socialist feminism

Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › socialist feminism

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • May 15, 2019 at 1:44 pm #101385
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    feminism:https://tribunemag.co.uk/2019/05/why-we-need-a-socialist-feminism

    “…I want to reflect on what I think are some of the challenges and opportunities facing our sex in 2019. I am worried about feminism. I am worried because I feel like there is a runaway train, taking it down a neoliberal track which is devoid of class politics and which is burying some of the more difficult conversations about what is happening to women. Capitalism has its grip on women’s bodies, every day distorting what it is to be beautiful, changing the rules like an abusive partner….
    …
    …..We are fed a fluffy, celebrity version of feminism which too often roots out and dissolves the conflict necessary to confront our oppression. We are encouraged to worship women who have become successful through their sexual image, or women who have become inordinately wealthy. As socialist women we should view the liberation of our class and our sex in terms of equality and justice in a society where there will be no billionaires but instead freedom to succeed in any avenue of our choosing. Because we know that in order to become a billionaire, you have to steal from the mouths of our sisters.

    Our liberation, our freedom, is inextricably linked with the economic system and we should never forget that. I cannot see the attraction of a feminism which does not have a class analysis at its heart and which does not encourage and nurture conflict with the prevailing order. Because if it doesn’t, it will automatically exclude millions of working-class women in this country, and the billions of women across the globe whose economic oppression is their fundamental reality.

    If I’m being frank, I am not bothered how many women CEOs there are if they are not also interested in women workers owning the wealth they produce. I do not care if the Prime Minister is a woman if her policies drive other women into what has been commonly termed as survival sex (or women being prostituted as an economic reality of this broken system). I am not interested in how many of the FTSE 100 companies have women at the top if those same women exploit other women and keep them in poverty pay….” see link

    May 16, 2019 at 10:51 am #101405
    Avatar photoBilly_T
    Participant

    To me, it boils down to this:

    An agenda that concentrates on one’s “share” of the 1% sustains the existing system of oppression.

    Yes, it’s obviously the case that women and minorities are discriminated against when it comes to climbing the ladder, and a host of other things. But doesn’t it make a lot more sense to do away with the ladder itself? If there is no ladder to climb, no pyramids to support, no neck-breaking hierarchies to fight through . . . the distance between genders, ethnicities, etc. etc. is already radically shortened.

    We could have perfect “equity” between all those categories, but as long as we maintain hierarchical structures, we’ll always have massive inequality overall. We’ll still have a ginormous difference between top to bottom, obviously.

    And another negative side-effect: The “natural” agents of positive change, currently, are women and minorities. The ruling class wants to co-opt them and turn them away from being agents for change, and into agents to support the existing structures. The “lean in” and “know your value” movements feed into this, at least unwittingly.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.