Re: Women's Oppression (Violence against women)

["T. Flinck" <tflinck@xxxxxxxxx>]

Call me a non-expert on the subject matter of violence
against women...

What are your thoughts on the subject?  I made a
statement in a class about how I think the problem
lies in the emergence of private property (women being
viewed as property).  However, someone disagreed with
that statement and said...it has been around before
that.  Anyone have any thoughts on the issue.
Furthermore, what are some solutions to the problem?

Thanks in advance.
--- P Chandra <prchandra10@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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,
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
http://shopping.yahoo.com