💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp001111.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:47:33.
View Raw
More Information
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
3 articles
2nd is 'Sex, Class & Womens oppression
3rd is 'Equality for some women'
- ************** Why Women are Oppressed ***************
from Workers Solidarity No 36
WE ARE NOW eight years from the year 2,000.
Approximately 14,000 years ago the first
agricultural communities, and with them human
civilisation, were founded. Humanity is 600
generations old.
We hold the position of 'most successful species' because
unlike animals we have been able to modify our
environment to suit our needs. To early humans nature
was a powerful and frightening force, the bringer of
plagues, storms and droughts. Nowadays we control our
environment to such an extent that nature is no longer a
demon spirit or an instrument of the wrath of god. In
much of the world nature is way down on our list of
worries, it is more likely to fear us. As the capability to
control the world around us has increased from the first
primitive farmers to the high-technology multinationals,
the way we perceive the world around us has also
changed. So has the way we perceive each other.
One thing, however, that has remained constant
throughout this time is that in the majority of societies
half our species (women) has been held in an inferior
position to the other half (men). Why is this the case?
The answer to this question should explain two things.
It should explain why today with all our equal rights
legislation women are still second class citizens, and
secondly it should indicate the mechanisms and tactics we
have to use to achieve womens' liberation. If we know
what the problem is, we can find a solution.
CIVILISATION DAWNS
Early humans were hunter/gatherers living in nomadic
communities, living from hand to mouth. The discovery of
agriculture lead to huge changes in the organisation of
humanity. Agriculture was the point at which
civilisation began. This is because there are a number of
ways in which an agricultural community is different from
a hunter/gatherer clan. Communities remain in the same
spot. Agriculture can support more people than
hunting/gathering so communities get larger. Farming
leads to the development of new technology. New skills
lead to a greater division of labour. Individuals specialise
in certain types of work, be it tool making, leatherwork or
defence.
However the key difference is that farmed land becomes a
valuable resource. Land provides a surplus, that is land
provides more food than is necessary for day to day
survival. More importantly, land will provide this
resource in the future, for the next generation. None of
this is true of the herd of wild animals persued by the
hunter-gatherer. The concept of ownership developed.
So civilisation began when man began to acquire wealth
in the form of land, food and animals. If a rich man wants
to ensure that his offspring alone inherit his wealth, he
must be sure that his wife is only mating with him. Thus,
he has to be in a position of control over her. He needs
to portray this as part of the 'natural order'. To
accommodate this need society, through the use of
religion, developed a rationale to justify the inferior
position of woman.
GOD"S CHOSEN RULERS
Rulers have always been good at rationalising unfair
practices, take for example the idea of the 'divine right of
kings'. Popular for centuries, the church and state
argued that kings and queens were appointed by God.
The status quo was natural and good, any opposition to it
was evil and doomed to eternal hell. These days kings
don't have much power, which is why not many people
rush to describe Charles and Di as God's chosen rulers.
In much the same way, it was necessary to have women
inferior to men to ensure inheritance rights. In order to
keep women in this position a whole mythology of women
as second class humans was developed. It was the
accumulation of a surplus and the desire of a minority to
monopolise it that lead to the class division of society and
to the oppression of women.
Now we've established the motive and the cover story,
but of what relevance is the status of women in early
history to their status today. As capitalism evolved it
built on the existing model of the family, adapting it to
suit it's own interests. Assurance of inheritance rights
isn't as necessary today, however the family provides
other services which capitalism does require. Initially,
when the industrial revolution first began men, women
and children were drafted wholesale into the factories.
DEATH IS NOT ALWAYS ECONOMIC
Quickly, however, the bosses realised that this was not
the most economic way to run the system. The labour
force was weak and the children who were to be next
generation of workers were dying in the mills and mines.
The solution was was to be found in the family.
Before the rise of capitalism society was based around a
system of slaves/serfs and kings or lords. The problem
with slaves or serfs is that the owner must provide food,
basic health care and subsistence in old age, i.e. maintain
the slave at a cost for those times when he or she is not
productive. A much more cost efficient way to keep a
workforce is through the nuclear family. In this scenario,
it is up to the family to provide itself with food, shelter,
healthcare, look after the elderly and young (who will
provide the next crop of workers). Within this family unit
it is normally the woman who fulfils the functions of
housekeeper, nurse, childminder and cook.
There are two knock-on effects of women staying at home
minding the family. Firstly they are not financially
independent. They do not earn any money and are
dependant on income received from their partners.
Because nobody gets paid for rearing a family it's status
as an occupation is at the bottom of the ladder and
because women are financially dependant on their
husbands it means they, in the past, have had little input
into the major decisions affecting the family.
ISOLATION
This led to women having no input into the decisions
affecting society. A woman's place was in the home. A
second effect of women's position in the family is that
they are often isolated from each other and from society
in general. Unlike a paid worker they have little
opportunity of meeting and sharing experiences with
others in the same situation on a daily basis, and do
something about it. They, on their own, have little
power to change the conditions they find themselves in.
Today the family is a trap for women as much as it was for
women at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Women are paid on average 2/3 of the wage that men are
paid, so within any partnership it obviously makes more
sense for the woman to undertake responsibility for the
care of children. It is for this reason, common sense
rather than sexism, that that the vast majority of part-
time workers are women, juggling two jobs at the same
time.
Having said that, why is it that women are among the
lower paid in society? Is it necessary for capitalism to
exploit women workers to this degree? The simple answer
to that is sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The only
important difference between a male and female worker is
that the female has the potential to get pregnant, that is
the potential to want maternity leave and need creche
facilities. In other words they are slightly more
expensive to employ than men. So when women are
asked (illegally!) at job interviews if they intend to
marry, such discrimination has a material basis. An
employer isn't interested on the good of society at large
but in obtaining the cheapest most reliable workforce
possible.
DISPOSABLE WORKERS
Historically women have been encouraged to work and
have been accommodated when it suited capitalism.
When there was either a shortage of male labour due to
war as during the 1st and 2nd World Wars or an
expansion of industry as in the dawn of the industrial
revolution or the 1960s. When times are tough, when
recession sets in, women are encouraged back into the
family.
The conclusion for most socialists is that women's'
liberation can only be lastingly obtained with the
overthrow of capitalism. This is not to say that reforms
should not be fought for at the moment, but to recognise
that some of the gains may be short-term ones which can
be withdrawn.
This conclusion isn't accepted by everyone concerned with
womens' liberation, and certainly is rejected by large
sections of the feminist movement. A good example of the
alternative analysis can be seen in the following extract
from the British Survey of Social Attitudes (a survey
carried out regularly by an independent body).
WHO MINDS THE CHILDREN
It found that the provision of childcare was one of the
impediments preventing women from working. Their
conclusion was that "in the absence of changes in
mens' attitudes, or working hours outside the home
or in their contribution within the family it seems
unlikely that even a greater availability of childcare
outside the home would alter domestic arrangements
greatly. Without these changes, it is conceivable that
many useful forms of work flexibility - that might be
offered to women such as job sharing, career breaks,
special sick leave or term-time working - might
reinforce rather than mitigate the formidable level
of occupational segregation based on gender, to
women's longer-term disadvantage."
The authors of the survey note that as long as
responsibility for childcare rests with the women they will
remain trapped in the family. They also point out that
concessions to women in the world of work often result in
women being pidgeon-holed into less well paid job. This
already happens in regard to part-time workers who are
paid a lower hourly wage than full-time workers. They
point out that men have to square up to their
responsibility as fathers. The key they emphasise is a
change in mens' attitudes.
However what was not mentioned is that no matter how
attitudes change, men are as powerless as individuals in
regard to their working conditions as women are. With
all the good will in the world they cannot change their
employer/employee relationship, they cannot adjust their
working hours to suit childcare just as women cannot. A
more fundamental conclusion would be that society at the
moment, capitalism, does not want to accommodate any of
the problems of childcare preferring to leave it up to the
individual to make their own arrangements as best as
they can.
CONTROL OF OUR BODIES
It is for this reason that the issue of womens' ability to
control their own fertility is key in obtaining womens'
liberation. That is the fight for abortion rights, for freely
available contraceptives, for 24 hour quality childcare.
Women will remain as second class citizens as long as they
are relegated to an inferior position in the work force.
They are now in that position because to the bosses they
are an unstable workforce, likely to want pregnancy
leave, likely to come in late if a child is sick, likely to
require a creche or want to work part time. It is because
men in society are seen as the breadwinners that they
have slightly more secure, slightly more dependable jobs.
It's a vicious circle, because men are in reality better
paid, it makes more sense within the family to assign the
role of main earner to the male and the role of carer to
the female. The only way to permanently get out out of
this circle is to change the system. In a society organised
to make profits for a few, women loose out. In a society
organised to satisfy needs, womens' fertility would no
longer be a limiting factor.
INTO THE MAINSTREAM
Women can of course win gains at the moment. In
Ireland women are no longer forced to stop working upon
marriage (though lack of childcare can make it impossible
to continue). Attitudes have changed considerably in the
last thirty years. Most importantly, the position of
women is now an issue. Whereas before it was only
addressed by the few socialist or womens' groups, now it's
taken up in the mainstream media, in chat shows and
newspaper articles. However, any of our new freedoms
are very much dependant on the economic conditions of
the day. So, while in the booming sixties American
women won limited access to abortion, now in recession
those rights are being pushed back inch by inch.
When the reality is weighed up equal education & job
opportunities and equal pay are limited without free 24
hour nurseries and free contraception & abortion on
demand. While a small minority of women can buy control
of their own fertility, for the majority family and childcare
is still - as it has always been - the largest problem faced
by women workers. In this argument capitalism won't
concede, it must be defeated.
Aileen O'Carroll
********** Sex, class & Womens oppression **********
from Workers Solidarity No 36
Lavinia Kerwick showed great bravery when
she spoke out about being raped, thousands
took to the streets in support of "X" last
February. Violence and discrimination
against women are still very real. But for the
first time since the early 1980s large numbers
of women want to fight back. Aileen O'Carroll
looks at some of the issues that have arisen.
Can women of all classes share a common
goal? Should women organise separately? Is
there a connection between fighting sexism and
fighting capitalism?
IT WAS NOT until the French Revolution in 1798, that
it began to be accepted that all men are equal. Until
then the concept was dismissed as irreligious and and
against the 'natural order'. Many of the morals, rules
and rights that society assumes as constant are
actually quite fluid. It is only in the last few decades
that the idea of equality has been extended to include
women.
Although women still hold a secondary status, the idea of
women as second class citizens is beginning to lose ground.
Changing attitudes in itself are not going to lead to womens'
liberation (all men aren't in fact equal in today's society, though
there is no longer strong ideological opposition to the idea of
equality). However, the freeing of women from the chains of
sexism empowers us to fight for womens' liberation.
However having said all this, why is it that women aren't more
active in politics, in community groups, in campaigning? What is
it that is holding them back? Anarchists believe that the core
problem facing women is class society. However overlying that
core is a layer of sexist ideas. This ideology serves to reinforce
and justify womens' inferior status. How does this operate?
How does it manage to do this?
It's easy today to underestimate the effects of the conditioning
that takes place. Conditioning that tells us, that in the very
first place we doesn't have any right to compete on an equal
basis. There is ample proof that this occurs, for example the
findings of a recent survey on secondary school children
indicated that girls had a much lower self-image than boys of a
comparable age. Recent studies in American classrooms showed
that when girls answered out of turn they were more likely to
be told off, while boys were likely to be praised for showing
intelligence or initiative. Given this it was not surprising that
in later classes girls rarely spoke unless specifically asked a
question while boys often spoke out or chatted with the teacher.
RAPE AND 'GUILT'
Researchers into the area of sexual harassment have found that
people have difficulty in knowing what type of behaviour
amounts to harassment. Women feel unsure as to what are
their rights are, unsure as to how much hassle they are
expected by society to put up with. In a recent interview a
representative of Dublin Rape Crisis Centre indicated that in
her experiences all the women she saw felt guilt in some way,
right down to an old age pensioner raped in her own home.
Indeed, this is hardly surprising given the type of reporting of
trials such as the Kennedy rape trial this year.
One in three of crimes against women arise from domestic
violence. Yet these problems are given low priority. Rape Crisis
Centres are constantly under threat of closure due to lack of
funding. In the first four months of 1990, the Gardai received
1,568 calls for help in domestic violence situations (and all the
experts accept that only a small number of such crimes are ever
reported). The Womens' Aid refuges, run by volunteers, have
only 16% of the space that is needed.
Workers in a Dublin refuge reported that between four and
seven families are turned away on average, while approximately
another 60 women phone seeking advice each week. Our low
status in society is reflected not only by the level of violence
against us, but by the complete disregard that is shown for the
problem by the government and society at large.
A CURFEW ON WOMEN
Though most rapes are committed by somebody known by the
woman (92% of Irish rape victims knew their attackers), police
propaganda is still aimed at frightening women into maintaining
a self-imposed curfew at night. Even though the statistics
indicate she is probably in more danger at home! We are forced
to leave limited lives. We don't have freedom of movement even
within our own communities. We are denied control over our
own bodies. Worse of all, we are told how to look and how to
behave.
Women are constantly given cues that they are in some way
inferior. This conditioning is a symptom of the position of
women in society, not the cause but a symptom with far reaching
affects. We learn what is the norm through what is seen as
acceptable behaviour in the world around us. The media, be it
TV, film industry or pop music occupy a very vocal and dominant
position. Next time you watch MTV or go to the cinema try and
count how many times you see women portrayed as individuals
in their own right, rather than as appendages. You won't need
more fingers to count on than you have on your own two hands.
Most womens' magazines are still concerned with beauty, fashion
and home making. Articles about working women are almost
exclusively aimed at professionals and executives. They don't
reflect the the reality that most women experience. Company
magazine (June 1991) asks "Are you scared of success? Career
success can be dazzling and very exciting, yet it can go hand in
hand with tremendous fear". The article argues that if we just
didn't keep holding ourselves back, we could make it in the
career world. The truth for most of us is that it is lack of
childcare and job opportunities determines our position as low
paid workers, not our lack of confidence.
GLOBAL FORUM OF EGOISTS AND BOSSES
Unfortunately much of the womens' movement does exactly the
same thing. Dublin recently hosted the 1992 Global Forum of
Women. At ?180 a head the forum was dedicated to "visions of
leadership". Those attending were all "political, artistic &
scientific leaders or prominent in the international leadership of
the womens' movement". The brochure advertising the
conference proclaimed "the president of Nicaragua is a women".
So what! So is the Queen of England and Margaret Thatcher. I
don't see things being much better for our 'sisters' over the
water or for those in Nicaragua. The election of Mary Robinson
didn't make any noticeable difference for the 'sisters' at home
either.
The conclusion of the conference, the message they are sending
to the low paid, the part-time workers and the unemployed is
that what is needed is 40% representation of women at all
levels. Overwhelmingly, the message to us was to get up on our
bikes, to seize the opportunities, that the only thing stopping us
was ourselves. Class didn't come into it.
A gap exists between what women are meant to be like and what
we are, between what we are supposed to achieve and what it is
possible for us to achieve. Failure on our part to live up to an
ideal is attributed to some fault within us, rather than to the
type of society we live in. It is for these reasons that women
often find it more difficult to speak in public. We are often are
less confident because by standing up we are reacting against a
conditioning that tells us we should sit down.
ORGANISING SEPARATELY?
Women are constantly conditioned to believe that we do not
have a right to an opinion, to be politically active, to speak out.
Sometimes the first step against this conditioning is to organise
separately from men. Partly this is because it is felt that men
being more confident and more self-assured tend to dominate
discussions. Or even more simply some women feel that when
men are present they are more likely to take a silent role and
leave the arguing up to them.
Under these conditions women organising together is an
exercise in empowerment. It's a positive response to the
conditioning of society. It's role should be to make it possible for
women to participate as equals with men. It should be seen as
a temporary but necesary step, not as an end in itself.
However problems arise when this is taken further and when
women begin to campaign separately. This identifies men as the
root of the problem, which they aren't. It also isolates men from
the struggle, when it is obvious that in order to change society
we must work alongside them.
Within many Unions and the British Labour Party there exist
women only conferences. A problem with this is that womens'
issues are often referred to these conferences as a as a way of
avoiding the issues and forgetting about them. Rape is a
womens' issue - refer it to the womens' conference,
contraception is a womens' issue - refer it to the womens'
conference, etc.
In these instances men are rarely confronted with these issues,
rarely have to deal with them and are let off the hook.
Therefore while we defend the right of women to meet
separately we also think it vital in any organisation, in any
campaign, that women present their arguments to the entire
body of people and win those arguments and fight as a whole.
Tactically, this is the only way to widen and then win the fight
for womens' liberation.
Things are better for us today. A lot of the institutionalised
oppression, such as marriage bars and property laws has been
removed. Often equal pay legislation and quota systems have
been put in their place. Yet while things may have changed on
paper, we are still left with class society. As long as this
remains, the majority of us will not have equal access to the
workplace or much else. As long as we are denyed economic
equality, society will continue making up morals and invent so
called 'natural laws', as a way of justifying it's treatment of us.
By tackling the symptom, sexism in society, we will be in a
better position to tackle the root cause. By tackling capitalism
we will be fighting for womens' liberation.
Aileen O'Carroll
************* Equality for some Women ***************
from Workers Solidarity No35
LAST SEPTEMBER the Bank of Ireland was, according
to the 'Irish Times', 'basking in an unadulterated glow
of approval' from the Employment Equality Agency, the
Council of Status for Women and the Joint Oireachteas
Committee on Womens Rights among others. What the
Bank of Ireland had so progressively managed to do was
to provide one creche which will cater for up to 45
children.
The Bank of Ireland employs 11,600 people. However, at ?55
a week the centre is obviously aimed at helping only a very
small section of the workforce. As Bertie Ahern said, it did
not make sense having highly and expensively qualified
women leaving the workforce because of lack of childcare
facilities. However, it does make sense, to industry, to
employ over 50% of the entire workforce having either low
pay or no security of employment (or both).
It isn't sexism that holds us in the worse paid jobs but rather
the economic reality of the capitalism system. To survive in
the market place any company has to be competitive, to
maximise profits. With wages accounting for 80% of the
outgoings in most business, employing the cheapest labour
makes good sense. In todays society, creches and child-care
are a luxury that the profit motive can rarely afford. To
women who accept this system, the provision of expensive
inadequate child care is a victory, while the plight of ordinary
women workers isn't worth mentioning.
But there is a general feeling that we are now living in a
post-feminist world. Women may not be quite equal to men,
but the principle of equality has been widely accepted and
liberation is only a matter of waiting. We are allowed to vote,
to drink in pubs and to work outside marriage. Our right to
an equal education system and an equal workplace is
enshrined in law. We have a women president.
In Ireland there is now a wide acceptance that women have
the right to participate in society on an equal basis with men.
However, despite this change in hearts and minds, life on the
ground for most women today, is quite similar to those of forty
years ago. Though we may not, in general, have the same
sexist morality to put up with; economically we are still
second class citizens.
For the majority of us, our right to choose the way of life we
wish to lead is as limited as it has always been. Rather than
being liberated, we are still tied, by virtue of our poor wage
earning abilities, to the home and family. A study recently
published in Fortune magazine indicated that the leading
occupations for women in 1990 weren't so different from the
top jobs for 1940 (see table). The average hourly earnings of
woman are still 68% of those of men. In hard cash terms, men
earn on average, ?1.83 more per hour than women do.
Fortune Magazine Table
1990 1940
1. Secretary 1. Servant
2. Cashier 2. Secretary
3. Bookkeeper 3. Teacher
4. Nurse 4. Clerical worker
5. Nursing aide 5. Sales worker
6. Teacher 6. Factory worker
7. Waitress 7. Bookkeeper
8. Sales Worker 8. Waitress
9. Child care 9. Housekeeper
10. Cook 10. Nurse
So, what are the problems facing women in the workforce?
The answer you'll get to that question, will depend very much
on who you are talking to. For the last six years, Social and
Community Planing Research, a non-profit making institute,
has been surveying British social attitudes to everything from
should revolutionaries be allowed to have public meetings
(only 48% said yes) to should the tax system be changed.
Looking at the recently published 1991 survey, it becomes
obvious that the key factor preventing women from working is
children; i.e. lack of nursery places, lack of creches at work
and "guilt at leaving the care of children to others".
It noted that while 51% of those surveyed would have
thought a work-place nursery suitable for the care of their
children, none of the sample surveyed had access to such a
service. Overwhelmingly, children were cared for by a close
relative.
On the other hand, the Financial Times, in a major article
on women managers cited the main problems for women going
into business as confidence, training and expertise, credibility
and networks. For women at these higher levels, childcare
provision is not a key problem, as they can afford to hire
other women to stay at home so they are freed to go out and
work. So when women managers seek to overcome sexism,
provision of free 24 hour childcare is not a priority. Women
may not be equal to men in today's society, but undoubtedly
some women are more equal than others.
It is certainly true that there are very few women managers,
however this is just a symptom of the general situation of
women as a whole, not a cause. The installation of women at
the top of a profession won't change the basic ground rules by
which society is run. Those women at the top may suffer
sexism from their colleagues. They may be ostracised from the
old boys network and may find it more difficult to succeed.
However, they also have an interest in seeing the system
continue. Their high incomes, standard of living and position
in society is dependant on them being on the top of the pile.
So while they may lobby on 'safe' issues that affect most
women, such as rape and domestic violence, when it comes to
issues that question the way society is run and thus threaten
their position, sisterhood quickly breaks down.
How many of the Irish women TD's, who support abortion
information are willing to publicly say so? On the one hand
they may be members of the womens movement while on the
other protecting their seat is more important. Mary Robinson
may be a women, but she didn't show much sisterhood or
solidarity when she signed into law the new social welfare
regulations on cohabiting couples. This provision limits
couples to 80% of the benefit that two single people receive
Normally the women is the partner who receives the lower
income.
Women will remain as second class citizens as long as they are
relegated to an inferior position in the work force. They are
now in that position because to the bosses they are an
unstable workforce, likely to want pregnancy leave, likely to
come in late if a child is sick, likely to require a creche or
want to work part time. It is because men in society are seen
as the breadwinner that they have more secure, more
dependable jobs.
It's a vicious circle, because men are in reality better paid, it
makes more sense within the family to assign the role of main
earner to the male and housework to the female. The only
way to permanently get out out of the circle is to change the
system. In a society run for profit women loose out, in a
society run for need, womens fertility is no longer a limiting
factor.
Women can of course win gains at the moment. In Ireland
women are no longer forced to stop working on marriage,
though lack of child care can make it impossible to continue.
Attitudes have changed considerably in the last thirty years.
Most importantly, the position of women is now an issue.
Where as before it was only addressed by the few socialist or
womens groups, now it's taken up by the mainstream media,
by chat shows and newspaper articles. However, any of our
new freedoms are very much dependant on the economic
conditions of the day. So, while in the affluent 1960's British
women won limited access to abortion (used by thousands of
Irish women), now in recession those rights are being pushed
back inch by inch.
When you come down to basics equal education and job
opportunities and equal pay amount to little without free 24
hour nurseries and free contraception and abortion on
demand. While a small minority of women can buy control of
their own fertility, for the majority, family and child care is
still as it has always been the largest problem faced by women
workers.
And as a small finishing thought, under capitalism most
managers are paid a hell of a lot more than most workers.
That's a situation women mangers won't want to change.
After all, Margaret Thatcher was the ultimate woman
manager, wasn't she?
Aileen O'Carroll