I like where you went with this and would like to add a dimension to the Marxisit perspective.
In Silvia Federicis excellent book Caliban and the Witch, she prepares a Marxist/Feminist critique within a Foucauldian archaeology of Western European history beginning around the time of the Plague. I can't do it justice in this space and really recommend it. In short, after the plague, women's reproductive capacity was subjected to primitive accumulation by the ruling class to ensure the swift repopulation of European workforces. As mercantilism and capitalism emerge (1450-1550), this accumulation becomes even more important to their projects.
The mechanism for this was the development of legal codes around sex work (both prohibiting and legalizing) as well as the subjection of the population (of mostly women) to religio-political witch hunts. The real kind, where people were burned at the stake. Federicis estimate is 100k women in 100 years.
Patriarchy in this case is the leveraging of male dominated structures of power to ensure that the reproductive capacity of women is accumulated and that they are effectively alienated from their labor (making workers). Women who opposed this domination were burned as witches. This served to eliminate the dissenters and push dissent underground.
During the same period, sectarian movements emerged around England and France which sought to open public lands to peasant farming. Here are your anarchists. They were also sought out by the Inquisition and burned at the stake as heretics.
Lower case patriarchy is where power is held and exercised by men and is passed down to their male heirs. Upper case Patriarchy is the system of social, political, and religious domination begun by the Romans / the early Church that we continue to experience today that externalizes all of the historical baggage of its machinations into it's subjects.
That sounds like a fascinating cocktail of insights Eric. I'm a lover of Medieval history so this might be just the ticket for me. I'd be very curious to see what she uncovers. Definitely going on the reading list
I read her book, "Witches, Women, and Witch-Hunting," which is basically a short overview of Caliban. It was very good. I love that the Witch has become a mythogram for feminism. I have written about it as a sort of transitional archetype for the re-emergence of the Divine Feminine as communal modes of being are revalued. It honours the oppression of patriarchy while simultaneously using it as a simple of empowerment. I want to do a deeper dive into the Witch at some point so I'll definitely be returning to Federici for Caliban.
Reading the blurb of it it sounds really interesting Cheryl I can definitely see the overlap. Good to know where to go when I'm ready to get a more in depth account of this
It's worth buying for $20. It is not a slick, hypnotic read, quite the opposite. I think its corniness and some would argue dated crunchiness actually add to the authenticity of this (specifically ecofeminist) offering. In fact I think it's easily important enough to deserve a bit more salt, preferably salt sprinkled by Marie-Louise Von Franz. MLVF's "The Feminine in Fairytales" can, in my opinion, temper some of the Seenarine book's most gamey, membranous essentialism without neutralizing the urgency of its message.
I haven't read it, but it makes me think of Simians, Cyborgs, and Women by Donna Haraway, which is on my shelf to read. I'd love to hear more about Seenarine's book!
It is worth procuring a copy of Seenarine's book. In my opinion Haraway is worth reading but I feel she's also kind of a hack, which I realize is sacrilege to say, but it's my honest opinion. Her writing seems to hydroplane in a way that offends even my own penchant for the ethereal. I prefer less of that stylized dissociation, even if that means it's never elevated in the academic world. Seenarine's book isn't perfect, in fact has a fair amount of editing errors, but has the traction I prefer.
“Lastly, to attempt to “split” men from patriarchy is not necessary and only advances an argument that it is not men who oppress women. Yeah it is.”
Exactly.
“Another “force” argument diminishes the ONLY tangible hope that any of us have that men can actively lead themselves and us out and away from men’s unsolicited but very deeply held thoughts, biases, and behaviors that oppress others. “
Exactly again.
It’s not women vs men, end story.
It’s women against oppression of others (including themselves, and yes, even men who are not oppressive by nature or circumstance).
And as a pro-feminist anti-patriarchy man, I’m also against oppressing people. It’s just not okay, as might doesn’t make right - though it does let you make the rules, so might makes it “okay under law”, which is a long way from “right.”
Oh my...I will reread and give the last 3/4 of this post more attention later. But not before I suggest some corrections or reconsideration of this post's definition of "ecofeminism." Wilbur (as I glean from the segments you quote) maybe has something to offer. Maybe not. But his definition of ecofeminism is completely off mark, and it would appear that your arguments, having sprung from Wilbur (regardless of agreement), are flawed or incomplete. You have allowed his misapplication of horticulture in this discourse. As such, you reach conclusions about how power or what has been in power throughout the life of civilization that are not reflected in historical reality. Subsequently, intentionally or not, you skew or distort ecofeminism.
Ecofeminism arose in the 1970's when some feminists began to explore the intersect of race, class, and gender. Ecofeminism links the subjugation of women AND others to humanity's oppressive relationship with nature. It takes intersectional feminism a step further, examining the “rape” of our ecosystem as a symptom of male dominated values, no different than how histories of peoples whose identity and autonomy and value were raped by the forces of colonization and capitalism, also male. Much like the (well established) link between sexism and racism, ecofeminism draws heavy parallels between the subjugation of women (and of all those persons and cultures who have been injured and dismantled by male - dominated thinking and privilege) and the domination of nature (and the ongoing ecological degradation). But the base of the system (patriarchy or matriarchy) cannot be conceptualized as economic or production based. At least not to the extent that your post reads. That way oversimplifies ecofeminism and, quite frankly, is an example of how the patriarchy would prefer to define and dismiss. Ecofeminism calls our attention to the interconnection between us—as a species, us as human animals—and nature. And that there has been a nearly forever domination of anything and everything by men. Much like the consequences of racism and sexism, this male domination over nature makes us all, men included, a victim.
I must also point out that it is not accurate to equate ecofeminism with Marxism. At least it is not wise to do that without acknowledging that ecofeminists come in all varieties. That they criticize capitalism is not synonymous with Marxism. Rather ecofeminism (and some would argue many who seek healing and caring for the environment) requires a transformation in the way we, in western capitalist society, define ourselves in relation to nature. Lastly, to attempt to “split” men from patriarchy is not necessary and only advances an argument that it is not men who oppress women. Yeah it is; HOWEVER to the extent that men, as well as everyone else and every grain of sand, are either shaped by patriarchal forces or are the well scripted actors that keep the largest and most influential theatre up and running, it is not any one man’s domination that can be blamed for the withering environment or the inequitable distribution of privilege. And yet it IS any one man’s oppression that can be held accountable. As one who has spent many years knee deep in learning how social and political and cultural systems create the lives and the narratives of individuals, the bidirectional relationship cannot be ignored.
You are right that the role of women in production and its economic +/- consequences for women and society has some pre and post industrialism faces. But assigning so much weight to production is in some ways the antithesis of ecofeminism and, quite frankly, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. If the status of horticulture bears responsibility for who reigned, patriarch or matriarch, then we would have a slave-iarch system. WHO does the producing is NOT and NEVER has been equivalent to WHO does the ruling. To the extent that men may oppress or dominate reflexively from a learned position throughout history, that they may be puppets of this patriarchy with a capital P and therefore share the burden of damage with the PATRIARCH is what many systems of feminism have been arguing. It never has been JUST about men hurting women (or Indigenous, etc.). Feminists have been screaming for decades that it is the patriarchy that is the demon; and feminism of the second wave and the humanism and ecofeminism movements have been trying to get you and others to hear this. Though some strains of feminism and some earlier feminists were ridiculously punitive and demeaning and blaming…. But like, what you said, it is not women against men. Feminists have thought for a long time now that boys and men suffer equally under this system. But when you say the system is fickle, I have to say, that MUST be a perspective held by a white man who has not the intimately personal and painful relationship with the system. If ONLY it were about that. If ONLY production power could tip that imbalance. But men are constantly co-creating and re-designing the System so that they can rule without producing anything. The problem, some say, is that “the system” and men and all of us fail to VALUE what women can produce on the one hand, and are motivated to keep them from deriving the privileges associated with the belief that “he who produces and contributes is given a seat at the table.”
Men, and ecofeminists would say, capitalism has cleverly managed to keep our attention away from actually seeing the value and benefit of “female – oriented” roles. As a man, you are part of the system just as a priest is part of the church more than he is part of God. As such you are always somewhat protected by the system. It brings me no pleasure to point out the obvious: those with a penis are those in power and that is NOT because there is some “other” force. This is not a trinity. Another “force” argument diminishes the ONLY tangible hope that any of us have that men can actively lead themselves and us out and away from men’s unsolicited but very deeply held thoughts, biases, and behaviors that oppress others. Women are not against men; but they are realistic enough to know that if it is not men who step out and beyond the Patriarch they are and always will be an appendage of the Patriarch and share the burden. That third force is no more than the home in which white male identity as power is protected and actively reinforced. (now if you want to argue Ancient Egypt and the reversal of power, much in the hands of women, that would be interesting).
I like where you went with this and would like to add a dimension to the Marxisit perspective.
In Silvia Federicis excellent book Caliban and the Witch, she prepares a Marxist/Feminist critique within a Foucauldian archaeology of Western European history beginning around the time of the Plague. I can't do it justice in this space and really recommend it. In short, after the plague, women's reproductive capacity was subjected to primitive accumulation by the ruling class to ensure the swift repopulation of European workforces. As mercantilism and capitalism emerge (1450-1550), this accumulation becomes even more important to their projects.
The mechanism for this was the development of legal codes around sex work (both prohibiting and legalizing) as well as the subjection of the population (of mostly women) to religio-political witch hunts. The real kind, where people were burned at the stake. Federicis estimate is 100k women in 100 years.
Patriarchy in this case is the leveraging of male dominated structures of power to ensure that the reproductive capacity of women is accumulated and that they are effectively alienated from their labor (making workers). Women who opposed this domination were burned as witches. This served to eliminate the dissenters and push dissent underground.
During the same period, sectarian movements emerged around England and France which sought to open public lands to peasant farming. Here are your anarchists. They were also sought out by the Inquisition and burned at the stake as heretics.
Lower case patriarchy is where power is held and exercised by men and is passed down to their male heirs. Upper case Patriarchy is the system of social, political, and religious domination begun by the Romans / the early Church that we continue to experience today that externalizes all of the historical baggage of its machinations into it's subjects.
It's a really great book. Highly recommend.
That sounds like a fascinating cocktail of insights Eric. I'm a lover of Medieval history so this might be just the ticket for me. I'd be very curious to see what she uncovers. Definitely going on the reading list
I read her book, "Witches, Women, and Witch-Hunting," which is basically a short overview of Caliban. It was very good. I love that the Witch has become a mythogram for feminism. I have written about it as a sort of transitional archetype for the re-emergence of the Divine Feminine as communal modes of being are revalued. It honours the oppression of patriarchy while simultaneously using it as a simple of empowerment. I want to do a deeper dive into the Witch at some point so I'll definitely be returning to Federici for Caliban.
This reminds me of a book called "Cyborgs vs The Earth Goddess", by M Seenarine.
Reading the blurb of it it sounds really interesting Cheryl I can definitely see the overlap. Good to know where to go when I'm ready to get a more in depth account of this
It's worth buying for $20. It is not a slick, hypnotic read, quite the opposite. I think its corniness and some would argue dated crunchiness actually add to the authenticity of this (specifically ecofeminist) offering. In fact I think it's easily important enough to deserve a bit more salt, preferably salt sprinkled by Marie-Louise Von Franz. MLVF's "The Feminine in Fairytales" can, in my opinion, temper some of the Seenarine book's most gamey, membranous essentialism without neutralizing the urgency of its message.
Love this balancing act! Good to have in mind before reading
I haven't read it, but it makes me think of Simians, Cyborgs, and Women by Donna Haraway, which is on my shelf to read. I'd love to hear more about Seenarine's book!
It is worth procuring a copy of Seenarine's book. In my opinion Haraway is worth reading but I feel she's also kind of a hack, which I realize is sacrilege to say, but it's my honest opinion. Her writing seems to hydroplane in a way that offends even my own penchant for the ethereal. I prefer less of that stylized dissociation, even if that means it's never elevated in the academic world. Seenarine's book isn't perfect, in fact has a fair amount of editing errors, but has the traction I prefer.
I'll keep that in mind 😄
“Lastly, to attempt to “split” men from patriarchy is not necessary and only advances an argument that it is not men who oppress women. Yeah it is.”
Exactly.
“Another “force” argument diminishes the ONLY tangible hope that any of us have that men can actively lead themselves and us out and away from men’s unsolicited but very deeply held thoughts, biases, and behaviors that oppress others. “
Exactly again.
It’s not women vs men, end story.
It’s women against oppression of others (including themselves, and yes, even men who are not oppressive by nature or circumstance).
And as a pro-feminist anti-patriarchy man, I’m also against oppressing people. It’s just not okay, as might doesn’t make right - though it does let you make the rules, so might makes it “okay under law”, which is a long way from “right.”
Oh my...I will reread and give the last 3/4 of this post more attention later. But not before I suggest some corrections or reconsideration of this post's definition of "ecofeminism." Wilbur (as I glean from the segments you quote) maybe has something to offer. Maybe not. But his definition of ecofeminism is completely off mark, and it would appear that your arguments, having sprung from Wilbur (regardless of agreement), are flawed or incomplete. You have allowed his misapplication of horticulture in this discourse. As such, you reach conclusions about how power or what has been in power throughout the life of civilization that are not reflected in historical reality. Subsequently, intentionally or not, you skew or distort ecofeminism.
Ecofeminism arose in the 1970's when some feminists began to explore the intersect of race, class, and gender. Ecofeminism links the subjugation of women AND others to humanity's oppressive relationship with nature. It takes intersectional feminism a step further, examining the “rape” of our ecosystem as a symptom of male dominated values, no different than how histories of peoples whose identity and autonomy and value were raped by the forces of colonization and capitalism, also male. Much like the (well established) link between sexism and racism, ecofeminism draws heavy parallels between the subjugation of women (and of all those persons and cultures who have been injured and dismantled by male - dominated thinking and privilege) and the domination of nature (and the ongoing ecological degradation). But the base of the system (patriarchy or matriarchy) cannot be conceptualized as economic or production based. At least not to the extent that your post reads. That way oversimplifies ecofeminism and, quite frankly, is an example of how the patriarchy would prefer to define and dismiss. Ecofeminism calls our attention to the interconnection between us—as a species, us as human animals—and nature. And that there has been a nearly forever domination of anything and everything by men. Much like the consequences of racism and sexism, this male domination over nature makes us all, men included, a victim.
I must also point out that it is not accurate to equate ecofeminism with Marxism. At least it is not wise to do that without acknowledging that ecofeminists come in all varieties. That they criticize capitalism is not synonymous with Marxism. Rather ecofeminism (and some would argue many who seek healing and caring for the environment) requires a transformation in the way we, in western capitalist society, define ourselves in relation to nature. Lastly, to attempt to “split” men from patriarchy is not necessary and only advances an argument that it is not men who oppress women. Yeah it is; HOWEVER to the extent that men, as well as everyone else and every grain of sand, are either shaped by patriarchal forces or are the well scripted actors that keep the largest and most influential theatre up and running, it is not any one man’s domination that can be blamed for the withering environment or the inequitable distribution of privilege. And yet it IS any one man’s oppression that can be held accountable. As one who has spent many years knee deep in learning how social and political and cultural systems create the lives and the narratives of individuals, the bidirectional relationship cannot be ignored.
You are right that the role of women in production and its economic +/- consequences for women and society has some pre and post industrialism faces. But assigning so much weight to production is in some ways the antithesis of ecofeminism and, quite frankly, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. If the status of horticulture bears responsibility for who reigned, patriarch or matriarch, then we would have a slave-iarch system. WHO does the producing is NOT and NEVER has been equivalent to WHO does the ruling. To the extent that men may oppress or dominate reflexively from a learned position throughout history, that they may be puppets of this patriarchy with a capital P and therefore share the burden of damage with the PATRIARCH is what many systems of feminism have been arguing. It never has been JUST about men hurting women (or Indigenous, etc.). Feminists have been screaming for decades that it is the patriarchy that is the demon; and feminism of the second wave and the humanism and ecofeminism movements have been trying to get you and others to hear this. Though some strains of feminism and some earlier feminists were ridiculously punitive and demeaning and blaming…. But like, what you said, it is not women against men. Feminists have thought for a long time now that boys and men suffer equally under this system. But when you say the system is fickle, I have to say, that MUST be a perspective held by a white man who has not the intimately personal and painful relationship with the system. If ONLY it were about that. If ONLY production power could tip that imbalance. But men are constantly co-creating and re-designing the System so that they can rule without producing anything. The problem, some say, is that “the system” and men and all of us fail to VALUE what women can produce on the one hand, and are motivated to keep them from deriving the privileges associated with the belief that “he who produces and contributes is given a seat at the table.”
Men, and ecofeminists would say, capitalism has cleverly managed to keep our attention away from actually seeing the value and benefit of “female – oriented” roles. As a man, you are part of the system just as a priest is part of the church more than he is part of God. As such you are always somewhat protected by the system. It brings me no pleasure to point out the obvious: those with a penis are those in power and that is NOT because there is some “other” force. This is not a trinity. Another “force” argument diminishes the ONLY tangible hope that any of us have that men can actively lead themselves and us out and away from men’s unsolicited but very deeply held thoughts, biases, and behaviors that oppress others. Women are not against men; but they are realistic enough to know that if it is not men who step out and beyond the Patriarch they are and always will be an appendage of the Patriarch and share the burden. That third force is no more than the home in which white male identity as power is protected and actively reinforced. (now if you want to argue Ancient Egypt and the reversal of power, much in the hands of women, that would be interesting).