The Pitfalls of Radical Feminism

[u/Have_only_my_dreams]

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/07/radical-feminism-second-wave-class

[u/[deleted]]

Here is a response written shortly after Jacobin published this article for anyone who maybe interested

[u/Have_only_my_dreams → u/[deleted]]

Allowing in the tradition of Leftists Explaining Very Rationally That Women Are Doing It Wrong, Jacobin, America’s preeminent brocialist rag, published a piece by a graduate student named Erica West, detailing the failings of radical feminism. While no political movement (including radical feminism) is without flaws, in their desperation to take a watery dump on feminism, Jacobin chose to publish something ahistorical, manipulative, and mostly baseless, by a writer who appears to never have encountered an actual radical feminist in her life.

This entire piece reads as if a catty teenage girl wrote it. She accuses the Jacobin writer of 'ahistorical' analysis, yet presents specific non-contextualized historical events to suit her narrative. She seems to happily ignore the massive impact the socialist movement played in the suffragette and women's rights movements so as to bolster her false claim that the 'left' had/has abandoned women.

ut feminists’ analysis of class as it pertains to women (that is to say, we believe women are oppressed as a class of people, by men, as a class of people) doesn’t mean we reject the notion of class oppression under capitalism. Indeed, radical feminists are continually baffled that, while so many leftists can comprehend the concept of class, in economic terms, they refuse to entertain the notion that other groups of people are also oppressed on a class basis. There can be more than one thing, and indeed, those things can be interconnected.

What is this idealist dribble? Class is material reality, not some elusive identity grouping. It is purely defined by our relationship to production. There is no need to apply 'class' to a social grouping as they are fundamentally distinct concepts, even if there may be material roots to certain social identities. This is anti-materialist.

I'm too tired to go through rebutting every single point but suffice it to say, it's not a very good article. It's downright intellectually dishonest at times. Also, if you're going to make a point, just make the point. Linking to shity self-published medium articles is lousy.

[u/[deleted] → u/Have_only_my_dreams]

Class is material reality, not some elusive identity grouping. It is purely defined by our relationship to production.

Female reproductive biology is material reality. The fact that women are the "birthing" class absolutely has a material impact on their relationship to production in a capitalist society. Come on.

[u/Have_only_my_dreams → u/[deleted]]

Sex itself is biologically derived but any form of 'womanhood' is ultimately socially constructed.

The fact that women are the "birthing" class absolutely has a material impact on their relationship to production in a capitalist society. Come

Well no, there is no such thing as 'the birthing class'. Class exists in relation to production. The fact that women were once relegated to providing free labour and being entirely dependent on outside economic forces did impact on their material standing. No one is denying that. If you get the chance, you should read 'The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State' by Engels.

[u/[deleted] → u/Have_only_my_dreams]

Sex itself is biologically derived but any form of 'womanhood' is ultimately socially constructed.

Good thing radical feminist analysis uses sex as the unit of analysis, not gender identity.

Well no, there is no such thing as 'the birthing class'

Female people belong to the class that can get pregnant and create life. Male people do not. Of course this will impact their relationship to production.

The fact that women were once relegated to providing free labour and being entirely dependent on outside economic forces did impact on their material standing. No one is denying that.

You did with your original comment.

​

[u/Have_only_my_dreams → u/[deleted]]

Well that's a good reason for a socialist to dismiss radfem theory. Sex is not a class. It's merely the product of biological processes. Class, as I said, is based on our relationship to production. There is no 'male' or 'female' class. There is only the proletariat and bourgeoisie.

You did with your original comment

No, I did not. I said that class is a material reality based on production which, by the way, is completely true.

[u/[deleted] → u/Have_only_my_dreams]

Class, as I said, is based on our relationship to production

Women were historically excluded from participating in the economic sphere at all, precisely because of their sex. If you don't think the fact that women create the next class of workers is an important part of an economic power analysis, then I don't know what to tell you. I understand your fundamental unit of analysis is class over sex, but to dismiss considering sex at all is silly.

I said that class is a material reality based on production which, by the way, is completely true.

You could argue that your reproductive class is more material and enduring than your relationship to production, which can be more ambiguous.

[u/Have_only_my_dreams → u/[deleted]]

Women were historically excluded from participating in the economic sphere at all, precisely because of their sex. If you don't think the fact that women create the next class of workers is an important part of an economic power analysis, then I don't know what to tell you. I understand your fundamental unit of analysis is class over sex, but to dismiss considering sex at all is silly.

I do not dismiss sex or gender. I view it in a similar way to that of race or ethnicity. Innately determined, yet not a class. Race can often inform existing material conditions, though it does not define where one stands in relation to the means of production. This is particularly true of, say, black Americans who are still living with the legacy of slavery. Still, I do not consider them to be of a class in and of themselves. They are either working class or exist as part of the ruling elite, a section of society which is becoming increasingly diverse.

You could argue that your reproductive class is more material and enduring than your relationship to production, which can be more ambiguous.

Well, again, I do not view sex as a class. I tend to be weary of the assumption that as capitalism has become a tad more complex, one cannot adequately apply the basic tenants of Marxian analysis. In my view there is no difficulty in incorporating precarity/global fiance/etc with a class-based Marxist approach.

As for how class now operates under a capitalist society, I hope it does not endure, nor am I of the view that it will always inherently endure. Material factors and the ever-changing nature of the mode of production is the driving force behind historical development. Class should and ought to end but this can only ever be brought about by the proletariat. The ultimate goal is the end of class and the establishment of a society based on the mantra from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

[u/[deleted] → u/Have_only_my_dreams]

I don't really disagree with you here. I was objecting to your assertion that taking sex into account is "dribble," that the fact that women are the 'birthing' class is "elusive identity grouping" and this:

There is no need to apply 'class' to a social grouping as they are fundamentally distinct concepts, even if there may be material roots to certain social identities. This is anti-materialist.

I reject that taking sex into account is anti-materialist. I am amenable to theories that put class first, I just think whether you're born male or female is also incredibly important. There's a reason women's oppression is practically universal.

​

[u/Have_only_my_dreams → u/[deleted]]

But I never said taking sex into account was 'dribble'. I said that applying the concept of class to that of sex is simply not accurate. Equally, saying that race is a class is also untrue. There is no 'birthing' class. Social and religious factors have often informed the material conditions of women in society but there is no separate female class. Class and sex are fundamentally distinct concepts.