|
A Response to Aduku's
"Feminism"
By Connie Adukku:
Your comments about the way Black men have
been criminalized because of "zealots" in the DAs
offices is right on. I agree with you that there is no
hint of (even bourgeois) equitability when men are made to pay
for a child that they did not want. The bourgeois ideology
of the "family" leaves childcare and child rearing to
the warped system of private property.
Under a system whereby the working class is
exploited for a wage that is often less than subsistence,
children will never be sufficiently and financially provided
for, no matter how many men are imprisoned or made to pay from
their meager (and even non-existent) wages for the financial
support of a child. (As related to subsistence wages, the
statistics indicate that in America, the average worker has
1-1/2 to 2 jobs.)
I would support the abolition of the
[bourgeois] family, and that children be financially and
socially provided for by a "community." For
children to be provided for in a system such as the [bourgeois]
"nuclear" family is to continue to support mental and
physical child abuse, and that working class children will
continue to live in relative poverty.
The problem is bourgeois private property and
exploitation of wage labor by capital. As long as this
economic system continues, even a [working class]
"community" would be hard pressed to adequately
provide for the emotional and financial needs of children.
I agree that men must be seen as part and
parcel of the process of reproduction of the species. Men
should not be excluded from decision-making as it relates to
that process. On the other hand, your article blames the
victim—blames the women who take advantage of the social
safety net that is called "welfare." I see the
"welfare" system as part and parcel of the
"gains" that have been won by way of working class
struggle in America.
I guess technically the "welfare"
system was a decree by a sitting American president, and has
developed from there. But that decree was a result of
class struggle in the streets.
Another note, the term "Jezebel" is
derogatory to women. Maybe that was your intent, but the
use of the word "Jezebel" in your article is another
example of blaming the victim. Working class women in
America, and elsewhere, should not be denigrated for taking
advantage of what capitalism allows as income to its surplus
population.
Capitalism creates and needs the surplus
population, and that surplus population should be allowed to
take advantage of it—no matter the reason why an individual
has decided to do so. The fact of the matter is that
technological advances allow that the working class need not
work 8-14 (or more) hours several times a week. If the working
day were reduced, the surplus population could be employed.
But capitalism could not continue without the
benefits of a surplus population. As mentioned above, the
reason why this is the case is bourgeois private property and
exploitation of wage labor by capital.
I think that at some instances in your
analysis, you mix class analysis. You start off with what
appears to be an analysis of what is called the "lumpen
proletariat" in that you analyze "welfare"
mothers/recipients, and specifically those women who you say
"hustle" that system. The "lumpen
proletariat" does not consistently have the same interests
as the working class, although very similar.
On the other hand, your analysis does not
deal with the fact that there is more than one
"feminist" movement. There are feminists who
blame men for the problems of women, and see men as the enemy.
There are also feminists that give a class analysis to the
feminist movement, and are critical of the "men are the
problem" escapism of some feminists. (You might be
interested in bell hooks' book, "Feminist Theory: From
Margin to Center."
I don't suggest that you might want to embark
on a study of "feminism," but just mentioning what I
think is a critical analysis, from a fairly consistent working
class perspective, in the "feminist" movement from
someone who was/is an integral part of it. Let me add that
this is the only book by Bell Hooks that I have ever read.
Although I have "heard" her name a time or two, I am
not familiar with her or her "feminist" analysis other
than what I get in the book I have mentioned here.)
I think that the most striking thing about
patriarchy is that it drastically neglects the needs of children
for the sake of control and indoctrination of a social class.
Child rearing is not central in the monogamous family, but
bourgeois socialization is. The raising of the child is
relegated to a monogamous family structure that is inherently
brutal to the psyche of the child, and to the parents.
By brutal, I refer to the way that the child
is treated/seen as property of the patriarch. Control of
the child seems to be the ultimate objective of
"parenting," not the development of a
critical-thinking individual. "Do as you are
told" is considered a standard in "parenting."
This lends itself to a society wherein workers are expected to
participate in production/society without questioning
exploitation or oppression. A complacent/obedient work
force lends itself to structural capitalism.
Your article highlights just how damaging
patriarchal monogamy is to raising children -- the issue of
reproductive legislation is presented by you as one of them
(women) against us (men). This "them/us"
presentation is most blatantly expressed in your depiction of
mothers who scapegoat fathers as "Jezebels."
Now, I know that the "technical" meaning of
"jezebel" is "a woman who is evil and
scheming," but the societal connotations of a
"jezebel" come from the Bible, that claimed that
"Jezebel" was promiscuous—idolotrous—and
unfaithful. I believe that as scientists, we should try
hard to stay away from name-calling.
Your comments about the "economy"
of women using the/a welfare system instead of seeking work
lacks statistical information. Are you saying that your
research indicates that women who receive welfare are largely
unskilled? If so, what does that have to do with the
economy of staying on welfare as opposed to seeking employment?
I have not taken a survey, but my observations are that a large
percentage of welfare recipients work, as well as receive
welfare.
Statistically, the welfare check has never
been seen as adequate for existence in the U.S. economy.
Subsidized housing is much more sought after by poor and working
class women than is the welfare check. (As an aside,
subsidized housing is not the purview of welfare recipients.)
In other industrialized countries, the "welfare"
system is seen as the product of the working class struggle, as
a "safety net," if you will, for workers that are
unemployed. These countries – like France, Germany,
Sweden – present the "welfare" system as part and
parcel of the gains of the working class struggle.
Only in America do we view the
"welfare" system as something derogatory to the
working class mother or father who is taking advantage of it.
The "welfare" system in this country is as much a part
of the gains of the American working class as is the 8-hour
day!! The system was formerly named "AFDC" –
Aid To Families With Dependent Children – and was seen as part
of what working class taxes paid for as a "safety net"
for the unemployed and underemployed.
When you get the chance, if at all, I would
welcome any comments you could make to mine above.
la luta continua,
connie * * *
* *
updated 11 June 2008 |
