Re: From Patriarchy to Sexism (was Re: incompleteabstractionvs.empiricism)

[Diane Monaco <dmonaco@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yoshie wrote:

> What needs to be explained, however, is change -- the change from
> patriarchy (an ideology of universal subordination) to sexism (an
> ideology born to justify a _special case_ of unfreedom & inequality
> _in the face of the revolutionary bourgeois theory of political
> liberty & equality for all_).
>
>
> Charles wrote:

> Perhaps it can be explained similarly to the origin of capitalist slavery
> and eventually racism, which occurred at about the same time as the change
> Yoshie describes. At the original accumulation of capitalism, the new
> bourgeoisie hit upon combining wage-labor and oppressed-labor in one mode
> of production or division of labor. Oppressed-labor included unpaid
> women's labor , and sexist ideology was its rationalization. Similarly,
> racist/white supremacist ideology was the rationalization of the
> enslavement of Africans, and the colonialization of the colored peoples of
> the world. Both of these special false consciousnesses or ideologies were
> necessary to overcome the simultaneous general revolutionary bourgeois
> theory of political liberty and equality for all , as Yoshie mentions.
> That is there was need for a special rationalization for making women and
> people of color an exception to the general ideology of equality, as in
> the Declaration of Independence , etc.




I agree that these are very important questions but they are not the only
questions we should be asking to find new directions for change.  The
problem I see with focusing only on what capitalism has done to transform
oppression, is that it hides and neglects deeply rooted foundational
oppressions (that have not been transformed) that are still lurking below
feeding the newly transformed oppressions.  Suppose you have an individual
who has made a life out of smoking, drinking pop, eating twinkies, and
being in general sedentary.  And through the duration of this physically
unhealthy environment the individual is sluggish, unproductive, irritable,
unpleasant, and unattractive which in turn creates second round effects of
unpleasant social relations.  Furthermore, this unhealthy environment along
with the second round unhealthy and stressful effects bring heart disease
and cancer to this individual's body.

Now I ask, in attempting to help this poor individual, what is
important?  Is the important question here heart disease and
cancer?  Should we focus on what is the best way to perform heart bypass
surgery? Or is surgery better than chemotherapy to treat the cancer?  Does
treating the heart disease and cancer solve the problem?  Are the
unpleasant and stressful social relations this "repaired" individual will
go back to the problem?  Does this bypass and surgical rescue give the
individual a false sense of security, perhaps fostering even more smoking,
pop drinking, and twinkie eating?

I am offering that it is the smoking, pop drinking, and twinkie eating that
are fostering the unpleasant social relations, heart disease and cancer for
the individual.  I am saying that unhealthy eating and drinking and smoking
are causing these potentially deadly environments.  So I don't agree with
Carrol when he says it is tautological to point to the unhealthy facets of
this individual life as a explanation for why unhealthy social relations,
heart disease and cancer may development and be perpetuated.  I don't agree
with Carrol that drinking pop and eating twinkies is natural :-)

Initial primordial separations (humans from nature, humans from animals,
humans from humans) provided a foundation that promoted greedy,
insensitive, exploitative, and oppressive behavior from which slavery,
patriarchy, feudalism, merchant activities, whatever could develop --
capitalism followed from this same environment.  Yes, capitalism has
transformed slavery, patriarchy, etc into other forms of oppression but
they do still linger.

Why did these initial separations occur?  I suppose they are the result of
humans attempting to buffer themselves from the harshness of nature (find a
cave - build a cave) which is really quite natural and innocent.  And from
these successes at controlling nature, confidence and the desire to control
even more probably grew into the animal realm (domestication of
animals).  These practices are often harsh fostering insensitivity.  I
remember the harsh realization as small child learning that the chicken I
was eating for dinner was the same chicken I saw running around on a farm
-- I was appalled!  But I eventually became desensitized as we were all
eating it and I had no choice.  Then during my teenage years when I had to
prepare the dinner for my family sometimes requiring me to cut the raw
chicken myself -- I was again appalled!  But I eventually became
desensitized at another level, and so on.

So going back to my story I don't think you can stop the cancer and heart
disease without understanding that the unhealthy lifestyle is promoting
it.  Patriarchy and slavery may have been transformed under capitalism to
sexism and racism, respectively, but the elements of patriarchy and slavery
are still there.  The break up of socialist economic systems has led to a
reversion back to patriarchy, slavery in some sense, and mercantile style
profiteering schemes facilitating illegal flows between production and
consumption.  The rise of trafficking in women which includes sexual
slavery is a case in point.


Diane