Feminism Motion
- This topic has 54 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Large protest of women in Brasil against Bolsonaro including the tribal women
Sex Workers Take to the Streets in Honduras to Protest Murders and Discrimination
Sex works take to the streets in Honduras to protest against murders and discrimination. It is one of the most dangerous places for women, men do whatever they want against women
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49406029
In El Salvador and Argentina if a woman is raped she must have the baby, otherwise, the woman would go jail if she performs an abortion, as well, if the baby is dead inside of the mother and it is born dead, she might be accused of killing the baby too
Number of papers sent out – 304
Number of papers returned:
Breakdown by branches: Central: 28, Edinburgh: 4, Glasgow: 4, Kent & Sussex Regional:
8, Lancaster: 2, Manchester: 11, North London: 7, North East Regional: 3, South
London: 7, South West Regional: 6, South Wales: 8, West London: 8, West Midlands
Regional: 3
Total for branches: 99Appalling.
Comrade Culbert:
Can you explain to me your message about the 304 paper sent out ?
Deborah Morris Death
1946-2019
The Women’s Liberation Movement has lost an- another founder. Deborah Morris (Deborah Ann Far- son) died on June 10, 2019, from brain cancer. Since the early 1970s, she was a writer, activist and powerful thinker in the movement and in her participation
with News and Letters Committees. Active in Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area and Santa Fe, she involved herself with working-class women and delved into the emerging theoretical debates of the women’s movement.
That can be seen in two of the many articles she wrote for News & Letters. In a 1975 article, “Science is seen as a theoretic substitute for
women’s activity,” Morris critiqued Charnie Guettel’s Marxism & Feminism for denying “the validity of an independent women’s movement when Guettel poses science and medical advances as the key to women’s liberation.” Morris points out that Marx’s theory— which Guettel claimed to follow—flowed from philosophy and also from mass uprisings:
“While Guettel wants to use some of Marx’s conclusions, she rejects his methods, and as a result, the practice of masses of women as a basis for the theory is totally missing in the essay… Once women are not recognized as the force for their own liberation, then some outside force must fill that gap—for Simone de Beauvoir it is men, for Juliet Mitchell it is the party, and for Guettel it is science. In contrast, a philosophy of liberation which recognizes the necessity of an independent women’s movement as the key to the liberation of women also sees women as whole human beings—their own force for revolution.”
Morris’ February 1973 article, “ERA backlash at Norris,” reveals her attitude to working-class women. “The letter” that Norris Industries wrote explaining their excuse for eliminating rest periods for women, Deborah wrote, “implies Norris is doing the only thing it can do. They ignore the possibility that protective legislation governing women’s working conditions could be extended to men…but production and profit govern Norris’ actions, not civil rights.”
Deborah extends her critique of Norris to a part of the movement that ignored working women: “The Equal Rights Amendment was supposed to be part of a movement towards a new human society. But such a movement by necessity must include the ideas and involvement of minority and non-professional working women…in class society such as ours, the E.R.A. will have a class nature. Under capitalism, this means that non-professional working women will be equally exploited along with men at the point of production.”
When Jane Alpert in 1973 opined in her “Mother Right: A New Feminist Theory” that she would no longer mourn “42 male chauvinists,” that is, the 42 men prisoners who were brutally gunned down at Attica prison, Deborah angrily responded:
“There is no attempt [by Alpert] at all to show us the creative roles that women have played in our freedom struggle or in the freedom struggles of others. Instead, she would limit us to a cultural revolution based on ‘Mother Right,’ and that is to define women in the same narrow way that male society has always done, rather than seeing women as part of the quest for universality.”
The “quest for universality” marked Deborah’s life. Be it politics, science, art, nature—including gardening—or the struggle of people for full freedom, she made that part of her path. Everyone who knew her will miss her—and the movement is poorer without her. —Terry Moon
Comrade Culbert:
Can you explain to me your message about the 304 paper sent out ?
Those were the ballot papers sent out to members to vote on Conference motions.
My point is that only a third of members returned them.
There could be any number of reasons for this. I personally find the motions and amendments cumbersome these days and I am used to this sort of thing from trade union days.
But I always return my paper.
Another fighter from the Women Liberation Movement died along with her mother who was a Bolshevik when she was young, her mother was the sister of Raya Dunayevskaya.
<p class=”p1″><b>A FIGHTER FOR HUMAN LIBERATION </b><b>IN</b><b> ALL ITS DIMENSIONS</b></p>
<p class=”wp-caption-text”>Olga Domanski and Judy Tanzawa in May 2014. Photo: friend of News & Letters.</p><p class=”p2″>We will long remember our News and Letters Committees comrade Judy, who passed away this past October. She passionately entered so many struggles for freedom of workers, of minorities—Black, Latino, Asian—of anti-war, of women’s liberation, thus developing her own multi-dimensionality.</p>
<p class=”p2″>Born into a family of revolutionaries, she came to the ideas and practices of Marxist-Humanism on her own terms, in her own time. Her decades-long experience as a union organizer and representative, her work in the Black community, particularly with Black women after the 1992 Los Angeles Rebellion, her intense interest, along with her husband Paul, in the experience of Japanese-Americans in the World War II internment camps, together with her exposure to the ideas and practices of Marxist-Humanism through Raya Dunayevskaya and Judy’s mother Bess Gogol, came to be expressed in her work within News and Letters Committees.</p>
<p class=”p2″>She was a long-time member of the Committees, eventually taking on responsibilities as the organizer of the Los Angeles local and as a member of the National Editorial Board of <i>News & Letters</i>. When attending News and Letters national gatherings she reported on the activities of the Los Angeles Local, particularly her work in the African-American community among women whose sons were experiencing brutality and prison at the hands of the police.</p>
<p class=”p2″>Within the Los Angeles Local, Judy chaired meetings, developed agendas, shared communications from the Center, and participated in giving educationals on issues of <i>News & Letters</i>, as well as on topics from Marxist-Humanist literature. Her passion for freedom activities and ideas, as well as her taking organizational responsibility for the Idea of Marxist-Humanism, will be greatly missed.</p>
<p class=”p3″><b>—Eugene Walker</b></p>
<p class=”p1″><b>JUDY—HEARING AND LISTENING </b><b>TO</b><b> THE VOICES FROM BELOW</b></p>
<p class=”p2″>Courageous. That was Judy’s basic quality, which permeated her thought and actions in her professional and personal life. That outstanding trait took the form of hearing and listening to the voices from below. She was attuned to the reverberations of the disenfranchised who were trampled on in society. This disenchanted her with those who abused their power.</p>
<p class=”p2″>As a factory worker, Judy heard the workers’ voices. She organized with them, had meetings with them and confronted the factory owners with their grievances. With the united strength of the organized workers, Judy won concessions that benefited them and their families. Her actions were brought to the attention of the union and Judy became a union representative. She was in that capacity for over 20 years—winning grievances, negotiating for better pay, better working conditions and at all times hearing and listening to those voices from below.</p>
<p class=”p2″><b>In the 1950s the Los Angeles City Council ousted hundreds of Mexican families from their village in Chavez Ravine, claiming that the land would be used for affordable housing. But soon they sold the land to the owner of the Dodgers. As a result of lies and the finagling of the powerful and moneyed, this area became Dodger Stadium. Judy became involved in the struggle of the displaced Mexican families, and eloquently revealed the truth of this takeover.</b></p>
<p class=”p2″>Judy was always aware of the voices from below and acted valiantly against any words or actions unfairly brought against the impoverished.</p>
<p class=”p3″><b>—Paul Tanzawa</b></p>
JUDY FOUGHT FOR EVERYONE
<p class=”p2″>I met Judy during the Los Angeles uprising of 1992; two strangers’ paths had crossed, only to become good friends. Judy showed me that she was truly colour-blind; she fought for everyone. She was a friend through thick and thin, she supported not only those who were oppressed in the inner city but those across the country. She broke all colour barriers, all racial lines; she crossed all economic lines and dared to enter all gang-infested communities. She was a “Radical Warrior.” We travelled abroad as Freedom Fighters. Together we kicked down the doors of injustice for the LA 4 + in 1993.</p>
<p class=”p2″><b>Our acquaintance grew into a deep-rooted friendship. She supported me beyond the LA 4 + trial. She was always there, a listening ear and a supportive shoulder. We travelled together and fought together for the underserved and the oppressed.</b></p>
<p class=”p2″>Judy gave her all. She had a never-ending dedication for justice, for humanity. For 25 years we marched side by side. Her greatest desire was equality for all. Judy has truly left an indelible mark upon my heart. </p>https://newsandletters.org/in-memoriam-olga-domanski-1923-2015/. Another fighter for women rights died
Her biography sounds like a typical American politician. Nothing new, it does show that any sex and any colour of the skin can serve the interest of the ruling class. The best example is Barrack Obama. The Feminists of the Socialist Party should support her
Marcos
This last comment is totally out of order and uncalled for. Are your seriously recommending that socialists should support a capitalist politician?
These posts below have been moved from the General discussion Forum as they were off topic.
-
Are you referring to me personally in which case would you care to specify what capitalist reform it is that you think I am supporting?
Posts -
The USA is the only country in the whole world where a human being always carries a national/ethnic prefix, ( Italianamerican, German-American, etc, etc, ). Barrack Obama was not called a White/European /Afro American because that would have been an offence to the racial system, he was called a Muslim/Kenyan /socialist which is complete nonsense, he was born in the USA territory and he was not a socialist either
Are you referring to me personally in which case would you care to specify what capitalist reform it is that you think I am supporting?
That capitalist reform is known as Feminism
Again Marcos, what “capitalist reform” is it that you imagine I am supporting? Either provide evidence for this claim or withdraw this claim. Its as simple as that
Ah so you have responded – finally.
Your claim is false . I dont support reformist feminism. I support the view, as does the Socialist Party, that men and women should be be treated equally and that sexism of any kind has absolutely no place in a revolutionary Socialist Party – any more than racism, nationalism or any other “ism” that seeks to divide the working class.
Or do you consider sexism to be acceptable or pardonable among socialists? That is the extent of my “feminism”. If you oppose that then by implication you support sexism
I think we went thru those labels at the Socialist Party discussion forum. For me, being a socialist/communist is more than enough. This is the only socialist party in the whole world where members asked other members to resign because he/she does not support a capitalist reform, even more, the Stalinists did not do that. and I know what I am talking about because I have met many organizations from different tendencies thru my whole life. I am not going to withdraw my claim,
Marcos
Being opposed to sexism is NOT reformist. How difficult is it for you to understand this? You cannot be a socialist and NOT oppose sexism just as you cannot be a socialist and NOT oppose racism or nationalism. The one thing implies the other…
Robbo
” I support the view, as does the Socialist Party, that men and women should be be treated equally and that sexism of any kind has absolutely no place in a revolutionary Socialist Party – any more than racism, nationalism or any other “ism” that seeks to divide the working class.”
I agree with your point and no one in the SPGB, to my knowledge, has ever supported the opposite of that point of view.
However what you state is not the generally accepted definition of feminism, which is widely viewed as putting forward reforms to enhance the level of equality within the framework of a capitalist system.
This is the reason the whole debate along this line has been needless and divisive and those responsible for starting the whole ridiculous debate within the party should never have started the debate in first place
However what you state is not the generally accepted definition of feminism, which is widely viewed as putting forward reforms to enhance the level of equality within the framework of a capitalist system.
This is the reason the whole debate along this line has been needless and divisive and those responsible for starting the whole ridiculous debate within the party should never have started the debate in first place
Bijou
Yes but those started the whole debate , as you say, made it abundantly clear that they were NOT advocating capitalist reforms and yet you still get people like Marcos suggesting these comrades are “reformist” (and insulting them by suggesting they should support the likes of Kamala Harris which is outrageous frankly) The debate would have receded into the background had not Marcos taken it upon himself to foolishly stir up the shit again and I am not going to stand by and let good comrades be gratuitously insulted in this way. Support Kamala Harris? Fuck that.
Are you referring to me personally in which case would you care to specify what capitalist reform it is that you think I am supporting?
No, these comrades (incidentally the majority in the Party) are in no way reformist – even if you might call into question their definition of feminism. I have made it plain that my support for “feminism” amounts to nothing more than my vigorous and proactive opposition to sexism of any kind . Period. I am not interested in peddling capitalist reforms.
This might not be the “generally accepted definition of feminism” but nor is our definition of socialism the generally accepted one. As socialists we should be used to not going along with what is “generally accepted” as the definition of something…
And now you are trying to give me lectures to topics that I have known for years and probably before then you, I grew up in this movement in the middle of the class struggles. I will say here, in front of any other persons and groups, and in another planet, feminism is a bourgeoise reform and I do not know how the Socialist Party fell in that trap, and it is also a divisive conception which might destroy the revolutionary tradition of the Socialist Party, even more, many Leninists group which used to support that concept have rejected completely. I already did my homework for a long time, don’t try to give lessons, that is only a review for me
“This might not be the “generally accepted definition of feminism” but nor is our definition of socialism the generally accepted one. As socialists we should be used to not going along with what is “generally accepted” as the definition of something…”
There is a huge qualitative difference between not going along with the generally accepted definition of the word Socialism, which is in our title and is part of our stated aim and has been since 1904 and not going along with the generally accepted definition the word feminism, which has not and has never been our stated aim.
The Party set out its view on feminism quite clearly in our pamphlet “Women and Socialism”. I don’t recall any dispute about the contents of that pamphlet back in the 80s, as it set out clearly the accepted Party position on the feminist movement, especially in the Chapter “What is Wrong With Feminist Theory”. This chapter shows what our criticism of the “Socialist Feminist” perspective is in great depth.
It was interesting that those who originally proposed the divisive resolution on feminism chose not to use this source to define “Socialist Feminism” perspective at the recent annual conference, but rather chose to use an A Level Sociology text FFS.
I translated that pamphlet into the Spanish language and I distributed it widely in more than 50 discussions forums, and now they want to give me lectures on this topic. What the Socialist Party is saying in that pamphlet is the correct socialist view on Feminism and the women question, and now I have seen some Leninist groups trying to adopt the same view
They are talking about insulting, labelling, and offensive, but they do not remember when they were insulting and cursing everybody on the forum of the Socialist Party and asking everybody to leave, and I received an email in my personal account trying to insult m
feminism is a bourgeoise reform and I do not know how the Socialist Party fell in that trap,
Once again – when has any member of the Socialist Party suggested we go down the road of “bourgeois reforms” in relation to the position of women in capitalism? Specifically, what reforms are you talking about? If you cannot provide any concrete evidence of this then your claim must be dismissed as mischievous fabrication along with your outrageous and insulting suggestion that we should support a capitalist politician like Kamala Harris
There is no need to file a court case or a legal pleading or to have a PhD degree in order to know that in this society all reforms have capitalists basis even if they in some way they favour the working class. Feminism in its actual form only wants to provide certain reform or gain to women in this capitalist society. Nothing else. I have published many articles of what women are going thru in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean and you have not said anything about it, and now you are jumping like the champions of women rights. Several members of the socialist party have resigned based on this reformist resolution. You are not an authority to trying to dismiss other peoples point of view
-
Posts
-
-
As I said before, Feminism is a capitalist reform, that is, there is no need to publish a pamphlet about that, the socialist party wrote one already and I stick myself to that one, there is not need to expand it. The problem is that you think that you know everything and that other peoples do not know anything, typical elitist thought
As I said before, Feminism is a capitalist reform, that is, there is no need to publish a pamphlet about that
And as I’ve asked you before – what are these specific reforms that are allegedly being advocated by those in the Socialist Party who you claim are in favour of feminist reformism? For example do these members urge that we should campaign for equal wages , wages for housework , positive discrimination in employment or something else? Unless you can provide specific concrete evidence to back up your claim that these members are advocating something along these lines, then you stand accused of fabricating lies to slander good comrades
To top it all you then accuse me of “typical elitist thought” just because I have pressed you to provide concrete evidence of members advocating reforms, evidence which you have resolutely declined to offer thus far Perhaps you think you are exempt from the need to bear the burden of proof when it comes to providing hard evidence
If anyone is displaying “typical elitist thought” it is you, Marcos, with your supercilious attitude to debate
Shouldn’t this discussion be taking place in a thread if its own in the World Socialist Movement section?
If we advocate for a specific sex like women we can also advocate for masculineism because men and women are equally exploited in this society The psmphlet of the socialist party explains clearly what is wrong with feminism I do not know it was passed in the socialist party when the pamphlet rejects it. This is my last arguments on this I stand to what I said
-
was Robbo who brought the argument it was not me.
Untrue. The post that stirred up this shit was Marcos’s one under President Biden thread (205706) which included the gratuitous insult :
“Her biography sounds like a typical American politician. Nothing new, it does show that any sex and any colour of the skin can serve the interest of the ruling class. The best example is Barrack Obama. The Feminists of the Socialist Party should support her” (my emphasis).
This post (by a non member of the WSM) should also have been deleted or transferred to this thread like the others to maintain consistency
We do have a problem with our clarity with “isms”
On another thread (#205620 https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/topic/anti-zionism-is-not-anti-semitic/page/16/#post-205620)
Lew suggests that we are not anti-Zionists because we are anti-all nationalisms and that singling out this particular nationalism leaves the Party open to a charge of ant-semitism. Likewise we are not anti-Scottish or Catalonian independence.
Saying we are internationalists comes up short also because it still incorporate the idea of nations, even if we and many others fully understand what is being meant and in the past used such a word before “world socialist” became popular.
Socialists seek social equality for all people so I think i am a feminist because many females around the world are deprived of that equality – economic, political and culturally – and being feminist includes being male, female and transgendered because we are humanists but not in the religious sense of secularism. And here too popular language is confusing because we are not anti-theist – atheists – but materialists.
We are, however, generalists – monists – the exceptions to society’s norms do not affect our overall understanding and conclusions about the world as it is.
“Language serves not only the purpose of distinguishing things but also of uniting them – for it is dialectic.” – Dietzgen
As Adam points out, the media view Kamala Harris as a woman of color, not as a law’n’order top cop. Harris herself did not see Tulsi Gabbard as of the Hindu faith but as an Assad apologist, while the media did not view Sanders as the possible first non-Christian but Jewish president but as an old white man against Clinton – a woman. The media picks and chooses the personality and character of their politicians according to their political agenda.
It is this identity politics we are up against where simplistic tokenism and gesture policies substitute for analysis. Was the reason another possible VP pick – Tammy Duckworth – not chosen because she is disabled and in a wheelchair, not the correct image to be aired, just as FDR had his polio hidden and Kennedy hid his Addison Disease from the public.
Robbo, you say that “men and women should be be treated equally and that sexism of any kind has absolutely no place in a revolutionary Socialist Party” and that that is the extent of your “feminism”. I could go along with that as long as that was the extent of what is meant by “feminism”. That would mean, as you point out, that a socialist must be be a feminist.
The trouble is that the motion proposed last year was badly drafted (“a person can be a socialist as well as a feminist”). This could mean simply that somebody who believes that men and women should be treated equally can be a socialist. Which is true; in fact if you don’t believe that then you can’t be a socialist. It also implies that someone who believes this doesn’t have to be a socialist. Which is also true; in fact most believe who believe this aren’t socialists but are either open supporters of capitalism or reformists.
But it is so badly drafted that it could seem to mean that a socialist has a choice of whether or not to be a feminist. Which is not true if feminism has the minimalist meaning that you say it has. As you point out, a socialist must be a feminist if feminism means simply standing for equal treatment of men and women. Everybody involved in this debate stands for that.
The motion can also be interpreted as saying that someone who is a feminist in some other sense (for instance someone who analyses society in terms of patriarchy rather than class or who believes that women should organise separately from men or who campaigns for reforms to try to achieve women’s equality within capitalism) can also be a socialist. Which is not true. And which is why it has aroused such strong feelings against it, especially as some in favour of the motion do accept and use the concept of “patriarchy” (which last year’s conference explicitly repudiated).
If the motion had simply said “ a person who stands for equal treatment of men and women can be a socialist” or “a person cannot be a socialist unless they stand for equal treatment of men and women” there’d have been no problem even if it was just stating the obvious.
If, as you say, that is all that it means it doesn’t matter which way the vote goes. If it is rescinded that changes nothing. If it is not rescinded that changes nothing. But if the aim is to avoid ambiguity it would be better that it gets rescinded and we can go back to the drawing board. Which could be in the course of happening as we speak. We will know by the end of the month.
Adam
I am not sure I would go along with the interpretation you put on the Lancaster motion. It is quite possible to argue how a socialist can be feminist in order then to go on to demonstrate why a socialist must be a feminist. I certainly dont agree with the suggestion that the motion is saying that a feminist who is advocating reforms can be a socialist. The point of the motion was to urge the Party adopt a stronger more proactive approach to combating sexism, something I wholly approve of .
At any rate, the purpose of my intervention in this discussion was less to to discuss the Lancaster motion than to respond to Marcos’ insulting jibe that the “Feminists of the Socialist Party” should support a rank capitalist politician, Kamala Harris. This is totally out of order and I trust that you and all comrades will unreservedly condemn this remark from someone who is not even a member of this organisation and has a history of insulting other comrades particularly in the US where I believe he is based.
Marcos’ comment is directly calling into question the socialist credentials of what after all is a majority of those who voted on the Lancaster motion and to say that I am shocked that no other comrade here seems to have picked up on this would be an understatement
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.