BDSM, Feminism, and Politics

[AdrianaAurora]

Despite their common roots in enlightenment discourses of liberation, Marxism and feminism have always regarded each other with a degree of exasperation. The central problem of Marxism from a feminist point of view is its failure to theorize adequately either subjectivity or gender. In addition, though Marxism explains the workings of capitalism with great conviction and, when pushed, can comment on womens place within capitalism it has not thrown significant light on the origins of the oppression of women, endemic to most known societies. Indeed, it has often been convenient for Marxists to overlook the oppression of women since that oppression serves the interest of men. From a Marxist point of view on the other hand, feminism has often been perceived to incline towards historicism and essentialism in its claims to speak for and about women as a group. Feminism has never theorized patriarchy as convincingly as Marx theorized capitalism and has lacked a political programme.

Marxism and feminism seemed to find common ground in the seminal statement by Simone de Beauvoir that "one is not born a woman, one becomes one", which laid the basis for the sex/gender distinction, and provided a meeting-point for Marxism, feminism, and psychoanalysis on the all important question of subjectivity. Generations of students on gender studies courses felt the penny drop when they heard it argued that while biology is immutable the acquisition of gender identity depends on the complex mix of the psycho-sexual, historical, political, and cultural factors mediated through the family and through Althusser's other Ideological state apparatuses.

John Stuart Mill wrote, "In early times, the great majority of the male sex were slaves, as well as the whole of the female. And many ages elapsed ... before any thinker was bold enough to question the rightfulness, and the absolute necessity, either of the one slavery or of the other."

During the democratic and anti-slavery movements of early 19th century Europe and America, kingdoms became constitutional monarchies or republics and slavery was made illegal. The civil rights movements of 20th century America also sought to overthrow various existing social structures that were seen by many to be oppressive and corrupt. Both social contexts led naturally to an analogous scrutiny of relationships between women and men.

The 19th century debate ultimately resulted in women receiving the vote; this is sometimes referred to as first-wave feminism. The late 20th century debate has produced far ranging social restructuring in Western democracies – second-wave feminism. Some consider the "second wave" to be continuing into the 21st century, others consider it to be complete, still others consider there to be a "third wave" of feminism active in contemporary society.

Most feminists do not propose to replace patriarchy with matriarchy, rather they argue for equality.

Humanity evolves, we move forward. Racism worked. Segregation worked. Patriarchy worked (note past tense) it is no longer sustainable (at least not in the militant way that is here insisted upon).

Proof - say it in any distinguished public forum, please do and see who will hire and take you seriously after that. Not to mention I feel completely silly debating against posts that are a bunch of incoherent rambling and demonstrate lack of comprehension of terms and historical context. Those that wish to continue so - please do, thanks to feminists you have the right to express it. I am too busy. Indeed, you may argue till you are blue in the face - it wont change the facts or the reality of the world we live in.