Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!ora!ambar
From: ambar@ora.ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Marxism and feminism
Message-ID: <188@ora.ora.com>
Date: 13 Nov 89 16:17:49 GMT
References: <8910272037.AA29730@mimsy.UMD.EDU> <60372@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <965@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf (Gordon Fitch)
Lines: 50
Approved: ambar@ora.com

uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf (Gordon Fitch) writes:
)>...[T]he theory of individualism is one which obscures the
)>communal roles traditionally associated with women, for example, 
)>care-giving in the family, with consequences which I think would
)>be obvious.

"Paul D. Crowley" <aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk> writes:
)Mmm. Somebody mentioned Marxism and feminism, and I'd be very interested
)to know the opinions of the people writing to this net about Marxist
)analysis of the oppresion of women. Is the family still a biologically
)necessary unit, or an economic unit, providing a complete system of care
)for workers entirely from unpaid labour? If it is, can we expect to see
)the liberation of women within the system? Is it, as most of the
)contributors to this board have agreed, men who cause the oppresion of
)women, or are they oppresed because it serves the interests of
)capitalism? 

No one ever asks for my opinion in vain.  However, I don't know
what the Marxist analysis of the oppression of women is these days,
other than what's mentioned above.

As I see it, capitalist institutions can use men, women, Martians,
and AI programs as workers; the point is to make a profit, not
secure any particular familial or biological arrangements.

In fact, the family, such as it is, obstructs corporate need to
move key workers around quickly.  So far from providing a useful,
accessible source of unpaid labor, the traditional family is a
nuisance.  Since individuals, especially those in management, do 
better if they serve better, and since serving better means longer 
hours and more trips, one could say that capitalism opposes the 
traditional family.  If the traditional family is a site of female 
oppression, then capitalism militates against female oppression.

It is more rational -- more efficient -- to oppress everybody more 
or less equally, rather than to make complex distinctions.

If an atomized society is liberation -- if it is even possible --
then I think we can say that women can be "liberated" within the 
system in the sense that men are liberated.  They will be free to 
take part.  If they don't like what they're taking part in, if 
they have other values, that's a different matter. 

I suspect the capitalist use of the traditional family, alluded
to above, occurred simply because that was what capitalism found
in its environment in the period of its formation.  There is a
similar charge that capitalism promotes racism, because racism
occurs in capitalist societies; but racism also occurs in other
societies, and there is no particular necessity for it, at least
as I see it, in a capitalist system.