On 10/18/06, michael a. lebowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 21:23 17/10/2006, YOSHIE wrote:
>1. Modern political parties, especially ones on the Left, tend to
>> >have "women's sections." Both women intellectuals and women
>> >grassroots leaders get groomed into leading "women's sections" in
>> >particular rather than parties in general on the Left, though they
>> >apparently aren't on the Right?
>>
>>Such sections (as well as mandatory quotas on executive committees,
>>etc) have tended to emerge as the results of the demands of an active
>>women's movement (rather than from paternalism), and in my view are
>>important in the development of capacities.
>
>They can be, but the political division of labor on the Left has often
>worked like this: men think BIG, GENERAL, IMPORTANT questions while
>women think about "women's issues." Naturally, with that division of
>labor, it has been men who tend to become national political leaders.
A tautology, no? What makes 'women's issues' not 'BIG, GENERAL,
IMPORTANT questions'?
"Women's issues" -- especially whether girls are well educated and and
whether women have control over their bodies to limit child-bearing --
are certainly the most crucial questions, not only for girls and women
themselves but also for the entire nation. The poorer the nation, the
more this general principle applies to it. "Women's issues" should be
therefore considered the BIGGEST AND MOST IMPORTANT questions, but
they have not been.
Even where the state has taken interest in women, the state's stance
toward women has tended to be instrumental, encouraging or
discouraging reproduction, wage labor, etc. according to the state's
manpower needs.
>>In the absence of an
>>active movement, of course, they become career paths for
>>individuals... but that begs the question as to why the movement dissipates.
>
>Where feminism has developed as an autonomous movement in the absence
>of a left-wing party of which it can be a part, the very success of
>the movement in removing much of de jure discrimination has dissipated
>the movement, before specific problems that confront working-class
>women can get resolved. That's a problem in places like the USA.
But, we're talking about a left, presumably socialist, movement, no?
At one point, a significant segment of feminists in even the United
States were socialists or took interest in socialism. Among
pioneering American feminists were such women as Victoria Woodhull and
Charlotte Perkins Gilman. In most recent decades (since the end of
the long sixties), self-conscious socialists in the USA have become
more predominantly male, and self-conscious feminists have become more
predominantly liberal, it seems to me.
>>however, the original question that you posed---
>>the absence of women in the top leadership in societies attempting to
>>build socialism-- seems more interesting to me than the issue of
>>leadership in left movements in the barbarisms of the west.
>
>I think the two are related questions, since societies attempting to
>build socialism inherit the gendered division of political labor
>created when they were not building it.
Yes, definitely. But, if there is a commitment to struggle
against that, new leaders should be emerging (who do not get shunted
off to head of the women's movement). So, we come back to the absence
of women in the leadership of these societies. The result of a lack
of commitment? Eg., come back to the Cuban party's leadership.
Yes, even where previous conditions are not so promising, the
revolutionary process itself can and should change them. Maybe a lack
of commitment to developing female leadership, as you say. But also
general paucity of democracy, I think. If there are women in Cuba who
are questioning the absence of women at the top of national
leadership, does the Cuban government provide political space where
they can raise and debate such questions publicly nationwide?
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
