Justin repeats my comments:
>I have and do. Alison, who is a friend of mine, btw, would be
>disappointed if you took the lesson from her book that Firestone doesn't
>count, and indeedd, has nothing to teach historical materialists, or
>isn't one in her way.
I did *not* say that Firestone did *not* count. I said that Alison
classifies Firestone under the subtitle _radical feminism_ in her
book.Since Alison Jaggar is a _socialist feminist_, she also points out
the flaws (biological essentialism) in Firestone's analysis of gender
inequality, including Firestone's expectation of the radical feminist
agenda to liberate women from the biological "oppresiveness of their
bodies". Unlike Firestone, I don't think that women's biology is
oppresive. To say the opposite is to accept par excellence the patriarchal
definition of biology as the biology.
>My point. however, was that Marxists were up on the >Woman Question a
>long >time before 1970.
actually this was *my* point initally, but it is nice to see you coming to
this conclusion (refer to my previous post)
I said:
> > we were talking about the _classical_ architects of _Marxist feminism_
just as we were talking about >the classical architects of liberal
feminism (Mill, Taylor).
>Quite right, which is why I mentioned Bebel and Zetkin.
--jks
Bebel, like Kautsky, was a social democrat. Zetkin, like Luxemburg, was a
socialist. Their approach to _Woman Question_ differed accordingly.
Both Z and L criticized the party line othodoxy represented by Kautsky in
the second international. Furthermore, Zetkin criticized the notion of
extending women's suffrage to middle class women only. Her socialist
feminism was an achievement over liberal feminism. That was the point.
Mine
