This is a very difficult question to answer, I know. It’s a 1 million dollar question. Why ask it now? As a matter of fact in Italy (and I think it is nearly the same anywhere in the western world) political party power and, consequently, people, are downsizing their expectations in sex rights as well as social and economical matters.
Some days ago, I re-posted on my tumblr web space, an article of iwasbornbut about women and feminism. I agree, of course, with every issue & word included in that post. But…….. My feeling is that we are locked in a box, lost in the past, without hope to open that cage and take a step forward. This is what I feel and think when I read something which pushes me against the wall.
Men and women split, in their lives as well as in their roles; so many opinions and points of view reflected like the facets of a diamond. The real world seems to be like a broken mirror, without a chance to rebuild a graceful life-mirror environment. This is what is conveyed by our mature, pluralistic society based on capitalism. A modern capitalism is composed by a broad-spectrum of plural interests. But, if we really want to answer the question which opened this post we have to face these basic questions: a) is feminism, nowadays, a really genuine women caused issue? and b) is feminism a mere adapted copy of the male type of power?
According to what Pier Paolo Pasolini, the Italian gay and Marxist Filmmaker killed in 1975 by a political secret plot, was preparing in order to take part in the Italian Radical Party convention of those days, we can use what he left us as a political testament. Now, read his issues and just substitute “radicals” with “feminists.”
1-We are talking about “civil rights”, which have been invented during the end of the sixties and the seventies. They’re a sort of vulgar Italian version of soft socialist civil rights. So, what do radicals teach to the masses? They teach the masses to have the same rights as those who rule. When they teach people to obtain their rights, what are they teaching? They’re teaching that people deserve the same rights as those of their masters. When radicals teach that people who are exploited by the masters are deeply unhappy, what do they teach? They teach that people have to claim for themselves their exploiters’ happiness. So, in this case, we can honestly say that what we achieve is, at its best, an identification, therefore a bourgeois democratization. The radicals responsibility is about a struggle regression, even if done by radical advocacy, into a bourgeois internal civil war which is useful for the ruling class, for its’ own survival. Nowadays, if you have your civil rights you are a bourgeoisie. All over the world.
2-While radicals fight for your civil rights, Marxists or conscious people fight for an alternate reality (not a mere alternative) . Up to now civil or class struggles have been done for the predominance of a particular type/form of life. Can we say (and if yes, in which case?) isn’t it the same nowadays?