The New Modern and Family Violence as a Political Crisis
- This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hi All,
I work in the social sector: with survivors of family violence. Inversely, I work with users of violence.
Declaration: I am a male worker who hears and privileges women’s acts of resistance to male discursive/ systemic violence.
Women’s narratives on resistance are very often perceived as symmetrical violence within the legal or protective system. Women are often signified as criminal, or failing to protect their children in protective services (child protection and so on).
Men should be held to account for their behaviours, and victim blaming often centres on women to protect their children. It appears phallocentric: in that the onus of protection is placed on the mother (in traditional hetrosexual normative relations)- these service actions and discourses should focus on the user of violence.
I guess I am seeking your ideas- and express the difficulty I experience in relocating the shame/blame in the user of violence, rather than it being located on the victim…
What new, or old, left ideas can be used to challenge male privilege in the challenge of systemic violence and a system that is totalised by victim blaming and responsiblising the individual- This should be a non binary and collective concern- and not left to the victim/survivor to be held to act.
Ideas?
My regards
LB Neill
Family violence is a political crisis. More women are killed in family violence than in acts of domestic terrorism. Yet the world budgets of OECD nations spends more on the ‘terror threat’. I posted earlier on male violence centring on women’s protective behaviours: holding women to account for their own safety. The lefty in me is tired.
Spend more on women’s resistance to male violence- do not blame them for seeking why women have causal factors- seek instead accountability for violence… Yes a tough day at work you may ask: but I must ask.
Spend more on the very real risk of family violence- a political arena, and not just a social concern.
I added this to reflect the political, gendered reality of violence that seems secondary to ‘otherness’ threats.
Family violence is political
Family violence is a political crisis. More women are killed in family violence than in acts of domestic terrorism
Yes this is true. Here in Spain there s a constant stream of news items about women being murdered or horribly raped somewhere in Spain. In the latter case there was a huge publicity over a recent rape that occurred during the famous (or infamous) Pamplona bull run which, I think, highlight a certain connection with a macho streak in contemporary Spain as elsewhere (although in some respects Spain is more advanced and progressive than in most other countries, including in Europe). There is also the drip effect of the sexualisation of advertising and the like that occurs everywhere.
I am not quite sure what we socialists can do about this other than give voice to our strong opposition to these things. We are not in the business of advising capitalist governments on how they should spend their state budgets but we emphatically are in the business of changing values and changing ideas.
One encouraging sign, at least in Spain, is that protests against violence against women do not just involve women. A great many of the protestors are men. Sexism is a scourge like racism or national chauvinism. It separates workers from workers and needs to be combatted with all the might at our disposal
LB Neil,
The topic of patriarchy and feminism is going to be the subject of debates at our up-coming conference.
Motion A:
This Conference rejects the definition of capitalism as “male-dominated class society” and the view that “capitalism and patriarchy are aspects of the same thing”. Capitalism is based on the subordination of the working class to the capitalist class, which is not the same thing as the subordination of women to men. Conference further notes that the more advanced capitalism is the less the discrimination against women.
Supporting statement A:
At last year’s Autumn Delegate Meeting Lancaster Branch asked “What is the Party’s view of patriarchy?” It goes without saying that we are against it and for the full social equality of women and men. However, Lancaster suggested that patriarchy could be linked to capitalism; the passages in our motion are taken from their supporting statement. Our motion is intended to make it clear that the Party does not accept that approach.
There is still considerable discrimination today against women, especially in the economically backward parts of the world, but the fact that this is gradually lessening in the more advanced capitalist parts shows that it is not a built-in feature of capitalism. Modern feminists realise this too and seek to speed up this trend, which the spread of socialist ideas will speed up too.Motion D:
‘This Conference affirms that capitalism is not only a class-divided society but is also patriarchal.’
Supporting statement D:
After long discussion online and at ADM this subject deserves to be resolved by formal resolution. To echo what we said at ADM, if Engels was correct that the rise of property society coincided with and very likely caused ‘the world historic defeat of the female sex’, then male domination or patriarchy was the first and longest-lived oppression visited on the human race. Since class and gender oppression exist and have always existed in parallel, to treat them as mutually exclusive concepts is simply to stick one’s head in the sand and perform theoretical contortions. Not only is it possible to see the world as both class-divided and also patriarchal, it is essential. If we don’t, we are effectively telling at least half of the world’s population that socialism is not for them.Motion E:
‘This Conference reaffirms that the abolition of class oppression must of necessity entail the abolition of gender oppression.’
Supporting statement E.
For members this is a no-brainer, yet our position may not be at all clear to people outside the Party, especially given that the clause relating to women in the DoP is just two words long, consisting of ‘or sex’. The fear that gender oppression could survive and prosper into socialism itself is a very real one for many people, and we haven’t done enough to allay that fear. This resolution spells out to the working class in plain terms that the ending of gender oppression is intrinsic to socialist revolution, and not some tacked-on afterthought.Motion F:
‘This Conference repudiates the view that capitalism will itself abolish the oppression of women.’
Supporting statement F.
At ADM the argument was put that it is in the economic interest of capitalism to eradicate the oppression of women, and that it is currently in the process of doing so. We’ve heard this claim before, and it’s been used as a reason to dismiss feminism as irrelevant. But if the argument is right, then after 300 or so years capitalism should have done it by now. Capitalism is nothing if not adaptive, and well able to reinvent itself where it sees the need. But what do we see instead? No country has ever managed to achieve equal pay or equal work opportunities in any sector of their economy, nor shows any sign of doing so. No country has eradicated sexual harassment, rape or domestic violence. While some legislative and cultural efforts have been made in some western countries, a superficial liberalism still masks a
deeply misogynistic undercurrent.
In 2017 in the UK 139 women were killed by male violence, leading a Guardian op-ed to describe a ‘war on women’ that is a ‘global pandemic’ (18 December, 2018). (See note 1). Indeed, globally gender oppression remains as severely and murderously entrenched as it ever was. Why hasn’t capitalism done better than this? The Guardian article offers a clue: ‘Even with the best police and criminal justice responses possible, if men continue to see women and children as their property, and believe that women exist to satisfy them sexually, then the rape and murder of women will never end’. The inference to draw from this is that capitalism is able to co-exist comfortably with the oppression of women because that oppression is really a form of property relationship, and thus if anything complementary to capitalist ideology. In consequence, the likelihood of capitalism eradicating gender oppression is so small that it should be repudiated as a socialist argument.
1 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/18/women-uk-femicide-statistics-died-maleviolenceMotion G:
‘This Conference considers that issues affecting women are such a prominent part of life for 50% of the population that they warrant a dedicated column in the Socialist Standard, if writers can be found for it.’
Supporting statement G:
We were asked at ADM to come up with concrete suggestions to encourage more female participation in the Party, so this is one suggestion. We don’t want to ‘instruct’ the Standard to do something it might not be able to do, but we don’t see any harm in making a general recommendation that might have a positive effect on female engagement.Motion H:
‘This Conference is of the view that a person can be a socialist as well as a feminist.’
Supporting statement H.
We think most if not all members would say they support feminist principles to a large degree, and some members already regard themselves as bona fide feminists. At the same time, many feminists will also be broadly sympathetic with our case, and some will say they are feminist-socialists. There’s nothing wrong with this formulation in principle. The only thing we would disagree with is where some feminists pursue wholly reformist objectives, but in that case we would oppose them as reformists, not as feminists.Motion I:
‘This Conference instructs the EC to establish an ad-hoc committee to look into ways of encouraging more female membership, to report to Conference 2020.’
Supporting statement I.
This is another concrete suggestion born of the ADM discussion, and while some people will not be enthusiastic about yet another ad-hoc committee, the subject does need serious attention if we’re ever going to make progress towards balancing the membership ratio. We would expect such a committee to undertake wide consultation both inside and outside the Party which is why we propose a fairly long time-frame.As you see, it will be a wide-ranging discussion and you will be made very welcome if you can attend.
April Sat 27- Sun 28, 10-30am onwards both days
The Head Office
52 Clapham High St.
London SW4If not, a post-conference report will be produced in due course. There will also be all-party-member voting arising from this conference. So watch this space, as they say
It is a class issue. It is not a confrontation between men and women and nobody is doubled exploited in this society and women are not to be liberated by having a better pay job, no even men are not liberated either. Our article socialism and women explains the issue
Hi all, Thanks for your comments:
robbo203: I am warmed by your concern, and the recent reports in the Spanish media. It is about time it becomes an international concern. Every day I work in this field: and I am glad to hear there are other men who challenge the ‘macho’ culture that has brought so much harm to our societies. I spoke as a man concerned about male privilege- however, women occupy this space, and own it- and women do… but is it being heard?
What can socialism do: well, I joined a women’s group- and was invited into the space (a joined up movement) to challenge men who use violence. It also encouraged me to focus on patriarchy- and how to challenge the men I might work with.
In this challenge, I deconstructed and rconfirmed: systems set up by men, centre (men in their attitudes to responding to family violence) women on holding to account for their own safety, and the safety of their kids.
Why should women be held to account, or change their behaviour to avoid male aggression? Why not hold men to account, and the state apparatus focusing on men who are a risk to women and children- it appears dichotomous- male over female. The idea appears liberal: seek your safety against the male main: individualised, responsibilsed and pre-social (capital forms of owning your own safety).
It is good to hear of the protests Robbo- I wanted to alloy my socialism with a course of action: theory in action. I have done this through work, through joining local action groups- it is everything socialism aspires to- thank you for encouraging me to think of it.
Alan: you are so helpful, and deep in the social walk- I could unpack all your points- but they speak right to the points that are before the next meeting.
Capital control is part of coercive control used in patriarchy/ male privilege: it is the entitled ownership of the other.
I would love to be there, and participate, and thank you for the opportunity- but can I say:
Single issue politics cloud things. We are about the whole issue. Do we focus (like the Joined up Movement) on bi-partisan liberation of gender- or radical gender liberation? Do we go with something that is global? But there is so much- and this is a matter close my heart…
Alan: more women’s narratives should belong to this space and at the conference… Thanks, you have helped me.
Marcos: thanks. I see it is a class issue. What I struggle with is men in a class, use violence against their class or other classes. They could be socially constructing their response to the main in capital hegemonic formations- ownership over… I have yet to locate the material you provided, and hopefully I can. But family violence seems to cut, and cut right through social strata, and through so much more
I would like to hear from women on this.
Be kind to your good selves
L.B
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.