Robert V. Scheetz
ay581 at yfn.ysu.edu
Wed Jul 26 14:46:08 MDT 1995
Rogers:I don't yet recognize your "boomer female's dilemma."
Displaced from her traditional labor, forced to seek a livelihood in
the wage slave sphere, subject to a whole new set of anxieties and
assaults, competing with male peers for an inadequate number of
positions. Loss of gender identity....
Rogers: Would it be visible to me in the form of, say, rates of marriage, rates of
childlessness, or something like that?
Certainly think so: obliteration of the traditional family, divorce rates,
declining fertility rates, increased usage of technology of fertility control,
abortion rates, infanticide instances...
Rogers: Or could any change in women's child-bearing behavior from say 1940 to 1990
be related to changes in the economy during that time? or some other factor?
Of course, all the traditional factors that influence fertility in the general
animal population; but, obviously, the point here is marginal effect.
Rogers: And I'm still not clear on how a women's movement was created by who for
the purposes of reducing the birth rate, for who's benefit??
The benefit of the ruling class, of course. They (their intelligentia) did not miss
the lesson of Hoovervilles and an over-large reserve army. They know how
socially volatile such populations as Mexico City, Lima, Caracas...etc., are. And
they are daily confirmed by Central Park "wilding" and Sao Paulo rat pack
street urchins. They are offended by "untouchables." The kwashiorkor hordes
of Somalia and Haiti, a cliche of contemporary commercial reprotage, inspires
not magnanimity, but fear and revulsion. This has gone so far in demonizing
children as to lessen traditional resistence ("Better they hadn't been born.")
to such barbarities as child abuse (cf. Michael Jackson's blatant celebration
of kiddie eroticism), abortion, and infanticide.
As a secondary effect of the polity resulting from the above scenario, womens'
lib made a virtue of necessity. In the competition for jobs they needed a lever
to wield against the traditional male argument, dependents, for preferment.
They construed the old dispensation with all its ethical accoutrement as a sort of
male-babylonian captivity, the source of all their present problems, and thence
a claim on the system for preferment. The rest is opportunism....
Rogers: Oh, and how does a marriage/law system that allegedly "overwhelmingly
favored the female" have the concrete and documentable effect of
lowering the standard of living of women while raising the standard
of living of men, after divorce? Some favor.
Post hoc...eh? Well I quess you won't be quizzed...but.... Obviously, in most
cases the woman is unprepared and late to the wage slave race; while, on the other
hand, the man is liberated.
Rogers: If it was so damn great up on that pedastal, why would I want to get
off it? Because I am duped by ideology? And you're not?
Back to the start: you had no choice, there is no living there any longer. And
the ideology is self-serving for you (I mean the sisterhood, of course). And by
what logic do you expect the other gender to embrace a loathing for its maleness,
and a handicap in the scrimmage for livelihood?
Rogers: Do you realize how you are coming across here? It doesn't look pretty, or
I do. But this is impertinent. I could in turn commend you on your conventional
Rogers: What is wrong with struggle against patriarchy? Classic patriarchy
is still part of the reactionary status quo.
I see Cox, for all his reluctance, feels obliged to call out this critical "feminist"
fallacy. Feudalism is patriarchal; the gender character of the Bourgeois Era
is matriarchal...at least in North Europe cultures...Latins seem more vestigial....
Rogers: Because we want to define our own best
interests, just like other workers want to, and we don't trust our
masters to do it for us. Or wasn't that part of the whole point of
social revolution to begin with?
This style I embrace. Workers against owners; not Black prole's against
white, female against male, third world against first, etc. for shares of an
ever diminishing pie.
Finally, I know there is a taboo in force here, and I know these were
caricature questions meant to elicit boorishness, not argument; and I know it is
generally pointless talking to persons unsympathetically disposed, from
existential circumstance, etc.; but I remain convinced that such a simple
marxian analysis is more totalizing, drawing together a vaster set, economic as
well as cultural, of phenomena into a unified field, with coherence, dynamic
continuity, and heft than the superficial microscopic quantitative investigations
of the bourgeois social sciences; and, mostly, that these bourgeois "isms"
place the onus for oppression/exploitation on the wrong party--the enemy
is the Proprietary Class and its retainer caste.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism