EPTInteresting series of documentaries about feminism - Page 16
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 27 2014 19:34 Crushinator wrote: He does not say that feminism is about fighting men. He says that historically feminism comes from the idea that women are oppressed by men, which is accurate. I also am not sure if he was implying that women would be better off being stay-at-home mothers. His point was that feminism historically disproportionately benefited "bourgeois" women, and didn't necessarily make things better for the working class. He seems to think feminism is founded on naivety, and that this naivety is still characteristic of feminism today. Whatever else this man is, I thought his exposition was quite interesting and eloquent, though hardly comprehensive and somewhat unfair (though marxist class struggle ideas played a part, it was not an idea that was ever dominant within the movement, or at the very least it was not described in such terms). No, if you pay attention to what he actually says, he opens by saying that feminism believes that History is a history of warfare between the genders, which is completely wrong - again, the feminist struggle is against the system and not against men. And he was absolutely implying that a situation better than what we have today is a situation where women are not engaged in our capitalistic system the way men are, through being stay-at-home wifes/mothers. In addition, feminism historically benefited all women (he purposely doesn't mention the numerous achievements of feminism that do not pertain to working rights, and even in terms of working rights women from lower classes benefited from them), and the fact that bourgeois women have an advantage in terms of work opportunities is completely unrelated to feminism and has everything to do with the capitalistic system itself - bourgeois men have the exact same type of advantage in terms of work opportunities. There is absolutely nothing naïve about feminism, both historically and in the present, and he tries to pin on feminism problems that lie with the capitalistic system instead. On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal. You're joking, right ? :p He's already extreme right-wing (despite his views on the capitalistic system). On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: It's true that modern feminism is trying to adress most of the point he is arguing in the video. But historically, isn't he factually right that the desire for "women" to access to labor and the public sphere came from the "bourgeois" social class ? Isn't it right that, for most under class women, accessing to labor is only accessing to under paid jobs, dominated jobs in services etc (from a marxist perspective this is important, because you don't create anything in services). The common reactionary reply to demands for more political, social and economic rights is that those demands come from the bourgeoisie. Should we discredit the French revolution and the struggle against authoritarian monarchy because of the role bourgeoisie played in the revolution? Should women have been denied the right to vote because the feminist movements demanding it was made of many bourgeois women? Better working rights benefit all women - like I replied to Crushinator, the reason bourgeois women benefit from work opportunities and working rights more than poorer women (who still benefit from them as well) is unrelated to feminism and directly rooted in the shape of our capitalistic system and our capitalistic societies. Why suddenly draw the line at women? On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: You think salaries would stay that low if only half of a household were working ? The thought experiment "our world today with women not working would see higher wages for those working" is completely flawed, since it completely brushes aside plenty of economic variables that would completely transform the scenario itself. It's also the exact same kind of ridiculous question that the xenophobic assholes from the Front national ask, only with "immugrants" instead of women, arguing that salaries would be higher if there were no immigrants to take "our" jobs. It's completely bogus and not supported by data, and I suspect the same applies to the interrogation about women. On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: And yes the idea that women have to stay at home is sexist. At no point he is saying that it is best that only women stay at home, nor is he saying that it is best that one of the two members of the familly should stay at home. He is just stating the historical fact that the access by women to the public sphere was in adequation with the extension of the market - and thus "capitalism" - and that it was pushed by the elite - both women and men. First of all, reducing the achievements of feminism, in terms of access of women to the public sphere, to their place in the workforce is extremely reductionist from Soral. Second, it is pure revisionism to assert that the system welcomed women into the "broader" workforce (as opposed to the work they had been doing until then) with open arms. Yes, strictly speaking, women entering the workforce is a positive thing from a capitalistic point-of-view, yet the feminist movement had to actively fight to achieve concrete results in terms of work opportunities and working rights, and the struggle is far from over. On January 27 2014 19:58 WhiteDog wrote: For that kind of really harsh arguments you have to stay true to his word to even accept to discuss them. Sure he is implying that a society where women stay at home is better, and that is ridiculous, not only because women didn't actually stayed at home (a lot of women worked for free with their husband), and also because it goes against my own value (which is strict egalitarism, sexual racial and social). But he is not strictly saying that, he is merely pointing out historical fact, the conclusion that we should get from those fact is for us to decide. But he is, actually, saying that. He points to precisely those conclusions through his flawed analysis. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On January 27 2014 20:23 Shiragaku wrote: I am waiting for the day when Soral goes full blown right-wing like Dieudonné or Carlos the Jackal. None of them is truly "right-wing". Soral is a disillusioned Marxist and Dieudonné an angry mixed guy. They are both hilarious (and sometimes right) but their influence on dumb people is kinda scary. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On January 27 2014 20:31 Boblion wrote: None of them is truly "right-wing". Soral is a disillusioned Marxist and Dieudonné an angry mixed guy. They are both hilarious (and sometimes right) but their influence on dumb people is kinda scary. More like sad. On January 27 2014 20:29 kwizach wrote: No, if you pay attention to what he actually says, he opens by saying that feminism believes that History is a history of warfare between the genders, which is completely wrong - again, the feminist struggle is against the system and not against men. And he was absolutely implying that a situation better than what we have today is a situation where women are not engaged in our capitalistic system the way men are, through being stay-at-home wifes/mothers. In addition, feminism historically benefited all women (he purposely doesn't mention the numerous achievements of feminism that do not pertain to working rights, and even in terms of working rights women from lower classes benefited from them), and the fact that bourgeois women have an advantage in terms of work opportunities is completely unrelated to feminism and has everything to do with the capitalistic system itself - bourgeois men have the exact same type of advantage in terms of work opportunities. There is absolutely nothing naïve about feminism, both historically and in the present, and he tries to pin on feminism problems that lie with the capitalistic system instead. You're joking, right ? :p He's already extreme right-wing (despite his views on the capitalistic system). In theory it is unrelated, but in practice it is not. Most feminists arguments - and I'm not talking about gender studies, or academic feminist, who are trying to adress both those problems since more than 40 years, but feminists as we see in the media - put social class aside, when they argue that there are not enough women in positions of power, or when they show that women are more touched by half time jobs, or when they point out that women are less paid than their men counter part. We always put aside the class aspect of most matters in the dialectique of genders, and that is, in my opinion, a problem. Btw, I'm not saying that the arguments that there are gender inequalities is responsible of the fact that we put aside the class aspect, I'm saying the legitimacy of feminist argument in main stream media is, like he said, in part due to the fact that it goes with the interest of the dominant class. If all "main stream feminists" were constantly making sure that people understands that a fight for more equality between genders cannot go without a fight for more equality in our society as a whole, like black feminists were saying a long time ago, then I don't think anybody would actually criticize their point aside from "masculinists" and conservatives (which Soral is btw). | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
| ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On January 27 2014 20:29 kwizach wrote: No, if you pay attention to what he actually says, he opens by saying that feminism believes that History is a history of warfare between the genders, which is completely wrong - again, the feminist struggle is against the system and not against men. And he was absolutely implying that a situation better than what we have today is a situation where women are not engaged in our capitalistic system the way men are, through being stay-at-home wifes/mothers. In addition, feminism historically benefited all women (he purposely doesn't mention the numerous achievements of feminism that do not pertain to working rights, and even in terms of working rights women from lower classes benefited from them), and the fact that bourgeois women have an advantage in terms of work opportunities is completely unrelated to feminism and has everything to do with the capitalistic system itself - bourgeois men have the exact same type of advantage in terms of work opportunities. There is absolutely nothing naïve about feminism, both historically and in the present, and he tries to pin on feminism problems that lie with the capitalistic system instead. You're joking, right ? :p He's already extreme right-wing (despite his views on the capitalistic system). I already acknowledged that characterizing feminism as founded on marxist principles of class warfare is not fair. But it is absurd to suggest that the idea of men as oppressors is not influential in feminism. To say that that the bourgeois origins of feminism has nothing to do with the feminist movement is also dishonest. It is relevant because it helps us understand the kind of things feminism fights. They want more women among the elite in the west: CEOs, engineer etc. but are little concerned about what goes on on the lower end of the social ladder. In my opinion this shows the kind of naivety Soral is talking about. I believe the lack of female CEOs is merely a symptom that is indicative of more deeply rooted gender inequality that has a lot to do with unequal parental and domestic responsibilities and rights. I do not believe quota for CEOs and other elite positions will do anything meaningful to improve the position of the vast majority of women, to suggest that advantaging the female elite will cause some trickle down effect that will improve the position of the average working woman is naive to me. Yet, feminism by and large resists equal parental rights for men. Something that in my opinion can actually do something to improve gender inequality by changing the perceptions about parental responsibilities through real institutional change. I don't want to comment on problems with capitalist systems, I am not interested in debating it here, and honestly I don't see the relevance. Edit: I also can't really comment on the achievements of feminism. I would need to hear a reasoned argument for why you think feminism as an intellectual or activist movement has achieved anything at all. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 27 2014 20:31 Boblion wrote: None of them is truly "right-wing". Soral is a disillusioned Marxist and Dieudonné an angry mixed guy. They are both hilarious (and sometimes right) but their influence on dumb people is kinda scary. Soral is more than a disillusioned Marxist, otherwise he would not have joined and actively worked for the Front national for several years. He is at the extreme right-wing with regards to his anti-Semitist, anti-feminist and anti-immigration stances. On January 27 2014 20:36 WhiteDog wrote: + Show Spoiler [New post] + On January 27 2014 20:29 kwizach wrote: No, if you pay attention to what he actually says, he opens by saying that feminism believes that History is a history of warfare between the genders, which is completely wrong - again, the feminist struggle is against the system and not against men. And he was absolutely implying that a situation better than what we have today is a situation where women are not engaged in our capitalistic system the way men are, through being stay-at-home wifes/mothers. In addition, feminism historically benefited all women (he purposely doesn't mention the numerous achievements of feminism that do not pertain to working rights, and even in terms of working rights women from lower classes benefited from them), and the fact that bourgeois women have an advantage in terms of work opportunities is completely unrelated to feminism and has everything to do with the capitalistic system itself - bourgeois men have the exact same type of advantage in terms of work opportunities. There is absolutely nothing naïve about feminism, both historically and in the present, and he tries to pin on feminism problems that lie with the capitalistic system instead. You're joking, right ? :p He's already extreme right-wing (despite his views on the capitalistic system). In theory it is unrelated, but in practice it is not. Most feminists arguments - and I'm not talking about gender studies, or academic feminist, who are trying to adress both those problems since more than 40 years, but feminists as we see in the media - put social class aside, when they argue that there are not enough women in positions of power, or when they show that women are more touched by half time jobs, or when they point out that women are less paid than their men counter part. We always put aside the class aspect of most matters in the dialectique of genders, and that is, in my opinion, a problem. Btw, I'm not saying that the arguments that there are gender inequalities is responsible of the fact that we put aside the class aspect, I'm saying the legitimacy of feminist argument in main stream media is, like he said, in part due to the fact that it goes with the interest of the dominant class. If all "main stream feminists" were constantly making sure that people understands that a fight for more equality between genders cannot go without a fight for more equality in our society as a whole, like black feminists were saying a long time ago, then I don't think anybody would actually criticize their point aside from "masculinists" and conservatives (which Soral is btw). I replied to your points in the edit of my previous message. On January 27 2014 21:11 Crushinator wrote: I already acknowledged that characterizing feminism as founded on marxist principles of class warfare is not fair. But it is absurd to suggest that the idea of men as oppressors is not influential in feminism. To say that that the bourgeois origins of feminism has nothing to do with the feminist movement is also dishonest. It is relevant because it helps us understand the kind of things feminism fights. They want more women among the elite in the west: CEOs, engineer etc. but are little concerned about what goes on on the lower end of the social ladder. In my opinion this shows the kind of naivety Soral is talking about. I believe the lack of female CEOs is merely a symptom that is indicative of more deeply rooted gender inequality that has a lot to do with unequal parental and domestic responsibilities and rights. I do not believe quota for CEOs and other elite positions will do anything meaningful to improve the position of the vast majority of women, to suggest that advantaging the female elite will cause some trickle down effect that will improve the position of the average working woman is naive to me. Yet, feminism by and large resists equal parental rights for men. Something that in my opinion can actually do something to improve gender inequality by changing the perceptions about parental responsibilities through real institutional change. I don't want to comment on problems with capitalist systems, I am not interested in debating it here, and honestly I don't see the relevance. Edit: I also can't really comment on the achievements of feminism. I would need to hear a reasoned argument for why you think feminism as an intellectual or activist movement has achieved anything at all. I feel like you're trying to steer the discussion away from Soral's video when that is what I was addressing. I'll repeat: the feminist struggle is against the system and not against men. Just like the social rights movement in the US was against the system as it was and not against whites. If you want to go look for individuals who label themselves feminists and preach hate against men as men, be my guest, but that won't say anything about feminism itself. I also did not say at all that "the bourgeois origins origins have nothing to do with the feminist movement". I said that the problems Soral sees with feminism with regards to how women from lower classes fare in the capitalistic system are unrelated to feminism and lie with the capitalistic system itself. The exact same types of problems can be found for men from lower classes, and Soral is trying to pin the blame on feminism for those woes now affecting women when 1) they would affect women regardless of feminism, and 2) feminism is not to blame - the economic system we live in is. You are referring to another kind of naivety, not the one Soral was talking about, and it is just as unfounded - believe if or not, feminism very much embraces what you just mentioned, namely the necessity to work on gender roles and "unequal parental and domestic responsibilities and rights". Working at that fundamental level is, however, not incompatible with trying to change things through quotas (which I personally support in certain specific cases but not others). Those who support measures like quotas certainly do not think it'll replace acting at the fundamental level as well. I'm not sure where you're getting that "feminism by and large resists equal parental rights for men" from. It's just not the case. With regards to the problems with capitalist systems, the relevance was that Soral is blaming feminism for phenomenas which are actually consequences of our economic system being capitalist. Imagine a population X who had been discriminated against and prevented from using public transports. Movement A fights for the rights of X, and gets them to be able to use public transports. Then comes along Soral, who says that there are plenty of problems with public transports, which population X now suffers from as well, and blames movement A for population X suffering from these public transports problems. The point is that the fault lies not with movement A, which fought for equality of rights and opportunities, but with the state of the public transports. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: Soral is more than a disillusioned Marxist, otherwise he would not have joined and actively worked for the Front national for several years. He is at the extreme right-wing with regards to his anti-Semitist, anti-feminist and anti-immigration stances. Yea sure because you have to be at the "extreme right" to be an "antisemite". Venezuela and the USSR are/were full of right wingers i guess haha. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 27 2014 23:10 Boblion wrote: Yea sure because you have to be at the "extreme right" to be an "antisemite". Venezuela and the USSR are/were full of right wingers i guess haha. I didn't say that. I mentioned three traits which together put him at the extreme right. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: If you want to go look for individuals who label themselves feminists and preach hate against men as men, be my guest, but that won't say anything about feminism itself. I also did not say at all that "the bourgeois origins origins have nothing to do with the feminist movement". I dislike your assertion that the things feminist say and do say nothing about feminism. It is dishonest. It does not devalue the cause of gender equality for women, but it does say something about the value and effectiveness of the feminist intellectual and activist movement. If you agree that the bourgeois origins of feminism is significant, then what is its significance according to you? On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: You are referring to another kind of naivety, not the one Soral was talking about, and it is just as unfounded - believe if or not, feminism very much embraces what you just mentioned, namely the necessity to work on gender roles and "unequal parental and domestic responsibilities and rights". Working at that fundamental level is, however, not incompatible with trying to change things through quotas (which I personally support in certain specific cases but not others). Those who support measures like quotas certainly do not think it'll replace acting at the fundamental level as well. I disagree, I think the past naiveties of feminism Soral mentioned are essentially the same as the present ones I mentioned. On January 27 2014 23:00 kwizach wrote: I'm not sure where you're getting that "feminism by and large resists equal parental rights for men" from. It's just not the case. Once again, I disagree. Feminists do want men to take up more of the parental responsibilities, but they are not interested in giving up their privilege when it comes to legal rights as parents. Atleast I have a very hard time finding any feminist writings that do not (I assume) wilfully ignore it, or try to justify it. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On January 27 2014 23:16 kwizach wrote: I didn't say that. I mentioned three traits which together put him at the extreme right. Afaik a woman is at the head of the FN and she is trying her best to make sure that the Jewish community doesn't feel threatened. She is also trying her best to not be associated with Soral & Dieudonné. Does it mean that the FN is a leftist party ? Anyway i won't try to argue with you anymore. I don't even know what you want to prove. The whole Dieudonné & Soral circus is like the perfect demonstration that "right-wing" doesn't mean anything nowadays. I mean Soral seriously thinks that Marx, Rousseau and Maurras are compatible. This is like mixing Quantum and Newtonian physics LOL. Meanwhile JMLP and Gollnisch are making "quenelles" with coloured citizens. Things have no meaning these days. Baudrillard wrote this in 2002 and i can't even imagine what he would say nowadays if he was still alive. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 27 2014 23:26 Crushinator wrote: I dislike your assertion that the things feminist say and do say nothing about feminism. It is dishonest. It does not devalue the cause of gender equality for women, but it does say something about the value and effectiveness of the feminist intellectual and activist movement. Actually, what is dishonest is to look for specific individuals in order to discredit a broader social movement. On January 27 2014 23:26 Crushinator wrote: If you agree that the bourgeois origins of feminism is significant, then what is its significance according to you? This is irrelevant to what was being discussed and I am not interested in addressing it further. On January 27 2014 23:26 Crushinator wrote: I disagree, I think the past naiveties of feminism Soral mentioned are essentially the same as the present ones I mentioned. No they're not, and I explained why neither is an actual example of naivety. On January 27 2014 23:26 Crushinator wrote: Once again, I disagree. Feminists do want men to take up more of the parental responsibilities, but they are not interested in giving up their privilege when it comes to legal rights as parents. Atleast I have a very hard time finding any feminist writings that do not (I assume) wilfully ignore it, or try to justify it. I thought you were talking about parental rights such as a gender-neutral parental leave (which I don't see feminists protesting against at all, quite the opposite) - are you specifically talking about legal rights in terms of child custody? I'm not familiar enough with the issue to comment on the positions of the most active feminist organizations, but my understanding is that there is no discrimination between genders in the laws regulating child custody, but that some father-rights groups denounce the existence of certain biases towards mothers in practice. I don't think I've ever heard a major feminist organization defend the introduction of pro-mothers amendments in child custody laws (I have, however, heard debates on the links between shared custody and the scope of reductions in child support, which is another issue). In any case, it hardly contradicts the fact that feminists have denounced and acted on fundamental gender roles, in plenty of domains. In fact, the influence of feminism, and the work done by feminists, were absolutely key in the development of gender studies. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 27 2014 23:40 Boblion wrote: Afaik a woman is at the head of the FN and she is trying her best to make sure that the Jewish community doesn't feel threatened. She is also trying her best to not be associated with Soral & Dieudonné. Does it mean that the FN is a leftist party ? Anyway i won't try to argue with you anymore. I don't even know what you want to prove. The whole Dieudonné & Soral circus is like the perfect demonstration that "right-wing" doesn't mean anything nowadays. I mean Soral seriously thinks that Marx, Rousseau and Maurras are compatible. This is like mixing Quantum and Newtonian physics LOL. Meanwhile JMLP and Gollnisch are making "quenelles" with coloured citizens. Things have no meaning these days. Baudrillard wrote this in 2002 and i can't even imagine what he would say nowadays if he was still alive. No, the FN is an extreme-right party - I didn't say that those three traits were an exhaustive list, and the current FN still conforms to all three pretty well regardless. I don't want to "prove" anything, I'm simply pointing out that Soral is clearly at the extreme right of the spectrum with regards to the positions I mentioned. | ||
|
Crushinator
Netherlands2138 Posts
On January 28 2014 00:19 kwizach wrote: Actually, what is dishonest is to look for specific individuals in order to discredit a broader social movement. This is irrelevant to what was being discussed and I am not interested in addressing it further. No they're not, and I explained why neither is an actual example of naivety. I thought you were talking about parental rights such as a gender-neutral parental leave (which I don't see feminists protesting against at all, quite the opposite) - are you specifically talking about legal rights in terms of child custody? I'm not familiar enough with the issue to comment on the positions of the most active feminist organizations, but my understanding is that there is no discrimination between genders in the laws regulating child custody, but that some father-rights groups denounce the existence of certain biases towards mothers in practice. I don't think I've ever heard a major feminist organization defend the introduction of pro-mothers amendments in child custody laws (I have, however, heard debates on the links between shared custody and the scope of reductions in child support, which is another issue). In any case, it hardly contradicts the fact that feminists have denounced and acted on fundamental gender roles, in plenty of domains. In fact, the influence of feminism, and the work done by feminists, were absolutely key in the development of gender theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers'_rights Here you can read about child custody rights, or lack thereof, for men. You will notice that many non-radical feminist organizations oppose shared custody. I see this as the greatest failure of feminism. I acknowledge that feminism supports parternity leave, and that is a very good thing, it is obviousy in the best interest of women. I will invest some time in reading up on feminist gender theory, not sure what it even means right now. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On January 28 2014 00:33 kwizach wrote: No, the FN is an extreme-right party - I didn't say that those three traits were an exhaustive list, and the current FN still conforms to all three pretty well regardless. I don't want to "prove" anything, I'm simply pointing out that Soral is clearly at the extreme right of the spectrum with regards to the positions I mentioned. Ever heard about guys like Ryssen or Reynouard ? Those people got jailed for their ideas, just sayin'. Soral looks like a centrist compared to them lol. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 28 2014 00:48 Boblion wrote: Ever heard about guys like Ryssen or Reynouard ? (People who actually got jailed for their ideas, just sayin') Yes. Your point being? (and we're going completely off-topic) edit: just saw your edit - that there are other people even further to the right of Soral doesn't change the fact that he is still at the extreme-right with regards to what I mentioned. Following your logic, if I looked at someone even worse than the FN, it would mean the FN would no longer belong to the extreme-right, which is retarded. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On January 28 2014 00:50 kwizach wrote: Yes. Your point being? (and we're going completely off-topic) That Soral isn't at the extreme right of the spectrum ? Also idk what so extreme about MLP's FN these days. They are trying sooooooo hard to look respectable and serious lol. But if you just want to label people w/e. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 28 2014 00:51 Boblion wrote: That Soral isn't at the extreme right of the spectrum ? Also idk what so extreme about MLP's FN these days. They are trying sooooooo hard to look respectable and serious lol. But if you just want to label people w/e. I don't "just want to label people". I put a name on the positions and ideologies held in a political party which, despite new packaging, still espouses much of the same beliefs than in its past (except on the economy, in which the extremely neoliberal stance has given way to a populist anti-system - albeit still nationalistic - discourse). There's a difference between "trying [...] hard to look respectable" and actually abandoning the rampant xenophobia which is still an integral foundation of the policies it defends. Regarding Soral, I gave you examples of issues for which he is clearly at the extreme-right of the spectrum, and he was at the FN himself (before the repackaging even began, btw). | ||
KwarK
United States43468 Posts
On January 28 2014 00:41 Crushinator wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers'_rights Here you can read about child custody rights, or lack thereof, for men. You will notice that many non-radical feminist organizations oppose shared custody. I see this as the greatest failure of feminism. I acknowledge that feminism supports parternity leave, and that is a very good thing, it is obviousy in the best interest of women. I will invest some time in reading up on feminist gender theory, not sure what it even means right now. Child custody rights are obviously fucked up and are built on set gender roles of caregiver and breadwinner that have no place in a modern society. It is the blame of one feminist, Caroline Norton, who, after being denied access to her children on the basis of her gender, felt the best option was to come up with the tender years doctrine where instead men were denied access to their children on the basis of their gender. The hypocrisy of this is obviously indefensible and it no longer has any legal standing, having been held to violate the 14th amendment in the US and "The Principles of European Family Law" in the EU. However, as with many other gender roles, the entrenchment is sufficient that despite lacking any legal basis discrimination continues to happen. In that regard it's actually a pretty good example of why gender issues can't simply be dismissed by a single piece of legislation. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On January 27 2014 19:20 kwizach wrote: The common reactionary reply to demands for more political, social and economic rights is that those demands come from the bourgeoisie. Should we discredit the French revolution and the struggle against authoritarian monarchy because of the role bourgeoisie played in the revolution? Should women have been denied the right to vote because the feminist movements demanding it was made of many bourgeois women? Better working rights benefit all women - like I replied to Crushinator, the reason bourgeois women benefit from work opportunities and working rights more than poorer women (who still benefit from them as well) is unrelated to feminism and directly rooted in the shape of our capitalistic system and our capitalistic societies. Why suddenly draw the line at women? I agree with you overall, but you know the French revolution was quite a disaster, completly discarded by most XIXth century leftist as a revolution for and by bourgeois. By contrast, the episode of "La commune" is describe as a real revolution of the worker class. That we all accept feminism as social progress doesn't mean it is not something that needs to be pushed further, just like I consider the french revolution as a huge part of France's history, without considering that it is a religious event free of any critic. The thought experiment "our world today with women not working would see higher wages for those working" is completely flawed, since it completely brushes aside plenty of economic variables that would completely transform the scenario itself. It's also the exact same kind of ridiculous question that the xenophobic assholes from the Front national ask, only with "immugrants" instead of women, arguing that salaries would be higher if there were no immigrants to take "our" jobs. It's completely bogus and not supported by data, and I suspect the same applies to the interrogation about women. Why front national ? Just read Marx and the idea of starvation wage : if one person in the household is working, the starvation wage must be high enough to keep the familly alive. I'm completly disregarding any economic theory because I don't believe at all that wages are defined by economic matters but by social matters (like Smith, Ricardo and Marx). One good proof for that is that when women accessed to position in power, like in legal department, we saw a decrease in overall wage that was, from my point of view, due to the fact that women have less bargaining power than men. First of all, reducing the achievements of feminism, in terms of access of women to the public sphere, to their place in the workforce is extremely reductionist from Soral. Second, it is pure revisionism to assert that the system welcomed women into the "broader" workforce (as opposed to the work they had been doing until then) with open arms. Yes, strictly speaking, women entering the workforce is a positive thing from a capitalistic point-of-view, yet the feminist movement had to actively fight to achieve concrete results in terms of work opportunities and working rights, and the struggle is far from over. Women entering the workforce was welcomed by dominant class, and needed, in time of war. What was difficult to accept for societies is to open positions of power and well paid positions to women. But he is, actually, saying that. He points to precisely those conclusions through his flawed analysis. Maybe I didn't listened enough. I agree with most of your point, I'm not saying that feminism was a regression in any way nor that it is responsible for anything bad in regards to inequalities between class or race. But I still think that within feminism there are various point of view, and that some of them are indeed strictly defined by bourgeois values. For exemple, french marxists (like Michel Clouscard) back in the eighties were pointing out that the consumption/marketing model of capitalism brought by America (with the Marshall plan) forced France to become a "fully" capitalist nation while it was, before, defined by old traditions free of the "marketing" aspect of things. Now I completly agree with that argument, but it does not mean that I think that the traditional society that we were prior to the capitalism of "seduction" was actually a better society. I actually think Soral stole most of his argument from Clouscard's book. | ||
| ||
