Is it false to conclude "that it is not the capitalist system but men who are the prime enemy of women"?

Question

"In the course of our struggle, and as part of it, we will reeducate men who have been brainwashed into believing that women are naturally the inferior sex due to some flaws in their biological makeup. Men will have to learn that, in the hierarchy of oppressions created by capitalism, their chauvinism and dominance is another weapon in the hands of the master class for maintaining its rule. The exploited worker, confronted by the even worse plight of his dependent housewife, cannot be complacent about it - he must be made to see the source of the oppressive power that has degraded them both."

Please read the whole source if you answer.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed-evelyn/1970/caste-class-sex.htm

I am a woman also, sleepingliv.

Please read the source if you answer.

Fluke, are you implying that women are the source of their own oppression?

Ripper, I am not expressing my point of view on this. I am interested in yours. If you dont want to read the source and answer the question then dont.

No cassius, I am a proud heterosexual woman. Thanks for acting like a pig though.

PortWine, I am not professing anything. I have made no claims. Thanks for your answer anyway.

Once again PorWine, not my statement.

Answer 1

I am a Marxist. So would be most people if they actually read him. I have spent my life studying history and the science of propaganda and sociology, observing world affairs closely, getting on think tanks and peeking up the skirts of the Bildenbergers and Bohemian Grove boys in an effort to learn who are the ruling families conducting the animal husbandry of humanity. As I have attempted to express here before, ANY polarizations in society are deliberate, well-funded, recorded, concerted strategies to divide and conquer the masses for subjugation and exploitation.

Answer 2

LOL you Marxists have such a childish view of how power relations work it's hilarious. You really do believe all opression and inequality radiates from some evil master class, don't you?

If Marx had only understood it was more complicated than that the world might have been spared the horrors of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot (though to be fair equally evil men of a different ideological bent would probably have just stepped into their shoes). But your tacking all the sins of the world onto capitalism blinded you to the fact that it's power that corrupts, not specific economic and cultural systems.

You should learn about Thorsten Veblen's economic theories. He understood human nature much better than Marx did.

Answer 3

Yes it is false. Look at how many women get to the top in a capitalist system. And who do you think supports the men at home?

EDIT:
(why do I HAVE to do this?)
quote:
As men took over most of the activities of social production, and with the rise of the family institution, women became relegated to the home to serve their husbands and families. The state apparatus came into existence to fortify and legalize the institutions of private property, male dominion and the father-family, which later were sanctified by religion.

This, briefly, is the Marxist approach to the origins of woman’s oppression. Her subordination did not come about through any biological deficiency as a sex. It was the result of the revolutionary social changes which destroyed the equalitarian society of the matriarchal gens or clan and replaced it with a patriarchal class society which, from its birth, was stamped with discriminations and inequalities of many kinds, including the inequality of the sexes. The growth of this inherently oppressive type of socio-economic organization was responsible for the historic downfall of women.

So, as I stated before:
My husband (the primary breadwinner) depends on me to give him strength. THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE IS THE HAND THAT RULES THE WORLD! We depend on each other to be brought to the top. Women have contributed just as much to this as men, especially in today's world.


In a Marxist society, everyone is exploited and there is no reward to be a better individual.

Answer 4

I believe absolute power, corrupts. Too much power is the enemy of both men and women. Whether you're talking about matriarchy, patriarchy, capitalism, or communism, if a system does not have effective checks and balances, few if any human beings are able to handle the power they accumulate. That's why it looks like socialistic societies have been doing better in the last century, since they often have multiple parties vying for power, instead of power being held in the hands of one or two parties. I'd prefer a socialistic government like Canada, it seems to work well for the majority of people, unlike in the US, where what we've got is not working at all or minimally for the majority.

Answer 5

Yes it is false.

1. It is not capitalism that is to blame, it is the Patriarchy. Capitalism is simply one of the many mediums of which patriarchal society uses to oppress individuals based on sex.

2."Created by capitalism" is an absolutely ridiculous Marxist-feminist belief that denies all other social structures are capable of oppression.

3. the fact is every society is oppressive based on sex, capitalist or not.

4. Socialism equates classes and castes, yet these are not the only problems in the fight against inequality. Oppression exists, more now then ever, on a personal nuclear level, one that cannot be regulated by social reform, or at least by socialist standards.

Essentially, it is patriarchal threads that are woven into capitalism. Don't put the cart before the horse.

For instance look at the non-capitalist society's evident in China, the Middle East, and Africa. Not capitalists, yet the oppression of women is more prevalent than anywhere else in the world, the common thread of all, including our own? Patriarchal ideals, not capitalism.

EDIT: and fluke makes a point. Though not that women are the creators of their own oppression, simply those who have "uncle tom-ed" their way in to believing and reinforcing patriarchal ideals, such as the woman who enjoys chivalry, believes herself to be inferior and men superior, and further dictates that society should see all women as such.

Read _Right Wing Women_ Andrea Dworkin, it's out of print, but most libraries carry it.

Answer 6

Whoa. Anyway, every political system is hierarchical and, because of that, it is inherently corrupt. In order to maintain a hierarchy, you must have a top (elite) and a bottom (social detritus). Some systems will purport to be egalitarian, but that is utopia and, therefore, impossible. As I see it, the problems are rooted in one thing: money. There is the top 2% and then there's the rest of us, the willing accomplices trapped in velvet handcuffs, helping them to maintain lives of the rich and famous. The people at the bottom--and those in the middle--tend to get upset at times and because of the inequity in all societies, there is fighting in all societies. It's always about money. Oh, the powers that be will tell us it's because that person over there is our enemy: he's the wrong colour, or he believes the wrong things, or he's a she--but they're wrong. These are distractions. The issue is always, at its core, money.

Answer 7

I don't accept your premise that women are oppressed. There is no "enemy of women". There is no organised group that goes I know it would be a good idea to persecute women because it would increase production. I don't accept that anyone has been brainwashed into thinking anyone else is inferior. People develop these ideas from their own experiences and watching others around them rather than as a from high conspiracy.

I have great misgivings about the contradictions inherent in Marxism and the obvious failings in providing solutions to social problems.

Sorry can't answer your question really.
Yes men and women do have it hard at the bottom of society and women and men at the top do have it easier.

Men in a marriage might dominate in one marriage and women in other marriages might dominate it is an individual thing.

Answer 8

Why yes, just yesterday I "oppressed" this lovely cute girl with my "money-grubbing capitalist" hands and, well, other appendages, all over her sensual "socialist" breasts and nether regions. This "class struggle" lasted for a good half-hour before exploding in a torrent of white goo I can't exactly find a proper Marxist analogy for.

Answer 9

yes it is true, men are the enemy to women and the fact that we are has been defined by them. in-turn they have turned the system around and made us more of a investment for them to be liquidated when it is time to do so.

when i was married i loved my wife with all my heart, we had a son she had a daughter already from a previous marriage. she told me that if i messed this up she would not let it go like it did last time with her last marriage and told me every thing she would do and take. she did just that and took every thing and left me with child support and the right to get to visit my son from time to time as the law makes her. i had to start over she got to go right to a new husband and new house and new things along with every thing we had made together. so ya we are the enemy and you are the victimizer.

let me add here that it has been hard for me to believe in the dream of finding my true love, soul mate, life time friend and partner. after a long pass of time and bitterness i thank i have found her. she is wonderful i will say and she is not laying all this anti-male crap on me so i have gotten to trust her. am i making yet another mistake and setting my self up for yet another failer that will no dout leave me in shambles? maybe but there is only one way to find out, and thats to go for it. one thing i can say for sertan and that is at least she is not making me fill like im her enemy so perhaps there is hope yet and the dream can be real.

Answer 10

Yes, it's false. It's partly the bad aspects of capitalism, but not men, with regards to your question. The prime enemy of women today are bad-behaving women and misled feminism, which you seem to be professing. Your statement might have made some sense 60 years ago or more.