Shulamith Firestone Anonymous 08-05-23 19:15:15 No. 13435 [View All]
So I read this book first a few years ago but it came up again in conversation recently. I wanted to make a thread about it so we can have a proper discussion about its positives and negatives, because I think it has both. First of all, I believe it was maybe the first book (that I know of) to give a properly dialectical treatment to the historical development of reproductive labour relations, building largely off of Engels' work. De Beauvoir had her own stuff but a lot of the marxism in her work is under the surface and indirect, whereas Firestone makes constant reference to Engels. I shall sum up the argument for you, since I know many of you dislike reading. In primitive society, reproductive labour relations for the longest time worked such that matriarchy was the dominant mode of relations for reproductive labour, with differing cultural units for reproductive relations (clan, family, etc). At some point there is a 'flip' under which patriarchal relations begin as the dominant mode, which can be tied to the dawn of 'proper' technological civilisation as we know it (takes place after Engels' notion of barbarism with the rise of aristocracy), occurring as the west begins to exert its power over nature and systematises these relations. Firestone's conclusion is that biologically speaking, woman cannot truly be free until liberated from her biology. I think in many ways it's a beautiful analysis, but also very flawed in the same way of de Beauvoir- namely, Firestone, rather than critiquing the focus of capitalism on productivity and power over nature, instead believes that women should be changing to conform to be 'more like men'. Moreover, I think it must really be supplemented with more modern treatments of gender (like via Judith Butler) given there's I think significant evidence that gender takes on a life of its own (and in many ways always has) which rather than being recourse to mere reproductive labour, also has its foundations in various other intersections of political life (capitalism, etc). Freud I think gives some good insights as to why sex and sexual relations and gender relations by extension have more to do with the human drive for power rather than reproductive relations. Nonetheless, wondering if anyone else has read the text. I think it's a great piece of radfem literature.
120 posts and 31 image replies omitted. Anonymous 08-05-23 23:56:39 No. 13569
>>13561 >that chart is actually from a tertiary source and isnt trustworthy then why did you post it in the OP? i just opened the thread, was i supposed to just know that the image YOU CHOSE to post wasn't trustworthy?
also that other chart is shit too
Anonymous 09-05-23 00:11:04 No. 13574
Can you answer actually answer this question?:
>>13569 >>13561 >that chart is actually from a tertiary source and isnt trustworthy then why did you post it in the OP? i j
No troll. It's a straight forward question.
Anonymous 09-05-23 00:12:44 No. 13576
>>13575 So the second one is the good chart?
>>13472 It's not any better, but thanks for your clarification.
Anonymous 09-05-23 00:18:31 No. 13578
>>13577 Before some genius says 'you forgot X'
From Engels' Origins of the family:
>The sketch which I have given here, following Morgan, of the development of mankind through savagery and barbarism to the beginnings of civilization, is already rich enough in new features; what is more, they cannot be disputed, since they are drawn directly from the process of production. Yet my sketch will seem flat and feeble compared with the picture to be unrolled at the end of our travels; only then will the transition from barbarism to civilization stand out in full light and in all its striking contrasts. For the time being, Morgan’s division may be summarized thus: >Savagery – the period in which man’s appropriation of products in their natural state predominates; the products of human art are chiefly instruments which assist this appropriation. >Barbarism – the period during which man learns to breed domestic animals and to practice agriculture, and acquires methods of increasing the supply of natural products by human activity. >Civilization – the period in which man learns a more advanced application of work to the products of nature, the period of industry proper and of art. >The distinction of rich and poor appears beside that of freemen and slaves – with the new division of labor, a new cleavage of society into classes. The inequalities of property among the individual heads of families break up the old communal household communities wherever they had still managed to survive, and with them the common cultivation of the soil by and for these communities. The cultivated land is allotted for use to single families, at first temporarily, later permanently. The transition to full private property is gradually accomplished, parallel with the transition of the pairing marriage into monogamy. The single family is becoming the economic unit of society. Anonymous 09-05-23 09:00:38 No. 13584
Anarchofem threads (or theory, in general) are not just a waste of time but are actively
harmful when it comes to revolution. Had the very smart anarchofem poster actually read the authors they proclaim are their ideological predecessors, they would've seen their mistakes. Anarchofem in principle does the following:
>Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a curve, which endlessly approximates a series of circles, a spiral. Any fragment, segment, section of this curve can be transformed (transformed one-sidedly) into an independent, complete, straight line, which then (if one does not see the wood for the trees) leads into the quagmire, into clerical obscurantism (where it is anchored by the class interests of the ruling classes). Rectilinearity and one-sidedness, woodenness and petrification, subjectivism and subjective blindness—voilà the epistemological roots of idealism. And clerical obscrutantism (= philosophical idealism), of course, has epistemological roots, it is not groundless; it is a sterile flower undoubtedly, but a sterile flower that grows on the living tree of living, fertile, genuine, powerful, omnipotent, objective, absolute human knowledge. [
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/misc/x02.htm ]
The fixation on the single dimension of class society, namely the remnants of sexism rooted in primitive class divisions (according to ability, age and gender) without further, deeper, proper class analysis is fideism. It leads to subjectivity and to ideological confusion. This is most clearly demonstrated in the OP, where empty phrases decorate the shell of dialectical materialism.
<woman cannot truly be free until liberated from her biology. <gender takes on a life of its own. Take note and avoid such ultra-radical deviations from Marxism into idealism.
Anonymous 09-05-23 09:23:06 No. 13588
>>13585 (📽️)
>>13587 (📽️)
Take note* Marxists. You may not like it, but this is what peak theory looks like.
Anonymous 09-05-23 11:09:03 No. 13597
>>13592 Postmodernists love to claim they're profound
With their ideas so complex and unbound
But in truth, they always come to common sense conclusions
And wrap them up in thousands of pages of confusing and idealistic llusions.
They call me a bone and portray themselves as tree roots so green,
This is but a poetic dream.
Their words are but falling leaves, detached from any real root,
Falling to the ground, failing to bear any useful fruit.
Their ideas are shallow, their analysis thin
And all their complexity is but a wokeshow for their libkin.
Anonymous 09-05-23 11:11:12 No. 13598
>>13597 At least you tried to say something instead of whining crying and throwing a tantrum
My issue is not with you
Anonymous 09-05-23 11:12:40 No. 13600
>>13597 Desire for a day
Broken futures, fragmented
History's hopeless
Anonymous 09-05-23 11:25:20 No. 13602
"Theories come and go," the anfem yells, "All is to be criticized, no page left unread." To the Marxists in the thread he tells, "Listen to me, I am redder than red" "It's simple, almost banal really, Class analysis is for the angry men I hate; All the 'materialism' you hold dearly Is to be turned into radical bait" "Dialectics is but a curtain, Which favors the not so certain; I am Kantian in all but name, And a Humist too – it's all the same!" For this defect, there's no one to blame, But (You), dear comrade, for engaging the dame.
Anonymous 09-05-23 11:32:08 No. 13603
>>13602 >You are actually the cancer which >prevents spontanoeus outbursts of popular opinion with over-moderation and ivory tower theory >gatekeeping, accusing those who do not want to engage in philistine, fideistic behavior, >to just 'not get it'. noble taste defeated;
rabble rises to the top–
with your dialectics!
lovely poem though, im actually quite flattered
Anonymous 09-05-23 15:15:04 No. 13609
>>13522 No, it wouldn't have. It would've been attacked, just for largely different reasons.
Why was this thread put on auto-sage anyway? The OP is only antagonizing the "books are harmful" faction of this board, which we hardly need anyway. They weren't engaging with anything she said and apparently considered it a personal virtue not to be able to understand, rather than the effect of their own self-induced stupidity.
Even though I disagree in some way with most of these threads, every time I start to write something critical I see the moron brigade out in full force and have to stop myself. If you want to moderate these threads, make examples of them and get rid of their posts rather than the discussion.
Using "communism" as an excuse for this behavior is disgusting and the anti-intellectualism is reminiscent of fascism. It's also ironically one of the most American things about this board.
Anonymous 09-05-23 15:21:14 No. 13610
>>13609 >"books are harmful" faction of this board Yeah, about that
That's the whole board with few exceptions
Unique IPs: 13