I have to say that I'm beginning to have problems with annual marches,
regardless of who marches in which contingents. There was, a few years ago, a
massive climate march in New York and what did it accomplish?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 10:08 AM
To: blind-democracy <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Join the Women’s Marches on Jan. 19: For a feminism
of the 99 percent!
https://socialistaction.org/2019/01/13/join-the-womens-marches-on-jan-19-for-a-feminism-of-the-99/
Join the Women’s Marches on Jan. 19: For a feminism of the 99 percent!
/ 20 hours ago
jan. 2019 wom march 2018 (carolyn cole-la times) The 2018 Women’s Marches
brought hundreds of thousands into the streets.
(Photo: Carolyn Cole / Los Angeles Times)
By KAREN SCHRAUFNAGEL
Donald Trump, the misogynist-in-chief, daily tweets out his hate-filled
rhetoric, serving up women, immigrants, and people of color as red meat to his
hungry base, always ready to blame the least powerful for capitalism’s crimes.
In the meantime, Brett Kavanaugh, Trump’s entitled, over-privileged Supreme
Court nominee, likes beer and torture and “deserves” a life-time seat on the
highest court in the land. Never mind his clear lack of judicial temperament,
or the sexual assault allegations against him, because he got into Yale and
studied hard!
People around the United States were captivated by the testimony of Dr.
Christine Blasey Ford, as those old enough to remember were by that of Anita
Hill 27 years earlier. But Hill’s testimony didn’t stop the selection of
Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court, and Blasey Ford’s testimony didn’t keep
the Senate Judiciary Committee, and later the full Senate, from confirming
Brett Kavanaugh.
Many people, and especially women, are justifiably angry. At first, that anger
propelled us into the streets. But it was quickly channeled to the voting
booth, where it fueled a historic level of voter participation in mid-term
elections this past November.
The “wave” crashing into Washington this month is full of firsts. Yes, it is
“blue” (meaning Democrat), but it also female; 102 women now serve in the House
and 27 in the Senate. The most diverse Congress in history is now in place.
We voted. Do we still need to march?
Many liberals, “progressives,” and even radical feminists have expressed pride
in the new politicians they helped elect. However, Marxist feminists are less
inclined to be fooled by this rainbow-colored paint job on the same old
institutions of the capitalist class. What accounts for the difference? It
stems from differing perspectives about the roots of oppression and how we make
change.
Liberal feminists generally fail to see the structural obstacles. They tend to
accept the adage that hard work, dedication, and single-minded focus on the
goal pays off.
They believe that the 2018 election was a validation for them because numbers
don’t lie—there are more women in positions of political power than ever
before, including a return engagement for the only woman ever to serve as
speaker of the House of Representatives.
“Progressive” feminists tout what they consider to be “feminine” values like
caring and compassion, relationship building, and cooperation. They don’t
believe you have to be female to share these values, but they certainly see the
2018 election as empowering this value system to stand up to Trump’s agenda of
greed, hatred, and bigotry. Impeachment here we come!
Many radical feminists, on the other hand, see patriarchy as the root evil from
which all that is rotten grows, and their solution often revolves around
intersectional feminist identity politics. For radical feminists the new
Congress, so full of hyphenated-identities, will see more clearly through the
institutionalized chauvinism and legislate differently. There may still be
plenty of old, rich, white, Protestant, straight men in positions of power, but
new identities at the table mean new ideas can enter the conversation.
Accordingly, liberals, “progressives,” and even radical feminists tend to be
optimistic about the new Congress. They are marching in this year’s Women’s
Marches to demonstrate their support for the newly elected women and to urge
and empower them to enact sweeping policy changes.
In contrast, Marxist feminists recognize that politicians of the two capitalist
parties serve as spokespeople for the ruling class. The politicians may look
more like “us,” but that should not fool us.
Capitalist politicians represent the interests of the capitalist class.
A capitalist politician in a dress, or even a hijab, is still a capitalist
politician. It is the role they play and not the costume they wear that
matters. So, Marxist feminists march not to support those in power but to
demand a feminism of the 99%.
The objectives of Marxist feminism were explained in a recent interview in
International Viewpoint with Cinzia Arruzza, an associated professor at the New
School of Social Research in New York. Arruzza stated:
“Feminism for the 99% is the anti-capitalist alternative to the liberal
feminism that has become hegemonic in recent decades, due to the low level of
struggles and mobilizations around the world. What we understand as liberal
feminism is a feminism centred on liberties and formal equality, which seeks
the elimination of gender inequality, but through means that are only
accessible to elite women. We think, for example, of the type of feminism
embodied by women like Hillary Clinton.
Or, also, the kind of feminism that in Europe is becoming an ally of the states
in supporting Islamophobic policies …
“To be clear, it is a type of feminism that pursues gender equality within a
specific class, the privileged one, leaving behind the vast majority of women.
Feminism for the 99% is an alternative to liberal feminism, since it is openly
anti-capitalist and anti-racist: it does not separate formal equality and
emancipation from the need to transform society and social relations in their
totality, from the need to overcome the exploitation of labour, the plundering
of nature, racism, war and imperialism.”
Mired in controversy
This year’s Women’s March has been embroiled in controversy. The 2017 March,
coming the day after Donald Trump’s inaugural and framed as a direct challenge
to his explicit misogyny, was huge. Millions of women and their allies took to
the streets of Washington, D.C., and in hundreds of other cities and towns
across the country and around the world. It was a massive success, but very
white and subject to criticism by women of color for its lack of inclusiveness.
In 2018, the message, “Women March to the Polls” signaled the clear intent by
the behind-the-scenes, Democratic Party machine leadership to capture women’s
anger and channel it towards electoral ends. Marches were fewer and smaller,
and still subject to criticism as “white, liberal feminist” dominated.
This year, having successfully channeled all that anger into getting more women
(including many hyphenated-identity women) elected to office, the Women’s March
made a determined effort to look more like the women they claim to represent.
But charges soon started to fly, centering on the issue of anti-Semitism, which
came to the center of national discussion following the gun attack on a
Pittsburgh synagogue last October.
Tamika Mallory, a Black woman activist for gun control and one face of the
national Women’s March leadership, has made no secret of the fact that the
Nation of Islam stood beside her and supported her when no one else would,
after the brutal murder of her son’s father 17 years ago left her a Black,
single, teen mother alone in the world. It should therefore be no surprise that
Mallory was among the 15,000 who attended the Nation of Islam’s annual
“Saviour’s Day” event last year.
According to some in the women’s movement, Mallory’s subsequent refusal to
denounce Louis Farrakhan, the controversial leader of the Nation of Islam who
has made poisonous statements against Jews, makes her guilty of anti-Semitism
by association.
Likewise, Linda Sarsour, a Palestinian Muslim leader of the March and executive
director of the Arab American Association of New York, is presumed guilty
because she won’t denounce Mallory. Sarsour is also under attack as an
“anti-Semite” and a “jihadi terrorist” because of her active support for the
rights of the Palestinian people against racist Zionism. A grouping of
right-wingers, Zionists, and other commentators from Fox News to pop singer
Courtney Love have joined the chorus against Sarsour, though a large number of
prominent political activists who are Jewish have spoken out in her defense.
Of all the problems that plague the Women’s March, however, the most
debilitating by far is the orientation of central organizers to electoral
politics and the Democratic Party. Clearly, a new sustained mass-action
orientation is necessary. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people, from
all walks of life, have joined the Women’s marches the last two years shows the
possibilities of building such a movement.
This year, Socialist Action urges participants in the Jan. 19 marches to join
the contingents of supporters of International Women’s Strike (IWS), which
champions a program of working-class and internationalist demands as an
integral part of the struggle for women’s liberation. See their call for a
feminism of the 99%, which a number of groups and individuals have signed, on
the next page.
A theory that can help guide us
Fortunately, the women’s movement has theoretical tools that can guide our
participation in struggles for political power and help us see past the myriad
distractions. Social Reproduction Theory (SRT) is such a tool. While many
radical feminists tend to believe that the root of women’s oppression lies in
biology, SRT uses historical materialist analysis to argue that this cannot be
true.
In pre-class society, when social production was organized communally and
products shared equally, the social status of women and men reflected the
indispensable roles each played in the subsistence productive process, and
there was no material basis for the exploitation of one group over another.
Child-bearing cannot be the root of women’s oppression because although women
have always been the ones to bear children, they have not always been
oppressed. The origin of women’s oppression is intertwined with the transition
from pre-class to class society. In these specific socioeconomic conditions, as
the exploitation of human beings became profitable for a privileged few, women,
because of their biological role in production, became valuable property.
SRT fills the gaps left in Marx’s analysis (labor power creates all wealth, but
the continuous re-creating of labor power is exogenous to the model of capital
accumulation), creating a fuller, unified theory in the process, which explains
women’s oppression and provides guidance in the ongoing struggle for women’s
liberation. We oversimplify and summarize here by stating that the patriarchal
family system operates in the service of the capitalist system—allowing the
individual capitalist, the capitalist class as a whole, and the capitalist
system itself to evade responsibility for, and the associated costs of,
reproducing the labor power on which the capitalist system depends.
Into action
Our task is to make visible all of the “work” that capitalism has assigned to
the family, in which it is expected to perform invisibly, at little or no cost
to the capitalists, extracting ever greater profits for the capitalist class at
the expense of the rest of us. Accomplishing this provides numerous benefits
for the ruling class:
First, the “family” that performs all this reproductive labor for free is an
idealized notion of the capitalist imagination (think “Leave it to Beaver”). In
this scenario, only wealthy, white, heterosexual, cis-gendered women really
have the option to stay home and care for children, elders, and household,
without compensation, and they mostly choose not to—opting instead to hire
women of color or immigrant women to do such work for very poor compensation
(and leaving their own families to do so).
But this mythical, idealized family also creates a normative standard, and the
punishment for falling outside these norms is oppression. Women are caught in a
double bind where their assigned role inside the patriarchal family is
oppressive, while any attempt to break free of the assigned role targets them
for oppression.
Second, as we see clearly in times of economic boom, when the state chooses to
buttress the family in order to facilitate the availability of women outside
the home in the “productive” economy, there is no innate logic to assigning
families, instead of society as a whole, responsibility for the care of
“unproductive” members of society.
Third, in times of economic crisis, when the ruling class needs to
simultaneously drive women from the work force to reestablish the reserve labor
pool, lowering wage levels and cut the growing costs of social services
provided by the state transferring the economic burden and responsibility for
these services back onto the individual family of the worker, they do so by
launching an ideological offensive against the very concept of women’s equality
and independence.
The real world consequences include more sexual harassment and violence, less
access to reproductive health services and choices, demonization of immigrants
(a separate but connected reserve labor pool), fewer “support” services in
schools (higher student to teacher ratios and the virtual disappearance of
nurses and social workers), and larger work loads and lower pay for those who
do “women’s work”
professionally—teachers, social workers, domestic workers, and health-care
providers.
And finally, a SRT feminist, Marxist understanding of the nature of women’s
oppression helps us formulate transitional demands and choose our battles for
maximum impact. We stand with the women of Ireland, Poland, and Argentina (and
here at home), fighting for access to abortion and other reproductive health
services and choices. We stand with the women of Puerto Rico, who are facing an
increasing wave of gender violence, exacerbated by the ruthless Fiscal Control
Board’s bankrupting of their country.
We stand with the women of the caravans, desperate to escape the violence and
starvation U.S. policies sow in their home lands. We demand “Let them in!” We
stand with the nurses. We stand with the teachers. We stand with hotel workers.
We stand for a feminism of the 99%.
Share this:
Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) 5Click to share on Facebook
(Opens in new window)5 Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)
January 13, 2019 in Women's Liberation.
Related posts
Nationwide protests demand: Stop Kavanaugh!
Mumia Abu-Jamal wins major court victory
Defend reproductive justice for women!
Post navigation
← Ottawa caters to Trump’s campaign against China
Get Involved!
Donate to help support our work
Get email updates
Join Socialist Action
Newspaper Archives
Newspaper Archives Select Month January 2019 (7) December 2018 (12) November
2018 (15) October 2018 (10) September 2018 (8) August 2018
(12) July 2018 (13) June 2018 (11) May 2018 (19) April 2018 (15) March 2018
(17) February 2018 (14) January 2018 (13) December 2017
(13) November 2017 (13) October 2017 (16) September 2017 (15) August
2017 (16) July 2017 (17) June 2017 (16) May 2017 (17) April 2017
(14) March 2017 (13) February 2017 (19) January 2017 (13) December
2016 (12) November 2016 (19) October 2016 (12) September 2016 (10) August
2016 (10) July 2016 (14) June 2016 (14) May 2016 (9) April
2016 (12) March 2016 (14) February 2016 (8) January 2016 (11) December 2015
(11) November 2015 (9) October 2015 (8) September 2015
(10) August 2015 (7) July 2015 (13) June 2015 (9) May 2015 (10) April 2015
(12) March 2015 (9) February 2015 (11) January 2015 (10) December 2014 (12)
November 2014 (11) October 2014 (9) September
2014 (6) August 2014 (10) July 2014 (11) June 2014 (10) May 2014
(11) April 2014 (10) March 2014 (9) February 2014 (11) January 2014
(11) December 2013 (10) November 2013 (11) October 2013 (17) September 2013
(13) August 2013 (10) July 2013 (11) June 2013 (15) May 2013 (14) April
2013 (14) March 2013 (12) February 2013 (10) January 2013 (17) December
2012 (7) November 2012 (8) October 2012
(19) September 2012 (2) August 2012 (27) July 2012 (18) June 2012
(3) May 2012 (19) April 2012 (14) March 2012 (17) February 2012 (19)
January 2012 (17) December 2011 (3) November 2011 (33) October 2011
(14) September 2011 (13) August 2011 (34) July 2011 (24) June 2011
(19) May 2011 (19) April 2011 (15) March 2011 (15) February 2011
(15) January 2011 (15) December 2010 (17) November 2010 (1) October
2010 (6) September 2010 (3) August 2010 (8) July 2010 (7) June 2010
(2) May 2010 (10) April 2010 (3) March 2010 (8) February 2010 (3) January
2010 (9) December 2009 (6) November 2009 (5) October 2009
(16) September 2009 (3) August 2009 (2) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (2) May 2009
(7) April 2009 (6) March 2009 (16) February 2009 (9) January 2009 (10)
December 2008 (11) November 2008 (8) October 2008
(16) September 2008 (14) August 2008 (18) July 2008 (12) June 2008
(3) May 2008 (2) April 2008 (3) March 2008 (14) February 2008 (11) January
2008 (11) December 2007 (8) November 2007 (1) July 2007 (1) June 2007 (1)
April 2007 (1) March 2007 (1) February 2007 (3) December 2006 (11) November
2006 (11) October 2006 (13) September
2006 (15) August 2006 (11) July 2006 (18) June 2006 (7) May 2006
(14) April 2006 (6) March 2006 (14) February 2006 (5) January 2006
(2) December 2005 (9) November 2005 (8) October 2005 (13) September
2005 (12) August 2005 (9) July 2005 (16) June 2005 (16) May 2005
(16) April 2005 (12) March 2005 (14) February 2005 (19) January 2005
(15) December 2004 (14) November 2002 (17) October 2002 (19) September
2002 (22) August 2002 (21) July 2002 (15) May 2002 (21) April 2002
(21) February 2002 (15) January 2002 (15) December 2001 (17) October
2001 (24) September 2001 (18) July 2001 (19) June 2001 (18) October
2000 (17) September 2000 (21) August 2000 (19) July 2000 (16) June
2000 (26) May 2000 (21) April 2000 (22) March 2000 (28) February
2000 (18) January 2000 (20) December 1999 (20) November 1999 (26) October
1999 (25) September 1999 (18) August 1999 (40) July 1999
(38) June 1999 (24) May 1999 (27) April 1999 (25) March 1999 (26) February
1999 (29) January 1999 (24) July 1998 (12)
Search
View socialistactionusa’s profile on Facebook View SocialistActUS’s profile
on Twitter View SocialistActionCT’s profile on YouTube
Subscribe to Our Newspaper
Upcoming Events
No upcoming events
Category Cloud
Actions & Protest Africa Anti-War Arts & Culture Black Liberation Canada
Caribbean Civil Liberties Cuba East Asia Economy Education & Schools Elections
Environment Europe Immigration Indigenous Rights International Labor Latin
America Latino Civil Liberties Marxist Theory & History Middle East Palestine
Police & FBI Prisons South Asia Trump / U.S.
Government Uncategorized Women's Liberation
View Calendar
Blog at WordPress.com.
Follow
--
________________________________________________
Jules Verne
“ Reality provides us with facts so romantic that imagination itself could add
nothing to them. ”
― Jules Verne
