Skip to main content

View Diary: Anti-Capitalist Meetup: The Struggle Continues ... 41 years after Roe and Doe (66 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Another point, when you say... (0+ / 0-)
    not undervaluing their ability to bear children
    When was this ever valued? If anything the ability to NOT bear children is valued. Proof of its undervalue: lack of daycare and nursing rooms in corporations, paid time off for mothers of sick children, offering stress relieving remedies for high-risk pregnancies, solutions for holding father accountable to children (i.e. fingerprinting the fathers of children) so when they've abandoned the mothers there is legal evidentiary recourse, etc. the list is endless. BUT none of this is done because we as WOMEN are not valued. Only for how like men we are, and men don't have babies. Pushing to not value motherhood, hurts feminism. I am not saying you are doing this, but every article on helping women's progress in a patriarchal society is always to be more like MEN. No dammit. I am a woman,  and all that entails, and I am equal.
    •  Take a breath ok? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NY brit expat

      In feminism, in history, there was a time when birth giving was valued but it's not in the modern day.  Should you choose to give birth, you should have rights and support for both you and your children.  And feminists are fighting for those rights and that support for all, I hope.  I have children, they were wanted, but I showed up for the 25th Anniversary Celebration of RvW, in Alaska, in February.....8 months preggers!  Made the anti-choice folks foam at the mouth!  To me, feminism is about proclaiming ourselves as human beings and deserving of, at least, equal treatment and protection along with the rights and responsibilities all humans should have.

        Remember, all men are born of woman, and that scares the Hell out of them!

      ~Arianna_Editrix-- I willingly accept Cassandra’s fate, To speak the truth, altho’ believ’d too late

      by Arianna Editrix on Mon Jan 20, 2014 at 10:25:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You have chosen not to clarify yourself on the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Unca Joseph, NY brit expat

      issue of choice, which was a major topic of this major diary and my comment. From looking at another comment you did previously at Daily Kos, you certainly seem to be anti-choice. I certainly support all manner of social assistance to help mothers and children, many of which you would support. So, we have some areas of agreement, but choice seems not to be one is them. I will read over the comments and links of all on this string, and when I can respond more.

      I'm on the left wing of the possible. I write for the same reasons Eric Arthur Blair did, just not as well.

      by Galtisalie on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 06:02:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  choice includes the right to determine (0+ / 0-)

        if, when and how many children you have ... choosing not to have children and choosing to have them when you want to are two sides of the same coin.

        I am thinking that she is raising the issue of the lack of provision and support in the context of a capitalist economic system for those that actually want to have children and she is correct.

        I am not getting a rejection of the decision not to have children or to force us all to have them; instead another point is being raised. So, she has not addressed the issue of being pro-choice but is raising the other side of the coin.

        "Hegel noticed somewhere that all great world history facts and people so to speak twice occur. He forgot to add: the one time as tragedy, the other time as farce" Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte .

        by NY brit expat on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 06:19:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I was trying to draw a comparison, not (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NY brit expat, Unca Joseph

      to speak in absolute terms. I am sure that I could have worded this better (as I was typing from the ICU where my father is and using a smartphone--well mistakes happen, as the Governor says). But, still, I think I am correct, and moreover that we do not disagree on the continuing economic undervaluing of women in terms of traditional "necessary" services.

      What I said was: "the greatest undervaluings [is that even a word?] of women are in denying them effective control of their bodies and equal opportunities--not undervaluing their ability to bear children." This was not intending to say that the ability to bear children is now or ever was "fairly" valued economically, but rather that in comparison to women having control over their bodies (generally zero, until the women's movement) and access to jobs (again nearly zero for most occupations), it was and is at least valued socially. It was not and is not economically compensated, but it is generally speaking socially valued--maybe not as much as it once was, but still socially valued to a large extent.

      I know I greatly "valued" and still, decades after she raised me, value my mother tremendously. I idolized her growing up. But I never paid her for bearing or raising me and neither did anyone else, including my father. She got a pot or a pan as her Christmas present. It was uncompensated labor. In fact, she had to give up her paying career working in a bank to take care of me when I almost died as a toddler when I got into poison because my father had to "watch" me during the day at the same time he slept because he worked the night shift. She did her best by me simply because it was the right thing to do, as Arianna Editrix says in her above-referenced piece women have always done.

      Exactly as you state, if there had been socialized child care for me, not only would I have not almost died from poison, but also, my mother could have kept her career, which would have helped out our family economically.

      Meanwhile, until the women's movement, my mother could not even hope to work in most workplaces. Were she able to work today, she would still be unfairly excluded from many occupations and not paid fairly for those to which she does have access.

      Thus, 300 years ago, women were given zero value in terms of their utility in most occupations and, because of prejudice, absolutely denied access. Over time, and particularly because of the women's movement, this has gotten better. From the viewpoint of capitalism, because often women were not allowed into many jobs, they were (and still to some extent are) completely shut out of economic participation. Further, they were not allowed to control their own bodies (and are still not where they cannot effectively access birth control and abortion services) and could not even make choices about whether and whom to marry (and in some places still cannot). They were only or primarily valued as potential mothers.

      But look what has not changed, at least in the conservative mind. Look at what the fascist political offspring currently in power in Spain, PP, is saying EVEN TODAY AS AN EXCUSE FOR DENYING ABORTION RIGHTS AND SERVICES. (See the link in NY brit expat's diary.): "there have been numerous statements by Gallardón in which he claimed that “motherhood is what makes women real women”."  

      Now and before, there is also undervaluing of women in the lack of adequate, and in many cases, any compensation, for many other things, and in providing good support for women who must or chose to work. On that we agree. Meanwhile, there are overarching problems of capitalism not based on gender (or race, which we have not discussed). No labor is fairly compensated, to the extent there still are jobs, in the capitalist workplace, as long as capitalism exists, because capitalists are skimming off the surplus derived from the labor of the workers. Where cooperative workplaces and unions are powerful, the skimming is somewhat less egregious, but it is still vast. In the capitalist workplaces, no one is treated fairly, with women workers, and minority workers, treated proportionately more unfairly than white male workers, but no one is treated fairly.

      And, importantly, the very prejudice against women and minorities works to the great added advantage of the capitalists. Thus, capitalists foment at every turn prejudice against women and minorities because it makes them even more money. For it is exactly these kinds of disproportionate exploitations and the resulting added tensions that the powerful use to breed added division and fear among the workers, so that they can divide and conquer and keep the army of the employed or soon to be unemployed quivering in their steel-toed boots and bakers hats. Therefore, unless the workers themselves democratize the economy so as to take the power away from the capitalists, workers will have unjust workplaces, to the extent they have workplaces at all, and the women and minorities will generally be pushed further to the bottom by the desperate white males in the capitalist bread wars.

      I'm on the left wing of the possible. I write for the same reasons Eric Arthur Blair did, just not as well.

      by Galtisalie on Tue Jan 21, 2014 at 02:42:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks for sharing your upbringing history (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Galtisalie

        with me. The fact that your mom had to quit her job is exactly what I was talking about. I am definitely pro-choice. All I am saying about that choice is that it feels so lopsided to me to the point of being a false choice. Have baby = poverty, Not Have Baby = better chances at a decent living. This is why I push contraceptives so heavily, because it keeps women from having to make the false choice. And further, until feminists acknowledge this false choice and fix it, it will seem abortion is our only answer to survive, even when some women don't want it to be. Yet nobody is championing their right to have children and not be prone to poverty. The feminists in their zeal to keep abortion rights, aren't taking on the obvious inequality if women WANT to have the baby. I have even heard some feminists urge abortion so women aren't disadvantaged in the workplace! How about changing the workplace and demand for more mothering support. If we have the unique ability as women to have babies, it should be supported at least, if we can't ever get to a point where it is celebrated.

        •  Thank you for your solidarity on choice and (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Unca Joseph

          contraception. I am not qualified to say what feminists have done or do or should do. I hope that I am beginning to learn how to be a feminist from the many wonderful feminists in this group and other places. I am a species-being trying to learn more who happens to be a man from a conservative upbringing still living in the Deep South whose conscience drove him to put meat on the bones of "God is love," "love thy neighbor," etc. which ultimately led to socialism after a long journey.

          I do think that it is incorrect to assume that feminists control the workplaces or do not do their best to press the issues you are discussing. The capitalists, with their loyal St. Patrick's Cathedral $$$$ restoration mercenaries, are CONSTANTLY using attacks on abortion rights to divide and conquer the working people. They try to roll back gains in areas like choice, and to prevent the poor from getting abortion and contraception services, so naturally in response this logically affects feminist messaging (but again, feminist messaging is not something about which I have any qualifications). Capitalists control the workplaces, not feminists.

          The wonderful people in this group support system change from capitalism. I do not read anyone in this group as disagreeing with you on the need for better support for women, working families, and children, which is pretty much what socialism is all about, with the critical understanding that it will not happen justly and adequately under capitalism.

          Otherwise, I will leave aside further discussion and just thank you for coming back and clarifying so that we can see that we hold a great deal in common. Regards, Galtisalie

          I'm on the left wing of the possible. I write for the same reasons Eric Arthur Blair did, just not as well.

          by Galtisalie on Wed Jan 22, 2014 at 08:59:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Back in the bad old days... (0+ / 0-)

          We were trying to get 14 words into the Constitution, but we were pushing for Much more.  Thinking back, I remember, flex time, the right to breast feed accommodation, workplace daycare, PAID maternity/paternity leave even for adoptions, midwife certification and assurance that  insurance co.'s pay for a midwifed birth, Douala care, equal pay, no loss of upward mobility if you took "baby time off", and a lot more that I can't recall right off.  If you look at Sweden's system, or France, it's close to what we wanted.  This isn't ancient history, I was fighting for the ERA when I was 13&14 years old and I'm not dead yet.

          ~Arianna_Editrix-- I willingly accept Cassandra’s fate, To speak the truth, altho’ believ’d too late

          by Arianna Editrix on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 04:19:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site