> Nay it's a far richer vein of problems than that as far as feminists are > concerned:
Basically how I personally evaluate feminists is on whether they wish to strengthen the toiling classes, the direct producers, the proletarians and peasants, or whether they seek to weaken them. Are they a help or a hindrance ? Hence, it is not possible to have a "general position" pro or contra feminism in the manner of the liberals. Implicitly or explicitly this is admitted in feminist circles anyway, since it is almost always the case that feminism is combined with at least one other political or moral ideology. In general what you can say is that what I call the "social crisis" of capitalism (resulting from the breakdown of traditional institutions and intensified competition within and between social classes) generates fragmentation, and that is reflected also in the feminist movement with splits between all sorts of different feminisms, black feminism versus white, lesbian/gay versus hetero, socialist versus green, conservative, liberal etc. etc. in which there are continual conflicts between the need for political unity and the need for adhering to principles. In specific countries and specific temporal-spatial contexts feminisms are progressive, contributing to emancipatory struggles, whereas in others they represent reactionary confusion retarding the movement, and one gets nowhere at all without a specific investigation of a specific situation. Ultimately, theoretically, I consider prostitution as the core problem of the whole feminist problematic, and I cannot very well get along with feminist moralists who spout drivel about this, and vent all sorts of confusing abstractions, rather than making a specific, critical and self-critical investigation. In these things, one has to go to the core of the matter, the heart of the matter, and not skirt around the issue with a lot of claptrap and moralisms. Jurriaan
