his labour to that of the female, why he must remain unemployed”.[4]

The policy of excluding women from certain trade unions was often determined by competition depressing wages rather than sexist ideology although ideology had also a role to play. In the tobacco industry in the early 20th century in Tampa in the States, for example, an anarcho-syndicalist union, La Resistencia, made up mostly of Cuban émigrés, sought to organise all workers throughout the city. Over a quarter of their membership was made up of women tobacco strippers. This syndicalist union was denounced both as unmanly and un-American by another trade union, the Cigar Makers’ Industrial Union which pursued exclusionary strategies and “very reluctantly organised women workers into a separate and secondary section of the union”.[5]

Driving force of women’s liberation has been feminism

It is generally well documented that the struggle for women’s emancipation has not always been supported and that historically women have faced sexism within class struggle organisations. The unquestionable gains in women’s freedom that have taken place are thanks to those women and men, within class struggle organisations as well as without, who challenged sexism and fought for improvements in women’s condition. It is the feminist movement in all its variety (middle-class, working-class, socialist, anarchist…) that has lead the way in women’s liberation and not movements focused on class struggle. I emphasise the point because though today the anarchist movement as a whole does support an end to the oppression of women, there remains a mistrust of feminism, with anarchists and other socialists sometimes distancing themselves from feminism because it often lacks a class analysis. Yet it is this very feminism that we have to thank for the very real gains women have made.

How relevant is class when it comes to sexism?

What are the common approaches to feminism by class-struggle anarchists today? On the extreme end of reaction against feminism is the complete class-reductionist point of view: Only class matters. This dogmatic viewpoint tends to see feminism as divisive [surely sexism is more divisive than feminism?] and a distraction from class struggle and holds that any sexism that does exist will disappear automatically with the end of capitalism and class society.

However, a more common anarchist approach to feminism is the acceptance that sexism does exist, will not automatically fade away with the end of capitalism and needs to be fought against in the here and now. Nevertheless, as previously mentioned, anarchists are often at pains to distance themselves from “mainstream” feminism because of its lack of class analysis. Instead, it is stressed that the experience of sexism is differentiated by class and that therefore women’s oppression is a class issue. It is certainly true that wealth mitigates to some extent the effect of sexism: It is less difficult, for example, to obtain an abortion if you do not have to worry about raising the money for the trip abroad; issues of who does the bulk of the housework and childcare become less important if you can afford to pay someone else to help. Also, depending on your socio-economic background you will have different priorities.

However, in constantly stressing that experience of sexism is differentiated by class, anarchists can seem to gloss over or ignore that which is also true: that experience of class is differentiated by sex. The problem, the injustice, of sexism is that there are unequal relations between women and men within the working class and indeed in the whole of society. Women are always at a disadvantage to men of their respective class.
To a greater or lesser extent sexism affects women of all classes; yet a feminist analysis that does not emphasise class is the often target of criticism. But is class relevant to all aspects of sexism? How is class relevant to sexual violence, for example? Class is certainly not always the most important point in any case. Sometimes there is an insistence on tacking on a class analysis to every feminist position as if this is needed to give feminism credibility, to validate it as a worthy struggle for class-struggle anarchists. But this stance misses the main point which is, surely, that we are against sexism, whatever its guise, whosoever it is affecting?

If a person is beaten to death in a racist attack, do we need to know the class of the victim before expressing outrage? Are we unconcerned about racism if it turns out the victim is a paid-up member of the ruling class? Similarly, if someone is discriminated against in work on the grounds of race, sex or sexuality, whether that person is a cleaner or a university professor, surely in both cases it is wrong and it is wrong for the same reasons? Clearly, women’s liberation in its own right is worth fighting for as, in general, oppression and injustice are worth fighting against, regardless of the class of the oppressed.

Women and men of the world unite against sexism?

Given that one thing women have in common across classes and cultures is their oppression, to some degree, as a sex can we then call for women (and men) of the world to unite against sexism? Or are there opposing class interests that would make such a strategy futile?

Conflicts of interest can certainly arise between working-class and wealthy middle-class or ruling-class women. For example, in France at a feminist conference in 1900 the delegates split on the issue of a minimum wage for domestic servants, which would have hurt the pockets of those who could afford servants. Today, calls for paid paternity leave or free crèche facilities will face opposition from business owners who do not want to see profits cut. Feminism is not always good for short-term profit-making. Struggles for economic equality with men in capitalist society will necessarily involve ongoing and continuous struggle for concessions – essentially a class struggle.

Thus, differing class interests can sometimes pose obstacles to feminist unity at a practical level. It is however much more important for anarchists to stress links with the broader feminist movement than to emphasise differences. After all, the ruling class are in a minority and the vast majority of women in society share a common interest in gaining economic equality with men. In addition, many feminist issues are not affected by such class-based conflicts of interest but concern all women to varying degrees. When it comes to reproductive rights, for example, anarchists in Ireland have been and continue to be involved in pro-choice groups alongside capitalist parties without compromising our politics because, when it comes to fighting the sexism that denies women control over their own bodies, this is the best tactic. Finally, it is also worth noting that often the dismissal of “middle-class feminism” comes from the same anarchists/socialists who embrace the Marxist definition of class (given at the start of this article) which would put most middle-class people firmly with the ranks of the broad working class.

Reforms, not reformism

There are two approaches we can take to feminism: we can distance ourselves from other feminists by focusing on criticising reformist feminism or we can fully support the struggle for feminist reforms while all the while saying we want more!! This is important especially if we want to make anarchism more attractive to women (a recent Irish Times poll showed that feminism is important to over 50% of Irish women). In the anarchist-communist vision of future society with its guiding principle, to each according to need, from each according to ability, there is no institutional bias against women as there is in capitalism. As well as the benefits for both women and men anarchism has a lot to offer women in particular, in terms of sexual, economic and personal freedom that goes deeper and offers more than any precarious equality that can be achieved under capitalism.


Deirdre Hogan (originally published in RAG no.2, Autumn 2007)


ps. Special thanks to Tamarack and José Antonio Gutiérrez for their feedback and suggestions.

* For information on murals by UMLEM see:
http://www.umlemchile.tk/

Notes



1. This description of the middle class is borrowed from Wayne Price. See Why the working class? on anarkismo.net http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=6488
2. See for example the articles in Toward an Anthropology of Women, edited by Rayna R. Reiter.
3. Hannah Mitchell quote taken from Women in Movement (page 135) by Sheila Rowbotham.
4. quote taken from Women and the Politics of Class (page 24) by Johanna Brenner.
5. ibid, page 93
Related Link: http://www.ragdublin.blogspot.com

[American Dream]

http://libcom.org/library/neither-womyn ... arch-olias

Neither womyn nor patriarch - Olias

Article exploring notions of gender and sex by someone rejecting their biological sex, together with editorial comments by the Troploin collective on the historical emergence of 'gender'.



Neither Womyn nor Patriarch, by Olias (2005)
Sex, in all of its manifestations, is a subject that has preoccupied and troubled me since I was quite young. Few would disagree that it is one of the most intricate and fascinating aspects of life on earth, or at least certainly has the potential to be. I have struggled most with sex as part of who/what we are (or can be) - sex as a physical attribute of our bodies, (though sex as an act has also been intense and challenging).

So, we are born sexed a certain way. None of us sat there in the womb and chose our sex. We emerge with whatever anatomy was randomly selected for us. As we become conscious of our bodies and eventually our sex, we will interpret them in different ways. Some have an easier time accepting and loving their bodies more than others. I have tended to be of the latter category.

How I have wanted my body to be has fluctuated over time. From about age 8 on, I have frequently felt a deep desire to be other than the sex that I was designated at birth. And "other" has meant different things at different times. As a child, I was fairly convinced that I wanted to be the "opposite" sex. The androgyny of childhood allowed me to easily "pass" as such, with simple alterations in clothing and length of hair. And I got picked up and even scolded for presenting myself in this manner (hence my introduction to sex and gender taboo). Then I went through a period of pre-pubescent angst, in which I desired to be my aesthetic ideal of my prescribed biological sex, which contributed to me being anorexic for several years. I was also afraid of developing sexually, and was trying to ward that off by starving myself. As I did finally develop sexually, I began to think of my body more in relations to others/other bodies than only as my own separate entity. I experienced sexual attraction to the "opposite" sex and also, occasionally, to those who were in my own sex category. And eventually, I stumbled upon the act of sex, which made matters even more confusing and complex (undeniably pleasurable as well, though).

But despite my occasional enjoyment of my sexual anatomy, I still do not feel content being being exclusively or permanently the sex that I was supposed to be. Yet, neither do I desire to be exclusively the "opposite" of that sex/the other popular sex. I feel most comfortable and right, somewhere in the middle of the sex/gender divide (spectrum), between the extremes of male and female. And I am trying to figure out how I can be a sort of "middle-sex" in a society that still clings to the traditional sex dichotomy - the either/or structure.

It is difficult to pull off, considering that there is not even an established pronoun to use for those who don't feel like either "he" or "she". And also, what bathroom should I use ? I've tried using both at times. But I question, does it even make sense to have sex-segregated restrooms at all ? I wonder how hermaphrodites, intersexes, and other "trans"/middle-sexed folks feel about this issue.

It seems very fascistic to me that when a baby is born hermaphrodictic or intersexed, which is fairly uncommon but does occur, they are often seen as defective and are pressured to fit into one or the other dominant sex-category. Doctors have eventried to "correct" these abnormally-sexed people. Why ? Why isn't there instead a restroom labelled "Hermaphrodites" ? Why isn't there an appropriate pronoun to describe these folks ? And why is it seen as a "mistake" when someone is born different ? Could we instead celebrate and embrace these differences ?

It seems to me that if our language is going to be sex-segregated, we should at least recognize that there are more than just two sexes. Otherwise, we are ignoring and excluding those who are not precisely male or female. I recall witnessing a young child, who hadn't yet grasped the grammatical distinction, refer to everyone as "he". It was kind-of nice. Perhaps that's what we need: just to drop sex-specific language altogether. If we are truly going to be seen as equal, doesn't this make sense?

There is a lot to think about and decisions to make about how to change traditional sex/gender structures. But one thing is for certain, they must change, if we are serious about moving beyond patriarchy, matriarchy, or any other sex-specific hierarchy and exclusiveness.

There is no doubt about it: the male sex has certainly tended to be the more dominant and power-wielding of the two dominant sexes - throughout human history. And to this day, "patriarchy", as we call this tendency, is still present throughout much of the world (particularly in religion). And I have felt very alienated from this kind of hierarchy. Yet, I feel similarly alienated from the particular reaction to this which has involved putting women/ "womyn" on a pedestal, male-bashing or guilt-tripping, and advocating for (basically) matriarchy or "womyn" power. I identify with hermaphrodites, intersexed folks, and middle-sexed tyrannies. But I am not going to claim that they are better than "men" or "women/womyn". I am not going to guilt-trip men and women for their sexist exclusion of gender-diverse people. And I definitely am not going to advocate for "hermaphrodarcy" or trans-people in office. I seek to dismantle all hierarchy, not just patriarchy. And I am not suggesting that everyone should be "trans" or reject their biological sex, etc. I entirely support people embracing their birth-sex or whatever sex they feel that they are, whether it is male or female or anything in-between or beyond. I think all sexes are/can be beautiful. What I am advocating for is a new outlook on sex/gender that understands and accepts sex as a diverse and fluid spectrum rather than a fixed dichotomy.

Editor's note (2009): Sex & Gender
We reproduce this short piece (first written as Sex, Gender & Social Change, and in the process of being modified by the author) because it is a real attempt at self-understanding, and at the same time an attempt at social understanding.

Maybe one day people will wonder how, at the end of the 20th century, as sex differentiation became problematic, a new definition emerged in Western civilization: gender. In so much as this notion is relevant, its relevance comes from its ability to rationalize a problem it is unable to solve. Gender is now the buzz word for supposedly chosen sex, "an individual self-conception as being male or female, as distinguished from actual biological sex" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2007).

Every past and present human group takes into account the biological male/female difference, but history and anthropology remind us that this distinction is never enough: it's only a basis on which social relations are built up in a wide variety of contrasting ways.

Patriarchalism worked as long as the family was the basic socio-economic unit: the man (the father) was the breadwinner and therefore the head of the family. Of course there were many exceptions: lots of farms were run by widows, or by a wife whose husband was in the army, for instance. But basically men led the family because they had a leading position on the farm or in the shop.

Industrial capitalism has changed that picture. Woman do not work more or less than they used to (in fact, they often end up working more, as wage earners and housewives). The difference is that they tend to do the same jobs as men, which was not the case in mainly agricultural societies, nor in industry until the 1910s and 1920s.

True, women do not have the same jobs. Quite a few buses are driven by women, but when did you last see a woman lorry driver ? Yet the overall tendency cannot be denied. For the first time probably in history, men and women can and often perform the same tasks, even in the army and police. They will never be equal, but they have got the right to be, and they can be, up to a point. In the past, except in societies we regard as free and humane, but which have been marginalized or wiped out, a woman was defined by her biology, and a man by his. No longer so: wage labour creates an ever more mobile society.

Though the logic of capital prevails, it is not the only logic in this society. An entirely commodified world (where, for instance, a soldier's pay would just depend on the enemy body count, and a teacher's salary depend on the number of students who passed the exam) would simply fall apart. The family unit has changed a lot in less than a century, but it's still one of the essential social structures. Racism and sexism may be banned by law in Europe and the US, but they are not gone. We do not live in a liberal/libertarian free flowing capitalist world where everything and everybody is equal and interchangeable.

This is why gender has come up. Pre-industrialization societies organized sex roles according to set rigid patterns (fixed in each society for quite a long time, yet varying immensely between societies). These patterns no longer work. Simone de Beauvoir's statement in The Second Sex that "one is not born a woman, but becomes one" is a lot more acceptable in 2009 than it was in 1949. Many children now have a "natural" father and live under the makeshift fragile authority of a man who acts as a sort of social father, or second father. At the same time, a woman university lecturer may have responsibility in the work place, including power over man workers, and still be treated as an inferior in many aspects of social life, and often at home. It is this contradiction that creates the need for a double vision, a distinction between an undeniable biological fact (sex) and a historical-social reality (gender). (As usual, this goes together with a reconstruction of past and present: anthropology now discovers that most or all previous and non-White societies had to deal in one way or other with the sex/gender duality.)

In a nutshell, sex is natural and imposed; gender is social and personal, i.e. chosen by the individual : unfortunately, the individual is the bourgeois form of liberty. This distinction is no sign of our society giving more scope to women (or men) in terms of freedom. It is rather a proof of a contradiction that is not going to fade away. Capital integrates and separates, equalizes and hierarchizes, upgrades males and females and downsizes them.

[American Dream]

More related to transgender issues, from a congruent perspective:

http://www.anarkismo.net/article/13970

Strengthening Anarchism's Gender Analysis
August 13, 2009 16:28 by J. Rogue - Common Action, Workers Solidarity Alliance

Lessons From The Transfeminist Movement



Transfeminism developed out of a critique of the mainstream and radical feminist movements. The feminist movement has a history of internal hierarchies. There are many examples of women of color, working class women, lesbians and others speaking out against the tendency of the white, affluent- dominated women’s movement to silence them and overlook their needs. Instead of honoring these marginalized voices, the mainstream feminist movement has prioritized struggling for rights primarily in the interests of white affluent women. While the feminist movement as a whole has not resolved these hierarchal tendencies, various groups have continued to speak up regarding their own marginalization – in particular, transgendered women. The process of developing a broader understanding of systems of oppression and how they interact has advanced feminism and is key to building on the theory of anarchist feminism.

Transfeminism builds on the work that came out of the multiracial feminist movement, and in particular, the work of Black feminists. Frequently, when confronted with allegations of racism, classism, or homophobia, the women’s movement dismisses these issues as divisive. The more prominent voices promote the idea of a homogenous “universal female experience,” which, as it is based on commonality between women, theoretically promotes a sense of sisterhood. In reality, it means pruning the definition of “woman” and trying to fit all women into a mold reflecting the dominant demographic of the women’s movement: white, affluent, heterosexual, and non-disabled. This “policing” of identity, whether conscious or not, reinforces systems of oppression and exploitation. When women who do not fit this mold have challenged it, they have frequently been accused of being divisive and disloyal to the sisterhood. The hierarchy of womanhood created by the women’s movement reflects, in many ways, the dominant culture of racism, capitalism and heteronormativity.

Mainstream feminist organizing frequently tries to find the common ground shared by women, and therefore focuses on what the most vocal members decide are “women’s issues” – as if the female experience existed in vacuum outside of other forms of oppression and exploitation. However, using an intersectional approach to analyzing and organizing around oppression, as advocated by multiracial feminism and transfeminism, we can discuss these differences rather than dismiss them. The multiracial feminist movement developed this approach, which argues that one cannot address the position of women without also addressing their class, race, sexuality, ability, and all other aspects of their identity and experiences. Forms of oppression and exploitation do not exist separately. They are intimately related and reinforce each other, and so trying to address them singly (i.e. “sexism” divorced from racism, capitalism, etc) does not lead to a clear understanding of the patriarchal system. This is in accordance with the anarchist view that we must fight all forms of hierarchy, oppression, and exploitation simultaneously; abolishing capitalism and the state does not ensure that white supremacy and patriarchy will be somehow magically dismantled.

Tied to this assumption of a “universal female experience” is the idea that that if a woman surrounds herself with those that embody that “universal” woman, then she is safe from patriarchy and oppression. The concept of “women’s safe spaces” (being women-only) date back to the early lesbian feminist movement, which was largely comprised of white, middle-class women who prioritized addressing sexism over other forms of oppression. This notion that an all-women space is inherently safe not only discounts the intimate violence that can occur between women, but also ignores or de-prioritizes the other types of violence that women can experience; racism, poverty, incarceration and other forms of state, economic and social brutality.

The Transfeminist Manifesto states: “Transfeminism believes that we construct our own gender identities based on what feels genuine, comfortable and sincere to us as we live and relate to others within given social and cultural constraint. (1)” The notion that gender is a social construct is a key concept in transfeminism, and are also essential (no pun intended) to an anarchist approach to feminism. Transfeminism also criticizes the idea of a “universal female experience” and argues against the biologically essentialist view that one’s gender is defined by one’s genitalia. Other feminisms have embraced the essentialist argument, seeing the idea of “women’s unity” as being built off a sameness, some kind of core “woman-ness.” This definition of woman is generally reliant on what is between a person’s legs. Yet what specifically about the definition of woman is intrinsic to two X chromosomes? If it is defined as being in possession of a womb, does that mean women who have had hysterectomies are somehow less of a woman? Perhaps, if we reduce the definition of “woman” to the role of child-bearer. That seems rather antithetical to feminism. Gender roles have long been under scrutiny in radical communities. The idea that women are born to be mothers, are more sensitive and peaceful, are predisposed to wearing the color pink and all the other stereotypes out there are socially constructed, not biological. If the (repressive) gender role does not define what a woman is, and if the organs one is born with do not define gender either, the next logical step is to recognize that gender can only be defined by the individual, for themselves. While this concept may cause some to panic, that does not make it any less legitimate with regards to a person’s identity.

It is important to note that not all transgender people chose to physically transition, and that each person’s decision to do so or not is their own. The decision is highly personal and generally irrelevant to theoretical conceptions of gender. There are many reasons to physically change one’s body, from getting a haircut to taking hormones. Some reasons might be to feel more at ease in a world with strict definitions of male and female. Another is to look in the mirror and see on the outside (the popular understanding of) the gender one feels on the inside. Surely, for some, it is the belief that gender is defined by the physical construction of one’s genitalia. But rather than draw from speculation as to the motivations for the personal decisions of trans people (as if they where not vast and varied), it is more productive to note the challenge to the idea that biology is destiny.

Thus far, gender and feminist theory that includes trans experiences exists almost solely in academia. There are very few working class intellectuals in the field, and the academic language used is not particularly accessible to the average person. This is unfortunate, since the issues that transfeminism addresses affect all people. Capitalism, racism, the state, patriarchy and the medical field mediate the way everyone experiences gender. There is a significant amount of coercion employed by these institutions to police human experiences, which applies to everyone, trans and non-trans alike. Capitalism and the state play a very direct role in the experiences of trans people. Access to hormones and surgery, if desired, costs a significant amount of money, and people are often forced to jump through bureaucratic hoops in order to acquire them. Trans people are disproportionately likely to be members of the working and under classes. However, within the radical queer and transfeminist communities, while there may be discussions of class, they are generally framed around identity – arguing for “anti-classist” politics, but not necessarily anti-capitalist.

The concepts espoused by transfeminism help us understand gender, but there is a need for the theory to break out of academia and to develop praxis amongst the working class and social movements. This is not to say that there are no examples of transfeminist organizing, but rather that there needs to be an incorporation of transfeminist principles into broad based movements. Even gay and lesbian movements have a history of leaving trans people behind. For example, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act does not protect gender identity. Again we see a hierarchy of importance; the gay and lesbian movement compromises (throwing trans folks under the bus), rather than employing an inclusive strategy for liberation. There is frequently a sense of a “scarcity of liberation” within reformist social movements, the feeling that the possibilities for freedom are so limited that we must fight against other marginalized groups for a piece of the pie. This is in direct opposition to the concept of intersectionality, since it often requires people to betray one aspect of their identity in order to politically prioritize another. How can a person be expected to engage in a fight against gender oppression if it ignores or worsens their racial oppression? Where does one aspect of their identity and experiences end and another begin? Anarchism offers a possible society in which liberation is anything but scarce. It provides a theoretical framework that calls for an end to all hierarchies, and, as stated by Martha Ackelsberg, “It offers a perspective on the nature and process of social revolutionary transformation (e.g. the insistence that means must be consistent with ends, and that economic issues are critical, but not the only source of hierarchal power relations) that can be extremely valuable to/ for women’s emancipation. (2)”
Anarchists need to be developing working class theory that includes an awareness of the diversity of the working class. The anarchist movement can benefit from the development of a working class, anarchist approach to gender issues that incorporates the lessons of transfeminism and intersectionality. It is not so much a matter of asking anarchists to become active in the transfeminist movement as it is a need for anarchists to take a page from the Mujeres Libres and integrate the principles of (trans)feminism into our organizing within the working class and social movements. Continuing to develop contemporary anarchist theory of gender rooted in the working class requires a real and integrated understanding of transfeminism.

This article neglects to address another important concept: the idea that biological sex is somewhat socially constructed as well. Given the high prevalence of intersex folks, it is worth re-evaluating whether or not there are only two supposed biological sexes. This is a whole additional discussion, and one that would require a bit more research. Recommended sites for more information are http://www.isna.org and http://www.eminism.org.


Notes

1. The Transfeminist Manifesto by Emi Koyama (2000)

2. Lessons from the Free Women of Spain an interview with Martha Ackelsberg
by Geert Dhont (2004)

This article appears in the latest issue of the Northeastern Anarchist

[American Dream]

http://www.nefac.net/node/1923

The Precarious Union Of Anarchism And Feminism
A Response to "Re-defining Radical Feminism"

by Red Sonja (NEFAC-Boston)

Traci Harris' article 'Re-defining Radical Feminism' was published in NEA#4 (http://www.illegalvoices.org), opening the discussion about revolutionary feminism. My reply is an attempt to continue that discussion. Harris' article solidly outlines three important facets of this discussion, which I will address here: that it is our job to (1) Redefine Patriarchy and Radical Feminism for revolutionaries; (2) Show how forms of domination are connected; and (3) Redefine Radical Feminism in practice. My main criticisms are that Harris' agenda boils down to a multicultural liberalism and lacks a class-rooted analysis. Harris wants to re-define revolutionary feminism to a strategy (already problematic) - that of attacking white supremacy, all the while arguing for an analysis which recognizes the interconnectedness of oppressions. Attacking white supremacy is certainly a critical issue for revolutionaries, but what does this say about women's oppression explicitly?

Revolutionary feminism's strength has only come when it has an independent analysis, autonomous demands, and a searing critique of every social, economic, and cultural arrangement that exploits women. If anarchists are to have a strong critique of hierarchy and domination, culminating in the "triple oppressions" so often referred to, then a strategy of focusing on issues where these issues intersect is a more relevant point of revolutionary potential.

In 'Re-defining Radical Feminism' patriarchy is defined by Carol Pateman as "a political system of power based on a "social contract." Pateman also equates the origin of women's subordination with the creation of this "social contract" and the consolidation of government of men. This is arguably not the case but the origin of patriarchy is not the issue in this discussion. Certainly the bourgeois revolutions outline this development with the creation of a civil society of men -- in both the French and American revolutions women's exclusion is well known. Also, the development of a public sphere / private sphere division is well known as the entry point of women into a subordinate position, yet whether this was created during the negotiation of the social contract Pateman assesses is doubtful. But let's not rely on the 'Rousseauan' concept of the social contract to describe a world-wide phenomenon of the exploitation of the female sex. We cannot work under the assumption that there is some universal and monolithic Patriarchy that affects social, economic and cultural relations globally. Women are not a homogenous group and our Western understanding of women's oppression cannot begin to describe other people's lives in the world. There are however grand paint strokes we can make that in general women occupy the lowest social rung in the various societies in the world, and feminists have grappled with this contradiction for a number of decades now.

Since its coinage by "second wave" feminists, the feminist movement has been persistently plagued with the inadequacy of the term Patriarchy. It has become even more unwieldy for those revolutionaries intent on smashing it. A recent two-day conference on the subject held by revolutionary anarchists had so much difficulty hammering out this concept that it became impossible to reach any sort of conclusion about what to do about this "patriarchy." The attempt to hone Patriarchy as a useful word to describe what exactly is oppressing women has stretched from narrowly defining it as a "reign of brothers" (like Pateman) to expanding it to a "Capitalist-Patriarchy" (Mies), to Bell Hooks' "white supremacist, capitalist, and patriarchal social hierarchy," to Sheila Rowbotham's wholesale rejection of the term as misleading. I agree with Maria Mies that though inadequate and often inaccurate (for it literally means "rule of the fathers"), "patriarchy" denotes a continuity which has a historical framework and so thankfully it is not a universal constant; and having been embraced by feminists as a tool for describing women's position it is useful enough to continue to tinker with it.

Importantly 'Re-defining Radical Feminism' is a positive step in framing Patriarchy in a way that makes sense to us, but I'd like to direct the argument specifically towards revolutionary anarchists. Without getting lost in labels, it is still important to clarify also the many distinctions within feminism which most anarchists do not understand. We can't talk about redefining "radical feminism" without understanding its own particular history, one which is distinct from anarchist or socialist feminisms (though some lines are blurry).

Most feminist works have outlined the differing perspectives on the position of women in society: Conservative (i.e. sexual division of labor is natural and women's subordinate role is summed up by "biology is destiny"); Liberal (seeks equal status under current system or within the "social contract"); Traditional Marxist; Radical; Multicultural; Global; and Socialist. Traditional Marxism ignores the exploitation of women in the private sphere, ultimately denying the existence of Patriarchy. Radical Feminism developed in part as a response to the lack of a feminist analysis in traditional Marxism and Socialism, and in contrast to Liberal feminism's reformism. Radical feminists developed the analysis of Patriarchy as the primary oppression in the world, and for the first time advanced a critique of gender and sexuality as social forms which are culturally constructed. They do not believe that women's oppression will end with the abolition of class society as the traditional Marxists argued. Rather, there is almost no class analysis - that all women, despite race, class, ethnicity, etc., share the same oppression. Also problematic for anarchists is the lack of a critique of the State. In fact there were some radical feminists proposing a women-only government as the cure-all for society. Their ideology also tends to rely on biological-determinism notions - that women are by nature superior to men. It is obvious that we would want to re-define "true" radical feminism if we must use this term at all! "Revolutionary Feminism" is a more appropriate term in this discussion

Socialist feminism tries to bring together the best of Radical feminism and a class analysis of women's exploitation, arguing that both class stratification (i.e. capitalism) and patriarchy must be eliminated in order for women to be truly free. Anarchist feminism, in its very small ranks, stands near this perspective, but furthers the socialist critique by pointing to the State (as a culmination of hierarchy and authoritarianism) as a third "tier" of oppression. It is our job to trace the exact nature of how Patriarchy, Capitalism, and the State interact to cause the various oppressions we want to overthrow. In a broad sense anarchist feminism is the critique of domination in all its forms, similar to the analysis offered by "multicultural feminism," but with a clear anti-capitalist and anti-statist position. In this way 'Re-defining Radical Feminism' is emphasizing what is already that broad anarchist position: that revolutionary praxis "must be focused on the eradication of domination."

Solid examples of how different forms of domination are connected are found in Harris' essay, quoting Bell Hooks, Angela Davis, and radical abolitionist Angelina Grimke, and giving historical examples in the US context. Anarchists often struggle to resolve our critiques of the "triple oppressions" - race, class, sex - with our overarching critique of domination "in all its forms" while explicitly pointing to Capitalism and the State. In fact the discussion here should not be which direction for the "radical feminist movement" (which should be closer toward anarchist politics!) but how the anarchist movement has so far failed to update its own praxis to offer something relevant to overcome these problems.

'Re-defining Radical Feminism' seems to be coming from this direction yet unearths a "hierarchy of oppressions" by pulling white supremacy out as the "strategic" point of departure. There is a triple oppression and we cannot view patriarchy and white supremacy as mere contradictions, or secondary afterthought to the class analysis. They do function as "divisive mechanisms of capital" yet are independent of that. Nor are white supremacy, colonialism, and racism footnotes to women's oppression. We have to consistently challenge this creeping idea among white leftists or run the played out mistake of a doomed revolutionary analysis. But to discard the class lens with which we view these oppressions is to imitate multicultural liberalism which does no one any favors. "A class rooted analysis is where I begin in all my work" says bell hooks.

Valuable in 'Re-defining Radical Feminism' is its North American focus, which is not often a popular perspective but revolutionaries here in North America cannot import European or Third World examples to the unique social conditions of the US. Harris' analysis of race and the struggle against white supremacy as the lynch-pin to revolution flows from this position, and rightly that is one crucial point of departure. Some white anarchists, and other leftists have their heads in the sand hoping the Black/White problem will solve itself without any real effort. Any revolutionary struggle in the US requires true solidarity, principled alliances, solid long term work on the part of white revolutionaries and white anarchists to cross this divide, some of which is just beginning to be built. The same can be said for white revolutionary feminists and this is Harris' point, but she is also redefining revolutionary feminism to a narrow "strategy," that of attacking white supremacy. Yes it should be part and parcel of the feminist agenda . But to redefine the whole thrust of revolutionary feminism towards attacking white supremacy doesn't say very much about how women's oppression functions in society or more importantly, how to overcome it. The revolution is not going to be split open by only focusing on one oppression, just as 'true' radical feminism would have you believe. There are many points of departure and one thing that revolutionary feminists have at least learned is that the issue of women's exploitation is the first to get left behind.

In our attempt to re-visit revolutionary feminism and lessons that can be learned for anarchists the most glaring necessity is to retain a class analysis. Harris states: "Feminism can no longer be seen as a lifestyle choice but it must be seen as a political commitment. Focusing on this political commitment and resistance to domination will engage us in revolutionary praxis and avoid the typical pitfall of resorting to narrow, stereotyped perspectives of feminism." 'Re-defining Radical Feminism' hopes to get feminism out of its lifestylist (i.e. cultural) rut, but the lesson for Western feminism stuck in the cultural context, which is expressed by emphasis on education, language, psychology (which liberal anti-racism is also suffering from) is the lack of understanding of economic production relations which will always trump any cultural advances. We will not get feminism out of its perceived cultural rut by broadening its goals to the extent that is has no coherent analysis of women's particular oppression. The strength of the feminist movement, at least the revolutionary end of it, has been its autonomy. The lesson is there to learn from: men, even our supposed comrades, will not hand us our dignity and freedom whenever we politely ask for it. A women's movement which subsumes its demands for the greater good will be betrayed by the promise of a united front in class, anti-colonial, or national struggles. The plainest examples are the anti-colonial and revolutionary struggles such as those in Algeria, Cuba, Vietnam, China and the Soviet Union. In the case of a successful anti-colonial struggle or revolution, no matter what gains women may have made in the space created by the waging of the struggle, the force of the necessity to reorganize the economy expediently will again push women to the exploited "subsidiary" sectors or are "sent back to the family." Unless concrete change in the material production relations occurs, even raised consciousness of sex relations will not stand to the weight of economic realities. "Production" that unsavory term, needs to be understood to include that work that takes place in the private realm to include women in the family and what Rowbotham calls the "production of self through sexuality." Only when that social division between public and private and the sexual division of labor has been contested, alongside the cultural and social consciousness necessary for revolutionary change, will gains for women stick.

In terms of concrete action, an alternate strategy might be to focus on an issue in which the "triple oppressions" intersect in order to make these connections apparent. Anti-poverty issues are clearly arenas in which sex oppression and racism are pivotal, whether it is in housing, homelessness, in the workplace, or around welfare. Recent marriage incentive laws for women on welfare, restrictive codes on single women's behavior in housing projects all expose Patriarchy in the grossest, most racist ways. As is understanding why the fastest growing prisoner population is young girls - usually Black, Latina, poor. This is a strategy which is revolutionary, and feminist, for the 21st century.

[blanc]

"http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/Publications/Knight.htm"
The theory about the origins of culture summarised in the review linked above rather better than I can, seem to me to offer a way of grounding the question of the cost of love (and in particular of child rearing) in a context which explains why this presents as a near permanent theatre of conflict and exploitation.

[American Dream]

Fascinating piece, blanc. Chris Knight's thesis seems fairly heavily slanted towards a feminist explanation of the origins of human culture, which though valid and important, is I think only one piece of a larger puzzle. It seems to me that we can and should draw from all relevant models to explain such profound mysteries of the human: Feminist Theory yes, but also Marxian Economics, a smattering of Sociobiology even, as well as the many, many other varieties of Theory which would bring something to bear on the questions at hand.

I want to focus though on Knight's idea of the organization of a female sex-strike to induce males to bring home meat as an explanation for certain aspects of human affairs in the here and now. If this proposed revolution in human social relations some 70, 000 years ago does significantly help explain the origins of human culture today, then how might this help illuminate the complicated web where sexual relations between people, especially as developed into institutions of Marriage, Family and the like, interact with and/or are explained by Capitalism, Patriarchy and the State?

Here is a quote from the piece which I found a bit troubling:

What kind of feminism?
Knight sees his work as contributing to those currents in anthropology and sociobiology which take account of the feminist perspective - but not just any feminist perspective :

Influenced by friends and comrades who were feminists, I naturally felt feminism of any variety to be a liberating political force. But ... for the women I was closest to (many of whom were involved in the Greenham Common anti-Cruise missile campaigns of the early 1980s), the construction of "female males" was not what the struggle was all about, any more than joining the capitalists was the essence of working-class emancipation. The struggle was more about refusing to collaborate with the whole masculinist political set-up, organising autonomously as women, drawing on support for real change from the wider class struggle - and fighting to bring men as allies into a world transformed on women's terms.

It may be - at least in part - for this reason that Knight takes such pains to reject the idea that the exchange offered by the women could be seen as a form of prostitution. He insists that among hunter-gatherers, it would be immoral in a woman to offer sex without demanding a gift in return, rather than in insisting on payment. In South America, in Melanesia, in Africa, the woman always expects the lover or husband to offer her gifts each time she makes love to him. The prostitute, says Knight, is not she who insists on the strict application of the basic rules imposed by the sex-strike. On the contrary, it is the strike-breaker, who offers her body to men on demand - by thus undermining feminine solidarity, she threatens society itself. Prostitution does not consist in the simple demand of a reward for sexual services, but in undercutting the trade-union price and offering up one's body in the place of other women. The woman who openly demands a gift makes the rules clear ; the prostitute muddies them.

http://www.timothyjpmason.com/WebPages/ ... Knight.htm

Assuming that Knight's narrative here is essentially valid, what then does this say about the "love" which was so deliberately placed in quotation marks by Leopoldina Fortunati in The Arcane of Reproduction, as quoted in the OP? Given the convoluted history of relations between men and women and the current mess we find ourselves in, what are the possibilities and challenges for fostering deep love and solidarity between men and women, given the very real social forces which would pit us against each other?

I'm going to close with a quote from Leopoldina Fortunati, as given in the OP:

"Men and women have never been so irreconcilably divided as they are under capitalism--but never also, has the mode of production itself provided the potential means to destroy the power structure. Going beyond any historical judgement of what capitalism has represented, its continuing existence today means barbarism, not only because it represents the theft of non-waged work from women--who are obliged to live in isolation, semi-dependent on men--but also because it is the theft of non-waged work from the man. Women are forced to work for capital through the individuals they "love." Women's love is in the end the confirmation of both men's and their own negation as individuals. Nowadays, the only possible way of reproducing oneself or others, as individuals and not as commodities, is to dam the stream of capitalist "love"--a "love" which masks the macabre face of exploitation--and transform relationships between men and women, destroying men's mediatory role as the representatives of state and capital in relation to women. The only realistic program for sex equality is one for the non-exploitation of both."

[blanc]

"Assuming that Knight's narrative here is essentially valid, what then does this say about the "love" which was so deliberately placed in quotation marks by Leopoldina Fortunati in The Arcane of Reproduction, as quoted in the OP? Given the convoluted history of relations between men and women and the current mess we find ourselves in, what are the possibilities and challenges for fostering deep love and solidarity between men and women, given the very real social forces which would pit us against each other?"

The word 'love' has many meanings even within just our own culture and own time. I came across Knight's book a decade ago, it seemed to me to offer a credible possible narrative for the development of human culture, the crucial difference of our species having a need for lengthy nurturing - which we also characterize as love, and which is probably more fundamental to the development of the capacity to relate in a positive way to other humans than any exchange mechanism of needs met and rewards offered. Yet, that nurturing can only take place with the input of some kind of exchange, given by the breadwinners, wealth creators, or whatever you term them to those needing the free time to do the nurturing. Its seems pretty much a given that the development of patriarchy has a lot to do with ensuring that the goods are only exchanged for the nurturing of the young bearing the right genes, and that capitalism has become an extension of that, reducing the availability of resources to, essentially, the children of the poor, whilst commandeering the labour of the poor.

[American Dream]

blanc wrote:

Its seems pretty much a given that the development of patriarchy has a lot to do with ensuring that the goods are only exchanged for the nurturing of the young bearing the right genes, and that capitalism has become an extension of that, reducing the availability of resources to, essentially, the children of the poor, whilst commandeering the labour of the poor.

Could you elaborate on this a bit? It would be especially valuable if you could say something about the implications towards the possibilities for improving our current condition.

[blanc]

Could you elaborate on this a bit? It would be especially valuable if you could say something about the implications towards the possibilities for improving our current condition.

Well, I can try, but am out of my depth in the anthro aspects. I'm making an assumption based on too little reading of texts that competition for maintaining a person's genetic heritage goes hand in hand with a development of patriarchy and the desire to acquire more wealth than can possibly be spent in order to pass it on. Genetic heritage plays differently for men and women - obviously, and so that my be posited as a core reason for gender typical behavioural patterns. and the social structures that attempt to regulate them. That those social structures have failed our current large multi layered increasingly world wide society is fairly clear. What happens next could depend on how we address a few basic questions about our shared humanity. The welfare state provisions were introduced in national contexts, and have come under semi successful attack from those who perceive their interest is served in dismantling them by using divisive propaganda - always the other guy who abuses the system (the immigrants breeding like rabbits quite often being the ugly subtext). The short answer to possibilities for improving our current condition, if the concensus is that co-operation, care, nurturing all the young, providing a safety net and help for the sick, and sharing out resources at least semi fairly, would have to be effective counter propaganda. Yet, as you are pointing out I think, the thesis that human culture originates from men having usurped 'power' from women - womb envy? - would indicate that conflict and sexism are intrinsic.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Abstract

Wherever Europeans colonized they took with them the same assumptions that males in any society were always the political power-brokers and decision-makers. They failed to see that in many cultures, such as those of Aboriginal Australians, women held significant political as well as social and economic power. Whilst there is enormous diversity in Aboriginal culture across Australia, some generalizations can be made both about the traditional scene and the contemporary one.

In pre-European times Aboriginal women played very important economic roles in their societies. Unlike European women they did not have to depend upon their men folk to feed either themselves or their children. Indeed in some areas the men were often absent for long periods of time on ceremonial business. The women also had important roles to play in the religious and political spheres, these two being closely interdependent. In many cases knowledge and the resulting power was gender-specific. Thus there were men's sites and there were women's sites, and the traditional owners, whether they be female or male, had sole decision-making powers over those areas.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2790900359

[American Dream]

blanc wrote:

Well, I can try, but am out of my depth in the anthro aspects. I'm making an assumption based on too little reading of texts that competition for maintaining a person's genetic heritage goes hand in hand with a development of patriarchy and the desire to acquire more wealth than can possibly be spent in order to pass it on. Genetic heritage plays differently for men and women - obviously, and so that my be posited as a core reason for gender typical behavioural patterns. and the social structures that attempt to regulate them. That those social structures have failed our current large multi layered increasingly world wide society is fairly clear. What happens next could depend on how we address a few basic questions about our shared humanity. The welfare state provisions were introduced in national contexts, and have come under semi successful attack from those who perceive their interest is served in dismantling them by using divisive propaganda - always the other guy who abuses the system (the immigrants breeding like rabbits quite often being the ugly subtext). The short answer to possibilities for improving our current condition, if the concensus is that co-operation, care, nurturing all the young, providing a safety net and help for the sick, and sharing out resources at least semi fairly, would have to be effective counter propaganda. Yet, as you are pointing out I think, the thesis that human culture originates from men having usurped 'power' from women - womb envy? - would indicate that conflict and sexism are intrinsic.

My concern- and I won't claim to be certain of this- is that Knight's view could be rather like a (social) darwinist view of history, in that runs the danger of imposing meaning on the past by overemphasizing certain things and underemphasizing others due to biases from those who do the theorizing. In the case of social darwinism, the competitive ethos of capitalism may be projected backward in an exaggerated way back into time and onto all of nature, in a way that underemphasizes the cooperative features of life on Earth. In this case, yes these presumptions that conflict and sexism are in this way at the origin of human culture and thus intrinsic and defining, should have some very serious evidence to back them up. The most important thing is developing an integrative context where all things can be seen in proportion, as they work together in shaping human life.


Joe Hillshoist wrote:

Wherever Europeans colonized they took with them the same assumptions that males in any society were always the political power-brokers and decision-makers. They failed to see that in many cultures, such as those of Aboriginal Australians, women held significant political as well as social and economic power.

Yes, this is exactly the kind of pitfall I think we should be concerned about.

[blanc]

I read into this (perhaps wrongly) a literal Darwinism, in the sense of its being a possible theoretical construct to pin around the leap in cognitive development - bigger brained offspring needing more care and all that. In any Darwinist theory conflict and selection feature. Perhaps by considering what may be pre-disposing forces in our nature, and considering their origin, we can also consider if those same forces or cultural mores still serve any useful purpose. I was more saying 'look, perhaps society got like this because a power struggle happened, and we're still acting as though that same power struggle was necessary to our species' survival' .

[American Dream]

I personally think we should be open to feminist narratives, darwinian narratives, as well as marxian, anarchist etc. etc.

What's important then is to go over each with a fine toothed comb, find what makes sense- discard the rest and then try to put them all together into one meaningful whole...

[American Dream]

I found this through a bit of searching:

http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.c ... tionalism/

A Criticism Of Evolutionary Psychology’s Functionalism
April 14, 2011

The article:
NEUROSCIENCE AND THE FALLACIES OF FUNCTIONALISM, Reddy WM, HISTORY AND THEORY Volume: 49 Issue: 3 Pages: 412-425 Published: OCT 20

It is a discussion of:
On Deep History and the Brain. By Daniel Lord Smail. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008. Pp. 286.


Supposing it is right, the criticism below is very telling. You should be able to understand the sense of “functionalism” in the context of the quote below. It is, roughly, explaining some typical behavior by attributing a particular function to it. Though Smail’s work looks very feminist friendly from the quote below, one should know that the article goes on to claim Smail makes the very mistake he describes.

Smail is well aware of parallel controversies over functionalism in the fields
of evolutionary biology, sociobiology, and evolutionary psychology. He offers
a lively account of Stephen Jay Gould’s attack on adaptationism. Not every trait
is adaptive, Gould insisted; not every piece of DNA has been sculpted by the
struggle for survival. Our chromosomes are full of free riders, Gould argued, with
plenty of evidence to back his view. Smail is keenly aware that both sociobiology
and evolutionary psychology rely on purely speculative functional explanations of
behavior. They remain speculative because they generate no testable hypotheses.

Quite simply, current neuroscience is incapable of grasping structure at the level
that would be necessary to identify a genetically based behavior pattern that could
be subjected to evolutionary pressure. It is not even clear at what level in the brain
one would look for the behavioral “modules” that evolutionary psychologists
posit. Smail rightly critiques David Buss, for example, a prominent evolutionary
psychologist. Buss maintained that modern women display a preference for older,
financially secure men because, over the eons of human evolution, it was adaptive
for women to select men who could provide for them. However, as Smail
points out, ethnographic research on hunter-gatherer societies shows women to
be the principal food producers. The men who hunt in such societies often share
the meat among themselves, as well, before coming home. It therefore does not
matter whom one is married to; one gets the same share. If such societies are any
guide to past practices, then there was no evolutionary pressure of the kind Buss
proposed. Smail notes, as well, that Buss’s reliance on personal ads of the early
1990s—the main source of evidence for his study—provided a skewed account
of present-day practice (141-143). Smail goes further, reasonably arguing that it
is very unlikely that behavior “modules,” such as a female preference for older
men, could be selected for. There is not enough DNA in human chromosomes to
code all the “modules” deployed by the average human community, for one thing.

Even if there were, it is hard to see how selective pressures could be exerted on
individual modules, given the way they must interlock in a community’s collective
endeavors.