There are many supposed “revolutionaries” who implicitly and explicitly, through their actions, support the universal framework and all its violence. These “revolutionaries” care about women only insofar as women can be tools used to further their own cause. These “revolutionaries” view women’s liberation as supplemental and secondary; as reducible to the bourgeois/proletariat antagonism and therefore depolitical. These “revolutionaries” patronize women and treat women as children who need to be “empowered”, rather than comrades they should actively be listening to and working in solidarity with. These revolutionaries don’t explicitly state their hatred for women or their support for the rape of women, but in practice participate in the perpetuation of this violently misogynistic framework.
“This thought which impregnates all discourses, including common-sense ones (Adam’s rib or Adam is, Eve is Adam’s rib), is the thought of domination.” (2)- Monique Wittig
Womanhood’s complement within the “universal” is manhood. Womanhood would not exist without manhood, which requires the domination and control of women. These two interlinked modalities within patriarchy are cemented by the universal framework. Together, womanhood and manhood create the structural gender binary, which is violently enforced upon every subject of patriarchy—women and LGBT people in particular. Manhood, commonly referred to as “toxic masculinity” by radical liberals, is inherently violent. There is no man who does not benefit materially from manhood, similar to how there is no white person who does not benefit materially from whiteness. Manhood entails the abuse and control of women, lack of emotional empathy, the construance of the man’s most irrational and illogical emotions as “rational”, and the general entitlement to women’s labor and time. Manhood stunts men and prevents them from ever becoming worthy comrades or reciprocatory human beings. Manhood is detrimental to men’s psyche but beneficial to all men materially—at the expense of women as a class. Manhood is unequivocally incompatible with liberatory revolution.
The “universal” centers manhood as the norm and naturalizes manhood and womanhood as essential to men and women as classes. The “universal” violently reinforces the dominance and abuse of women via the stigmatization of empathy and kindness as unnatural traits in men. All men who cling to manhood are misogynists and actively perpetuate the oppression of women. It is only through ruthlessly interrogating and betraying the “universal”, manhood, and all that they entail, that men can become traitors to the class of men and join women in fighting for liberation from patriarchal capitalism.
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
https://theforgenews.org/2018/12/29/fem ... ssion=true
geldofc, I read the article you linked to and in essence I agree, however, I would use different terms. Instead of “universal” I would use gender norms as I understand their (Linda and Asha) use of the word “women” to refer to persons who follow the gender norms that females are expected to follow in our culture. In this way I would contrast the term “women” to the term female with female referring to a person born with ovaries. Using the term “women” in this way would imply that the term “men” could be used to refer to persons who follow the gender norms that males are expected to follow in our culture and male referring to a person born with testes. A line I found to be interesting is “Manhood is detrimental to men’s psyche but beneficial to all men materially . . .” I also feel that they overuse the word violent. While overt violence is certain a major problem, I believe that what primarily maintains the “universal” is more subtle than that. For clarification I am a het cis male, but I hope people would take into consideration everything I wrote on this website before judging what I wrote here. Thank you for linking to this article.