The Instigator
ILoveCheese
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

feminism is marxism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,223 times Debate No: 4458
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (10)

 

ILoveCheese

Pro

The personal is political. http://scholar.alexanderstreet.com...

The paper, "The Personal Is Political," was originally published in Notes from the Second Year: Women's Liberation in 1970 and was widely reprinted and passed around the Movement and beyond in the next several years. I didn't know just how much it had gotten around until I did a Goggle search and found it being discussed in many different languages.

I'd like to clarify for the record that I did not give the paper its title, "The Personal Is Political." As far as I know, that was done by Notes from the Second Year editors Shulie Firestone and Anne Koedt after Kathie Sarachild brought it to their attention as a possible paper to be printed in that early collection. Also, "political" was used here in the broard sense of the word as having to do with power relationships, not the narrow sense of electorial politics.
The paper actually began as a memo that I wrote in February of 1969 while in Gainesville, Florida. It was sent to the women's caucus of the Southern Conference Educational Fund (SCEF) a group for whom I was a subsistence-paid organizer doing exploratory work for establishing a women's liberation project in the South. The memo was originally titled, "Some Thoughts in Response to Dottie's Thoughts on a Women's Liberation Movement," and was written in reply to a memo by another staff member, Dottie Zellner, who contended that consciousness-raising was just therapy and questioned whether the new independent WLM was really "political."
This was not an unusual reaction to radical feminist ideas in early 1969. WLM groups had been springing up all over the country -- and the world. The radical movements of Civil Rights, Anti-Vietnam War, and Old and New Left groups from which many of us sprang were male dominated and very nervous about women's liberation in general, but especially the spectre of the mushrooming independent women's liberation movement, of which I was a staunch advocate. Arriving in New York City after ten months in the Mississippi Civil Rights Movement, I had found SCEF to be one of the more mature and better progressive groups around. It had a good record of racial, economic and political justice work since New Deal days, and I joined its staff in 1966 as its New York office manager. SCEF allowed New York Radical Women to meet in its New York office, where I worked, and at my request agreed to explore setting up a women's liberation project in the South. However, many on the SCEF staff, both men and women, ended up joining the criticism of women getting together in consciousness-raising groups to discuss their own oppression as "naval-gazing" and "personal therapy" -- and certainly "not political."
They could sometimes admit that women were oppressed (but only by "the system") and said that we should have equal pay for equal work, and some other "rights." But they belittled us no end for trying to bring our so-called "personal problems" into the public arena - especially "all those body issues" like sex, appearance, and abortion. Our demands that men share the housework and childcare were likewise deemed a personal problem between a woman and her individual man. The opposition claimed if women would just "stand up for themselves" and take more responsibility for their own lives, they wouldn't need to have an independent movement for women's liberation. What personal initiative wouldn't solve, they said, "the revolution" would take care of if we would just shut up and do our part. Heaven forbid that we should point out that men benefit from oppressing women.
Recognizing the need to fight male supremacy as a movement instead of blaming the individual woman for her oppression was where the Pro-Woman Line came in. It challenged the old anti-woman line that used spiritual, psychological, metaphysical, and pseudo-historical explanations for women's oppression with a real, materialist analysis for why women do what we do. (By materialist, I mean in the Marxist materialist (based in reality) sense, not in the "desire for consumer goods" sense.) Taking the position that "women are messed over, not messed up" took the focus off individual struggle and put it on group or class struggle, exposing the necessity for an independent WLM to deal with male supremacy.
The Pro-Woman Line also helped challenge the "sex role theory" of women's oppression that said women act as we do because "that's how we were taught" by "society." (We all can think of things we were taught to think or do that we rejected once the forces that kept us thinking or doing them were removed.) It was consciousness-raising that led to the emergence of the Pro-Woman Line with its scientific explanation based on an analysis of our own experiences and an examination of "who benefits" from women's oppression. Understanding that our oppressive situations were not our own fault -- were not, in the parlance of the time, "all in our head" -- gave us a lot more courage as well as a more solid, real foundation on which to fight for liberation.
"The Personal is Political" paper and the theory it contains, was my response in the heat of the battle to the attacks on us by SCEF and the rest of the radical movement. I think it's important to realize that the paper came out of struggle -- not just my struggle in SCEF but the struggle of the independent WLM against those who were trying to either stop it or to push it into directions they found less threatening.
It's also important to realize the theory the paper contains did not come solely out of my individual brain. It came out of a movement (the Women's Liberation Movement) and a specific group within that movement (New York Radical Women) and a specific group of women within New York Radical Women, sometimes referred to as the Pro-Woman Line faction.
Of course there were women within New York Radical Women and the broader feminist movement who argued from the beginning against consciousness raising and claimed women were brainwashed and complicit in their own oppression, an argument rooted in the sociological and psychological rather than the political. They, too, helped in the formulation of Pro-Woman Line theory. By arguing the then "standard wisdom" against us, they forced us to clarify and hone and develop and refine and articulate the new theory so that it could be spread more widely. After New York Radical Women meetings, the Pro-Woman Line faction would usually end up at Miteras, a nearby restaurant that served fantastic apple pie a la mode. There we would discuss how the meeting had gone and the ideas that had been talked about until two or three in the morning, both agreeing with and challenging each other in wonderful, lively debate among ourselves.
In September of 1968 -- six months before "The Personal Is Political" was written, the Miss America Protest brought home to many why the Pro-Woman Line theory we were developing was so important when it came to taking action outside the group. In another paper entitled "A Critique of the Miss America Protest" I wrote about how the anti-women faction of the protesters detracted from our message that ALL women are oppressed by beauty standards, even the contestants. Signs like "Up Against the Wall, Miss America" and "Miss America Is a Big Falsie" made these contestants out to be our enemy instead of the men and bosses who imposed false beauty standards on women.
Political struggle or debate is the key to good political theory. A theory is just a bunch of words -- sometimes interesting to think about, but just words, nevertheless---until it is tested in real life. Many a theory has delivered surprises, both positive and negative, when an attempt has been made to put it into practice.
While trying to think how I would change "The Personal Is Political" paper if I could rewrite it with today's hindsight, I was actually surprised how well it s
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

First, definitions:

Feminism: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

Marxism: a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society

is: present 3rd singular of be, dialect present 1st & 2nd singular of be, dialect present plural of be

to be: to equal in meaning

Source: Merriam-Webster

That means that organized activity on behalf women's rights and interests is the same as a theory and practice of socialism including labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society. One could make the argument that Marxism would improve women's rights, and my argument to that would be that throughout history Marxism has only led to decreases in rights for everyone, ie North Korea, Cuba, USSR, East Germany, etc. The other argument would be that all feminists are Marxists, which is simply not true, plenty of people who fight for women's rights do not support Marxist ideals.

My opponent's case is a complete non sequitur, it is simply some paper on a woman's experiences on feminism. It does not contain more than trivial evidence that the feminist in the paper is a Marxist, and even if it did, it would not speak for all feminists.

Your move.
Debate Round No. 1
ILoveCheese

Pro

Definition and focus:

I would like to focus this debate to a subsect of feminists, those that Christina Hoff Sommers referred to as 'Gender feminists'. Considering the unpopularity of being called a feminist, many have tried to expand the definition of feminism to include nearly anything a woman does to her advantage.

This is not to debate the libertarian strain of 'Equity Feminist', as I do not believe they are Marxist. Moving forward, I will use 'feminist' to mean 'gender feminist'.

Argument:

The purpose of the initial post was to instigate a response to a well known document in feminist circles. Ms. Hanisch clearly espouses collective action and tries in her paper to expand the 'class' by including women who felt they were removed from her Marxist based movement. She identifies two groups of feminist:

The first are women who are in 'therapy'.

The second are the Marxist who are trying to affect political change. This second group, she clearly admits it's roots in Marxism:

"Recognizing the need to fight male supremacy as a movement instead of blaming the individual woman for her oppression was where the Pro-Woman Line came in. It challenged the old anti-woman line that used spiritual, psychological, metaphysical, and pseudo-historical explanations for women's oppression with a real, materialist analysis for why women do what we do. (By materialist, I mean in the Marxist materialist (based in reality) sense, not in the "desire for consumer goods" sense.) Taking the position that "women are messed over, not messed up" took the focus off individual struggle and put it on group or class struggle, exposing the necessity for an independent WLM to deal with male supremacy."

But,you are correct, one person makes not a movement. Feminism (American brand), is based on class struggle. It assumes men and women are the same. All differences are attributed to oppression by the patriarchy. In this, feminism argues that we are not a product of our biology and environment but rather purely by the environment. By assuming that men and women are the same, they come to the conclusion that the differences that exist are due to personal (and as Ms. Hanisch describes, this means it is political) oppression by the patriarchy.

Consider these areas of interest to feminists in the economic area:
Universal healthcare
Affirmitive action
Paid daycare
Equality of Outcomes, not the Equality of opportunity

If one is a capitalist then one would allow the free market to determine prices, supply and demand. Feminist outright reject the free market and try through political action to establish socialism to benefit their class at the expense of the rest of society.

One could point to this as classic rent seeking, and I would agree that it is rent seeking, but by Marxist who have replaced the Proletariate with Women.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

First, not all socialism is Marxism, there are democratic socialists, Leninists, Maoists et cetera. Feminism may be similar to socialism, but it is not equal in meaning to socialism, and it is very different from Marxism. Also, it does in the paper refer to roots in the Old Left and New Left. A) that is roots, that does not mean they are one and the same b) the Old Left people were Trotkyists, Leninists, and Stalinists, differentiated from the Marxists of the New Left. She also speaks of Marxist materialism, which is not necessarily Marxism, it is one concept of Karl Marx's ideals. The paper shows that many of the so-called "Pro-Woman" feminists had roots in Socialism,but it does not establish the two as one and the same.

"Consider these areas of interest to feminists in the economic area:
Universal healthcare
Affirmitive action
Paid daycare
Equality of Outcomes, not the Equality of opportunity"

These are somewhat (okay maybe more than somewhat) socialist areas of interests, but they are not Marxist, there is a difference that you are not recognizing, and that is why your argument fails.

"Feminist outright reject the free market and try through political action to establish socialism to benefit their class at the expense of the rest of society."

These ideas aren't intended to hurt men, nor are they intended to make women the ruling class, they want a) women to be treated the same as men b) as they are mostly liberals, they want liberal ideas, does that surprise you?

None of this makes them Marxists, and therefore, the resolution fails.
Debate Round No. 2
ILoveCheese

Pro

Your previous point as I understand it, is that Feminism is socialist but not Marxist.

"First, not all socialism is Marxism, there are democratic socialists, Leninists, Maoists et cetera. Feminism may be similar to socialism, but it is not equal in meaning to socialism, and it is very different from Marxism."

You further extend this by making Marxism conditional on an advesarial relationship between men and women in this statement:

"These ideas aren't intended to hurt men, nor are they intended to make women the ruling class,"

A second argument is made that my perceptions of what the feminist movement aims at are not the same as Marxists goals in this statement:

" they want a) women to be treated the same as men b) as they are mostly liberals, they want liberal ideas, does that surprise you?""

All socialism is Marxism. Socialism as a economic model is conditional on two primary pillars of Marxism; specifically the identification of unequal classes and the use of force to redistribute economic output.

Whether that socialism is only 10% of the economy or 100%, it is still the forced redistribution of economic output. Whether you want to define the class as the proletariate, economical disadvantaged, oppressed masses etc. it all boils down to the same thing: specifically that the state forces a transfer of economic output from one class to another. Note that whether or not the firm is worker owned or privately owned is irrelevant as the end result is the same.

Let us consider wiki regarding Marxism:

While there are many theoretical and practical differences among the various forms of Marxism, most forms of Marxism share:

* a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation[5] of workers by the owners of capital
* a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects the dominant ideology which is in turn shaped by material conditions and relations of production
* an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
* an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
* a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change
* a belief that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support (more often than not including the nation state)

In every point, feminism is fits the Marxist model.

Point one: exploitation of women by men
point two: feminist assault on family (read economic specialization necessitated when people have children)
Point three: same as point two
Point four: Mentioned in my previous post regarding the view of all things being caused by the environment (ie. patriarchy)
Point five: Which wave of feminism are we in now?
Point Six: Men and women are equal. The 'liberalism' that you mention.

Liberalism:
The current left are socialist and marxists. They desire the redistribution of wealth and economic output and are willing to use the power of the state to enforce it. To argue that liberals and feminist in particular want equal opportunity is not correct. What they desire is equality of outcomes. This is not the same thing. Implicit in socialist policies is the definition of classes. Redistribution is designed to take from the 'haves' to the 'have nots' to the degree that the current powers are able to maintain political power.

In each of the socialist areas I mentioned in my previos post, a 'class' is identified and force is being placed to bear on other classes to provide the resources claimed by the 'disadvantaged class'.

Whether a coup is successful without a shot does not mean it is not a coup. You argue there are meaningful differences between Marxism and Marxism light. At the end of the day, I see no differences.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

"Your previous point as I understand it, is that Feminism is socialist but not Marxist."

I never said that feminism was socialism, I just said whether it has those ideals or not, it is not Marxism. Feminism, even this Pro-woman type isn't even Socialism, that what equal outcomes for women, all women, rich, poor, middle-class, everyone. They want gender equality, socialists want class equality, it is different, Feminism may be based in a similar model, but that does not mean it is one and the same.

"All socialism is Marxism. Socialism as a economic model is conditional on two primary pillars of Marxism; specifically the identification of unequal classes and the use of force to redistribute economic output."

Uhh... false... Marx created a type of Socialism, so did 20 other major political philosophers, Socialism is a broad category, which contains Marxism, but is not limited to Marxism. In fact, Marx didn't even invent Socialism, Plato, in "Laws" talks of a socialist society being the most practical and just society, (Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Plato was not a Marxist, I don't think any sane human being would say that. Anyways, your point is moot, as feminism is not the same as socialism much less Marxism.

"Whether that socialism is only 10% of the economy or 100%, it is still the forced redistribution of economic output. Whether you want to define the class as the proletariate [sic], economical disadvantaged, oppressed masses etc. it all boils down to the same thing: specifically that the state forces a transfer of economic output from one class to another. Note that whether or not the firm is worker owned or privately owned is irrelevant as the end result is the same."

Again, false. Socialism and Capitalism are often mixed, as logically neither a truly pure free market or a truly pure socialist economy could exist. The fact that welfare exists does not give us a socialist economy, absolutely not.

"While there are many theoretical and practical differences among the various forms of Marxism, most forms of Marxism share:

* a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation[5] of workers by the owners of capital
* a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects the dominant ideology which is in turn shaped by material conditions and relations of production
* an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations
* an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable
* a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change
* a belief that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support (more often than not including the nation state)"

That does not mean that socialism is Marxism, socialism came first, therefore we can say Marxism is a form of Socialism, but not that Socialism is Marxism.

"In every point, feminism is fits the Marxist model.

Point one: exploitation of women by men
point two: feminist assault on family (read economic specialization necessitated when people have children)
Point three: same as point two
Point four: Mentioned in my previous post regarding the view of all things being caused by the environment (ie. patriarchy)
Point five: Which wave of feminism are we in now?
Point Six: Men and women are equal. The 'liberalism' that you mention."

Even if it fits the Marxist model (a stretch) that does not mean it is Marxism. But, to disprove you even more:

Point One: This is saying that capitalism causes men to exploit women, which is not true, capitalism is not usually blamed.
Point Two: A feminist "assault" on the family has little to do with Point Two
Point Three: A feminist "assault" on the family has little to do with Point Three
Point Four: Patriarchy does not equal capitalism
Point Five: Multiple waves are not exclusive to Marxism
Point Six: Men and women being equal has nothing to do with Point Six

"The current left are socialist and Marxists. They desire the redistribution of wealth and economic output and are willing to use the power of the state to enforce it. To argue that liberals and feminist in particular want equal opportunity is not correct. What they desire is equality of outcomes. This is not the same thing. Implicit in socialist policies is the definition of classes. Redistribution is designed to take from the 'haves' to the 'have nots' to the degree that the current powers are able to maintain political power."

Some, but not all, in fact most are pretty solid capitalists.

"In each of the socialist areas I mentioned in my previos post, a 'class' is identified and force is being placed to bear on other classes to provide the resources claimed by the 'disadvantaged class'."

It doesn't make it socialism.

"Whether a coup is successful without a shot does not mean it is not a coup. You argue there are meaningful differences between Marxism and Marxism light. At the end of the day, I see no differences."

Feminism is Marxism light, where did that come from?
Debate Round No. 3
ILoveCheese

Pro

There are two areas that I believe you are disagreeing with.

This is the crux of point one: "Feminism is Marxism light, where did that come from?"

In your posts you claim that most of the left are solid capitalists. Most of your previous posts entail trying to explain how things are "somewhat (okay maybe more than somewhat) socialist areas of interests" but are in view not in fact socialist.

My use 'Marxism light' was to address that issue. It is true that we live in a representational democracy. It is also true we have in socialist policies in place. At what point do we say that we are a socialist country? When the government spends 50%? 75%? That I think is where some of our differences exist. I do not see feminist today espousing free market economics. Nor do I see a let the individual decide policy prescriptions. What is happening is, feminist are trying to push through more government control of not only regulations but economic resources. What is unavoidable is that they do promote in large part socialist policies.

Again equality of outcomes is not equality of opportunity. The only way to get the former is by using force. In this the original post clearly shows that individual's belief that it was only by increasing the class could collective action be taken against basically everyone else.

The second area I think you disagree is the notion I put forward that you can only have socialism if you have marxism. As pointed out in my previous post, one can only have a redistribution of economic resources if one identifies classes and uses collective action to force the redistribution. In this way, as pointed out by von Mises, Fascism is really no different from Socialism.

"Point One: This is saying that capitalism causes men to exploit women, which is not true, capitalism is not usually blamed.
Point Two: A feminist "assault" on the family has little to do with Point Two
Point Three: A feminist "assault" on the family has little to do with Point Three
Point Four: Patriarchy does not equal capitalism
Point Five: Multiple waves are not exclusive to Marxism
Point Six: Men and women being equal has nothing to do with Point Six"

All of these points have been addressed. I will expand on them. Production is not only items that are traded for currency. Other production can include labor in the family. Much of the economic conflict argued by feminist occur in the home. The division of labor where women produce economic output at home forgoing currency based imployment outside of the home, is considered 'slavery' by many feminist. Only true freedom is believed to be possible where the woman has equal income to the husband and home duties are shared equally. Specialization is considered a loss of 'power'.

I will agree with you that economic considerations are not the only area that feminist argue for. The fact 'patriarchy' is specified does not mean that they are not marxist/socialist, especially when they use Marxist methods to come to their positions. In both word and deed, it is clear feminist are Marxists.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

"My use 'Marxism light' was to address that issue. It is true that we live in a representational democracy. It is also true we have in socialist policies in place. At what point do we say that we are a socialist country? When the government spends 50%? 75%? That I think is where some of our differences exist. I do not see feminist today espousing free market economics. Nor do I see a let the individual decide policy prescriptions. What is happening is, feminist are trying to push through more government control of not only regulations but economic resources. What is unavoidable is that they do promote in large part socialist policies."

We are nowhere close to 50% socialist, and even if we do all the things that are relevant to the feminists we won't be all that closer, we will still be solid capitalists.

"The second area I think you disagree is the notion I put forward that you can only have socialism if you have marxism. As pointed out in my previous post, one can only have a redistribution of economic resources if one identifies classes and uses collective action to force the redistribution. In this way, as pointed out by von Mises, Fascism is really no different from Socialism."

Okay, but fascism is irrelevant, you didn't prove that socialism is Marxism.

"All of these points have been addressed. I will expand on them. Production is not only items that are traded for currency. Other production can include labor in the family. Much of the economic conflict argued by feminist occur in the home. The division of labor where women produce economic output at home forgoing currency based imployment outside of the home, is considered 'slavery' by many feminist. Only true freedom is believed to be possible where the woman has equal income to the husband and home duties are shared equally. Specialization is considered a loss of 'power'."

You dropped my rebuttals for 1-3, and even with your arguments, the major difference is that feminism does not require the dismantling of capitalism permanently, they simply want gender to be irrelevant in capitalism.

"I will agree with you that economic considerations are not the only area that feminist argue for. The fact 'patriarchy' is specified does not mean that they are not marxist/socialist, especially when they use Marxist methods to come to their positions. In both word and deed, it is clear feminist are Marxists."

Marxist methods are effective revolutionary method, its not odd that they use them. The difference is that they feminism ideology is different than Marxist ideology, ergo they are not the same thing.
Debate Round No. 4
ILoveCheese

Pro

I will conclude with some feminist quotes.

Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society
being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible,
thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money
system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.'

-Valerie Solanas, the SCUM Manifesto

From birth till death it is now the privilege of the parental state to take
major decisions - objective, unemotional, the State weighs up what is best for
the child'

-Lady Helen Brook, founder of the Brook Organisation for sexual health advice
and services to the under 25's, in a letter to The Times 16 Feb 1980

The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is
to kill it'

-Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in Women and the New Rage,
p.67

A genuine Left doesn't consider anyone's suffering irrelevant or titillating;
nor does it function as a microcosm of capitalist economy, with men competing
for power and status at the top, and women doing all the work at the
bottom.... Goodbye to all that. - Robin Morgan

"All men are rapists and that's all they are."
Marilyn French, Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence
perpetrated against a woman."
Catherine MacKinnon

Catharine MacKinnon ( ) maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery,
marital rape and women's exploited labor." In this way, privacy and family are
reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male
domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state's nose out of
our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society
cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal
their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about
love and mutual aid--ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed--they're
"hiding from the truth." The family isn't a place where battery and marital
rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't
simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to
"breed" them for that purpose.
Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window; (in a critical explication of
the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al tenets of misandric belief.)

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the
oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing
them."
Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the
women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom
for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." (radial
feminist leader Sheila Cronan).

"Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to
serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice
that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that."
(Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily
Illini," April

"In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from
families and communally raise them." (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and
assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate
director of the school's Center for Research on Woman).

"Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally
sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it.
The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the
liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women
to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of
history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go
back to ancient female religions like witchcraft." (from "The Declaration
of Feminism," November 1971).

"Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the
whole... patriarch!" (Gloria Steinhem, radical feminist leader, editor of
'MS' magazine).

Here is a college professor discussing Marxism and Feminism:

http://technorati.com...
Note he argues of the three types of Feminism 2 have basis in Marxism (2:22). The type he does not say is based on Marxism is what I refered to above as the equity feminist(Hoffman).

Here is Stanford's site discussing Marxism and Feminism:

http://plato.stanford.edu...
"A good place to situate the start of theoretical debates about women, class and work is in the intersection with Marxism and feminism. Such debates were shaped not only by academic inquiries but as questions about the relation between women's oppression and liberation and the class politics of the left, trade union and feminist movements in the late 19th and 20th centuries, particularly in the U.S., Britain and Europe. It will also be necessary to consider various philosophical approaches to the concept of work, the way that women's work and household activities are subsumed or not under this category, how the specific features of this work may or may not connect to different "ways of knowing" and different approaches to ethics, and the debate between essentialist and social constructionist approaches to differences between the sexes as a base for the sexual division of labor in most known human societies."

Class conflict? Check.
Overthrowing capitalism? Check.
Revolutionary dialogue? Check.
Rewriting history? Check.
Collective political action to force socialist policies? Check.
Reconstructing issues to blame any perceived inequity on the environment and specifically gender(class) oppression? Check.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

Okay, these quotes show that feminism has some roots in Marxism, that doesn't mean it is Marxism, that's completely different.

"Class conflict? Check.
Overthrowing capitalism? Check.
Revolutionary dialogue? Check.
Rewriting history? Check.
Collective political action to force socialist policies? Check.
Reconstructing issues to blame any perceived inequity on the environment and specifically gender(class) oppression? Check."

Class conflict: It is a different type, Marxism focuses on the workers, feminism focuses on the women, it is very different
Overthrowing capitalism: Feminists don't require that, and even if they want to, they go farther, the patriarch is their main issue
Revolutionary dialogue: Is that exclusive to Marxism? No.
Collective Political action to force socialist policies: Also not exclusive to Marxism
Reconstructing issues to blame any perceived inequity on the environment and specifically gender(class) oppression: Also not exclusive to Marxism

Face the facts, there may be similarities between the two, but they are not the same thing.

I rest my case.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by WarPig 8 years ago
WarPig
LR4N6FTW4EVA has only served to further clarify the differences of Marxism socialism and the like. The spirit of ILoveCheese's statement is well heard. No one would boldly claim Marxism as an ideology today so those believe in it (e.g. the modern womens movement in ALMOST EVERY organized sub-group who lobby and protest their grievances) must disguise it as something else. Otherwise they would never even be taken seriously. They will deny that they are Marxist, all the while demanding the forced equality of economic output. Marx outright advocated the forced distruction of the capitolist society and that is what is being propagated by the radical feminists as evidenced by the quotes posted in round 5. These are not just rag-tag fringe extremists who wander the streets in herds with signs saying "votes for women", but these are the very heart soul and voice of the Modern womens movement. They are founders of Nationwide and even global organizations (planned parenthood), as well as professors of universtities who have attained the power to speek to young minds uninterupted and unchallenged in their Marxist views. To say that they are not Marxist is similar to the arguments that I have heard put forth that a black man cannot be a "Racist" because "Race" was a term invented by white German evolutionists. We all use the term "Racist" as a synonym for "racial prejudice" and common sense would apply that any person from any "race" can be racially prejudice. The modern womens movement is absolutely born out of the communist manifesto again as evidenced by I love cheese's final posted quotes. Whether its leaders declare it or deny it, and therfore to say that it IS socialist and Marxist is to merely use a synonym.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by blondesrule502 8 years ago
blondesrule502
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by slayer54321 8 years ago
slayer54321
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by sccrplyr40 8 years ago
sccrplyr40
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by WarPig 8 years ago
WarPig
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by gahbage 8 years ago
gahbage
ILoveCheeseLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03