arielnietzsche:
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, Subjects of Sex/Gender/Desire page 3
There is a universal basis for women’s oppression - that capitalism inherited male dominance/ female oppression from previous class systems, and has come to rely on it for its existence. And material male privilege and male socialization combine to see them acting to perpetuate this situation.
See marxism for this. (Does pointing to reality effectively appropriate non-Western cultures? Of course not. And, in fact, marxism does an important job pointing out how global capitalism functions to perpetuate the varied manifestations of misogyny around the globe. Whether through the USA’s sponsoring of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, which set back women’s rights there by decades, or by its general imperialist policies which make it easier for USA capital to plunder around the world, causing the capitalists in those parts to rely more heavily on repressive ideologies and practices in order to maintain their rule and profits. )
Ultimately, this 3rd-wavey post-structuralism is essentialist in both sexist and racist ways, since it refuses to point to the material and global oppressive forces that maintain female oppression.
What are some of the other problems with this post-structuralist charge of ‘essentialism’?
It holds that because there is no universal, identical experience of female oppression, it follows that females aren’t oppressed as a sex. This is a huge mistake that those influenced by postmodernism make. They get confused by individual differences in experience, and national/ethnic etc differences in the implementation of women’s oppression. So much so that they have trouble focussing on the structural oppression (deprivation of material rights and conditions accorded to other social sectors) of females. So if they even manage to acknowledge that the commonality that women have is that we are all oppressed as females, they still mistakenly conclude that there are no general dynamics of oppression that specifically target those thought to be female.
A better way of looking at it, of course, is to look at what relationship the individual has had to female-oppressing structures and dynamics from birth (since infant rearing, childhood socialization and the education received in this period are what pretty much forms adult physical health, psychology and the access one has to various forms of employment). Does society hold a general expectation for that individual to be the reproducer, bearer and carer of the next generation, part of the sector whose job it is to provide sex. Does rape make them vulnerable to pregnancy and a life of child-rearing. Are they the lesser-paid sex in the workforce. The less-prominent sex in government. Etc. [Structural oppression of females is not hard to identify.]
Some of us much prefer not to adopt post-structuralism simply because of the attempts by their adherents (eg Julia Serano) to fit up any disagreeing stance as being universalising. (And we know that the fact that most women experience multiple types of oppression means their experience of sexism is *aggravated*. They particularly need to have female oppression taken seriously. Post-structuralism’s denial of these general dynamics seriously impedes this.)
![womanontheedgeoftyne:
gwenmilitant:
arielnietzsche:
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble, Subjects of Sex/Gender/Desire page 3
There is a universal basis for women’s oppression - that capitalism inherited male dominance/ female oppression from previous class systems, and has come to rely on it for its existence. And material male privilege and male socialization combine to see them acting to perpetuate this situation. See marxism for this. (Does pointing to reality effectively appropriate non-Western cultures? Of course not. And, in fact, marxism does an important job pointing out how global capitalism functions to perpetuate the varied manifestations of misogyny around the globe. Whether through the USA’s sponsoring of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, which set back women’s rights there by decades, or by its general imperialist policies which make it easier for USA capital to plunder around the world, causing the capitalists in those parts to rely more heavily on repressive ideologies and practices in order to maintain their rule and profits. )Ultimately, this 3rd-wavey post-structuralism is essentialist in both sexist and racist ways, since it refuses to point to the material and global oppressive forces that maintain female oppression.What are some of the other problems with this post-structuralist charge of ‘essentialism’?
It holds that because there is no universal, identical experience of female oppression, it follows that females aren’t oppressed as a sex. This is a huge mistake that those influenced by postmodernism make. They get confused by individual differences in experience, and national/ethnic etc differences in the implementation of women’s oppression. So much so that they have trouble focussing on the structural oppression (deprivation of material rights and conditions accorded to other social sectors) of females. So if they even manage to acknowledge that the commonality that women have is that we are all oppressed as females, they still mistakenly conclude that there are no general dynamics of oppression that specifically target those thought to be female.
A better way of looking at it, of course, is to look at what relationship the individual has had to female-oppressing structures and dynamics from birth (since infant rearing, childhood socialization and the education received in this period are what pretty much forms adult physical health, psychology and the access one has to various forms of employment). Does society hold a general expectation for that individual to be the reproducer, bearer and carer of the next generation, part of the sector whose job it is to provide sex. Does rape make them vulnerable to pregnancy and a life of child-rearing. Are they the lesser-paid sex in the workforce. The less-prominent sex in government. Etc. [Structural oppression of females is not hard to identify.]
Some of us much prefer not to adopt post-structuralism simply because of the attempts by their adherents (eg Julia Serano) to fit up any disagreeing stance as being universalising. (And we know that the fact that most women experience multiple types of oppression means their experience of sexism is *aggravated*. They particularly need to have female oppression taken seriously. Post-structuralism’s denial of these general dynamics seriously impedes this.)
Exactly!](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8j21lI5WI1qjdk8lo1_500.jpg)
