"But in fact, reproduction of the species is something humans share with the animal kingdom. That could not be the basis for women’s oppression. For in all the thousands of years that people lived in the first stages of human existence women were not subordinated to men. In fact her reproductive role was celebrated and given importance because the survival of the species and the group depended on reproduction. The importance given to fertility and the fertility rituals surviving in most tribal societies are testimony of this fact.
Marxism understands that some material conditions had to arise due to which the position of women changed and she was subordinated. The significant change in material conditions came with the generation of considerable surplus production. How this surplus would be distributed is the point at which classes arose, the surplus being appropriated by a small number of leading people in the community. Her role in reproduction the cause of her elevated status earlier became a means of her enslavement. Which clan/extended family the children she bore belonged to, became important and it is then that we find restrictions on her and the emergence of the patriarchal family in which the woman was subordinated and her main role in society was begetting children for the family."
This is from a book criticizing the radical feminist perspective that women's biological role of reproduction is the main cause of our oppression. Do you think this has any merit?
It’s funny because I have that exact sentence marked as disagreement in this Anuradha Ghandy book. First of all, I feel like western maoists tokenize Ghandy. She didn’t call herself a proletarian feminist. What does that even mean? She was a “means of production owner” on both her and her husbands side. Also, imo it seems that she didn’t understand radical feminism too well as she makes some glaringly incorrect attributions to them (I think she called them pro-porn or pro-prostitution or something, I can’t remember). I do not fault her for it because she’s an Indian woman, radical feminism had a lot of spits and fictionalization, it evolved very quickly. how would she know about all that from India.
Apart from this, I also disagree on how westerners use this book as some kind of gotcha about biological essentialism. Because while she criticizes biological role, she then literally says the following - which is also the radical feminist perspective since it borrows from Engels to begin with. And ofc she mentions it in what you quoted it as well:
So I think in a typical fashion, when Marxist online criticize radical feminism and tell you to go [read this book] they haven’t critically engaged with radical feminism nor the book they’re telling you to read lol, or misrepresent the book they’re citing to you lol.
Anyway I disagree with Ghandy that because reproduction is something that humans share with animals, that it cannot be the source of oppression of women. Engels very neatly argues at the beginning of Origins why this comparison does not make sense. Reproduction in animals is only to reproduce themselves. Whereas reproduction in humans is reproduces society, because only humans have the ability to reproduce from nature itself - ie, bend nature, grow food, modify the means of production etc.
