GENIUS FORUMS

THE PROLETARIAT AND THE LIBERATION OF WOMEN

In changing the material forces of production, the industrial (bourgeois) revolution changed the social consciousness of women by mechanising--literally, DESEXING--labour power. It took her out of... the kitchen and the bedroom and placed her squarely into the labour force. It crossed the picket line between traditional divisions of the masculine and feminine material forces of production.

In this transformation, capital stripped the peasant woman (and, by necessity, the peasant man) of her femininity. It changed the structure of the family; it idealised what it meant to be "a woman" then sold this bourgeois ideal back to society. It is this very contradiction between the feudal and bourgeois superstructures of global society that we see today in spades.

Sakineh Ashtiani is this contradiction personified in the voices of the worldwide women's proletariat.

If a proletarian (revolutionary) is a member of the property-less class, by definition, then the proletariat, to be a proletariat, must fight for the freedom of women from existence as private AND public property.

Leyla Shen wrote:that we see today in spades.

What does black people haves to do with it?

[quote="Leyla Shen"]THE PROLETARIAT AND THE LIBERATION OF WOMEN.

It should be titled:


THE PROLETARIAT AND THE MASCULINIZATION OF WOMEN.

I don't think the engagement of women in more industrialised processes of manufacture altered the sexual character of the labourer much. It standardised job descriptions, much like the education system standardises the criteria for learning.

In the same way that a thorough and genuine education is self-driven, like the old-style "reading" your way through a degree and setting your own standards by learning everything that's out there instead of relying on a professor's reading list, the modern labourer is an unfree agent of mass-production, like a soldier following inethical orders without any say in the matter, destined to copy the rules of the job. It's got very little to do with economic or environmental stability, and everything to do with blind, greed-driven cradle-to-grave processes.

In other words, removing the masculine's freedom and entrepreneurialism from the workforce has put us on the road to unsustainability. Standardising is fine until the standard is lowered to remove individual responsibility.


.

Standardised job descriptions? I think the industrial revolution was materially responsible for a lot more than simply "standardising job descriptions."

If you generalise all historical meaning from the term "labourer" you can draw that conclusion. If, on the other hand, you acknowledge the historical changes in the material production forces and social relations arising from them, you'll even see a marked development in mas/fem philosophy corresponding with the industrial revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries.

In its historical context, the labourer is the product of industrial (capitalist) society and the division of labour; more specifically, and at the height of its development, it's called the wage labourer.

There are many jobs which are dominated almost wholly by men - construction, manufacturing, etc. These jobs are the foundation of an industrial society. The industrial society in the west created extra jobs because it was accompanied by an increase in wealth(for various reasons), and women were needed to fill up those jobs. I don't think a "desexing" of labour occurred. If women are thought of as masculine for the jobs they do then that is a very poor definition of masculinity indeed, and because of that it may be said that men have become feminine, rather than women masculine.

Also, this statement doesn't make sense to me:

In its historical context, the labourer is the product of industrial (capitalist) society and the division of labour; more specifically, and at the height of its development, it's called the wage labourer.

How can the labourer be a product of capitalist society? What was he doing before that? Also, how can the division of labour create the category of the labourer?

jupiviv:

These jobs are the foundation of an industrial society. The industrial society in the west created extra jobs because it was accompanied by an increase in wealth(for various reasons)[...]

What various reasons?

You wrote:

1. Many jobs are dominated wholly by men; construction, manufacturing, "etc."

2. Construction, manufacturing, "etc," are the foundation of industrial society.

3. Western industrial society created extra jobs.

4. Magically, this creation of extra jobs was accompanied by an increase in wealth.

5. Therefore, women were needed to fill up those "extra jobs."

6. (Therefore,) I don't think a "desexing" of labour occurred.

Well, I think if you tried to fill in some of the gaps in your thinking, your reasons for thinking it might become a bit more apparent?

If women are thought of as masculine for the jobs they do then that is a very poor definition of masculinity indeed, and because of that it may be said that men have become feminine, rather than women masculine.

My subject was "Woman," the socio-political construct which has the female as its objective referent.

How can the labourer be a product of capitalist society? What was he doing before that?

In the same way the peasant is a product of feudal society.

Also, how can the division of labour create the category of the labourer?

What I said was that the labourer is the product of captialist society and (by extension/therefore, etc) the division of labour.

Leyla Shen wrote:

jupiviv wrote:These jobs are the foundation of an industrial society. The industrial society in the west created extra jobs because it was accompanied by an increase in wealth(for various reasons)[...]

What various reasons?

No major wars between western nations for most of the 19th century, for one thing. Also, secure borders, the wealth gained from having colonies, etc. After the two world wars, the US emerged as powerful enough to carry the cost of rebuilding all the war-torn nations in western Europe, and Japan.

PS - in the list you made, the creation of jobs would come after the accumulation of surplus wealth.

My subject was "Woman," the socio-political construct which has the female as its objective referent.

My point is that even this socio-political construct is feminine in nature, from what I can see.

In the same way the peasant is a product of feudal society.

So what exactly is the inherent difference between labourer and peasant? Both have to work(possibly unfairly) for a living.

What I said was that the labourer is the product of captialist society and (by extension/therefore, etc) the division of labour.

So if capitalist society entails division of labour(like pretty much every society I can think of), then how is the labourer a product of it?

So what exactly is the inherent difference between labourer and peasant? Both have to work(possibly unfairly) for a living.

Is that a trick question? Hm, let me see. I think I'll go with "wardrobe":

:)

I asked what the *inherent* difference between them is.

Yes, I know.

jupiviv wrote:I asked what the *inherent* difference between them is.

Mensa says: That's an excellent question jupiviv, I attempted to answer but fell short, for they both are the same, other than the rank, the condition, or conduct.