Re: AUT: Re: Fortunati

["cwright" <cwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Harald,

Actually, Fortunadi was not trying to add to the 'prophets' (always a bit
catty on that, eh Harald?).  She was trying to critique the insufficiency of
Marx's analysis in capital for failing to adequately take up the specificity
of women's relation to the capital-labor relation.  As such, it is an
attempt at a radical critique of Marx which seeks to keep what is valuable,
but correct what is wrong.

As for the necessity of sexual inequality, since capital relies on non-waged
or indirectly waged labor as much as waged labor, but treats non- or
indirectly -waged labor as inferior, that alone would lead to sexual
inequality under capital's rule.  Capital is not simply generative of class
division in the waged workplace, but in the unwaged workplace, too: the
home.  Fortunadi's point is that in the home, capital exploits women's
labor, but through the mediation of men, ie men do not become capitalists,
but the medium through which capital exploits women.  This is the core of
sexual oppression, alongside prostitution which is the regeneration of male
labor power outside the home.  This seems no less true today than ever
before, since the vast mass of prostitution, male and female, exists to sate
male sexual drives, and rarely, very rarely, female sexual drives.

Cheers,
Chris

ps  Exhortations to read books seem to be an ongoing mania and, as always,
comes off as obtuse and bellicose, rather than thoughtful.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harald Beyer-Arnesen" <haraldba@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2002 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Fortunati


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <CAPTAINSHAYD@xxxxxxx>
> To: <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 26. august 2002 15.16
> Subject: Re: AUT: Re: Fortunati
>
>
> > read engels the origins of the family private property and the state
>
>
> I have not read FortunatI's book. But  I suspect she wrote
> it because she thought she had something to add to the
> prophets of the Old Testament.
>         Personally, I do not believe that male/female inequality
> is *necessary* for the functioning of the capitalist mode of
> production. But then I don't know her arguments in support
> of this viewpoint.
>
> Harald
>
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---