Re: bourgeois feminism?

[Chris Brady <cdbrady@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There exists, in my view, and a few other marxists on this list, such a
phenomenon as "Bourgeois Feminism" in North America, at least, as
opposed to marxist feminism.  As a feminst and a marxist, I do not think
a marxist that uses the phrase "bourgeois feminism" these days believes
that feminism is of itself bourgeois.  In fact, several publications
from the marxist sector have as their manifest the inclusion of
"feminist" among other descriptors.  They certainly do not demand the
inclusion of women on the boards of multinational corporations.  The
salvation of our species--among others!--depends on the reorganization
of the world's economy based on the common good.

On another tack, along the same course, it has occured to me as of late
that we may be overlooking a serious development in North America, a
development that is being utilized, in a typically blind fashion,
politically by the most reactionary, and religious, elements of the the
politcal spectrum in the USA.  That is the crisis of "the family."  An
almost 50% divorce rate has incurred the moralist denunciation from the
pulpits and platforms of the really wrong right.  Rather than address
the material needs of women and children they would corral them into
associations against their will so as to conform to their patriarchal
notions of how our species must reproduce.  And in doing so ignore their
basic, material needs as fellow humans.  They put the cart before the
horse (an apt maxim in this situation, although fusty).  We should
demand that "we" take care of ourselves.

It occurs to me that one of the things that happened in Cuba after the
revolution was a leap in divorces.  This occasioned a predictable
reaction from the sanctimonious sermonizers of the USA with excoriations
of communist debauchery and wantoness.  But it seems that as soon as
women and men were guaranteed the material necessities of life they
found they were also freed from the economic coercion of living in
oppressive personal situations.

It is quite likely, based on a life expectancy in North America that has
increased substantially in the past two hundred years, that people are
finding that we are not all of the mold that stamps out identical,
life-long monogamous, reproductive dyads.  How many of us live
relatively short lives in villages surrounded by people we've known
since birth, with relatively few strangers about?  How many of us know
people trapped in unfulfilling "marriages" because of economic reasons?
How much acrimony could be vaporized, and children's lives made more
bearable, if we assured emotionally riven pairs that they would not be
cast upon financial reefs by their liberation?  I am also reminded of
the recent findings about how many children are pushed into having
neither parent take part in their daily lives because of welfare
"reforms" --literally abandoned by their impoverished mothers, not for
lack of love, but for lack of financial support necessary to raise
children decently (see the weekend NYTimes).  Maybe we should delve
deeper into the material causes of social phenomena while keeping in
mind the famous addage: "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its
classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which
the free development of each is the condition for the free development
of all."

As far as marriage goes, perhaps that holy union should be challenged in
the context of our critique of capitalism as well. Current controversy
in Canada about "same sex marriage" really brings to the fore the legal
economic ramifications of marriage in bourgeois society.  The reasons
given for legal "wedding" in these cases circulate around the rights to
property and shared wealth, generally.

What role does class and capitalism play in the commodification of sex,
and prostitution?  I've actually heard, from a person I would describe
as a bourgeois feminist, that sex work is "empowering".  Ask those
thousands of girls from Ukraine sent by destitution into prostitution
just how empowered they feel.  "Slavo Ukraina!  Heroyim Slavo!" indeed.
But there is a certain, dare I say it?--prostitution in bourgeois
marriage, especially if the reason for "staying together" is financial.

By the way, I appreciate the critical questioning that this discussion
has developed.  I should like to remind comrades that not all of us are
as versed with the various positions and thought of marxism.
Participants on this list should be aware of the Gramscian notion, and
the crucial role, of the organic intellectual ( as opposed to the
hermetic academic).



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.