>Jim, from what I see, Marge Piercy is not a Marxist feminist. Thus, it is
>difficult for me to understand what her relevance to leftism is, because
>she evidently suffers from biological essentialism. Feminists like Marge
>Piercy belongs to what we know as radical feminist tradition. The big
>problem with her argument is that she assumes "gender inequality" stems
>from "biological inequality", the type of argument proposed by Schulamit
>Firestone in the 70s in the _Dialectics of Sex_. Since she sees the
>problem in the biology, but not in the gendered system, she offers
>"biological alteration" as a form of "cultural solution" to inequality
>problem--the problem which does not originate in biology to begin with
>(men and women may be biologically different but not unequal!!!). so she
>effectively perpetuates the sexist biological discourses.. Piercy is also
>naive to expect technology to liberate women or socialize men into
>feminine practices.
>
>We (socialist feminists) want MEN to feed babies not because they should
>be "biologically recreated" to do so (since the problem is NOT in the
>biology), but because it is "desirable" that men and women share mothering
>equally!! Mothering is a social function, it does not lie in women's
>biological disposition. I refuse Marge Piercy type of feminist
>discource that idealizes and radicalizes motherhood as a form of new
>intimacy!!
>
>
>Mine
Much more of this and I'll start thinking about all of modern
sociobiology's good points...
Brad DeLong
