Greetings Economists, Yes, I think that is a crux issue. On Oct 17, 2006, at 6:23 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
They can be, but the political division of labor on the Left has often worked like this: men think BIG, GENERAL, IMPORTANT questions while women think about "women's issues." Naturally, with that division of labor, it has been men who tend to become national political leaders.
Doyle; In other words, if it is not already clear, care work limits anyone who engages in it in the way it is described above under the present system. I think it important here then to re-evaluate care work to more depth. For example this abstract observation says that the care work is necessary for the male leader to flourish. One might assume the care work is restricted in the sense the care is done by another person (mostly women). Therefore, the view of care work is not developed beyond that point. This means that the work is not producing enough to go around, it's rationed, and it's a scarcity. For example, you imply where women get support they flourish and lead. On Oct 17, 2006, at 6:23 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Where feminism has developed as an autonomous movement in the absence of a left-wing party of which it can be a part, the very success of the movement in removing much of de jure discrimination has dissipated the movement, before specific problems that confront working-class women can get resolved. That's a problem in places like the USA. Doyle; That seems true to me. I would say also, the left working class organizations don't see how to understand the problem in the sense that women are not drawn into the movement as a mass for socialism. The value of care work is not integrated into a full Marxist organizational system. The dichotomy you describe assumes that care work is less than the broader Big General Important Questions. There is no way any such theory can work without a vast mass movement to embrace that vision. A mass movement is primarily a vast emotional connection process against the present emotional order. The fundamental element is social ties produced by emotional connection. What are these structures? Make them female work and we can't make progress. Abandon carework to do intellectual theory in leadership and the issue of connection never gets the priority a solid mass movement needs. The many attacks you've endured are not the due of a leader. Where is the healthy support and nourishment that a leader gets? This is a literal example of anarchy in the movement. What is the reality of what would make you flourish? Constant battle to be heard? NO. On Oct 17, 2006, at 6:23 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: I think, have become a kind of mediators between the state/party and women, (A) conveying women's demands to the state/party but also (B) making women accept what the state/party demands of them. (B) can often take precedence over (A), which limits the appeal of feminism. Doyle; Because the care work is not centrally thought as the question to resolve to unify the socialist movement. The practice of carework is FEMALE rather than socialized. Emotion Structure is universal. No, Socialism that thinks the woman must mediate to leadership is acceptable, the leadership must develop a universal care structure enveloping all at once. From that women will rise. The historical movement has not seen women rise and that focus upon a generalized care work structure is what is needed in developed countries to spark the movement. On Oct 17, 2006, at 6:23 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
however, the original question that you posed--- the absence of women in the top leadership in societies attempting to build socialism-- seems more interesting to me than the issue of leadership in left movements in the barbarisms of the west.
I think the two are related questions, since societies attempting to build socialism inherit the gendered division of political labor created when they were not building it. Doyle; Exactly, the place to start is before we consider building socialism we must thoroughly universalize a care structure to the movement so that all care, not some care. That it is a work process, that it can be automated and production be increased and not tied to an individuals actions and that is a serious goal of Socialist in organizing. That intellectual work alone is not going to break the barrier. I harp upon this because there are enough women to make this happen, and that a mass movement arising from this can over come the short comings we see with present Socialist practice. As Charles recently wrote, Comrade Yoshie, Take the lead! thank you, Doyle
