The European Union and Greece

Thank you, WSWS.ORG

One has to go back to such military-fascist dictatorships as the Pinochet regime in Chile to find a parallel to the attacks being imposed by the European Union on the working people of Greece. With sadistic zeal, the commissioners in Brussels, at the behest of Berlin, Paris and London, make each new financial package dependent on fresh demands for destroying the livelihoods of Greek workers and making their lives hell.

Events in Greece show the true character of the European Union. It is not a means of achieving genuine European unity, but rather an instrument to subjugate all of Europe under the dictatorship of finance capital.

The EU institutions make a mockery of democratic principles. Non-elected commissioners accountable to no one determine the fate of whole countries. Decisions of the European Council are regularly sealed on the basis of trade-offs between German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the leaders of the EU’s two most powerful member-states. The European Parliament, which decides nothing, serves as a pseudo-democratic fig leaf.

Since its establishment two decades ago, the EU has systematically wound back the clock of social progress in Europe. Instead of bringing the continent together, the euro has further increased the influence of the economically powerful countries, above all Germany, over the weaker nations.

In Eastern Europe, the EU has overseen the destruction of education and health and social welfare systems. It has fostered the growth of a corrupt elite that enriched itself through the privatisation of state assets and EU subsidies. For the vast majority of the population, entry into the EU has turned out to be a nightmare.

It was long claimed that the social decline of Eastern Europe was merely a transitional stage. These countries were said to have inherited ailing economies from the former Stalinist regimes, but were being prepared for a flourishing future.

The fate of Greece reveals that social decline in Eastern Europe is not the exception, but the rule for all of Europe.

The purpose of the so-called “aid packages” for which the Greek population must sacrifice is not to help the people, but to enrich the banks, hedge funds and speculators. For many experts and officials, the bankruptcy of Greece is a foregone conclusion. According to Spiegel Online, they admit off the record: “Of course, the 130 billion [euros] will not solve the problem. It is only a question of buying time. Time until the financial markets have stabilized to the extent that they can handle the bankruptcy of Greece without a chain reaction.”

Of the €130 billion agreed by European finance ministers on Monday, €30 billion will flow directly to the accounts of creditor banks, which are guaranteed repayment (with interest) of a portion of their loans to Greece already written off. The remaining money goes into an escrow account to ensure that it is used to pay off debts and not to finance essential government functions.

Anger over the dictates of the EU is mounting not only in Greece, but also in Portugal, Spain and Ireland, which have also been targeted by the financial markets. In the past few days, hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets.

It is increasingly evident that the working class cannot defend a single social or democratic right without breaking from the European Union.

Some nationalist political forces both within and outside of Greece are calling for withdrawal from the EU. They do so on a pro-capitalist basis that leads both to the further impoverishment of the working class and the further fracturing of Europe. The working class must not allow popular opposition to the EU to fall under the leadership of such forces.

Above all, these forces—whether on the right or the nominal “left”—use nationalism to line the working class up behind the ruling class of each country and block the emergence of an independent movement of the working class and the unification of working class struggles across Europe.

An autarchic Greek capitalism is not viable. The country would remain at the mercy of the international financial markets, much like Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Kosovo and the other small states which emerged from the break-up of Yugoslavia.

Some spokesmen of international capital advocate such a development. The head of the German Ifo institute, Hans-Werner Sinn, argues that Greece’s exit from the euro group and the devaluation of its currency would reduce the living standards of Greek workers by a further 30 percent while avoiding further direct wage cuts, which, he warns, would drive the country “to the brink of civil war.”

This underscores the necessity for Greek workers to fight for withdrawal from the EU on the basis of a revolutionary socialist and internationalist program. The rejection of EU diktats by Greek workers would provide a powerful impetus to the workers in Germany, France, Italy, Britain, Spain, Portugal and internationally—the real allies of the Greek working class. It would draw European workers together in a common struggle against austerity, unemployment and attacks on democratic rights.

The ruling elites of Europe and Greece are preparing for the national bankruptcy of Greece and the social conflicts that will inevitably ensue. On the one hand, they are considering bringing pseudo-left organizations such as the Democratic Left, Syriza and the Stalinist KKE into government. The task of such a “left” government would be to contain and dissipate any offensive launched by the working class and keep the state apparatus intact until the ruling class is prepared for a counteroffensive.

At the same time, preparations are being made to impose dictatorial forms of rule, like that imposed by the Greek military between 1967 and 1974. The Greek generals work inside NATO in close cooperation with American, British and German officers. The world’s biggest military alliance has long supported military dictatorships within its ranks. Fascist Portugal was a founding member of NATO in 1949, and the US-led alliance worked closely with Franco in Spain. Greece and Turkey, where the generals staged a coup on three occasions, joined in 1952.

Mass poverty and dictatorship can be prevented only by the Greek working class opposing not only the EU but also the Greek bourgeoisie and its state. Greek workers must fight for the establishment of a workers’ government. Such a government would expropriate the large fortunes, banks and corporations and reorganise the economy on a socialist basis for the benefit of society as a whole, rather than the profit interests of the financial aristocracy.

Workers must break with the unions and all political parties that seek to bind them to the EU and the Greek capitalists. They should establish action committees in workplaces and residential areas to take over the organization of daily life, prepare the fight against the austerity measures and organize defensive action against attacks by fascists and the military.

Such action committees must coordinate their fight at a national level and establish contact with workers in Germany, France, Spain, Portugal and other European countries in order to topple the EU and replace it with the United Socialist States of Europe.

The most urgent question is that of revolutionary leadership. A new leadership must be built based on the fight for the international unity and political independence of the working class and the struggle for socialism. Workers in Greece and throughout Europe should make the decision to build that leadership by building a section of the International Committee of the Fourth International in every country.

Peter Schwarz is a political commentator with WSWS.ORG, a publication of the Socialist Equality Party (SEP).

_______________________________________________________________________________

ADVERT PRO NOBIS

IF YOU CAN’T SEND A DONATION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, AND YOU THINK THIS PUBLICATION IS WORTH SUPPORTING, AT LEAST HELP THE GREANVILLE POST EXPAND ITS INFLUENCE BY MENTIONING IT TO YOUR FRIENDS VIA TWEET OR OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKS! We are in a battle of communications with entrenched enemies that won’t stop until this world is destroyed and our remaining democratic rights stamped out. Only mass education and mobilization can stop this process.

It’s really up to you. Do your part while you can. •••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ask Senator Santorum

By Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is steadily climbing the GOP polls (even though his standing versus President Obama is dismal). He may even win in Michigan, one of the several home states of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. (Whatever happened to “Willard?” But that’s another story). At any rate, having done “Ask” columns on Newt and the other Rick (Perry, remember him?) I believe that the Senator has risen far enough in the polls that he deserves one for himself. So here goes.

1. You frequently talk about your grandfather, a coal miner. I’m wondering why you never talk about the union he most likely belonged to, the United Mine Workers. Its President when it was at the height of its powers in the 1930s and 40s, when your grandfather was presumably working, was John L. Lewis, one of the most militant non-Communist labor leaders in US history. Or is the possible reason that you don’t talk about your grandfather’s union is that he belonged to the Communist-led Progressive Mine Workers?

2. Speaking of Communists, are you aware that members of your family still living in the north of Italy are ardent members the Communist Refoundation Party (Rifondazione), the successor to the former Communist Party of Italy?

3. Speaking of ancestors, while you talk frequently about your grandfather, you never seem to mention your parents. Could that be because both your father, a clinical psychologist, and your mother, a nurse, worked for the largest socialized medicine service in the U.S., otherwise known as the Veterans Administration Hospital system? Could that be because you have vowed to repeal even the modest changes to the world’s most expensive health care system contained in the Affordable Care Act? You have gone so far as to call the latter “socialized medicine,” or worse, when all it does is make some relatively modest changes to the health insurance system. It would bring another 30 or so million people under its umbrella eventually, a far cry from the coverage and services provided by the government-owned and operated system both your parents worked for. But you don’t talk about them.

4. You have referred to the science behind our understanding of global warming and the threats to humanity and indeed many of the Earth’s species that it presents as “punk science.” You feel that we should continue to rely on fossil fuels and indeed would vastly expand the extraction of same regardless of the pollution of the air, water and ground that such extraction causes. You are also against any government-supported development of alternative fuels and energy sources. But suppose you are wrong, and global warming is real (as virtually all scientists who have worked on the problem agree that it is). What then? But even if the science is wrong, we are going to run out of fossil fuels eventually. Why not work on the development of alternative energy, just as every other major power in the world, including China which has literally tons of coal, is, anyway? If you’re right, we would still derive the benefits of cheaper energy in the long run. So why not go for it?

5. You seem to be bothered by homosexuals and homosexuality to a rather extraordinary degree. You have compared homosexual intercourse to “bestiality,” for example, and would outlaw it. (One wonders how such a law would be enforced, but that is another matter.) You have a lot of sweater vests in your closet. Whole bunches of right-wing Republicans come out or are exposed as gay on a regular basis, the latest being Sheriff Paul Babeau of Pinal County, AZ. Is there anything else your closet we should know about?

6. Speaking of sex, you have said that the only reason for humans to have it is to engage in procreation. Your youngest child is four and you are 53. Does that mean that you and your wife have not had sex in over four years?

7. On the abortion thing, based on your religious belief about when life begins you are against it and want it to be criminalized, in the process criminalizing the religious/secular belief of those of us who hold that life begins at the time of viability (which criminalization would violate the First Amendment, but that is another matter). Would you be for sending just the abortion providers to prison, or would you include those women who have them too? And if the latter were sent to prison for violating the law, who would care for their children? Of course, since you think that abortion is murder, would you be going for the death sentence, for the providers, for the recipients? How would you go about paying for the massive increase in the size and scope of the criminal justice system that the criminalization of abortion in the way you contemplate it would entail?

8. Further on abortion, you are against it in all cases, including those resulting from rape and incest. In such cases, would the father be responsible for child support?

9. You want to keep US troops in Afghanistan until “victory” is achieved. How do you define “victory,” and how do you propose to keep paying for that war?

10. You have said that you would be in favor of bombing Iran over their supposed nuclear weapons program. Several questions. A) Do you remember the “WMD threat” from Iraq that turned out to be bogus? B) Have you given any thought to the massive loss of civilian life that would be incurred in any US/Israeli bombing raid massive enough to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program, whatever its true objectives? C) How would you explain to our nation the incredible rise in the cost of gasoline that would result from the closing of the Strait of Hormuz which would certainly occur should such raid take place and the resulting anti-American acts of violence that would invariably take place around the world? D) how would you pay from the vast expansion of war at home and abroad that would follow upon such raids?

11. Finally, you have been bombarded with the “contraceptive question,” so I won’t raise it here. Except to note that if you and your wife do still engage in sexual intercourse and she has not been pregnant for a while, either she is past menopause or you two are incredibly lucky at Vatican Roulette, and taking the literal meaning of the term, isn’t that a form of contraception?

———————————————————————————————————

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author/co-author/editor of over 30 books. In addition to being a Contributing Editor for The Greanville Post (https://www.greanvillepost.com/; he is Managing Editor and a Contributing Author for TPJmagazine; a Contributor to The Planetary Movement, a Columnist for Truthout/BuzzFlash (http://www.truth-out.org/, http://www.buzzflash.com), a Featured Writer for Dandelion Salad, a Contributor to Op-Ed News.com (http://www.opednews.com/), and a Contributor to TheHarderStuff newsletter.

_______________________________________________________________________________

ADVERT PRO NOBIS

It’s really up to you. Do your part while you can. •••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Humor Pause

Have a good time.—PG

_______________________________________________________________________________

ADVERT PRO NOBIS

It’s really up to you. Do your part while you can. •••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The animal beat: Gluetraps are barbaric

By Kim Rogers Bartlett, Animal People
Glue-boards (glue traps) should be banned everywhere! They are barbarically cruel. The U.S. has them also, in almost every hardware store, mostly for rodents. It would be hard to think of a worse death than what these glue-boards deliver. The incident described below took place in Singapore.

Wall Photos

This poor community cat was caught on a glue-board trap placed by a pest control company overnight at a HDB bin centre. The cat in this photo was dying by the time it was brought to the SPCA. She was in deep distress and panting heavily. Our duty veterinarian made the decision to humanely euthanise the cat to prevent further suffering.

The board trap was about 4 feet by 5 feet in size and the amount of glue on the board was excessive. The cat never stood a chance.

SPCA has previously appealed to AVA to institute a ban of glue-board traps because of the suffering caused to animals that are trapped on them, not only rats, but other species. The case, which was reported to SPCA on Friday 17 February, only reinforces the extreme suffering that an animal goes through when glue-board traps are used. We have contacted the Town Council and the pest control company involved, to inform them that we will take this matter further We have also written to AVA to request that they ban the use of such traps with immediate effect and that action be taken against the parties responsible in this case.

Please help us by writing to AVA at ava_cawc@ava.gov.sg to urge them to ban the use of such traps and to your town council to make sure they do not use such traps.

Kim Bartlett can be found on FB at http://www.facebook.com/kim.r.bartlett . Friend her and help her.

_______________________________________________________________________________

¶

ADVERT PRO NOBIS

IF YOU CAN’T SEND A DONATION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, AND YOU THINK THIS PUBLICATION IS WORTH SUPPORTING, AT LEAST HELP THE GREANVILLE POST EXPAND ITS INFLUENCE BY MENTIONING IT TO YOUR FRIENDS VIA TWEET OR OTHER SOCIAL NETWORKS! We are in a battle of communications with entrenched enemies that won’t stop until this world is destroyed and our remaining democratic rights stamped out. Only mass education and mobilization can stop this process.

It’s really up to you. Do your part while you can. •••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ehrenreich’s solution, to put women in power, shows limits of liberal feminism

From our archives: Articles you should have read but missed the first time around
Editor’s Note: In this piece Bonnie Weinstein essentially demolishes the position held by so many left-liberals and “democratic socialists”, including some like Ehrenreich with an estimable body of progressive work. In so doing she also exposes the limits of liberalism.

Barbara Ehrenreich’s Kinder and Gentler Capitalism

By Bonnie Weinstein, Socialist Viewpoint

Barbara Ehrenreich

I remember the argument well. “Women in the military will make for a kinder and gentler approach to war.” This was the philosophy of the conservative wing of the women’s movement in the 1970s. They counterposed these issues to the real issues facing most working women, such as the need for childcare, access to safe and legal abortions and equal pay for equal work.

This conservative wing believed that if women, who were naturally the world’s caregivers, were admitted into the military, the police or even into the corporate structure, it would be the end of an unjust, male-dominated world and its propensity toward violence. They believed that if women could infiltrate the “power structure,” their rights would trickle down—just as profits are supposed to.

That’s why I was so tickled at first to read Barbara Ehrenreich’s1 essay, “What Abu Ghraib Taught Me,” which first appeared May 16, 2004, in the Sunday Opinion section of the Los Angeles Times and then also on AlterNet, May 20, 2004. It’s still posted at http://www.alternet.org/story/18740/ (See our addendum at the foot of this article)

Her essay starts out rejecting this belief—taking issue with this assessment in the context of the vicious acts of torture carried out by American military women at Abu Ghraib. She admits, “Secretly, I hoped that the presence of women would over time change the military, making it more respectful of other people and cultures, more capable of genuine peacekeeping. That’s what I thought, but I don’t think that anymore.”

Ehrenreich correctly dismisses this notion now as simplistic and the result of “a certain kind of feminism…that saw men as the perpetual perpetrators, women as the perpetual victims and male sexual violence against women as the root of all injustice.”

She then correctly points out, “You can’t even argue, in the case of Abu Ghraib, that the problem was that there just weren’t enough women in the military hierarchy to stop the abuses. The prison was directed by a woman, Gen. Janis Karpinski. The top U.S. intelligence officer in Iraq, who also was responsible for reviewing the status of detainees before their release, was Major Gen. Barbara Fast. And the U.S. official ultimately responsible for managing the occupation of Iraq since October was Condoleezza Rice. Like Donald H. Rumsfeld, she ignored repeated reports of abuse and torture until the undeniable photographic evidence emerged.”

Ehrenreich even admits, “The struggles for peace and social justice and against imperialist and racist arrogance cannot…be folded into the struggle for gender equality.” But then she arrives at a somewhat contradictory conclusion: “What we need is a tough new kind of feminism with no illusions. Women do not change institutions simply by assimilating into them, only by consciously deciding to fight for change. We need a feminism that teaches a woman to say no—not just to the date rapist or overly insistent boyfriend but, when necessary, to the military or corporate hierarchy within which she finds herself…In short, we need a kind of feminism that aims not just to assimilate into the institutions that men have created over the centuries, but to infiltrate and subvert them.”

In other words, she still believes that gender inequality is at the root of the problem but replacing men with women is not enough. Instead we must replace these men with “women with a conscience.” These women, she claims, will then be able to subvert the capitalist system into doing the right thing and becoming a kinder and gentler enforcer of capitalist domination—capitalism, so to speak, with a woman’s touch.

Not only does this imply that there are no men “with a conscience” but it implies that it’s just a matter of replacing “bad boys” with “good girls.” This concept is just as simplistic as the original position she claims to be arguing against.

This kind of thinking is what has invariably led women to commit abuses like those at Abu Ghraib in the first place. And it ignores the real economic hardship young working-class women face that drives them to join the military—very often leaving their own children behind. The same is true for the men who enlist. The capitalists who threaten the very survival of the entire planet do not deserve such sacrifices.

Of course, Ehrenreich’s philosophy also echoes the “lesser evil” theory of electoral politics, which maintains that there are degrees of evil in candidates and we should support the ones less evil. This is the philosophy that has brought us to where we are today—with wars and racial, ethnic and gender discrimination rampant and with antiabortion legislation inching its way back into law.

Even the least evil of candidates cannot make any meaningful changes so long as he or she subscribes to and represents the inherently unequal system of capitalism—the domination of the wealthy minority over the impoverished majority. It is a system that has outlived its usefulness and is destined to crumble.

Just as sending women to fight and die for capitalist imperialism does nothing to raise the status of women or end wars, so will replacing corporate heads with “women or men of conscience” do nothing to reduce capitalism’s overwhelming and compelling need to increase profits above, and at the expense of, all else.

This is the driving force behind all corporate executives, no matter of what race or gender they may be. And if there is no profit to be gained under their leadership, then they are replaced. But have no doubt, the job will be filled and its purpose will remain the same—to make more money by hook or by crook for the company!

It is capitalism and its built-in, all-consuming need for profit, regardless of the needs of people, that enslaves all workers—women and men alike, of all races, ethnic and religious backgrounds—and condemns them to struggle for their very existence.

There is no “trickle down” in money or justice under capitalism. Every bit a worker gets, or will ever get, must be fought for, tooth and nail. Just as every victory won by women or any oppressed section of the working class has to be defended by any means necessary.

Today every victory the world’s working class has won in bloody battle is being challenged and torn asunder by the greed of modern capitalism. We will have to fight to preserve what liberties we have left and to restore those we have lost. These will not be protected or restored out of conscience but out of battle.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Bonnie Weinstein serves as one of the editors of Socialist Viewpoint, a publication of the Socialist Workers Party.

1 For those who may not know, Barbara Ehrenreich is also the author of the bestseller, Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America, an exposé of what life is like for those living on minimum wage. It’s a real eye-opener to working-class life in America today and well worth reading.

_______________

ADDENDUM

By Barbara Ehrenreich

What Abu Ghraib Taught Me

The sight of women soldiers gleefully participating in the torture of Iraqi detainees taught this feminist a difficult but important lesson: A uterus is no substitute for a conscience.

May 20, 2004 |

The photos did something else to me, as a feminist: They broke my heart. I had no illusions about the U.S. mission in Iraq — whatever exactly it is — but it turns out that I did have some illusions about women.

Of the seven U.S. soldiers now charged with sickening forms of abuse in Abu Ghraib, three are women: Spc. Megan Ambuhl, Pfc. Lynndie England and Spc. Sabrina Harman.

It was Harman we saw smiling an impish little smile and giving the thumbs-up sign from behind a pile of hooded, naked Iraqi men — as if to say, “Hi Mom, here I am in Abu Ghraib!” It was England we saw with a naked Iraqi man on a leash. If you were doing PR for Al Qaeda, you couldn’t have staged a better picture to galvanize misogynist Islamic fundamentalists around the world.

Here, in these photos from Abu Ghraib, you have everything that the Islamic fundamentalists believe characterizes Western culture, all nicely arranged in one hideous image — imperial arrogance, sexual depravity … and gender equality.

Maybe I shouldn’t have been so shocked. We know that good people can do terrible things under the right circumstances. This is what psychologist Stanley Milgram found in his famous experiments in the 1960s. In all likelihood, Ambuhl, England and Harman are not congenitally evil people. They are working-class women who wanted an education and knew that the military could be a stepping-stone in that direction. Once they had joined, they wanted to fit in.

And I also shouldn’t be surprised because I never believed that women were innately gentler and less aggressive than men. Like most feminists, I have supported full opportunity for women within the military — 1) because I knew women could fight, and 2) because the military is one of the few options around for low-income young people.

Although I opposed the 1991 Persian Gulf War, I was proud of our servicewomen and delighted that their presence irked their Saudi hosts. Secretly, I hoped that the presence of women would over time change the military, making it more respectful of other people and cultures, more capable of genuine peacekeeping. That’s what I thought, but I don’t think that anymore.

A certain kind of feminism, or perhaps I should say a certain kind of feminist naiveté, died in Abu Ghraib. It was a feminism that saw men as the perpetual perpetrators, women as the perpetual victims and male sexual violence against women as the root of all injustice. Rape has repeatedly been an instrument of war and, to some feminists, it was beginning to look as if war was an extension of rape. There seemed to be at least some evidence that male sexual sadism was connected to our species’ tragic propensity for violence. That was before we had seen female sexual sadism in action.

But it’s not just the theory of this naive feminism that was wrong. So was its strategy and vision for change. That strategy and vision rested on the assumption, implicit or stated outright, that women were morally superior to men. We had a lot of debates over whether it was biology or conditioning that gave women the moral edge — or simply the experience of being a woman in a sexist culture. But the assumption of superiority, or at least a lesser inclination toward cruelty and violence, was more or less beyond debate. After all, women do most of the caring work in our culture, and in polls are consistently less inclined toward war than men.

I’m not the only one wrestling with that assumption today. Mary Jo Melone, a columnist for the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, wrote on May 7: “I can’t get that picture of England [pointing at a hooded Iraqi man’s genitals] out of my head because this is not how women are expected to behave. Feminism taught me 30 years ago that not only had women gotten a raw deal from men, we were morally superior to them.”

If that assumption had been accurate, then all we would have had to do to make the world a better place — kinder, less violent, more just — would have been to assimilate into what had been, for so many centuries, the world of men. We would fight so that women could become the generals, CEOs, senators, professors and opinion-makers — and that was really the only fight we had to undertake. Because once they gained power and authority, once they had achieved a critical mass within the institutions of society, women would naturally work for change. That’s what we thought, even if we thought it unconsciously — and it’s just not true. Women can do the unthinkable.

You can’t even argue, in the case of Abu Ghraib, that the problem was that there just weren’t enough women in the military hierarchy to stop the abuses. The prison was directed by a woman, Gen. Janis Karpinski. The top U.S. intelligence officer in Iraq, who also was responsible for reviewing the status of detainees before their release, was Major Gen. Barbara Fast. And the U.S. official ultimately responsible for managing the occupation of Iraq since October was Condoleezza Rice. Like Donald H. Rumsfeld, she ignored repeated reports of abuse and torture until the undeniable photographic evidence emerged.

What we have learned from Abu Ghraib, once and for all, is that a uterus is not a substitute for a conscience. This doesn’t mean gender equality isn’t worth fighting for for its own sake. It is. If we believe in democracy, then we believe in a woman’s right to do and achieve whatever men can do and achieve, even the bad things. It’s just that gender equality cannot, all alone, bring about a just and peaceful world.

In fact, we have to realize, in all humility, that the kind of feminism based on an assumption of female moral superiority is not only naive; it also is a lazy and self-indulgent form of feminism. Self-indulgent because it assumes that a victory for a woman — a promotion, a college degree, the right to serve alongside men in the military — is by its very nature a victory for all of humanity. And lazy because it assumes that we have only one struggle — the struggle for gender equality — when in fact we have many more.

The struggles for peace and social justice and against imperialist and racist arrogance, cannot, I am truly sorry to say, be folded into the struggle for gender equality.

What we need is a tough new kind of feminism with no illusions. Women do not change institutions simply by assimilating into them, only by consciously deciding to fight for change. We need a feminism that teaches a woman to say no — not just to the date rapist or overly insistent boyfriend but, when necessary, to the military or corporate hierarchy within which she finds herself.

In short, we need a kind of feminism that aims not just to assimilate into the institutions that men have created over the centuries, but to infiltrate and subvert them.

To cite an old, and far from naive, feminist saying: “If you think equality is the goal, your standards are too low.” It is not enough to be equal to men, when the men are acting like beasts. It is not enough to assimilate. We need to create a world worth assimilating into.

Opinion section of the Los Angeles Times.

_______________________________________________________________________________

ADVERT PRO NOBIS

It’s really up to you. Do your part while you can. •••

Donating? Use PayPal via the button below.

THANK YOU.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________