WTF, Proudhon?

[luzula]

FRTDNEATJ, I was browsing "What Is Property?", by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, an early 19th century socialist and anarchist (he's the one who said that property is theft). He's in the middle of a passage about equality and how you can only get a society of equals among members of the same species (not between man and animal, or between man and God), and then comes something hidden away in a little footnote:

Between woman and man there may exist love, passion, ties of custom, and the like; but there is no real society. Man and woman are not companions. The difference of the sexes places a barrier between them, like that placed between animals by a difference of race. Consequently, far from advocating what is now called the emancipation of woman, I should incline, rather, if there were no other alternative, to exclude her from society.

*boggles* Yeah, I don't even know what to say. Living in the 19th century is not an excuse--Emma Goldman would KICK his ASS.

Comments

[innocentsmith.livejournal.com]

Nice. Especially nice that he just...drops that in a footnote.

I'm sure it was really hard for most men and women to have real companionship when there was so much institutional inequality, and homosocial bonds probably were a lot more comfortable for a lot of people.

Darwin has this bit in The Descent of Man where he pokes at the idea a bit, but then concludes that, since most of the great geniuses of history were men, and only a very few women, women must really be less developed. But I just don't get how it wasn't blazingly clear that it was a nuture issue, and how the fuck were the majority of women supposed to overcome lack of education and systematic denial of their rights? ...But it wasn't clear, apparently.

The fact that history has contained so many awesome, epic ladies despite all they had to overcome really says something.

Mary Wollstonecraft would have drop-kicked this dude, I suspect.

[luzula]

I'm sure it was really hard for most men and women to have real companionship when there was so much institutional inequality, and homosocial bonds probably were a lot more comfortable for a lot of people.

Yeah, that must be true. OTOH, this was a guy who was deliberately setting out to question the way society worked in his day, so you'd think he'd think about it a little more.

I love all the ass-kicking icons this is bringing out.