Capitalism and sexual assault: Toward a more comprehensive understanding

[F4lconF16]

All those fighting for women’s liberation are aware that sexual assault and domestic violence are among the most damaging manifestations of women’s oppression, the world over—they are inextricably linked to women’s low social status and the sexual objectification and dehumanization of women’s bodies. Yet legal and law enforcement systems, university administrators, and so-called “conventional wisdom” in capitalist society are all predisposed to disbelieving women when they say they have been raped or sexually assaulted. In contrast, feminists and socialists are predisposed to believing women who make accusations of rape and sexual assault.

This article examines the phenomenon of sexual assault from a Marxist perspective—that is, analyzed in the context of capitalist social relations. Like imperialism and war, oppression is a necessary byproduct of the rule of capital. Exploitation is the method by which the ruling class robs workers of surplus value; the various forms of oppression (such as sexism, racism, and homophobia) play a primary role in maintaining the rule of a tiny minority over the vast majority, on a global scale. This approach allows Marxists to understand not only the root causes of oppression but also which strategies can most effectively combat it.

...snip...

There are still many aspects of rape and sexual assault that we do not yet understand or for which dependable research is lacking. Much of our understanding of pedophilia and of sexual assaults among the LGBTQ population, among people with disabilities, and among homeless people remains anecdotal rather than scientific. Nevertheless, we know that the strict and binary gender definition of rape and sexual assault as perpetrated overwhelmingly by (heterosexual) male rapists against female victims is obsolete. The distortion of sexual relations under capitalism affects not only heterosexual relationships and the treatment of women by men, but also same-sex relationships. Indeed, no one is immune from these distortions and the violence and abuse they create. This has many implications: for example, pedophiles are neither heterosexual nor gay, but are child predators. Hopefully, new research will help to both deepen and broaden our understanding of rape and sexual assault in contemporary capitalist society.

Researchers are beginning to understand more fully the ways in which sexual assault is a more comprehensive product of capitalist social relations than most activists realized before. Capitalism relies not only on the alienation of labor and not only on explicit discrimination: it also produces personal alienation and the suppression of sexuality. In the absence of class and social struggle on a mass basis, individual people develop themselves in the “dog eat dog” mentality that the system produces. Some people—not all, but some—of those in a position to physically overpower, intimidate, or coerce others into sex sometimes do so, at the expense of those who are overpowered, intimidated, or coerced into sex. One or more individuals can physically overpower another; someone in a position of authority can intimidate or coerce another person—a prison guard over a prisoner, a teacher over a student, a priest over an altar boy, or an adult over a child. The experience of sexual assault is extremely traumatic for all who survive it. All of them deserve the unqualified support of Marxists and feminists.

http://isreview.org/issue/96/capitalism-and-sexual-assault

Much, much more at the link. Lots of statistics, discussion, etc. This is only the intro and conclusion of the article. Worth a read, even if you disagree with Marxist analysis (I support the conclusions of this article).

[seabeyond]

1. bookmarked to read later.... thanks. looks really interesting. nt

[Grey]

2. Link Please....

[F4lconF16]

4. Fixed, thanks. nt

[HassleCat]

3. Rational Marxists

The problem with Marxism is that it relies on the "rational person" model. It shares this flaw with many other philosophies, models, etc. It helps to remember, when dealing with aberrant behavior, that the aberration may be related to the inability to exert rational control over one's own thoughts and actions.

[F4lconF16]

5. What specifically do you object to in this article?

Curious to hear your thoughts, thanks.

[HassleCat]

8. Implications

Many people who attempt to connect feminism and Marxism imply that feminism would do better in a Marxist society, that gender equality can never be achieved until capitalism is eliminated, etc, etc. I am skeptical of such claims because I doubt the ability of the economic system to influence other things. Marxist analysis is rather deterministic in that it concludes A leads to B, and B leads to C, and so on. I don't think feminism will either flourish or wither under any particular economic or political system, with certain exceptions. A religious state, for example, particularly one based on a traditional patriarchy, is deadly to feminist concerns. Feminism seems to do best when humanist concerns influence economics and politics, which makes me think socialism vs. capitalism is a secondary concern, at best, when thinking about feminist values. In other words, I would respond to the article by saying it's trying to construct a link that isn't all that strong.

[DonCoquixote]

10. or in other words

There is nothign that says a Marxist run society will be any more or less sexist than a capitalist one. Power corrupts, be it is prison guard or high ranking memeber of the party.

[F4lconF16]

12. Disagree.

http://www.socialistrevolution.org/educate/whats-the-alternative/marxism-or-anarchism/

A really good article on anarchist thought and why Marxism rejects it.

Concentration of power corrupts, not power itself. One might even say fear of losing power corrupts, and that might be more accurate. Or you might say that unaccountable/unjustified power (or authority) corrupts. You reduce these issues to an anarchist point of view--if power always corrupts, we must smash the systems of authority that exist, and there can be no authority.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that a Marxist society will be less sexist than a capitalist one--indeed, the fundamental principles of Marxism are based in eliminating distinctions between labor forces. To do so is to endorse feminism in it's entirety, as well as black liberation, lgbtq liberation, etc. Modern socialist movements (particularly the one I am part of, the International Socialist Organization) feel that there is no chance for progress if we do not fully support and actively fight for the removal of group distinctions in society. There is no unified working class if there is not equality.

Also, you might want to research the concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat", a useful concept when attempting to understand the Marxist analysis presented above.

edit: removed one of the articles, didn't really apply and there were things I disagreed with.

[DonCoquixote]

13. a dictatorship of anyone

means that sooner or later, power is abused. As far as hard evidence it is not, well, even omittiong the USSR and it's stalinist tones, you cannot really finmd an example of a marcist society that was not sexist. Dilma Rouseff may be a Marxist, but she was ele3cted in non marxist Brazil. Would there not have been one female premier now, or can only england and canada do that?

[F4lconF16]

11. I think your assessment of Marxism is incorrect.

You define it as overly deterministic when in reality it is significantly more complex. Marxism seeks not to provide a direct prediction of the future of society or establish what a fully socialist society would look like, but instead tries to establish a theoretical framework in order to better understand the mechanisms and machinations of capitalism. While Marx's theories were severely limited by a lack of social and political history, the underlying questions he asked were valid, and the majority of his conclusions were correct, in my opinion.

Second, you "doubt the ability of the economic system to influence other things". This is a critical flaw in modern liberal ideology, and my most significant criticism of the modern Democratic Party. There is not an economic sphere of influence, a political one, a gender one, etc. These concerns are all very highly interconnected. For instance, look at the economics of racism: economic structure very directly affects the oppression of a group of people. It is imperative that we begin to understand various intersectionalities if we are to try and address large-scale concerns. We can no more separate feminism from the structure of capital ownership than we can the economics of slavery and imprisonment from the black experience in the United States (and black feminism, for that matter).

As such, I'd argue that economic concerns are of direct importance to any social movement. Read some of MLK's later writings, and you will see that he begins to understand this. Black liberation, women's liberation, LGBTQ liberation--all of these are fundamentally tied to economic conditions as well as being social movements.

A particularly good article on intersectionality can be found here, again from the ISR:

http://isreview.org/issue/91/black-feminism-and-intersectionality

A quote from that article (actually the Combahee River Collective’s defining statement from 1977):

The most general statement of our politics at the present time would be that we are actively committed to struggling against racial, sexual, heterosexual, and class oppression, and see as our particular task the development of integrated analysis and practice based upon the fact that the major systems of oppression are interlocking. The synthesis of these oppressions creates the conditions of our lives. As Black women we see Black feminism as the logical political movement to combat the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of color face.

More:

At the same time, intersectionality cannot replace Marxism—and Black feminists have never attempted to do so. Intersectionality is a concept for understanding oppression, not exploitation. Even the commonly used term “classism” describes an aspect of class oppression—snobbery and elitism—not exploitation. Most Black feminists acknowledge the systemic roots of racism and sexism but place far less emphasis than Marxists on the connection between the system of exploitation and oppression.

Marxism is necessary because it provides a framework for understanding the relationship between oppression and exploitation (i.e., oppression as a byproduct of the system of class exploitation), and also identifies the strategy for creating the material and social conditions that will make it possible to end both oppression and exploitation. Marxism’s critics have disparaged this framework as an aspect of Marx’s “economic reductionism.”

But, as Marxist-feminist Martha Gimenez responds, “To argue, then, that class is fundamental is not to ‘reduce’ gender or racial oppression to class, but to acknowledge that the underlying basic and ‘nameless’ power at the root of what happens in social interactions grounded in ‘intersectionality’ is class power.”55 The working class holds the potential to lead a struggle in the interests of all those who suffer injustice and oppression. This is because both exploitation and oppression are rooted in capitalism. Exploitation is the method by which the ruling class robs workers of surplus value; the various forms of oppression play a primary role in maintaining the rule of a tiny minority over the vast majority. In each case, the enemy is one and the same.

See also my post below for links on the history and entanglement of women's liberation and economic struggles.

[HassleCat]

17. They'll Find a Way

Yes, capitalism steals the excess value from what the workers do, the "fruits of their labors," as Marx said. However, it seems likely somebody or some group will be willing and able to do the same thing under any economic system. I recognize this would be impossible once the dictatorship of the proletariat was established, but therein lies the problem when theory meets practice. When capitalism is overthrown, the dictatorship of the proletariat will not be established right away. Instead, someone must hold it as a public trust by establishing some other form of dictatorship to serve in the interim. This "transition period" has been the downfall of every attempt at a Marxist state, and the attempts have varied widely enough that one should have succeeded by now, although it can be argued that "real" Marxists were not allowed to build the government in the Soviet Union, Cuba, El Salvador, etc.

I do agree that class is fundamental, but class is not unique to capitalism. I don't know when the idea of class was first promoted, but it has been transformed into economic class here in the US, even though other class artifacts persist. I suppose one could say that capitalism's great evil is that it absorbed other notions of class and translated them into economic terms, giving rise to the notion that the poor deserve to be poor, any worthwhile human being can pull herself up by her own bootstraps, people on welfare are bums, and such nonsense.

On the other hand, feminist concerns are most effectively addressed (at least so far) in capitalist states where there is effective political regulation of the means of exploitation. The problem we have in the US is that we label any attempt to regulate business (or anything else) as socialism or communism. A large percentage of our population is convinced Obama is a socialist, which is the same as a communist, which is the same as a fascist, and so on. Most of our population greatly enjoys the benefits of a regulated capitalist welfare state, but have no idea they live in one. This is a problem because capitalism must be reined in or destroyed, and most of our citizens fail to understand we have a good life here because we imposed humanistic concerns and socialist ideals upon our capitalistic economic system, at least when we could stand to listen to their whining about how it was killing them. Since 1980 or so, we have completely failed to regulate at a an adequate pace, as illustrated by the growing wealth gap, various financial debacles, bailouts, etc.

Of course, the Marxist contention is that you can't really regulate capitalism. Regulations are just an artificial imposition of socialist concerns on a system that will always find a loophole or a work-around. The only real solution is to get rid of capitalism and replace it with socialism. But our notions of socialism are very confused, and vary widely among those who identify themselves as socialists, Marxists, communists, etc. This is where my criticism of Marxism as overly deterministic come in. Marx predicted the revolution would arise among the industrial workers, not among the rural peasants, and the logic of his prediction is unassailable, but it didn't work out that way. Some of my Marxist friends think there is too much reliance on Hegel, dialectical materialism, and other deterministic notions presented as non-deterministic.

[zazen]

6. Carol Pateman's "Sexual Contract" analysis captured transition of male dominance in capitalism

Pateman's argument was essentially that the "social contract" that reformulated feudal/societal relations from father-child model to brother-brother assumed that the "individual" (gendered male) owned a female and had access to her emotional/reproductive/physical labor. Great book (and lazy paraphrase on my part). Don't have time to post a link.

However, to our knowledge, male dominance has permeated every form of economic/political structure since at least the agricultural revolution (see Gerda Lerner's work on The Creation of Patriarchy). I don't think capitalism is uniquely alienating to women (Roman slavery and medieval feudalism weren't very kind to us either), and the technological progress capitalism has also engendered, though it's resulting in massive climate damage and may bring our species down with it, has seemed to be the only mechanism historically that allowed women (mostly white, of some means and in first world cultures) enough breathing room through birth control, medical advances and household technologies to get a little control of their bodies.

Some aspects have altered in capitalism (especially the profit motive in organized rape through criminal pornography) but I'd just say it takes a different form.

Still, glad people are keeping this conversation alive. Thanks for the link.

[F4lconF16]

7. I will look it up.

However, to our knowledge, male dominance has permeated every form of economic/political structure since at least the agricultural revolution (see Gerda Lerner's work on The Creation of Patriarchy). I don't think capitalism is uniquely alienating to women (Roman slavery and medieval feudalism weren't very kind to us either),

This I agree with. It is not something unique to capitalism, it is something unique to any structure that encourages oppression. The feudal periods, Roman slavery, etc., all created various forms of oppression in order to maintain power. While I think this is something that will not be easily fixed, I believe it can only be addressed through a system explicitly designed to rid a society of those various oppression (hence my agreement with the Marxist analysis).

has seemed to be the only mechanism historically that allowed women (mostly white, of some means and in first world cultures) enough breathing room through birth control, medical advances and household technologies to get a little control of their bodies.

I would argue that it is not because of capitalism but in spite of it that women were able to progress. Historically I think we can see that it was only through radical action that capitalism was forced to relive oppression. It naturally seeks to find a way to maximize profit, whether through the direct oppression of women through male dominance, or through things like unpaid labor in the home. Capitalism is dependent on those oppressions.

Another long but interesting article on the history of Marxism and women's liberation:

http://isreview.org/issue/93/womens-liberation-marxist-tradition

And a good overview of domestic labor and oppression:

http://isreview.org/issue/88/theorizing-womens-oppression-part-1

I couldn't find the second half of that article--it should have been published by now, but perhaps not. If you're interested in marxist analysis of these issues, ISReview.org is a good resource. Their articles are long, in depth, and well argued and researched.

[ismnotwasm]

14. I wonder though

If capitialism as we know it emerged as a result of continuing dominance of patriartical standards in most societies? The countries calling themselves "communist" are never really a Maxist ideal--far from it, while developed countries that are Socialist tend to be far more woman friendly.

[zazen]

15. yes--enlightenment ideal of individual based on Man (and owning "means" of reproduction: woman)

Like I said, I butchered Pateman's book (she's a feminist philosopher), but she gets precisely into what you're talking about. I actually gave my copy of _The Sexual Contract_ to my friend Stan Goff in 2005 and finally told him to just keep it because he just loved it so much--you'll find a lot he wrote about it on his blog, Feral Scholar, in 2005-6. In fact, if you googled that you'd find some wonderful commentary on this topic applicable here.

That's a great point about socialist societies. The slowly evolving socialist countries in Scandinavia are more woman friendly, and while they have roots in Viking societies, which were as violent and rapacious and any other, I think those societies were a little (emphasis on little) more tolerant of female independence even 1500 years ago.

[ismnotwasm]

16. Feminist scholars reading between the historical records find good stuff

Taticus, for instance if memory serves was appalled at the freedoms certain Germanic people afforded women. (I'd have to look up the actual quotes)

I think I need to read that book

[ismnotwasm]

9. This is an excellent conversation

I don't have time for a good reply, but thank you so much for starting this thread and I will revisit this as soon as I can.