On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, T R Young wrote:
> Martha Gimenez has written that the Manifesto paid little
> attention to women and women's issues. I have just checked
> the Red Feather Manifesto for Praxis Societies and have
> found it lacking as well.
I am afraid you misunderstood my point; your interpretation is precisely
the opposite of what I meant. This is what I actually said and I added
some capital letters, explanations and quotation marks to make the point
I COULD indulge in a literal (meaning simple, atheoretical, common sense)
and postmodern feminist reading of the Manifesto and ask, but what does it
say about women? practically nothing. Marx is "obviously" sexist because
he refers to men only and writes very little about women and what it says
is related to women's position in the family, not in the workplace.
BUT I DO NOT READ this document expecting a 19th century intellectual to
write with late 20th century political sensitivities or political
correctness. This is why I find charges of sexism as unproductive as
charges of "eurocentrism."
The Manifesto in fact paid a lot of attention to working women; I read it
theoretically, not literally; given most women's place in the relations
of production and the differential mortality between men and women, the
majority of the world's propertyless waged and unwaged workers are women,
so the Manifesto is certainly about them and for them.
I will be happy to collaborate with you in revising your paper, but it
should be clear that my view of the relevance of Marx's work for advancing
the theoretical and political understanding of the "woman question" is
Martha E. Gimenez