From among a few subjects I decided on gender and capitalism for my final Marx paper.
The requirements were to suck up 10 articles and spit back who says what and what I say about that and who might think whichever and why are they right or wrong or insightful or out of touch. Almost finished but in the final pages should I expose what I’m really thinking?
Professor doesn’t usually share my sense of things, my impression of allegory right under his Marxist sniffer. Exhibit A – commodity fetishism. I think Marx meant an intoxication with materialism but even though on the previous paper the professor gave me a high mark, he also said my thoughts were incorrect. Those incorrect thoughts were that commodity fetishism is in your mind. He says it is a physical thing. It isn’t as though I can pull out Marshall McLuhan from behind a column and settle this.
Now, in the remaining 1000 words of the gender paper I am at a crossroads. The whole shit-show surrounding gender and capitalism reminds my pianistic self of arguments I regularly have – between me and me. About the right hand and the left hand. Discrimination so entrenched in the minds of pianists that giving the left hand only a small piece of the pie is considered by many too radical or too much effort.
In the articles studied for this paper, they question whether patriarchy existed previously and how capitalism was the catalyst for the class system from which many discriminations evolved. They try comparing feudalism before capitalism. Maybe it is like Bach before Tori Amos. In previous systems more equity at the keyboard. If the right hand did it the left hand did it too, maybe more. I’m not going to pretend Tori’s left hand has no issues but it is up to her to be interested in thinking about it or not. I smell trouble looming for collapsing the argument to being about thought. Might risk judgemental remarks about what is actually my real experience. There is an echo here.

1 Comment

  1. To much emphasis on equality and not enough on the unique capabilities/functions inherent to each hand…is it not possible that perhaps the left hand is just better suited, (for physiological and scientifically explainable reasons) at playing a more supportive role to the dominant right hand, which by it’s very nature, excels at leading the process? Together, do they not work perfectly in tandem towards the mutual goal of creation?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *