On the left
There’s a bit of a debate going on in feminist blogging circles about feminists, women and the left. It all started over at the F-word, with Louise Whittle’s article about her disillusionment with the revolutionary left. Emma at Gendergeek and Winter at Mind the Gap have also been discussing this, and it’s something that bothers me, so here’s my tuppence worth.
Firstly, I guess I’ll admit to not knowing how to label myself. I guess I’ll go with Wikipedia’s description of Sheila Rowbotham’s politics:
…women’s oppression is a result of both economic and cultural forces (so) a dualist perspective (socialist feminism), which examines both the public and private sphere, is required to work towards liberation.
I wanted to come back on Winter’s comment:
Feminists on the left are understandably wary of critiquing the movement because they probably feel it’s some kind of betrayal, but I think it’s feminism that’s really getting betrayed. We need to demand that these men show more solidarity with women, not the other way around. Poverty does wear a female face. Gender oppression is one of the most fundamental, if not the most fundamental form of oppression. Feminism is a revolutionary movement in its own right and feminists are not dumb enough to think that, if we managed to do away with capitalism, we would automatically do away with the oppression of women.
Maybe you’re right. Maybe us feminists in the Labour party are wary of being seen to betray the movement. I certainly do recognise the problems being pointed up about the attitudes of many on the left, who actively support measures aimed at equality for women in the abstract but who react against them in the specific, when those measures affect their own lives, and who still hold unexamined attitudes about women’s role and place. These tensions have always been there. In Caroline Benn’s biography of Keir Hardie, she describes how Hardie’s support for women’s suffrage contrasted with his treatment of his secretary and his wife, where he unconsciously went along with traditional social attitudes - for example, he didn’t pay his secretaryas she was a woman. (In contrast, George Lansbury, later leader of the Labour party, was neither sexist in his private life nor in his public life - he actually resigned from Parliament to fight a by-election as the Women’s Suffrage candidate in 1912.)
Those attitudes still exist today - in the Labour leadership using women-only shortlists as a tool to impose leadership-friendly candidates on recalcitrant CLPs, and in so-called leftist NEC members (I mean you, Mark Seddon) supporting sexist members of a CLP that couldn’t handle having to choose a PPC from a selection of well-qualified candidates, all of whom were women.
My examples are from Labour - Emma and Louise’s are from the revolutionary left, and I’m sure there are more, as many as there are aware women who’ve rocked up to an anti-war meeting or a social forum, a Marxist discussion group or a general committee meeting.
But, Winter, I can’t agree with the point that gender oppression is more fundamental than class and income oppression. Margaret Thatcher, to take the extreme example, is no sister of mine; winning a better deal for rich women is no sort of feminism. And I’m a democratic socialist just as much as I am a feminist. (Having said that, neither cause seems to have mass appeal currently - maybe the discussion we should be having is how to get more support for both!)
Feminists have a lot to learn from the left, not least that there’s never going to be a knight on a white charger to win the cause for us, it’s up to us - ordinary women, and the ordinary men that support us.
And I’d like us to learn from the left’s values of solidarity, moving away from the idea that feminism is about individual women being empowered, about individual women getting into positions of importance. The be-all and end-all is not me achieving all that I can achieve. Politics is not about “I can do what I want to do”, and “I want to feel great in my own skin” and “because I’m worth it”. I want a feminism that’s about achieving decent living standards and an end to poverty pay for all women (that’s the economic bit) and about ending all violence against women and giving all women autonomy over their own bodies (I think that’s the cultural bit).
(And, while I’m on the subject, I sodding hate it that the most empowering-women, soraral cause around, the one that attracts women marching in their bras through the streets of London at night, the one that has pinched the language of consciousness-raising and empowerment that feminists created to articulate our oppression and to overthrow it, is breast cancer research. Well done, Breakthrough and the rest, you’ve emasculated us. I don’t doubt that your cause is good, and as a fellow campaigner, I admire what you’ve done, but thanks, all the same. That banner, that platform, that march, those t-shirts and fashion shows should have been about more.)
To get back to the topic, there has always been at times tension and at times common cause between feminism and the left. During the suffrage movement, some trade union leaders including some women, argued that ending poverty and better conditions at work would do more for women than the vote; the suffragettes eventually split between those who backed the first world war and those who didn’t; a hero of the feminist movement is Annie Besant, who led the matchgirls on strike for better pay and conditions. The women’s liberation conferences of the 70s and 80s were often dominated by arguments between leftist factions and the radical feminists, and when anti-Vietnam women brought feminist issues into the movement they were criticised for reducing the movement’s power with irrelevancies.
To reurn to the question, though:
Feminists are not dumb enough to think that, if we managed to do away with capitalism, we would automatically do away with the oppression of women
No, but you’d have to agree it would be a good start, right?
UPDATE, 40 minutes later: So that was a bit of a brain-dump. Apologies.
Christ, intense post. All correct.
In the workers’ beer tent at leeds festival this weekend, Ms. B and I were having a conversation with some revolutionaries about feminism. Namely ‘are you a feminist, and if not, why the hell not?’ The other question was about defining feminism. One person echoed my opinion that he is a socialist, therefore he is a feminist because he wants to overthrow all oppression.
However, I am coming round to the notion that feminism, regardless whether it is encompassed within the larger socialist (revolutionary and democratic) movement or not, should be given a seperate and voluble platform.
Personally when I think of socialism, I focus more on economic and class issues, not gender, race, sexuality etc. This is not to say that these are not included in my thought, it just takes a little more analysis before these aspects come to light. If feminism has an influential platform in all the major socialist parties, including Labour, and people can relate easily between the red flag and ___ (I’m really sorry, I don’t know the symbol for feminism *embarrassed*), I think we will see both movements increase drastically in popularity.
Hey Antonia, thanks for the thoughtful response to what was, I admit, a rather rushed “heat of the moment” post! It certainly seems to have got people going.
“women’s oppression is a result of both economic and cultural forces (so) a dualist perspective (socialist feminism), which examines both the public and private sphere, is required to work towards liberation”
I agree. I guess this is what I meant when I said we should try and resurrect socialist feminism. I think its a terrible pity if a few really irritating men on the revolutionary left manage to put women off socialism. As far as I’m aware socialism was very influential in british second wave feminism and I think we need to go back to this, not least to combat the individualistic “me me me me me” attitude now associated with western feminism (I would actually disagree that this meets the definition of feminism in the true sense of the word, but that’s another post).
“But, Winter, I can’t agree with the point that gender oppression is more fundamental than class and income oppression.”
Hmm, well I guess I don’t think it’s more fundamental. I accept that privileged rich women have a lot more opportunities than poor women everywhere, so I’ll concede that point. But I do tend to the radical feminist view that, on a worldwide scale, gender oppression is one of the most fundamental oppressions and if we don’t address it we can’t achieve a proper revolution.
“And I’d like us to learn from the left’s values of solidarity, moving away from the idea that feminism is about individual women being empowered, about individual women getting into positions of importance. The be-all and end-all is not me achieving all that I can achieve”
Yes, again, I agree completely!
Doing away away with capitalism would be good, but I do still think we need to try and do away with sexism and homophopbia at the same time, not afterwards. Otherwise I would be very disappointed.
Work is horrendous at the moment so I don’t have the time for a thoughtful response, but I want to say that you can’t achieve equality if the only poeple getting equal are middle-class women or just white women or straight women.
Yes, there are differences between socialism and feminism - but they are also inextricably (sp?) linked and I really don’t believe you can be one without the other - though it does bring up the interesting question of whether or not men can be feminists…
Absolutely true. If the only people getting “equal” are straight, white, middle-class people then that’s not actually equality at all is it!
Which brings me to my next question - why are so many of my male comrades on the left such shits? The ones who either don’t give a damn about the women’s movement or who actively dislike us are bad enough - but I really hate the ones who pay lip service to us because it’s a box that needs to be ticked - but then screw us over anyway.
Yeah, at least you can confront the outright, upfront shits. The ones who pay lip service are harder to deal with. Ok. here is my subjective opinion. I suspect that some, rather insecure, men go into left politics partly because in a relatively marginal, small, group environment, they can get away with a lot more than they might elsewhere. Basically, they can be the “big fish”. I may be wrong. I’ve just gained an impression that the “big” personalities rise to the top. It is a real shame that so many of them seem to be little more than bullies really. I guess the problem is that this kind of behaviour has been tolerated in a macho atmosphere for so long that its very hard to change.
It is difficult not to agree with Mathew Parris when he argued recently in finding women wearing the veil, denying girls education and other tribal practices as female circumcision, forced and arranged marriages from abroad as offensive to western women. Such behaviour flouts western social conventions and should not be seen in the west. To read more http://www.oxfordprospect.co.uk/Multiculturalism.htm
Hello Antonia,
I read your piece with much interest. My political experiences include both the revolutionary Left and the Labour Party. The wonders of entryism. Anyway, my more positive experiences was actually in the Labour Party during the 80s where I was active in women’s sections. I found the atmosphere much more conducive and the level of activism was higher. Where have all the women gone? I am still a member of the Labour Party but I am not active probably because there aren’t any women’s sections (well not in my area) and activism is at an all time low. I won’t go into my own views on New Labour except to say they have sucked the Socialism out of the party.
I also agree that Mark Seddon is totally wrong on women-only shortlists. In a perfect world we wouldn’t have them but how else will you get representation from women.
I also describe myself as Socialist feminist as I believe that capitalism and patriarchy are interwoven. The revolutionary left obviously recognises capitalism but not patriarchy and to even argue the existance you are labelled as a separatist. When it come to analysing the different strands of feminism the revolutionary left prefers to lump them together. The rather analytically crude, economistic and reductionistic understanding of women’s oppression is the de rigueur on the revolutionary Left. It never ceases to amaze me how appalling the revolutionary left is in dealing with individual oppressive behaviour i.e. sexism, sexual harassment, rape, domestic violence and so on. Just don’t expect support or condemnation of the behaviour as you will be sorely disappointed.
And they wonder why they are so male dominated.
Matt, I basically agree with you, but a point about language.
When you say “socialism is basically about economics” I think you have what Lenin would have called an “economistic” conception of socialism. Surely what defines us as revolutionaries in the tradition of Marx is that we think the working class movement is the force that can unite, deepen and fructify all struggles against oppression (women’s liberation, gay rights, against racism, national liberation etc etc etc). It’s not only a question of self-organisation of the oppressed - although I favour this - it’s a question of the workers’ movement as whole giving space to and championing all progressive struggles.
Somewhere Lenin says something like: “When a worker supports a strike they are a trade unionist, when they support a student being beaten up by the police, then they become a socialist”. The same goes for the battle for women’s liberation today.
Look at the US after the World War One when, under the influence of the Russian revolution, the (pre-Stalinist) Communist Party totally destroyed the previous American socialist tradition of being indifferent or even hostile to black people fighting racism and became the most ardent champions of black self-defence and total equality. That is our tradition!
Fascinating how some people can post an entire comment which has no engagement with the actual original blog but merely criticizes someone else’s use of language.
Doubly so when the poster and the author of the comment being discussed are both male, and the subject of the blog, is feminism and its relation to socialism.
Well said!