I'm currently reading Rethinking Feminism by bell hooks - which is a great critique of 2nd wave white liberal feminism - and she has practical suggestions in response to the ways the movement failed to connect with men and working class women. It's a very grounded analyses with ideas for doing better.
Brilliant! This got me thinking about how institutional religion has attempted to move spirituality out of nature and into a god above of human male form only. It's also got me thinking about the interest in earth based spirituality for so many women. I think it's wild to know that, for example, St. Brigid was the patron saint of a Celtic world that centered an earth based spirituality, and is widely regarded as a herbalist midwife who most certainly aided in abortion. It also makes me think of St. Hildegard of Bingen, the herbalist and gardener who saw God in all things earth bound. I think especially those who are curious about upholding a grounded practice of Christianity freedom from patriarchy's hold can look to all of the points made here as further conclusion that an earth based spirituality, women, and liberation are all so intricately connected.
A better project is the more direct connection between women and property
In Homer, women were either slaves, providing sexual convenience or wives for the purpose of property exchange and having management over οἰκονομία (basically, Home Ec for those of an age to remember). A large part of household labor was devoted to prestige goods used to impress upon guests the host's social standing. Abram pimps our Saria in Egypt to save his own neck. In classical Rome, women were under either the rule of their fathers or husbands. A classical Romen freeman plenary authority over everyone under his roof, going as far as murder. Remnant aspects of coverture persist in restrictions on divorce availability to pregnant women. It was not until 50 years ago that it became illegal for credit card issuers to require a male cosigner.
In 1899, Thorstein Veblan wrote: "the institution of ownership has begun with the ownership of persons, primarily women. The incentives to acquiring such property have apparently been: (1) a propensity for dominance and coercion; (2) the utility of these persons as evidence of the prowess of the owner; (3) the utility of their services."
While capitalism rests on shaky theoretic assumptions about competition and makes no provision for it purported efficiencies to be re-invested, it's the older celebration of property rights over all other value that lies at the center of the on-going thumb on the scale in favor of men.
The better view is that the project of feminism was initially set in motion by reproductive freedom which, until Dobbs, was taken as a given. The reactionary withdrawal of national recognition of that right needs urgent attention, but the future project of feminism is how to accommodate the biological surplus of men. When the clever meme of "a woman needs a bicycle like a man needs a fish" began circulation in 1970, I thought it was clever and indulged the conceit. I also thought that the tendency of reproductive freedom was to make women disposable. I now think had that backwards.
The manly jobs traditionally required a mix of upper body strength, agility and willingness to risk grave injury or death. Think lumberjacks, steelworkers, longshoremen, riggers casually having lunch on a skyscraper girder suspended above the city, smoke jumpers, deep sea divers and other tough-guy jobs. The men who held down those jobs had little to prove by exaggerated musculature (they had as much as they needed, but body building was regarded as a bit freakish), they didn't fetishize firearms, which were for hunting game, not in fantasizing. A man was supposed to know how to use his fists when necessary, but it seldom was. There was little of the ritualized displays of aggression ad shown among the Kens in Barbie.
Those jobs are a much diminished part of the economy and, what's more, many have been shown to be capable of being performed by women in roles such as firefighters and fighter pilots among others. And the distinction of supporting a family is lost as women proved able to do that on their own.
In the service economy the loss of the exclusive access that men have experienced has likewise shown that when women compete on an equal basis, men have no intrinsic advantage. Men have come to face twice as much competition on the merits as they were formally used to. The result has been a rising percentage of women in higher education both as teachers and as students that has overtaken male participation generally. In personal services it is widely perceived that men are inferior to women in point of fact, beginning with pronounced reluctance to take better paid employment in jobs as home health aides in preference to, say, car detailing.
In all, society and economics are capable operating at least as well with a female dominated workforce as a male dominated one. So, the question arises, why should women economically support men as nothing more than expensive lifestyle accessories? I don't think there are obvious answers, but solve that problem, of giving men something useful to do, and that will go far to address the ill effects of the capitalist paradigm.
Such a thorough and helpful synthesis of this necessary literature. And thanks for the shoutout🖤
I'm currently reading Rethinking Feminism by bell hooks - which is a great critique of 2nd wave white liberal feminism - and she has practical suggestions in response to the ways the movement failed to connect with men and working class women. It's a very grounded analyses with ideas for doing better.
Brilliant! This got me thinking about how institutional religion has attempted to move spirituality out of nature and into a god above of human male form only. It's also got me thinking about the interest in earth based spirituality for so many women. I think it's wild to know that, for example, St. Brigid was the patron saint of a Celtic world that centered an earth based spirituality, and is widely regarded as a herbalist midwife who most certainly aided in abortion. It also makes me think of St. Hildegard of Bingen, the herbalist and gardener who saw God in all things earth bound. I think especially those who are curious about upholding a grounded practice of Christianity freedom from patriarchy's hold can look to all of the points made here as further conclusion that an earth based spirituality, women, and liberation are all so intricately connected.
100% agree, that's a perfect line of thinking to go toward next!
Such interesting points. The argument on witches and control is having my neurones fired up for more!
Now I have a new book on feminism to add to my tbr, thank you for the inspiration
I am not an Island
I'm not an island
I'm a woman
I'm a lover, I am a giver
I have sisters
I'm a woman
I'm not an island
I am not a piece of property
That you can or can't afford
I am not your trader's favorite stock
But I'm not to be ignored
I am strong within my boundaries
I am not your fair absurd
I'm the fount of our salvation
And I will have the final word
I'm not an island
I'm a woman
I'm a lover, I am a giver
I have sisters
I'm not an island
I'm a woman
I'm a lover, I am a giver
I have sisters
I'm a woman
I'm not an island
I am the mighty hurricane
That will beat upon your shores
I am a resurrection
I am knocking on your doors
Do you think that I am kidding
Do even think at all
While you play your favorite pastimes
And throw your favorite balls
I'm not an island
I'm a woman
I'm a lover, I am a giver
I have sisters
I'm a woman
I'm not an island
I am thriving in the sunlight
I am living my ballet
I will harken to that music
As I hear my sisters play
With one step for the future
And one for all mankind
We shall weave this dance together
And advance in pace and kind
I'm not an island
I'm a woman
I'm a lover, I am a giver
I have sisters
I'm a woman
I'm not an island
Malcolm J McKinney 2023
While I’m sympathetic to all this, I am hesitant to embrace Federici’s take, for these reasons: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/2AXj5Hn7A4
A better project is the more direct connection between women and property
In Homer, women were either slaves, providing sexual convenience or wives for the purpose of property exchange and having management over οἰκονομία (basically, Home Ec for those of an age to remember). A large part of household labor was devoted to prestige goods used to impress upon guests the host's social standing. Abram pimps our Saria in Egypt to save his own neck. In classical Rome, women were under either the rule of their fathers or husbands. A classical Romen freeman plenary authority over everyone under his roof, going as far as murder. Remnant aspects of coverture persist in restrictions on divorce availability to pregnant women. It was not until 50 years ago that it became illegal for credit card issuers to require a male cosigner.
In 1899, Thorstein Veblan wrote: "the institution of ownership has begun with the ownership of persons, primarily women. The incentives to acquiring such property have apparently been: (1) a propensity for dominance and coercion; (2) the utility of these persons as evidence of the prowess of the owner; (3) the utility of their services."
While capitalism rests on shaky theoretic assumptions about competition and makes no provision for it purported efficiencies to be re-invested, it's the older celebration of property rights over all other value that lies at the center of the on-going thumb on the scale in favor of men.
The better view is that the project of feminism was initially set in motion by reproductive freedom which, until Dobbs, was taken as a given. The reactionary withdrawal of national recognition of that right needs urgent attention, but the future project of feminism is how to accommodate the biological surplus of men. When the clever meme of "a woman needs a bicycle like a man needs a fish" began circulation in 1970, I thought it was clever and indulged the conceit. I also thought that the tendency of reproductive freedom was to make women disposable. I now think had that backwards.
The manly jobs traditionally required a mix of upper body strength, agility and willingness to risk grave injury or death. Think lumberjacks, steelworkers, longshoremen, riggers casually having lunch on a skyscraper girder suspended above the city, smoke jumpers, deep sea divers and other tough-guy jobs. The men who held down those jobs had little to prove by exaggerated musculature (they had as much as they needed, but body building was regarded as a bit freakish), they didn't fetishize firearms, which were for hunting game, not in fantasizing. A man was supposed to know how to use his fists when necessary, but it seldom was. There was little of the ritualized displays of aggression ad shown among the Kens in Barbie.
Those jobs are a much diminished part of the economy and, what's more, many have been shown to be capable of being performed by women in roles such as firefighters and fighter pilots among others. And the distinction of supporting a family is lost as women proved able to do that on their own.
In the service economy the loss of the exclusive access that men have experienced has likewise shown that when women compete on an equal basis, men have no intrinsic advantage. Men have come to face twice as much competition on the merits as they were formally used to. The result has been a rising percentage of women in higher education both as teachers and as students that has overtaken male participation generally. In personal services it is widely perceived that men are inferior to women in point of fact, beginning with pronounced reluctance to take better paid employment in jobs as home health aides in preference to, say, car detailing.
In all, society and economics are capable operating at least as well with a female dominated workforce as a male dominated one. So, the question arises, why should women economically support men as nothing more than expensive lifestyle accessories? I don't think there are obvious answers, but solve that problem, of giving men something useful to do, and that will go far to address the ill effects of the capitalist paradigm.