The Great Wall in women’s movement – Feminism vs Women’s movement

ارسال به بالاترین

The following paragraphs in italic were my status statements on Facebook. They generated a debate around women’s movement and feminism in particular. Considering the limitations for a thorough debate on FB, consider the following as an outline of my points. It requires a lot of elaboration. I’ll make this outline available just as a reference to my stand. This is not a proof of my points.

Feminism is NOT equal to women’s movement even if it claims “Marxist Feminist”. Feminism is the ultra right trend in Women’s movement while socialism is the left of Women’s movement.

Feminism is like reverse racism. Rather than pointing at the suppressing factor of women on the social context, it blames male gender. It tries to ‘prove’ the superiority of women over men. It praises M. Thatcher & Rafsanjani’s daughter & Mousavi’s wife but it finds the raped men in IRI prisons as its enemies. Feminism serves nothing but to keep suppressors in power and to keep the inequality of women maintained

A) Women’s movement is not equal to feminism. Feminism as a matter of fact is the most reactionary section of that movement.

B) Women’s movement is a self-dependent movement, that is, regardless of working class or otherwise other societal movements exists.

C) As much as the movement to gain rights for women is a sef-dependent, there is no homogenous defintion of « feminism » nor solutions. As a matter of fact the differences between trends within the women’s movement is reflective of the class society we live in, The women’s movement that we know of, emerged out of struggles of organized working women. It has since gained a number of formal rights (right to vote, right to equal wages, right to work & equal positions, etc) within the hotbed of socialism.

D) Feminism regardless of its branches has to identify itself. It has chosen to base itself on the superiority of women over men

F) Regardless how feminism is defined by who, feminism is not anymore a subjective concept in 60s that anyone can choose how to define and write a book about it. We’re talking about an objective reactionary trend that has its office next door to the White House and its lobbyists keep getting rewarded by US presidents prize to promote US interests in Afghanisitan/Iran/Suadi Arabia/US and elsewhere.

Feminism, abstracted form prefixes, is nothing but a reactionary, ultra right trend within the women’s movement. Not only it doesn’t serve anything in favor of women, it guarantees the women suppression by pointing at the wrong cause. Like the dominant trend in “black movement” in Norht America that blames “white trash” for racism feminism blames men for women suppression. Like the “black movement” in N. America, feminism is reverse racism.

Like communism is to working class – a trend-, feminism is to women’s movement, a trend. Unlike communism that is a fundamental critique of capitalism, a revolt against the system, feminism is to maintain inequality of women.

Unlike reformism that is a real, live, strong trend in working class seeking a better living under capitalism, feminism lacks a vision for a reform in favor of women as a whole.

I have to elaborate. It is always easier to use mainstream concepts to make a “common sense” statement. I’m therefore asking to bear with me to make my non-mainstream point:

Unlike what Marxist-feminist claims: “private property, which gives rise to economic inequality, dependence, political confusion and ultimately unhealthy social relations between men and women, is the root of women’s oppression in the current social context”, women inequality is not a necessity of private ownership. No where in Marx Capital or else there is such statement that “women must be suppressed in order for capital to exist”. In other words, while capitalism maintains the inequality of women and it has benefits from it (i.e. cheap labor) it must not have the inequality of women in order for capital to function.

In other words, women’s inequality is a) exists in and by itself, under the gender segregation banner b) women’s formal equality is potentially possible to achieve even in a capitalist system.

Gender segregation is a suppression carried out from the pre-capitalist society. Capitalism takes full advantage of that. It however did not create it. It existed and capitalism uses it, reproduces it. We don’t have to wait for a woman cry in order to reply to them. We have to take the equality banner to face the problem. This is basically the main difference between a practical communism and the isolated, ineffective, theoretical communism.

Once as a communist, i.e. a freedom and equal seeking element of society, you are ready to tackle the issue, here is what you face: Feminism says the suppression on women is based on the biological differences between woman and man. Feminism just happens to favor the superiority of woman over the man hence fascist like « studies » about the « higher quality of woman’s brain ». A socialist says the women issue lies in a social context. It is a matter of getting control over the reproduction of human. In the process of the control, the suppressors need to prove the inferiority of women.

The resolution coming out of these two critiques are a world apart.

Feminism is not just about dividing humans into gender enemies but its goal is fitted within the framework of capitalism. Feminism is in accordance to capitlaism needs. When the women workers are needed in the workforce as a result of the need for absolute labor that creats the profit, « all of a sudden » feminism remember that women must work in 60s. Feminism fights and hightlights the need of female soldiers in US army. It doesn’t cross its mind that that army is supposed to suppress us. Feminism is exposed once the meaning of equality is defined. Feminism as its best seeks for equal formal rights within the framework of the current unjust system. However, feminism can not even achieve those formal rights within the law because it is too busy to campaign for « democrats » . It wants to tell us that “law” is determined on the presidential palace, in the parliament house, or in other words in the governing aparathus of capitalism. Feminism is conciously unable to see that law is the current balance between the forces of the opposing classes in society.

Feminism Mecca, i.e. presidential palaces and parliaments are to be fought against, pushed around, not to beg from. No Miss Thatcher, No Miss Hillary Clinton, No Miss Rafsanjani are going to ever favor women even within the framework of law. As a matter of fact they represent suppressors of women and are “up there” as a response to our fights from the bottom.

We socialists are seeking both formal rights for women withing the capitalist society and at the same time striving for the ultimate equality for all. We have no illusions that we must impose the right to vote for women, having maternity leave, equal wages, the right to be represented, rights for equal positions, etc and we know that none of these are achieveble unless by mobilizing the force that can change the law, a political movement backed by or from within the wealth crating workers where majority of women belong to.

Like reverse racism, feminism is to delude women where the issue lies. Feminism does not only represent women’s movement it is to stop it form gaining equal rights in the current system.

As much as women’s suppression is a self-existing issue, the perspectives to address it is not. Like other existing political trends, the forces that address inequality of women are polarized. Bill Clinton’s “Eleanor Roosevelt” award and its feminist branch maintained by presidential feminists is to serve the Karzai anti-women female minister who receives the award. Michaelle Jean, the black female canadian governor, who single handedly operated a quo d’etat in Canada in favor of right wing Harper in December 2008, is the icon of feminism.

Islamic-feminism is a production of “cultural relativism” applied by feminists. Beijing forth world conference on women that hailed Hilary Clinton is dominated by feminists. Feminism hatred toward men does not end there. Feminism has no care for children. Its “pro-choice” policy rather than trying to address an unwanted child – a human – in a civilized manner and under the circumstances created by capitalism, is justified by denying the fact that what you get rid of is a human. Well, the list can go on. It is not possible to get into all details of feminism over these tiny boxes.

Meanwhile never give up the fight for women’s rights.

Posted on a note on Facebook on March 4, 2010