Gender and Reproduction Re: The nature of anarchism

JBrown72073 at cs.com JBrown72073 at cs.com
Tue Oct 1 12:59:58 PDT 2002



>JBrown72073 at cs.com wrote:
>
>>Sexual reproduction, for all its wonderful innovation (biologically
speaking),
>>does tend to divide a species.
>
>Look, I'll grant you that women got the short end of the stick on that
>reproduction deal. For the sake of argument at least. But surely division
>of labour isn't the same as, nor necessarily creates, a conflict of interest?
>
>Where is the irreconcilable conflict of interest between mean and women?
>
>Bill Bartlett
>Bracknell Tas

I didn't say irreconcilable : ) Just a whole different set of labor issues, which won't be automatically fixed even if class struggle as we think of it is quite reconciled. I'm not that much of an 'end of history' buff myself anyway.

To me there's a problem, based in biology, with a just division of labor around child-bearing and -rearing for which I think there need to be certain compensations worked out, mostly involving men adding a lot of domestic labor to their to-do list. This is quite difficult under current conditions and ev en a little progress in the fight against capital would help a great deal. Rumors of the shorter work week in France stimulating men to do the laundry and midweek shopping are probably exaggerated, but you get my point.

The struggle for a just division of labor between the sexes has a perfectly good name, feminism. But what to call the division itself? I'm ambivalent about calling it class, although I agree that it at least makes the general point that class is about who does the work and who gets the benefits. Gender's an academic mumble word, sex is well... diverting, caste is more inaccurate than class, and sex-caste is clunky. As feminists were accused in the '60's of 'peasant mentality,' perhaps we're peasants tending a large, time-consuming, slow-growing crop.

Jenny Brown



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list