Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I would like to discuss the issue of social class, revolution and its connection with Feminism here and I would be happy if you participate in this thread.

In many social struggles and revolutions throughout history, women played a crucial role. But this fact was rarely acknowledged. Take the French Revolution of 1789: women were at the barricades as much as men but when it came to write the constitution women were not included as equal citizens. Women had to fight hard until they won the suffrage much later.

And you can see this pattern in many other conflicts in history. Women participated as much as men in struggles for emancipation but their needs and desires were not acknowledged in the same way. Some revolutions may have seen progressive changes for women but often it seems to me that women were driven out of the public sphere into the privacy of “classic� gender roles after a successful revolution. It remained mainly in the hands of the feminist movement to prevent that a roll back in gender relations took place.

And even within revolutionary movements women had to defend themselves against Machismo and sexism. This is not even an issue for historians only because you can observe similar developments in contemporary social movements and uprisings, for example the “Arab Spring� and the Gezi revolt in Turkey.

This may be connected to the traditional neglect of women’s issues in Marxism. Because for many orthodox Marxists the world was and sometimes still is split into main contradictions and side contradictions and unfortunately gender inequality was a side contradiction for a long time. Revolution comes first, women’s liberation comes after that. But for many cases, even when a revolution was successful women’s liberation had to wait.

But what do you think: is social class even an important factor in the debate about Feminism? Does it make a difference if a woman comes from the working class or from the rich class? And what impact does class have on Feminism? Do you see a connection between capitalist class society and patriarchy? And what is your opinion on the pattern in history I have described above? Do you agree with me or do you have a different opinion? And if you agree why do you think have women’s issues and feminist ideas often been sidetracked and not been acknowledged by many social movements and revolutions?

That is a difficult question to answer. I believe in the end they are much different issues. Issues in class often overrule issues in the social arena's, as poverty affects people of all colors and creeds(some more than others). I believe it is a natural progression of slow change. People fought for the issues that affected THEM, when they succeeded they became content. All the while leaving the status quo of inequality between genders and races etc. Which must be fought by smaller parties, mainly those effected, instead of the whole that fought for class issues. It occurs as an afterthought to class revolution because generally people don't fight for what does not effect them directly. Even going so far as to fight it when it threatens their current social privileges.

Sascha it looks like your debate proposals are too cult for this forum. That's why you don't get a lot of answers I guess haha.

Hey Benjamin, when I get you right then you are saying that people only fight for a cause by which they are affected. But when you look at the French Revolution, it had an universal claim - the French revolutionaries spoke for all people, they fought for universal liberties but at the same time they excluded women and also slaves. So when they spoke of universal liberty they only meant the liberty of European white men. And they further excluded the poor because the suffrage was connected to income. But the claim was not to fight for a cause which only affected European men, the claim was to speak for everyone and to give everyone rights. This is very ambivalent. Because how can you claim to fight for everyone's liberation - and at the same time exclude women (and slaves and the poor)?

To manipulate the masses to reach their own ends?
Who really benefited, serfs in the streets, or the bourgeoisie?
French revolution before and after:

I was just reading about the Ukraine, how in the soviet period there were many progressive measures in the 1920's, but they were repealed by the 30's for instance homosexuality was made legal and then illegal. Women did get suffrage in 1917 but the concept of feminism as such was considered bourgeious and foreign. Then in 1991 when Ukraine gained independence they were able to become exposed to feminism, but also they were rejecting the more progressive ideas about women that went along with communism, and wanted their women back in the home and hearth as an ideal. It's a fascinating contradiction, I don't really understand it.