Are there any relevant marxist critiques of Shulamnith Firestone and other marxists calling for abolition of the gender?

Are there any relevant marxist critiques of Shulamnith Firestone and other marxists calling for abolition of the gender?

Attached: 220px-Shulamith_Firestone.jpg (220x317, 12.87K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Not sure. I mean theres technically nothing wrong with calling for the abolition of gender (unless you're third wave feminists with all their nonsensical gengerqueer bs which just recreates gender norms). Cockshott has a couple articles on gender and sex which could help you.

Attached: on_women_s_emancipation_by_party9999999-d7k7741.png (1024x496, 140.27K)

What does this mean? No social gender roles? Sounds fine to me

Yes, that is abolition of the social gender roles. I am just interested if the theory has its critics in marxist ciricles.

From my own experience, there is no mainstream criticism on the abolition of social gender roles.

If you can read spanish, I recomend you to serch for "Lenin: La Emancipación de la Mujer", a compilation of Lenin´s articles, book sections, letters and speeches regarding the woman´s labor both inside and outside the Soviet Union.

If spanish isn´t your cup of tea, I have said book in my university library, so I could reference said texts if they are online.

Enough with this usage of "gender". It's called roles of the sexes.

Thank you, but sadly spanish really isn't my cup of tea. But I will search for it and try it read with the help of dictionary.

This discourse is unmarxist. The critique is "it has nothing to do with us whatsoever, so go waste someone else's time"

Yeah, Cockshott was first person, who came in my mind. Thanks

Whatever happened to the ruthless critique of everything?


Gender is a spook

There is only sex. Male and Female

Gender is broad and vague. People use it to refer to things like biological sex and secondary sex characteristics. "gender roles" or "sex roles" is far clearer and you sound much less retarded when you say you're an abolitionist.

It's retarded though. There will always be a material basis for differences in social roles according to sex as long as there are sexes. The goal of socialists is a "new socialist man and woman," not a "new socialist genderfluid xir."

Is there any author who mixes Freud with Marx without the end product being vapid at best and cancerous at worst?


Gender don't real. It's bullshit originally coined by a researcher whose science is very, VERY questionable. Nor is there even such a thing as "more male" or "more female" on a spectrum - male parts are just male parts and female parts are female parts. We taxonomically classify animals as male or female because, generally, there is only material for one set of gonads, but there sure as hell isn't something internal essence of gender; calling an animal male is just shorthand for saying "this animal has male gonads and does the male function in sexual reproduction".


Gender abolition is not about whether those differences naturally come about, but that they're not imposed on someone.

I don't see how your post has anything to do with arguing against making a distinction between biological sex and the roles and stereotypes society imposes on that sex, i.e. gender. Gender is a perfectly acceptable word for that concept and it's already commonly used. Unless you're arguing that the concept doesn't exist, and I can't see why someone would claim that.

The roles are not fixed in stone though, they vary from era to era, nor are they absolutes that are rigidly enforced or liked. The roles that stuck largely stuck because they were practical, but there has been a large pool of women who prostitute themselves throughout history even though the trade is largely shameful, and there have been men who remained confirmed bachelors.
Nor are these roles the same as observing behavioral tendencies. It is only in our recent society that authority figures are so obsessive about telling men and women what they're supposed to like and dislike, and what minor traits they are supposed to perform. Sex roles, in any meaningful capacity, refer to hard taboos and core obligations, not an exacting picture of conformity to an exact ideal of behavior. A woman was expected to remain monogamous for reasons that were and are well understood, not because it made her unwomanly to be a slut and she had to be faithful to consider herself an actual woman. Liking dresses or liking football is not a sex role, and no reasonable person would consider violating a fashion code on the same level as committing adultery.

It is very likely in socialist society, or even in late capitalist society, that the superficial traits of the sexes become less and less important, and the roles of man and woman are relaxed as technology allows. We see this happening today, and it is not just the result of a feminist conspiracy or Marxists upsetting the natural order of monogamy. They never disappear completely, but men and women being politically equal and physically and mentally close enough to equal, and the business of child-rearing being socialized (or industrialized and turned over to corporate chains in the most extreme states of capitalism), there isn't that much dividing men and women politically. What arrangements exist between men and women would likely flow from practical concerns between the partners, rather than any major social role enforced by society as is the case in a patriarchal society.

Doesn't matter, it's stupid. You will never, ever, ever be able to prevent people from having social roles and ideas based around sex. You CAN demand and implement equal treatment and rights for the sexes. Fuck off with this idealist utopianism.

These “social roles” aren’t static and will continue to change through time. In fact, the two roles are probably closer than any time in history at this point. I wouldn’t say it should be a priority but overall the gradual extinction of socially-imposed gender roles is positive.

Yes, and? Of course they will change in socialism, but they will never go away.

"Wearing a dress" is not a social role in any meaningful sense.

How is it not?


People don't decide out of the blue "I want to adopt the social role of a man/woman". They are imposed by taboos, or laws, or necessity, and obviously people don't get to choose whether they're a man or a woman. A social role would also have to be significant and relevant, and not just something to signify their maleness or femaleness.

what a shit thread. sorry, op.

this is exactly what firestones point is in dialectic of sex: if abolishing gender is impossible due to the material bases of production (ie womens main productive role is to reproduce the workers) then it must involve radically changing these conditions, ie through artificial reproduction

op, not sure what you're looking for/expecting to find. shulamiths project is already a marxist critique of feminism, right? like her thesis is that feminism is nonsense without dialectical materialism.

You seem to be getting unreasonably hostile in defense of some spook.
History shows that sexed social roles and expectations change all the time.

Why are you so sure? It sounds to me like you'd prefer if they didn't go away.

Presenting a specific appearance is part of gender.

so it's cryptofash transhumanism

I genuinely don't care, what annoys me is the amount of idiots I've seen sloganeering on this completely un-Marxist nonsense and wasting everyone's time.

Marxistish take on gender. Many brainlets in this field tend to treat masculinity and femininity as fixed personality traits, which is flawed. Or disregard class as the major oppression.
Rather than an ever changing, geographically and historically significant social phenomenon.

Imo, this is only useful in a few areas. First is from a health professional perspective. >why less men than women present at clinics, lower average life span, higher suicide rates, higher accidental death rates, generally worse health choices/outcomes.that said when compared to class differences in health outcomes there is clearer evidence for class being a more apparent detrimental aspect to ones health.
And why people can be so class cucked for subscribing to "trad" gender roles. traditional lumpen proletariat male and female roles or even the same can be said of the opposite "progressive" gender roles progressive lumpen proletariat m/f roles

The abolishment of gender roles is the virgin feminist v the chad global and universal class consciousness of the prolatriate.

Attached: downloadfile-14~4.png (474x551, 67.02K)

It's not cryptofash at all, but it is transhumanist-socialist-feminist.
If that makes no sense to you, then give The Dialectic of Sex a read.

So according to her to make women free, we should make people robots?
Omg, I hate this transhumanist shit

Artificial reproduction doesn't even imply changing anything with the human body. You could just have machines which work as artificial wombs. In fact that's exactly what she must be arguing for considering why she argues for it.

Which level of absurdistan should we have according to her to completely liberate women?

Sounds to me like Posadas for feminists