Re: Women's Oppression

["P Chandra" <prchandra10@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Diane,

Allow me to express my happiness in getting a quick response to my
communication and a hearty thanks, as your response has initiated me in the
'activism' of m-fem.

1. I do accept that 'the emancipation of consciousness increases a
RECOGNITION of the incidences', and which results in an increase in the
reporting of incidences. But I reiterate that the actual occurrence of
incidences too increases, as the tide of politico-economic assertion of
women rises. Because, to the domestic violence is added the workplace
incidences, to the consensual hegemonic practice of male supremacy (as an
expression of patriarchal status quo) is added the coercive (offensive)
measures against feminine assertion (i.e., patriarchal 'reactionary
onslaught').  And, the nature of incidences becomes variegated too
(obviously, overtly all of them target the feminine sexuality, and can be
classified under this general category) - the psychological and physical
impairment/incapacitation of individual women become the conscious motive of
the acts. Further, the sharp division in a society, expressed in a virtual
class war, provides new semantics to the violence against women - as, for
example, the chief of a particular army of the kulaks and landlords in Bihar
(India) justified the killing of pregnant dalit (agricultural labour) women
by targeting their wombs and mutilating their sexual parts, saying that they
symbolize revolution and by aborting them a whole generation of
revolutionaries is aborted.

2. I accept that 'all feminists have something valuable to add to the
discourse'. But the point which I would make is that there is not any
generalised patriarchal system; like any other institution (religion,
cultural forms, etc.), patriarchy is formally taken and radically
transformed to be utilised as a machinery to build up the safety valve for
the existing politico-economic system. Hence, there cannot be a general
strategy to fight against all patriarchies. Today, as we speak and struggle,
it is the capitalist patriarchy, which predominates, for the remnants of
earlier ones are 'formally subjugated' giving a new meaning to their
persistence, as in the Gulf and other late capitalist countries. And, this
allows a global struggle against capitalist patriarchy. But the solution is
not within the system, because any economic system has a 'systemic' language
to express itself socio-politically, and patriarchy is an essential feature
of that language. Hence annihilation of 'this' patriarchy would definitely
mean a struggle against capitalism.  This, further entails, that the
fundamentals of the anti-capitalist struggle will characterise the struggle
against patriarchy, the class conflict would form the core of even the
latter.

3. I stress that Non-Marxist Feminists are utopians when they envisage that
there can be a long-term homogeneous struggle for women's emancipation as
they conceive, it is this fact that tempers their concrete programme of
action which can not go beyond a few reformist measures (which are
undoubtedly necessary and possible too). This is their limitation. Their
movement do not account for the solution to the exploitation of women
workers, as a part of the general working class movement. Hence, they do not
account for the majority of women. It is in this sense that their conception
of the emancipation of women becomes furthermore utopian.   Eco-feminists
and other schools of feminism have definitely played a major role in
mobilisation and organisation of the recent anti-globalisation debates and
protests, and, especially, in the third world, they have actively identified
themselves with the farmers and all kinds of self-employed community based
production systems. But, it is here that the problem lies - they identify
themselves more with the classes whose 'class capacities' are based on the
control of production process, rather than, the proletarians whose
capacities are based on associational logic or collectivity (see, Levine &
Lembcke (eds.), 'Recapturing Marxism', 1987 & Lembcke, Capitalist
Development and Class Capacities, 1988). They cannot 'move beyond'
representing individual economic and political rights. So at decisive,
critical turns of 'people's movements', they fumble.

When the petty bourgeois leadership of mainstream women's movement (even,
the leftist ones) in India refuses to organise the domestic labour, as a
worker's organisation, and stresses on the consciousness-raising of the
'middle class' women regarding the issue, thus forestalling the very issue
of organisation for an indefinite period, it is but natural to see a class
limitation there. When the whole movement is geared at the sole issue of
seat reservation for women in the parliament, leaving aside the issues
concerning the swelling number of casual/contractual women workers, then we
see this variety of feminism to be problematic. But this does not mean a
diminution of their contribution, be they socio-politically limited. It is
only to say that "a feminist movement that wants to speak to 'maids' as well
as their professional 'mistresses'" will need to address the experience and
possibilities of feminism to labour (Leo Panitch, REFLECTIONS ON STRATEGY
FOR LABOUR, Socialist Register, 2001).

4. Yes, questioning capitalism does not mean questioning patriarchy, in
general. There can be a non-capitalist patriarchy, too. Gender struggle goes
beyond capitalism. In other words, it simply means that the struggle against
capitalism is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition for
complete abolition of patriarchy. But, there is something more than this,
the proletarian struggle against capitalism - which essentially means, the
resolution of the antagonism of social production and private appropriation,
the de-alienation of human creativity from human beings, and the struggle
for socialisation of means of production, includes an abolition of
patriarchy. In the transitional systems the patriarchy could persist, and so
could socio-ethnic hierarchy, but the struggle against them would be
sharper, they would be consciously fought against, as the material base
would already be 'de-ideologised'. There can never be a socialist
patriarchy.

I regret such a long reply, and still somewhat unclear, disproportionate
remarks, which definitely would be illuminated by your critical
communications.

Once again I thank you.

Pritha Chandra,
Jawharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi (India)


A note on RAWA - True, RAWA's struggles are exemplary, and one can really
learn a lot from them. In fact, it was/is the only force questioning the
Taliban rule and even future alliances from people's perspective. But, its
recent support for Zahir Shah's enthronement, even in the name of stability,
is definitely unsettling, not because there is a moral problem or that of
principle in supporting monarchy, which is obviously there, but essentially,
because it is not at all a stable solution.  The people of Afghanistan
would not accept it because the Pashtun nationalism, especially, views Shah
to be more Western than an Afghan, who rose from slumber only when the
US/Britain summoned him, and for others he was never their representative.
(Refer RAWA's statement at the Conference of the All India Democratic
Women's Association (AIDWA), and later, the statement of Ms. Sahar Saba of
RAWA, which was made at a Press Conference in New Delhi reported in the
Indian newspapers on 1st Dec.)

Pritha, JNU, New Delhi