Further materials towards a theory of the man child

Property, in some of the ways you are talking about Mini, links into reproductive ownership. Lots of the customs around sex and marriage are related to the imperative that the man knows his offspring are his own and not some usuper.

I think Patriarchy is a problematic theory in some way in which some feminist use the term, that's all, but useful shorthand in the right context.

Patriarchy literally means rule of the father in a male-dominated family. It is a social and ideological construct which considers men (who are the patriarchs) as superior to women. Around this grew up laws and institutions to protect the rights of the patriarch and the property laws of men. Women are subordinated to men because men create value/wealth, they produce and women reproduce, the products of their wombs being male property.

Of course much has happened and we now have a situation where women's experiences in the first world seem far removed from this. But for me key to understanding why patriarchal relations exist is to A) understand what patriarchy is in very specific terms B) understand how property relations are key to understanding social relations. Patriarchy as a theory seems to me incomplete if you divide it from class relations, ie property/social relations. So for me class is a more useful theoretical framework. But, I am boring on this point and many feminists wouldn't agree with me.

Mini, I could not agree more. But I think those views that you mention are at odds with much that is written on these pages (FWR). How do you (i.e. we) bridge that gap? If you remove the concept of a patriarchy from feminism, what is feminism left with?

I don't see all men as oppressing all women. And I'm not keen on using the line "check your privilege" in every paragraph, I must be a very bad feminist. I'm also irritated by the use of term "the patriarchy" when we can't name the reason. It seems lazy because patriarchy is a theory which isn't grounded and it is aHistorical. It isn't useful to say that all men are privileged and all women subjugated because of patriarchy. It makes it sound like a secret organisation. But then we might all be feminists but we are not one homogeneous lump, which is why its great to talk.

The reason I thought it would be a controversial statement is because men are the oppressors. How can feminists align themselves with those who they percieve are keeping them down?

I can come in here and say ' yes, I believe in equal rights, equal opportunities, equal status in society for men and women' until I am blue in the face. There are many feminists who will not accept that, because I am a man. Someone on here has mentioned the 'Not my Nigel' mindset that some feminists accuse other feminists of having. That is where I see the issue.

HTH.

I agree Buffy, what is needed is for at least some men to contribute, if many more do then those that don't support the liberation of women will be out on their own.

Curry, yes I have read a bit about this a few months back. It seems that the SWP is rather undemocratic, they have a central committee and it is all very much "our way or the highway" Selma James spoke about it, she seemed to think that left wing groups should develop internal systems for dealing with sexism and even serious complaints right up to and incl rape. I was quite shocked.

I'm still ploughing through the raw materials. "let's be clear the concept of the young girl is not a gendered concept. The nightclub-going jock conforms to it just as much as the second generation North African girl" I guess the author is making the case that the piece is not gendered or race specific. The figure of the young girl seems to be all people but especially women who have been exploited, not just at the level of their labour and conscious actions but at a more profound level. So far its quite interesting. ,thank you Currey

What do you need men for? Thought that was what MN feminism was about.

Disagreement. Lots of.

'This is why its so important to build progressive movements with men'

I am looking forward to seeing the responses to that comment

I'm going to print the PDF off and read in bed, I struggle to read from a screen when it's longer than a few paragraphs.

well arsenaltilidie are you saying that men are superfluous to capital? superfluous people are other to those that are exploited. Capital can't tell what sex you are, its only interested in what you produce and consume. Unfortunately for women new technologies have meant an opening up of opportunities to earn because earning a wage is exploitation, consuming creates extortion because capital is still accumulated to fewer and fewer people, what ever sex they are.

This is why its so important to build progressive movements with men........so it might help if for once they wind their necks in and stop bleating but what do they do instead, they set up MRA groups and try to silence women. oooooh they say "it must be my wife that oppresses me with all that spending power she has" now if that were true, we'd see thousands of men being trafficked into the sex trade, their bodies made cartoon like, their appearance scrutinised and their liberty curtailed by violence.

Women are starting to feel what it is like to be a man.
With the exception of the top (richest) 20%, the majority of men are nothing but a commodity that can be easily replaced.
You are supposed to just get on with it.

Majority of people that get exploited are men and they are supposed to get on with it.

You fail at something and you will be discarded like a piece of shit stuck on a shoe.
No wonder men die sooner.

No I don't, I'm not a member curreyeater why?

well that's flippin odd, earlier I had a look at the semiotexte website and it was fine, now it says its been hacked by Hacked by CWSektor when you try to get to the site. Its Turkish.

Theory of the young girl www.amazon.co.uk/Preliminary-Materials-Young-Girl-Semiotext-Intervention/dp/158435108X

and a PDF of it here zinelibrary.info/files/jeunefille.pdf

This is interesting too www.radicalphilosophy.com/web/rp177-shes-just-not-that-into-you another critique of it.

What I am finding so interesting about this is the fact that it seems to make sense of how every aspect of our lives is being marketised, how people are not just driven to buy but are being made commodities.

I do not understand what this article is trying to say. I don't understand the book it is critiquing either.