A CRITIQUE OF FEMINISM AS IDEOLOGY

At a pro-revolutionary summer camp last August and a subsequent meeting we were confronted with a kind of feminist ideology which, in our view, is a real obstacle to free discussion. We think a debate on feminism is necessary. The following text is an in-depth contribution to it. It is a slightly abridged translation of an essay by the Argentina-based group Cuadernos de Negación. It is part of its issue # 15, which is entirely dedicated to issues surrounding sex and gender. The original text can be found HERE.

A CRITIQUE OF FEMINISM AS IDEOLOGY

Feminism is inevitable, not because of a sudden widespread awakening of consciousness, but because of the increasing prominence of women in the workplace, as well as in the academic, political, and legal spheres. That is, it gains astonishing momentum at a particular moment in the history of capitalist society, based on new working and living conditions that particularly affected women, and the struggles that arose in response over decades. These struggles were both reformist and disruptive, even revolutionary. However, since there has been no revolution, it is the dominant, official feminism that also represents the legacy of revolutionaries. The same is true for other expressions of workers struggles, the unemployed, racialized groups, and sexual minorities.

The lack of understanding of the particular forms of oppression and exploitation led to a specialization in these matters within the proletarian movement , so that today there are almost as many partial struggles as there are differences among proletarians themselves. But feminism is not simply proletarian. Nor can it be precisely defined as to what it represents today for millions of human beings who take to the streets under its banner. For some, it is a fully developed ideology, openly interclassist, but for many, it is a concept that unites them in a shared struggle and feeling against male oppression and exploitation in its most sexist forms.

The lack of class demarcation has been and continues to be a problem in overcoming the current state of affairs. When the unity of women and other identities is conceived in a corporatist way (with their own separate interests) , it is very difficult to engage in self-criticism because any criticism is understood as a collective as well as a personal offense. The same happens with workerism, racism, and even with anarchism or communism understood in an ideological way.ⁱ

“When we criticize this or that ideology, when we denounce this or that force that we consider part of the enemy, we don’t consider what each proletarian will think of it, what each one imagines about what we say. We believe that revolutionary criticism (both “theoretical” and “practical”) cannot be based on these premises. (…) Of course, there will be many comrades who feel attacked, who do not understand that what we are attacking is an entire alienating conception of the struggle, but we think that the struggle against positions that hinder our progress is more important than these individual and immediate concerns. It stems from the same social struggle, of which it is merely an expression. Of course, this does not mean that there are no other ways to express criticism.” (Proletarios Internationalistas, Critique of the Insurrectionalist Ideology)

While this critique is important for those who consider themselves feminists, it is not intended solely for them. What is presented here stems from the class struggle, and therefore, it is directed at our class and its struggles. In this situation, the feminist movement, in a still broad definition, is relegating women to dealing only with “women’s issues,” which have become “gender issues”. This is a problem for all social movements, in which millions of proletarians limit themselves to participating as citizens. It’s true that they focus on a real problem but one that, when it is addressed in a partial manner, obscures the possibilities of emancipation.

“We believe that today, feminism is relegating women to dealing only with ‘women’s issues.’ This is causing, in our view, women to be absent from certain spaces, or even to stop thinking about other topics, if gender issues are not being addressed. It seems that when women participate in the world, they have to speak as women, or from a woman’s perspective, or about women’s issues. Thus, while we consider it important to ground our discourse in who we are and to visualize women in different positions and roles, in order to broaden the unconscious archetype we have of what a woman is and what a woman should do, we also perceive that we are sometimes confined to this gender cage and that we are valued or promoted as women, and not as individuals. From an anti-sexist perspective, we believe that we should not accept these biases, these poisoned privileges. When we sing, when we write, when we act, feminism often labels us as feminists simply for the fact of being women.” (Various Authors, Together Against Sexism and Oppression)

Feminism has equated being a rebellious and combative woman, and even simply being a woman with feminism. It’s inconceivable to some that women who want to end sexism might not be feminists, or even that they might openly criticize feminism. Just like some people can’t grasp that some of us demonstrate against the bosses, but also against trade unionism, and that, moreover, we are not leftists. And, above all, that this is a constant in the history of our class, that we are not inventing anything new.

This comparison is not made frivolously. Feminism, as an ideology and official movement, is to sexism what trade unionism is to the question of labor. A series of organizations and positions that present themselves as the only option in the face of a real problem. Regarding labor, trade unionism has dominated the social landscape to such an extent that any form of organization related to the workplace is labeled a union or something like that. Something similar is happening with feminism encompassing every response or struggle concerning women’s issues under a single banner, which already has its own color. This wouldn’t be dangerous if it were simply a matter of nomenclature; however, these movements with supposedly general interests have their leaders, their programs, and predetermined paths. It is an organizational perspective that embraces some demands arising from concrete needs and develops struggles, but always framing them within a limited sphere.

In this way, many feminist proposals resemble those of trade unionism: minimal demands, pressure, acceptance of the dominant ideology, projecting the problem onto a personalized external enemy outside the movement, without understanding the problem as a social relationship (a double, not a one-sided, relationship). And in its most institutionalized extremes, it involves the search for a political space within the State. The slogan “We want to be alive and free” has already been transformed by some into “We want to be alive, free, without debt and part of the government”.

For their part, supposedly revolutionary voices, under the pretext of repositioning “the women’s question” within the social whole, have completely neglected it. And the feminist movement, by perpetually asserting the specificity of women, perpetuates the separation otherwise maintained by traditional movements.

Let’s not deceive ourselves; this is not a matter of form but of substance. Protests, even violent ones, can reinforce the existing society if they do not attack its foundations, merely pointing out to those in power the contradictions they need to manage.

If we want to share some critical reflections on feminism, we will be told that this is wrong because there is not just one feminism but many. Following this logic, there would be almost as many feminisms as feminists, and therefore we would have to criticize each and every one of them, which is impossible. The reason it is possible to criticize feminism in general is because there is a common denominator among all the “feminisms”: not only the exaltation of the feminine, but a partial response to a social problem conceived as a particular problem.

On the other hand, if feminism can encompass everything, from the rise of women in the state or in corporations to the organizations and struggles of working-class women that have existed for centuries, then this label is not very useful. Or perhaps that is precisely why it’s used.

Similarly, the ideological representation of the working class became its enemy, assimilating all the real and important questions, rendering them through the filter of ideology, not to solve the problem but to perpetuate it. In the same way, the real problems we are discussing here are assimilated into feminism, like the defense of the Earth is assimilated into environmentalism. But it is worth bearing in mind that not only did the representation of the class become its enemy, but the very weakness of the proletariat is expressed in that representation. It is the representation of its weaknesses.

This problem transcends feminism. We have already discussed it elsewhere in relation to Marxism and anarchism as ideologies. The destruction of the State is not the sole task of anarchism, nor does every effort to destroy the State, even in a revolutionary way, turn its participants into anarchists. Similarly, Marxists are neither the inventors nor the sole proprietors of the struggle against Capital. It is also worth mentioning that, throughout their history, the vast majority of the official representatives of both movements have made enormous contributions to maintaining the existing order of things.ⁱⁱ

Feminism is the expression of an existing problem that has evolved into an ideology. The strength of any ideology lies in the fact that it originates from a real issue, and is therefore dynamic, but it then returns to that issue burdened by the dead weight of what has become rigid and fixed. If the outward appearance and the underlying reality of these issues coincided directly, there would be no need for these reflections.

We do not use the term ideology in a positive sense. We understand ideology, as it has long been understood by revolutionaries, as the set of ideas that attempts to explain the world according to the prevailing mode of production. And we assume, with Marx, that it is not human consciousness that determines one’s being, but rather, on the contrary, it is social being that determines one’s consciousness.ⁱⁱⁱ

Feminist ideology in particular is defined today by what predominates and guides it, namely, a victimizing, oversimplified and reactionary discourse. This does not mean that all those who support this ideology are only that; we are defining the ideology itself, not its adherents. However, this discourse is adopted and promoted by both proletarians and bourgeois alike, whether they are social democrats, liberals, or anarchists. Not to mention the constant advertising campaigns carried out by government ministries, NGO’s and corporations. This unanimity constitutes the dominant ideology we are referring to, and as a dominant ideology, it “forgets” to denounce capitalism, and when it does, it’s merely empty rhetoric.

It’s better to call things by their proper names.If they want us to believe that capitalism is a lesser evil,this is not the time to remain silent, no matter how much we have to go against the current.

Today we find ourselves at a point where criticizing capitalism without prioritizing sexism as its cause or its most crucial manifestation, is, in some circles, grounds for automatically being suspected of misogyny. The perception of reality has been inverted to such an extent that, within the feminist movement, criticizing the State requires resorting to statements such as “the State is the abusive male.” And a government official can be denounced as sexist, but the criticism is not understood if he is only referred to as an official, an agent of the state.

Within the current landscape of beliefs, feminist ideology is highly respected, and several of its tenets are even mandated by governments. Surely, this official endorsement magnifies its aura of prestige by decree, and daring to question it, or simply expressing doubt, leads to accusations of sexism and suspicion of gender-based violence. For these reasons, progressives from across the political spectrum jump on the bandwagon of political correctness, regardless of whether they actually agree with it or even if it contradicts their own personal lives.

The weight of discourse is so great that it is confused with actions and even overshadows them.

When it is discovered that a certain politician, artist, or lawyer who promotes “campaigns against gender-based violence” is in fact a woman abuser, it is forgotten that this is not just a matter of his conduct, that these individuals had to adopt a feminist or pro-feminist stance to keep up with the times. In the same way that a businessman who despises all those who are not heterosexual may have to set aside such opinions to find a way to enter a new market. And let’s not forget the most important thing: all these “politically correct individuals”, whether or not they are consistent with their discourses, are the ones who produce and reproduce a society that is based on sexual division, sexism, and racism.

Beyond the demands of political correctness, any claim to emancipation that does not radically and actively question the commodity, labor, sexism, the State, law, and private property—that is, the very foundations upon which this society is built—can only be mere progressivism, an accommodation within the existing society, which means perpetuating what is supposedly being fought against. To emancipate ourselves, we must fight against everything that prevents us from doing so, even if it’s done in the name of emancipation.

We are not saying that feminism lacks anti-capitalism. Unlike those who argue that feminism, environmentalism, anti-fascism, or even veganism would be incomplete without a critique of capitalism, we consider it wrong to portray these movements as unfinished. The point is not to add adjectives to existing labels, but to be and act against and beyond them.

We need a new common action for our emancipation. One that rejects the rhetoric and practice of this feminism steeped in academicism and legalism, and incapable of separating itself from the groveling and gloomy language of officials, judges, bureaucrats, and professional political activists. This does not mean collaborating with a reactionary antifeminism or a liberal post-feminism.

The workers movement has failed, among other things, because it clung to the dominant mode of production. And because it pointed, whenever possible, to the employer as the sole culprit for their discontent, no longer even blaming the bourgeoisie, and without understanding their own active participation in the development and perpetuation of capitalism. The feminist movement seeks its scapegoat in the “abstract man,” so befitting the world of laws and commodities. Presenting themselves and perceiving themselves, just as the labor movement and the left did and still do, as absolved of any responsibility for participating in a society that should be thrown into the trash.

Presenting women in general as victims of men in general only serves to reinforce competition and hostility and thus reinforce Capital and its State, class society. Feminist ideology makes visible the aggression of a husband against his wife, but it naturalizes that of the employer against the employee, it renders invisible the violence that many mothers exert against their children, and it condemns the authority of a father, but not the transmission of his property in the form of inheritance.

There is a constant and depersonalized oppression imposed by capitalist rules, and this capitalist abuse, in most cases, is not simply because they are women, although it is undeniable that a particular form of oppression and exploitation exists. The capitalist dynamic does not aim to inflict cruelty on any particular human group (although it does!), its dynamic is geared towards its own reproduction based on profit.

But let’s be even clearer: women are not victims nor can they participate in society solely as women. That is impossible, unless one wants to deny not only their existence in society but also their human reality. It would mean considering women to be mutilated and inferior beings, irresponsible for their actions and lacking a free will. And from there stems the demand for paternalistic laws and policies. Feminism adopts the typical dichotomies of the dominant ideology. It fights against “the masculine” from the perspective of “the feminine” (or “the non-masculine”), as if one pole of the relationship could subvert the other. As if certain behaviors were essentially attributable to “masculinity.” Violence, competition, and inequality are not exclusive to men, nor are they in their genes.

The central problem supposedly is the domination of men over women and those who are not men. This then implies, for example, that advertising displays female bodies in order to denigrate women, while the real purpose is to sell merchandise. Forgetting that, in the light of Capital, all bodies are objectified, and not only in a sexual way, can lead to the assumption that it is men who benefit from the exploitation of women, or that it is better to sell oneself withclothes on than without them. Similarly, it leads to thinking that the indoctrination of boys and girls is to strengthen an abstract patriarchy and not a concrete society, primarily capitalist and statist.

Feminism is the response to a particular situation. Its starting point is to turn everything that can be particular about the exploitation of proletarian women by Capital, into the a general condition of “woman in general”, thereby transforming the proletarian revolt is into an interclassist movement whose creed is that “men in general”, exploit “women in general”. In this way, official feminism is a decisive instrument of Capital for multiplying exploitation, which, under the guise of equal rights, also contributes to pushing proletarian women to assume a more active role in the direct production of surplus value and even in imperialist war.

Contemporary feminism has not forgotten the class struggle because it has become obsessed with the “gender issue”, it’s the other way around. Its obsession with the “gender issue” stems from the neglect or rejection of theexistence of class struggle, something that the majority of the social movement had already done in recent decades. But social antagonism is a reality that does not disappear by ignoring it and calling ourselves citizens.

When the impossibility of a revolutionary transformation is endorsed, capitalism is accepted as inevitable, in order to fit within it. A clear example of this is the approach proposed when considering what to do about domestic violence. In general, the attempt is made to end the problem without ending the conditions that make it possible. We anticipate the pseudo-criticisms and reply that we do not assume that we have to endure such things “until the revolution arrives”; as those who would never fight for revolution (and therefore speak of it “arriving” miraculously) tend to reproach us. We must provide support to the victims of violence (and they will mostly be women and children), defend ourselves and attack the abusers (who will mostly be adult men), and create, where possible, situations of protection and prevention before these events occur, agitate and continue to reflect collectively on the issue. But none of this precludes us from beginning to organize and fight against the material conditions that keep women and children in the position they are in, that is, to undertake a strugglein solidarity against the State and Capital. What prevents us from ever ending the problem is reducing the “struggle” to a matter of legal reforms, police action, in short, the strengthening of the State. A State that is nothing more nor less than the monopoly of violence, its manager and supposed administrator, which seeks to reaffirm its own power in the domestic sphere as well.

The danger of criticizing feminism

We run the risk of unwittingly serving sexism and the maintenance of the status quo when we criticize feminism. In the same way, we risk serving fascism by criticizing antifascism, or the left when we criticize the right. But for this to happen, our criticism must be mutilated and stripped of its radical nature. If it is conceived as an end in itself in endless and purely logical discussions. If it is assimilated into the mainstream, ignoring its origin and purpose.

Sexist/misogynistic criticism aims to neutralize feminism in order to maintain the status quo, to defend traditions and, ultimately, the old capitalist order. That is why it’s no coincidence that there is an increasingly strong link between the reactionary critique of feminism, extremist liberalism and the Alt-Right. For our part, the intention in criticize feminism is to transcend it in its emancipatory aspects and to attack it in its bourgeois aspects, with the sole purpose of deepening the struggle for the social emancipation of humankind.

If society is “sexist,” we have no choice but to admit that sexism is not only present in the men involved in it, but also in the women, children, and the elderly. If there has been no large, organized movement of men, also supported by women, in defense of sexism, although there have been small attempts, it is because sexism does not require any conscious defense by a particular sector of the population; it already exists intrinsically.

The danger also lies in considering feminist ideology to be above all criticism. Shielding it from criticism is the surest guarantee that, in response to an increasingly unilateral and short-sighted feminism, a reactive movement will be strengthened against it, fostering an equally unilateral and even more absurd anti-feminism. And this is precisely what is happening and can be observed in ordinary reactionaries and in the emergence of what has come to be called “neo-machismo,” which has very little that is new about it. In contrast, our contribution aims to resume, develop, and extend the radical critique of all the conditions of existence imposed by class society, the critique of commodity fetishism and of oppression in all its forms. Therefore, “a women’s revolution” is neither necessary nor possible, neither first, nor in the meantime, nor afterwards. If we understand a revolution as the total transformation of society, it cannot be carried out by and for only a fraction of that society.

Its most militant and rebellious elements reject capitalist society but the feminist movement is still far from formulating a comprehensive critique that would achieve their goals. The only way to overcome this limitation is by criticizing it, but this is becoming increasingly difficult as feminists increasingly believe hat their ideas are unquestionable and that anyone who criticizes them is necessarily a misogynistic male chauvinist, a “patriarchal fascist.” Official feminism, as it is presented, is nothing more than a radical democratism, that appeals to the “middle class,” like antifascism between the world wars, before it became the official ideology of the proletariat.

This analogy is by no means arbitrary; as we pointed out earlier, we are at a point where criticizing capitalism without also addressing sexism is considered suspect of misogyny. Several decades ago, an entire social movement with revolutionary ambitions was stripped of its practices, its language, its slogans, forced to renounce its ambitions in the name of defending democracy against fascism, and that silencing, which the majority of the proletariat accepted willingly, fervently defending the supposed “lesser evil,” or unwillingly, facing imprisonment, torture, and massacres, was the prelude to a catastrophic defeat.

“Identity politics and democracy are part of the genetic makeup of feminist ideology. Its democratic character is clearly evident in that, limited as it is to being a partial struggle, it can only advocate for equality between men and women as wage slaves and, conversely, as citizens. It is a defense of equality within inequality, the same democratic mystification that has had enormous power of resurgence throughout history and that continues to conceal the underlying cause of our oppression: the subordination of everything and everyone to the demands of production, however democratically managed it may be.” (Barbaria, Why We Are Not Feminists)

Postfeminism / Queer

The first National Women’s Meeting in Argentina was held in 1986 in Buenos Aires. Today, after being held in different cities across the country, it has changed its name to the Plurinational Meeting of Women, Lesbians, Transvestites, Transgenders, Intersex, Bisexual, and Non-Binary People. Yesterday, transfeminism seemed minoritarian; however, today it is not only accepted but also part of the broader official feminist movement. These meetings, endorsed or rejected by different provincial governments, now have significant participation from LGTTBIQ+ activists and a strong influence from queer theory, as well as from Indigenous movements and postcolonial theories. Transfeminism has become so socially ingrained that its influence is noticeable both in the drafting of laws and public policies, and in the media.

Transfeminism expands the subjects of classic feminism to include those who are not cisgender women.^iv In this last term, the prefix cis means “on this side,” the antonym of the Latin prefix trans: “across,” “beyond,” “from one side to the other.”

Postfeminism, we could risk to say, is the theory of this transfeminism. Heir to post-structuralist theories, which we commonly and dismissively call postmodern, it insists that sex and gender are constructed through language. This explains the emphasis on linguistic struggle.

“ Postfeminist criticism emerged as a response to gender theory and its limitations, and is now well-established in academia. (…) Queer theory forces us to rethink gender, sexuality, the orientation of desire, its articulation, and the intersection of these issues with those related to social class and race. In this sense, post-gender theory has been extraordinarily fruitful. (…) It was born to break with labels, to tell gender roles: Go to hell!, to claim a space for so-called erotic minorities and to fight for the depathologization of homosexuality, transsexuality, etc. It brought the idea of ​​intersexuality back to the forefront after more than a century of binarism and biological determinism. In the early years of this century, it was presented to us as the true and definitive sexual revolution, and in little more than fifteen years, it has become a factory of new labels (cis, trans, non-binary individuals, pansexual, polysexual, omnisexual, sapiosexual), while still pointing to the heterosexual man as the cause of all our ills, as the enemy to be defeated.

The term “cisgender,” which in post-feminist theory refers to heterosexual men with male genitalia or heterosexual women with female genitalia, is now used as an insult. As if being cisgender were synonymous with being an oppressor or, in the case of ciswomen, a poor, oppressed woman who isn’t even aware of her oppression.” (Lucía González-Mendiondo, Gender and Sexes: Rethinking the Feminist Struggle) ^v

“Situated in the context of the 1980s, after two decades of ultimately defeated demand struggles and the boom of “liberalism,” the equation “queer = deviant = discriminated against = dominated = in revolt” has become a mandatory reference for those seeking an overview that goes beyond sexual issues, but who cannot, or do not want to, reason in terms of class. Anyone who identifies as queer knows that heteronormative pressure does not apply equally to a white or a black woman, to a lawyer or a worker. But since a class analysis appears impossible, and participation in a seemingly nonexistent or defunct class struggle even less, queer discourse offers a way of talking about social division and addressing it, giving less importance to the exploitation of labor by capital. The essential fact is domination. Since queer activism pits those who accept the norms against those who reject them (the enemy is the norm, the normative, in short the heterosexual) members of all classes can join this struggle. And since it is about fighting against all forms of oppression, all specific struggles must converge.

(…) Although still dominant, heterosexuality is no longer as prevalent as it was in 1970: the CEO of Apple, the world’s largest company by market capitalization, announced in 2014 that he was gay, and many political leaders, including heads of state, no longer hide their homosexuality.

It is natural for a sexual minority to seek acceptance. Anyone who wants to live their gay life freely (and who very often claims not to have chosen to do so) is not, by this fact alone, driven to try to revolutionize society. Nor does an unruly person necessarily fight against the established order. The Stonewall gay and lesbian movement could only assume a revolutionary character during the brief phase in which a social storm prevailed; its program was only subversive as long as society denied it a place. The integration of the movement came later, but for most gays and lesbians, it is not a defeat, but a victory, to be able to become a soldier, a politician, or an executive of a multinational corporation without having to hide.” (Gilles Dauvé, Queer, or the Identity That Refuses to Be One)

On the other hand, it would be petty to ignore the existence of queer expressions that are not seeking integration in academia or other parts of bourgeois society, although they evidently share a powerful common denominator. Often, a set of key characteristics allows different expressions of the same current or idea to exist under the same term. In the case of queer theory, this involves a radical anti-essentialism that emphasizes not similarity but difference and particularity, not assuming the subordination of the specific needs of different groups to a universal objective, but rather making each specific need be considered universal. Hence its insistence on and starting point in the marginal and the abject, often running the risk of obscuring the general in favor of the particular.

NOTES

i In the case of anarchism, for example, the failure to position itself outside of and against its dominant and reformist forms, for ideological and identity-based reasons, has cost its more radical expressions the tolerance and coexistence with openly social-democratic sectors. This isn’t about fighting until someone wins the title. Perhaps we need to be a little more indifferent to labels and more attentive to the social content of a project.

ii See “Communism? Anarchy?” in Cuadernos de Negacion no. 2.

iii For a definition of ideology, we recommend, at the very least, the preface to The German Ideology written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. We also refer the reader to what was stated in Cuadernos de Negación No. 13, p. 21.

iv It should be clear that when we talk about the feminist movement we are not excluding transwomen, even when we do not explicitly mention transfeminism,.

v Although the author catagorizes it within post-feminism, it’s worth reiterating that “cisgender” can be an insult in these circles. Because there’s always some idiot who extrapolates a particular situation to the general situation in order to, while being part of what is predominantly accepted, present themselves as oppressed by “gender ideologies.”