Quote :

The writer mentions the wider world, conveniently forgetting the major obstacles that feminism encountered when it tried it's predominately middle-class white perspectives on a broader stage. It reminds me of Marx's famous exhortation: "Workers of the World Unite!” That didn't work because the 'worker' as a recognised unit only existed in his head. The same with most women, who have far more going for them than their gender. 'Genital mutilation' is mentioned as an example of continuing patriarchy, ignoring the plethora of issues that surround the practice. In some parts, attempts by men to limit the prevalence and degree of female circumcision have been rejected by women as patriarchal interference.

Where do we stand on feminism? Does anyone accept that feminism has run its course, either by achieving all its goals or by running itself into the ground?
905

Great OP 905: one of the best here, in my view, although I don't agree with all of it.

We have a thread here in which i said that women live longer than men in almost all states - only in collapsed economies do women do worse than men. Is this perhaps because women are to some extent seen as property, in the same way that slaves were at times better cared for than open market employees? On the other hand, it is clear that power is mainly in the hands of men, and that women are oppressed in many ways, from generally being demeaned as a lesser breed to physical violence within relationships and selective abortion of female children.

I don't think I agree that either workers or women are not really existing categories, perhaps you would clarify more of what you mean by that.

My understanding of Marx is that he considered that the way women are treated in society is a litmus test for how advanced or otherwise that society is.

https://www.polisci.berkeley.edu/grad/GradConference/papers/2007/9%20Reiner%20Marx.pdf

He didn't think gender relations were an issue in themselves that would drive revolutionary change and did not believe that socialism would entirely solve inequality, which he considered to go very deep within social relations.

Quote :

By making all human relations based on principles of exchange, capitalism ensured that sexual inequality must be subsumed by class conflict.

Like John Stuary Mill and others, Marx considered bourgeois marriage to be a form of prostitution. This was more overt in an era when a lot of marriages were arranged for property related reasons, but would apertain as long as women were financially unequal.

Quote :

The problem with bourgeois marriage, then, is that it treats wives as “instruments of production” and women as common property.36 In effect, bourgeois marriage is neither a true marriage nor a real relationship. Any relationship in which one, or both, of the partners is “objectified” cannot be a relationship and is, rather, an exchange or a commercial transaction.

(quote from the linked article on Marx's views)

A meeting of the G20:

bump

I'm afraid I don't know much about Marx's attitudes towards women. I have a big problem with his remark 'workers of the world unite'. As history illustrates it didn't work and there's no reason it ever should. I'm sure the worker as a unit is fine for theories, but very few people look at themselves in the mirror and see themselves as a 'worker'. A builder, or an accountant perhaps, but rarely in the generalised term as Marx meant it. Trade unions are still mostly organised along occcupational lines are they not?

It is the same with women, in my opinion. Of course they exist as a category. They even exist as a unit of self-identity to a much larger extent then men. But in the greater scheme of things, women are more likely to regard themselves as 'Irish' or 'bus-drivers' or 'wives' before they regard themselves as 'women'. Feel free to correct me of course, but I argue that the amount of women who regard themselves first and foremost as women is in the minority. And I'm just thinking of Western women, who've been exposed to feminist thought for over a century now. And who, quite frankly, have little better to be doing. I'm sorry if that's being disrespectful, but there's a reason it's mostly well-off people that are concerned with these things. When you have to work or struggle to provide for a family you're far less concerned with how many women ministers there are (and of you want an example of how pointless that measure is, look at Berlusconi's cabinet and tell me he's a feminist!).

I'm reminded of an article Ian O'Doherty wrote some time ago when he criticised (quite rightly) the amount of corruption in some parts of the world and the pointlessness of sending financial aid to certain governments. He highlighted the terrible state of schools and hospitals over there. He then suggested that no money be sent to a country unless they bring about gay rights, democracy and equality for women. Now, two things. One: these reforms, while important, do nothing to help schools and hospitals. They don't prevent corruption. Second: many people, including myself, would argue that we in Ireland have yet to fully implement any of his reforms. So what is the point in lecturing to others in a far worse position to enact them? My point is that some parts have far bigger problems then gender inequality. Who are we to burden with our own unmet expectations? And that's not just being relativistic, it's being realistic.

905 wrote:

I'm afraid I don't know much about Marx's attitudes towards women. I have a big problem with his remark 'workers of the world unite'. As history illustrates it didn't work and there's no reason it ever should. I'm sure the worker as a unit is fine for theories, but very few people look at themselves in the mirror and see themselves as a 'worker'. A builder, or an accountant perhaps, but rarely in the generalised term as Marx meant it. Trade unions are still mostly organised along occcupational lines are they not?

Do you have much to do with working class people? In Ireland maybe less so, but in the UK the expression "working class and proud of it" is still current.

Quote :

It is the same with women, in my opinion. Of course they exist as a category. They even exist as a unit of self-identity to a much larger extent then men.

I think that people are more gender differentiated than you suggest. Look at the photo. You can tell they are men because they have man hair cuts, man suits, man shoes and man jobs.

Quote :

But in the greater scheme of things, women are more likely to regard themselves as 'Irish' or 'bus-drivers' or 'wives' before they regard themselves as 'women'. Feel free to correct me of course, but I argue that the amount of women who regard themselves first and foremost as women is in the minority. And I'm just thinking of Western women, who've been exposed to feminist thought for over a century now. And who, quite frankly, have little better to be doing. I'm sorry if that's being disrespectful, but there's a reason it's mostly well-off people that are concerned with these things. When you have to work or struggle to provide for a family you're far less concerned with how many women ministers there are (and of you want an example of how pointless that measure is, look at Berlusconi's cabinet and tell me he's a feminist!).

In an ideal situation, gender would not be an issue at work. The things that make women at work remember they are women are, speaking for myself, the rare occasions when I feel discriminated against and woman stuff, mainly to do with being a mother.

Quote :

I'm reminded of an article Ian O'Doherty wrote some time ago when he criticised (quite rightly) the amount of corruption in some parts of the world and the pointlessness of sending financial aid to certain governments. He highlighted the terrible state of schools and hospitals over there. He then suggested that no money be sent to a country unless they bring about gay rights, democracy and equality for women. Now, two things. One: these reforms, while important, do nothing to help schools and hospitals. They don't prevent corruption. Second: many people, including myself, would argue that we in Ireland have yet to fully implement any of his reforms. So what is the point in lecturing to others in a far worse position to enact them? My point is that some parts have far bigger problems then gender inequality. Who are we to burden with our own unmet expectations? And that's not just being relativistic, it's being realistic.

Totally agree. Beware of O'Dohertys bearing gifts.

cactus flower wrote:

Do you have much to do with working class people? In Ireland maybe less so, but in the UK the expression "working class and proud of it" is still current.

I've just spent all day pouring concrete. With a driver, a block-layer, an apprentice-farmer and a quarryman. Not one of them was 'working class'. And I don't know about much the British but we all saw what they did when the war came. Dooty is dooty.

cactus flower wrote:

I think that people are more gender differentiated than you suggest. Look at the photo. You can tell they are men because they have man hair cuts, man suits, man shoes and man jobs.

But do they think of themselves, self-consciously, as men? It's something men rarely do, anymore than I think of myself as white, or as an Irish-speaker. Women do it more, but not enough to really bring about change, and certainly not all across the world.

Quote :

cactus flower wrote:

Do you have much to do with working class people? In Ireland maybe less so, but in the UK the expression "working class and proud of it" is still current.

I've just spent all day pouring concrete. With a driver, a block-layer, an apprentice-farmer and a quarryman. Not one of them was 'working class'. And I don't know about much the British but we all saw what they did when the war came. Dooty is dooty.

When the war came, a lot of people opposed it and other people were convinced it was a war against fascism. When they came back they got themselves a National Health Service, Red Brick Universities and housing, through their "working class organisations" - TUs and the Labour Party.

Quote :

cactus flower wrote:

I think that people are more gender differentiated than you suggest. Look at the photo. You can tell they are men because they have man hair cuts, man suits, man shoes and man jobs.

But do they think of themselves, self-consciously, as men? It's something men rarely do, anymore than I think of myself as white, or as an Irish-speaker. Women do it more, but not enough to really bring about change, and certainly not all across the world.

That may vary from person to person, I suppose and at different times of the day, or times of life.

A national health service is all well and good but look at it now. I won't detail the state of the Labour Party. Classic divide and rule - offer half a concession and watch the opposition wither. The workers got their half-arsed concessions and the capitalists got to sleep easy and carry on screwing them. Same with women, we give ye a few token gestures and feminism is largely dead all of a sudden.

Individual identities vary all the time and are context-ridden. But on a social scale they should coalesce into something more stable and more potent. Overall, there hasn't been any great revolt of workers and there hasn't been any great revolt of women.

905 wrote:

A national health service is all well and good but look at it now. I won't detail the state of the Labour Party. Classic divide and rule - offer half a concession and watch the opposition wither. The workers got their half-arsed concessions and the capitalists got to sleep easy and carry on screwing them. Same with women, we give ye a few token gestures and feminism is largely dead all of a sudden.

Individual identities vary all the time and are context-ridden. But on a social scale they should coalesce into something more stable and more potent. Overall[b], there hasn't been any great revolt of workers and there hasn't been any great revolt of women.

That all sounds quite gender and class concious to me, 905

cactus flower wrote:

905 wrote:

A national health service is all well and good but look at it now. I won't detail the state of the Labour Party. Classic divide and rule - offer half a concession and watch the opposition wither. The workers got their half-arsed concessions and the capitalists got to sleep easy and carry on screwing them. Same with women, we give ye a few token gestures and feminism is largely dead all of a sudden.

Individual identities vary all the time and are context-ridden. But on a social scale they should coalesce into something more stable and more potent. Overall[b], there hasn't been any great revolt of workers and there hasn't been any great revolt of women.

That all sounds quite gender and class concious to me, 905

Could you elaborate on that remark cactus? I think you meant to highlight something. At any rate, it's not important what I'm conscious of, it's what the general social movement is consciousness of.

I never thought I'd hear you stand up for the status quo.

905 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Do you have much to do with working class people? In Ireland maybe less so, but in the UK the expression "working class and proud of it" is still current.

I've just spent all day pouring concrete. With a driver, a block-layer, an apprentice-farmer and a quarryman. Not one of them was 'working class'. And I don't know about much the British but we all saw what they did when the war came. Dooty is dooty.

And they're still very proud of it, too.

905 wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I think that people are more gender differentiated than you suggest. Look at the photo. You can tell they are men because they have man hair cuts, man suits, man shoes and man jobs.

But do they think of themselves, self-consciously, as men? It's something men rarely do, anymore than I think of myself as white, or as an Irish-speaker. Women do it more, but not enough to really bring about change, and certainly not all across the world.

Any man who self-consciously identifies as a man is immediately suspect. Electro on p.ie is a good example - what he really means is that he's a misogynist a*hole.

Well there's nothing wrong with it, and it's probably served them a whole lot better than Marxist utopianism.

Femininity is a 'marked' identity, like being Black in the States, or being Catholic in Britain. I'm forever saying this. And indeed all of them at one point or other had a little social movement for recognition, with varied results. My point is that for all their markedness, women still haven't a hope of creating a general feminist consciousness, and any momentum the feminist movement had (which waas restricted mainly to the West anyway) is now largely gone.

I don't trust a man who doesn't curse ibis.

905 wrote:

Well there's nothing wrong with it, and it's probably served them a whole lot better than Marxist utopianism.

Femininity is a 'marked' identity, like being Black in the States, or being Catholic in Britain. I'm forever saying this. And indeed all of them at one point or other had a little social movement for recognition, with varied results. My point is that for all their markedness, women still haven't a hope of creating a general feminist consciousness, and any momentum the feminist movement had (which waas restricted mainly to the West anyway) is now largely gone.

I don't trust a man who doesn't curse ibis.

Everyone curses Ibis