[DEBATE] : Re: Harvey and racism

Tue May 30 08:58:24 BST 2006

It is easy to pass off an idea of indefinite historical oppression of women
but this is not factually correct. For the vast majority of human history
women were at the centre of human society, though by no means a ruling
class. There was no ruling class, and no relative ruination of women, until
the creation of property relations a few thousand years ago. Women invented
all the basic and familiar technology upon which we all still depend, and
laid the basis for science - and indeed, for property itself.

The process by which women were ruined as property relations took hold did
not occur at once. It is actually still going on, as is the process of
emancipation from that ruin. In South Africa, all three conditions are to
some extent co-existent in the present time.

The above conception of history is not the exclusive vision of black or of
white feminists. One of the most satisfactorily concrete expositions of it
came from the late Evelyn Reed, who appears as white as can be in her
photograph on the back of her book "Woman's Evolution". An essay of hers
laying out this case can be found at
http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/1970%2C+Reed%2C+Evelyn%2C+Women+-+Caste
%2C+Class+or+Oppressed+Sex

Web site at: http://amadlandawonye.wikispaces.com/
Blog at: http://domza.net/
Subscribe for free e-mail updates at:
http://groups.google.com/group/Communist-University/
Library of documents at: http://cu.domza.net/

-----Original Message-----
From: debate-bounces at lists.kabissa.org
[mailto:debate-bounces at lists.kabissa.org]On Behalf Of Mandi Smallhorne
Sent: 30 May 2006 09:34 AM
To: debate: SA discussion list
Subject: [DEBATE] : Re: Harvey and racism

"I don't think there's anything inherent to capitalism
which implies
that gradual development cannot allow for the reduction or even end to
gender disparities. This to some extent seems the
case in developed capitalist countries. "
To what extent? The fight for equality has been going on since the
nineteenth century, and women still haven't achieved pay parity (surely the
simplest and most achievable demand) in the UK, one of the great capitalist
countries, or in the USA - and I believe the average disparity in Spain is
as high as 40%. One hundred years on, we find ourselves celebrating the fact
that more British men are finally taking a role in child-rearing and a few
have actually elected to be full-time fathers.
>From my point of view, looking back over hundreds of years of history and
all I've learnt about different cultures around the world, to me it looks as
though the oppression of women has little to do with economics.
Mandi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell" <grinker at mweb.co.za>
To: "debate: SA discussion list " <debate at lists.kabissa.org>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 4:24 PM
Subject: [DEBATE] : Re: Harvey and racism

> Well *in the abstract* I don't think there's anything inherent to
capitalism
> which implies
> that gradual development cannot allow for the reduction or even end to
> gender disparities. This to some extent seems the
> case in developed capitalist countries. In a relatively backward and
> unevenly developed economy such as SA's this however seems highly
unlikely.
>
> I don't think the oppression of women is an aberration but rather inherent
> to accumulation *at this level* of development. Of course the division of
> the world into
> oppressed/oppressor nations also makes it likely that certain countries
will
> forever (this side of social revolution) bear the brunt of gender
> inequalities and women's oppression. In a sense gender inequalites that
> once occurred everywhere might be largely transposed to the "Third World".
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter van Heusden" <pvh at wfeet.za.net>
> To: "debate at mailhost15.mweb.co.za:SA discussion list"
> <debate at lists.kabissa.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 2:49 PM
> Subject: [DEBATE] : Re: Harvey and racism
>
>
> Russell wrote:
> > Repeating what I've previously argued on this list and at the risk of
> > being
> > accused of crude determinism or 'productivism', the
> > real point surely is:
> >
> > * Women's position in this country is primarily a consequence of the
mere
> > extension of historical forms that it took under apartheid accumulation
> > and
> > continues to be a function of the relative
> > backwardness and uneven development of the economy
> > * The survival of the system requires women's continued subordination as
> > gratis domestic toilers in the interest of capitalist production and
> > reproduction
> >
> Ok, before I accuse you of productivism ;) why do you say that women's
> position in South Africa is a function of the 'backwardness and uneven
> development' of the economy? You seem to imply that with some 'progress'
> in the economy or its 'even development' women's status (vis a vis men)
> will improve.
>
> I don't see any evidence for this - in fact, neo-liberal capitalism
> seems to thrive from the re-imposition of reproductive (in the broad,
> not just biological sense) labour on women. What I mean by this is that
> the 'cut off' (eviction, water, electricity) struggles of the last 6
> years, alongside early downwards variation of the child support grant,
> etc. can be read as an attempt to increase the household reproductive
> labour burden, most of which is done by women. So now, there's less
> electricity (due to the imposition of prepaids) thus more manual labour,
> extra burden of managing the household income (because there's less to
> go around), etc etc. The unit of economic management is the household /
> family, a structure which both provides a form of (hierarchical) mutual
> support and a barrier to solidarity (across household boundaries). In
> other words, gender politics, the politics of the household and the
> bedroom, is neatly integrated into (and functional to) 21st century
> South African capitalism (and I haven't even spoken here of how the
> growth of the 'informal sector' has a gendered side to it).
>
> So I don't get the way you talk as if this is some kind of economic
> aberration.
>
> Peter
>
> _______________________________________________
> DEBATE mailing list
> DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
> http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
>

_______________________________________________
DEBATE mailing list
DEBATE at lists.kabissa.org
http://lists.kabissa.org/mailman/listinfo/debate