Tumgik
#materialist feminism
taliabhattwrites · 8 days
Text
Serena Nanda is an Orientalist lunatic who hates trans women.
The intro to the first edition of her book was written by John Money.
She repeatedly talks about hijras describing themselves as women, and ignoring them to call them castrated males and crossdressers.
Third-Sexing is anthropological transmisogynistic violence on a discipline level.
136 notes · View notes
gothhabiba · 1 year
Note
Hello! We're talking abt this in class RN and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind sharing your thoughts? Do you believe in women as a class category as well as a gendered one? I'm not sure I put that properly but hopefully it comes across.
so this is an argument commonly found in / attributed to Marxist feminist and materialist feminist thought. basically where I land on this line of argument is that it stimulates a lot of very useful avenues for thought about the class character of womanhood. understanding how capitalism and modern misogyny are mutually constituted (the idea that exploitation of women's domestic and reproductive labour in the home makes possible the exploitation of men's labour outside the home, the concept of the home as a site of primitive accumulation) and understanding how misogyny will hinder, distort, and destroy any communist party or movement is necessary in order to contest class structure as a whole. Marxist and materialist feminism invite us to take a lot of things seriously as relevant to class struggle that may otherwise be swept under the rug as "private" "personal" or "domestic" issues the way that things pertaining to misogyny often are. and we will need to take the home seriously as a site of exploitation and thus of class struggle (as well as other sites of gendered labour e.g. surrogacy or sex work)
that being said, there's a difference between considering the class character of womanhood, and positing that women constitute a class. this latter line of argument seems to me to obscure more than it clarifies with regards to, for example, the differences in lived experiences between bourgeois and working class women.
230 notes · View notes
transfeminism-s · 2 months
Text
A transfeminist materialist theory requires a non-essential definition of trans womanhood.
So what is a trans woman? A trans woman is a member of the class of trans women, which is the class oppressed by non trans women, or in other terms, by transmisogyny exempt people.
This is a non-essentialist theory that removes any natural basis for the oppression of trans women and includes all trans women, regardless of whether they were assigned male or female at birth.
5 notes · View notes
butchgtow · 29 days
Text
may I also say that the French feminist video essayist youtuber Alice Cappelle wearing Dale of Norway during a time of increasing financial disenfranchisement of women is a very cool if possibly still resource-wasteful statement?
2 notes · View notes
askgothamshitty · 2 months
Text
youtube
Who Put the RF in TERF?
Great video essay on how “gender critical feminism” and TERFism grew out of the radical feminist movement. Breaks down Wittig too!
2 notes · View notes
linakihwxe · 4 months
Text
«Frankly, [the definition of woman] is a problem that the lesbians do not have because of a change of perspective. 'Woman' has meaning only in heterosexual systems of thought and heterosexual, economic systems. Lesbians are not women.» - Monique Wittig
Tumblr media
3 notes · View notes
liberashen · 1 year
Text
“Engels, in Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, explains that the material basis of history is twofold: the means of production of commodities, and the means of production of new human beings. The social organization for the production of commodities is the property system, in this case the capitalist state. The social organization for the production of new human beings is the family system. And within the family system, men function as a ruling class, woman as an exploited class.”
— Ellen Willis
7 notes · View notes
wuuthering · 2 years
Quote
[I can only underline] the oppressive character that the straight mind is clothed in in its tendency to immediately universalize its production of concepts into general laws which claim to hold true for all societies, all epochs, all individuals.
Monique Wittig, The Straight Mind (La Pensée Straight) 1992
30 notes · View notes
lettucedloophole · 9 months
Text
i saw a tweet like, maybe months or a year ago at this point, the gist was "the removal of french materialist feminists from radical feminist canon has had grave consequences" and i think i finally get it 💀 i just didn't remember sex as a social construct and heterosexuality as a regime (a la wittig) & thus, an aspect of the social construct of sex/gender(&thus, patriarchy) was largely associated with them and Probably brought on by them in the most radical way lol... hell of a thing to forget but yeah that's one reason why terfs are so ignorant
6 notes · View notes
rf-times · 2 years
Text
“If one merely wanted to rally women to the anti-capitalist struggle, it would be enough to show that, in so far as they are integrated into this mode of production (as wage-workers), the vast majority of women (nine out of ten women who work) have an objective interest in this struggle. But because women are assigned their husbands’ class, the wives of the bourgeoisie (who are not integrated into capitalist production) are considered as enemies of the anti-capitalist struggle. It is thus clear that what is at issue is not so much a question of rallying all women to the anti-capitalist struggle, as of denying the existence of a non-capitalist system of production. In denying the existence of this system of production, the existence of relations specific to this system are also denied and those who participate in this system are prevented from having the possibility of rebelling against it. The priority of the left, therefore, appears to be to preserve the patriarchal mode of production of domestic services (the unpaid performance of these service by women.” - Christine Delphy, The Main Enemy.
19 notes · View notes
taliabhattwrites · 2 months
Text
While I'm still focusing on finishing my book and my essay series on understanding TERFs, I wrote a quick, bite-sized post on one of the most common gender-conservative temper-tantrums expressed as a pithy three-word shibboleth. We take a harsh look at the motivations and assumptions underlying this mindset, and what people really mean when they assert "sex is real" as an antagonistic principle to transsexual existence.
116 notes · View notes
yngsuk · 1 year
Text
[...] what does physical material maintenance mean? First of all, it means a constant presence. No clocking-in here, but a life whose entire time is absorbed, devoured, by face-to-face interaction with the babies, the children, the husband, and also the elderly or sick people. Face-to-face, because their gestures, their actions hold the mother-wife-daughter-daughter-in-law directly within their domain. Each gesture of these individuals is full of meaning for her and modifies her own life at every moment: a need for something, a fall, a request, some acrobatics, a departure, a pain obliges her to change what she is doing, to intervene, to worry about what has to be done immediately, about what will have to be done in a few minutes, at such and such a time, this evening, before such and such a time, before leaving, before X arrives, etc. Each second of her time—and without hope of seeing this absorption end at a fixed hour, even at night—she is absorbed into other individualities, diverted from the activity which is going on to other activities. [...] Furthermore, the material attachment to physical individualities is also a mental reality. There is no abstraction: every concrete gesture has an aspect that is full of meaning, a ‘psychological’ reality. Although they relentlessly try to coerce us into not thinking, this attachment cannot be lived mechanically and indifferently. Individuality rightly is a precarious conquest, often denied to a whole class, whose individuality is forced to become diluted, materially and actually, into other individualities. A central constraint in the relations of sex classes, this deprivation of individuality, is the sequel or the hidden face of the material appropriation of individuality. For it is not obvious that human beings so easily distinguish themselves one from another, and constant proximity/physical burden is a powerful hindrance to independence and autonomy. It is the source of an inability to discern and a fortiori to put into practice one’s own choices and actions.
Colette Guillaumin, The Practice of Power and Belief in Nature
0 notes
nipesh · 2 years
Text
Bath packets and multiple Colombo(s): Food and gendered urban experience
Bath packets and multiple Colombo(s): Food and gendered urban experience
This is the accepted version of the following article:  Palat Narayanan N (2022) Bath packets and multiple Colombo(s): Food and gendered urban experience. Anthropology of food. Anthropology of Food Webjournal. DOI: 10.4000/aof.13090.. The published paper is available at [Open Access]: https://journals.openedition.org/aof/13090 Abstract Rice is a staple in Sri Lanka and is often eaten with…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
0 notes
transfeminism-s · 2 months
Text
For those who want to read my posts on WordPress here is my first mini article !
3 notes · View notes
askgothamshitty · 2 months
Note
Sorry, but I really didn't understand the Wikipedia version 🥹: What's materialist feminism? From its definition, it's like a combination of anti-capitalist and radical feminism ideas. How is it different from Marxist feminism?
It’s feminism that analyzes society through Marx’s methods of dialectical and historical materialism.
How is it different from Marxist feminism? That’s a good question. I think the main thing is its historical development. One could theoretically trace Marxist feminism back to Engels. Materialist feminism, though, came out of second wave radical feminism and was developed in 90s France.
Martha Gimenez has an essay about this topic where she says that the two are ideologically very similar.
1 note · View note
vagysmal · 9 months
Text
I have some post drafts about women who are autistic, and how it creates the ”anti-feminine” and how that in turn affects the woman and her female peer- and friendship. Because as much as I love posts and the evident strength and resilience of female friendships, my view about girls and women friendship-wise as an autistic woman has come with its very obvious downfalls.
I don’t mean it as something non-universal or non-allistic either, but it is majorly out of the perspective of me as an autistic woman with hardships regarding social femininity, even as a woman who at times is very aesthetically feminine.
Trust me with the wording in the first paragraph too, it’ll make sense as y’all read the posts when I finish them.
5 notes · View notes