💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › make-your-own-tea.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:55:18. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Make Your Own Tea Author: Alice Nutter Date: 1997 Language: en Topics: anti-capitalist movement, feminism, sexism, class war, UK Source: Retrieved on May 13, 2019 from https://libcom.org/library/class-war-issue-73-make-your-own-tea-womens-realm-other-recipes-patterns. Authorship from The Dark Star Collective's "Quiet Rumours" (Edinburgh: AK Press, 2002)
This piece is written for all revolutionaries. This is not the token
'women's bit' that's stuck in for the sake of appearances. This is an
attempt to look at how and why the Left, and Class War in particular,
has not just failed to attract women, but alienated, patronised and
looked upon them as a minority group. How can half the working class be
treated as a minority? We're not claiming that we have solutions for the
gender imbalance but we are saying that it's time to stop ignoring the
problem. Any revolutionary movement which doesn't address why there are
so few women in its ranks isn't a true revolutionary movement, just a
complacent reflection of the status quo.
In the early years of Class War, the attitude was that feminist demands
did not go far enough. We said why call for equal pay? Equal rights
under capitalism was putting out a begging bowl for equal gender
exploitation and was spectacularly unambitious. Class War were calling
not for equal pay packets but for the abolition of money. The feminist
fixation with voting rights was another half measure. Why choose between
two evils when there's so much more to be had? Class War tried to
support the principle of gender equality while disagreeing with the
reformist tendencies of established feminism.
In the mid-1980s the Left was in its victim stage. 'All men are bad, all
women are good' arguments were being waged by feminists who wanted the
moral advantage and brownie points. Class War wasn't about pushing the
politics of middle class guilt. By showing images of women who were
taking control of their lives and fighting back, Class War thought it
was supporting working class women. Whether it was or not is up for
discussion, but the paper's intentions were honourable. The approach was
simplistic, but at least it wasn't as confused as other sections of the
Left - who were dancing round Goddess-based 'alternative' religions and
calling them politics.
Class War's early issues show that there was a commitment to talking to
all the working class as opposed to just young white males. Cervical
cancer information sat on the same page as 'Battered Bobby'. Articles
about sexism (admittedly basic and often moralistic as opposed to
libertarian) made regular appearances. The politics were often
misguided, with one article offering instructions to working class men
to support women's struggles by offering physical protection. This
paternalistic attitude reflected society's but it didn't make it right.
But to put Class War in context, other lefty groups and papers had even
worse attitudes. Militant and the SWP's politics were so entrenched in
old-fashioned rhetoric that women only featured in their papers when
they slotted in to the traditional 'worker' slot. Grunwick was their
finest hour: workers who were women and Asian to boot. Women Against Pit
Closures and 'miners' wives' were the only other photos of a woman
they'd use. Those pictures from 1977 and 1984 had to see them through
almost 20 years of papers.
In 1987 a Brixton woman wrote to Class War questioning our coverage of
the Brixton riots. She said that living in a police no-go area had ended
not in Utopia, but in women suffering intimidation, physical and sexual
violence. To Class War's credit, the paper responded with an article
about the dangers of romanticising violence, and started up a debate
about communities providing their own policing.
However, a lot of women who agree with Class War's aims and principles,
think the organisation is too Boy's Own to become involved with. Class
War's attitude to violence is alienating for women - no amount of
wishful thinking will alter the fact that working class men and women
have very different attitudes to violence. Class War's hard image, its
music and boots are meant to attract young, white males. It's
questionable whether concentrating on attracting one area of the working
class (and alienating other sections of it) is worth the price, but even
on its own terms this tactic fails.
Looking at Class War in isolation won't tell us much about why the Left
has put gender politics on the back-burner. Class War came in to being
at a time when the women's movement was in crisis. Without sketching a
rough run-down of some of the events that preceded that crisis, it's
impossible to challenge the cliché that feminism is merely the plaything
of the middle classes.
In lefty circles all you have to do to discredit a movement or an idea
is call it middle class. It's become a non-specific term of abuse. The
feminist movement did have a lot of middle class women in it, but that
doesn't mean that all of them opposed the interests of working class
women. Nor does it mean that feminist ideas aren't useful to working
class women. In the early seventies feminist ideas began to permeate
through society. The media (as always) looked for leaders and
personalities. Rather than talk about the anger, the ideas and the needs
that were propelling feminism forward, the emphasis was on individuals.
Germaine Greer and Co. fitted the media bill.
But this didn't stop women seizing the idea of liberation. Suddenly
there were theories which explained why life was so miserable for the
majority of women. The middle classes were the first to catch them
because they had more access to education, but many working class women
weren't all that far behind. The only solution to women's troubles was
to change society, which was the last thing that the right wanted.
Women got down to the serious job of showing we'd no longer tolerate
male domination and violence. In 1972 the first refuge for battered
women opened. In 1976 the first Rape Crisis Centre opened, run on
feminist lines. It mushroomed and by the mid-1980s there were centres in
almost every city. The Reclaim The Night marches started in Soho in
protest against the exploitation of the sex industry. The women's
movement was making it up as it went along - and at that point it hadn't
had to take account of the views of women actually working in the
industry. In Leeds and York the Reclaim The Night marches took on a
different significance. Peter Sutcliffe, the so-called 'Yorkshire
Ripper', was still on the loose in Northern industrial towns. We were
sick of living in a climate of fear, of being told that the only way to
stay safe was to stay indoors or under male protection. Last but not
least we'd had enough of the state and media distinction between 'good'
and 'bad' girls; between the prostitute women who the media implied
deserved to be murdered, and the good, asexual, family-type women who
didn't. Feminism provided the framework for women to realise that we had
a right to be sexual and safe. We were angrily rejecting the
hypocritical morality of the times as well as celebrating our presence
on the streets.
The women's liberation movement had its own internal problems. The
rhetoric of 'sisterhood' above all else meant that class and race, other
great defining aspects of our lives, were in danger of being buried
under the 'all girls together' mentality. Working class and non-white
women fought the fallacy that class and race were less important than
gender. They said that middle class women were fighting for their
independence from patriarchy, while keeping the perks of their class.
Working class women weren't trying to destroy sisterhood; they were
insisting that it be made more substantial. Some working class women
said that sisterhood had to start with income sharing.
Black women refused to let the reality of having to live in a racist
society be obscured by an umbrella of sisterhood. The women's liberation
movement was predominantly white and middle class, but to say that the
white middle class women constantly held sway is to under-value black
and working class women's contributions. They forced the women's
liberation movement to take account of them - whether it wanted to or
not. In 1978 The Working Class Women's Liberation Newsletter was
launched. To go along with the myth that working class women played no
part in changing society, is to repeat the lie that we were too thick to
read the writing on the wall, and add our own quotes.
Separatism helped create more schisms and split feminism into
non-complementary strands. The main bugbear was whether women working or
having relationships with men were letting the side down by fraternising
with 'the enemy'. In retrospect separatism looks like just more
Stalinist power-play. Arguments about desire and free choice were put
down to women trying to hang on their 'heterosexual privilege'.
Capitalism's privileges weren't given much attention. No wonder the
women's movement split. Despite internal sex wars, the women's movement
continued to have a positive influence on society. The one good thing
about radical feminism was that it taught women to recognise the full
extent of male domination. Women who chose not to live or work apart
from men finally picked up on the way that trade unions/political
groups/partners made few concessions to women. The revolutionary
movement was found wanting.
The women's movement would have survived and still politically
progressed if the right hadn't intervened. The American Weyrich was the
first of many new right leaders to declare feminist women a threat to
state power: "There are people who want a different political order.
Symbolised by the women's liberation movement, they believe the future
for their political power lies in the restructuring of the traditional
family, and in down-grading the male or the father role in the
traditional family."
Thatcher and her followers had their own think-tanks which drew the same
conclusions. By the mid-1980s equality seemed like a sensible
proposition to most women, so the media responded by declaring that
feminism was outdated, a 1970s thing like flares. 'Post-feminism' was
the new thing. It came complete with a younger generation who hated the
women's movement. 'Post-feminist' was anti-feminist and it was set off
not by women achieving their demands but by the fact that they looked in
danger of getting too stroppy, too much of a threat.
The old feminist 'leadership' were now part of the media establishment.
Greer and Co. happily went back on their past calls for equality and
independence. The new, revisionist line was that feminism had robbed us
of our right to be mothers and home bodies. Greer declared that the
model woman was the old-fashioned peasant wife up to her neck in onions
and kids. One after another the old guard trundled out to tell us that
women were at their most fulfilled when their influence was restricted
to the home-front. Unsurprisingly, the media loved this U-turn and
printed every word of it. It was the worst sort of careerism, but the
right has always diffused subversive ideas by rewarding changes of
opinion. Post-feminist theory smelled a lot like old-fashioned
servitude.
Class War was formed at the height of this period of post-feminism. The
entire Left was confused by the infighting and the right's full-scale
assault. Class War didn't stand back and look at what was happening, but
neither did anybody else. It was a time when one after another all the
women's papers collapsed under the weight of the onslaught. Feminism was
too old hat to be bought, so most of the radical women's papers folded.
The only voices we were hearing were the new right and its lackeys
telling us to get back into the kitchen.
It's an elaborate confidence trick. The new right wants us in the
traditional wifey mode, but it also wants our wage labour. The
post-feminist line is that the modern women can have freedom through
work, and still have the 'fulfilment' of running a home.
Capitalism needs women to work. The far right's shift to economic
'rationalism' and the expansion of the low-paid service industries mean
that cheap labour is always in demand. And as far as capital is
concerned, nothing comes cheaper than women. Capitalism's motto is: if
you want to shell out less money and make more profits, employ women -
they're worth less.
Nine out of ten single parents are women, and even in two parent
households many women are the main bread-winner; yet capitalism still
pretends that women's wages are 'pin money.' Women don't need a living
wage, because we don't actually have to live off it. Despite a wealth of
evidence to the contrary, men are still seen as the main 'providers'.
Our wages pay for the little extras: food, shelter and warmth. And as we
get older, in a society which judges women on appearance, we become
worthless.
Single mothers on benefit are the group who have borne the worst of the
post-feminism backlash. Capitalism has outlawed all non-monetary
relations. In a capitalist society to have no money is to have no
identity. We're not what we eat, but where we work and what we earn.
Single mothers have been targeted because their existence threatens the
right's social, political and economic aims. Hence the constant media
attacks and housing and benefit cuts. 'Back to Basics' blamed everything
from loose morals to the rising crime rate on single mothers.
Work and wages - no matter how menial and low - are often cited as proof
that we've achieved our objectives and no longer need feminism. Try
telling the woman who gets up at six to clean offices, that if she
worked harder she too could have two homes and inter-continental air
travel. The role models post-feminism holds up as 'successful' women
(scum like Anita Roddick) get to the top by promoting ruthless
capitalism. Gender plays no part in their story - other than their
having to prove that their killer instincts are twice as sharp as men's.
One of capitalism's strategies for reducing wages is to take what has
traditionally been 'men's work' - manufacturing etc - automate the plant
and then bring in 'unskilled' women at a lower rate of pay. Then it is
women, rather than capitalism's sharp practice, who are blamed for men
being chucked out of the workforce.
Post-feminism also makes a big fuss about women's nurturing natures -
we're supposed to like being dogsbodies. In 81 per cent of (two adult)
homes where a woman works full-time, she's still responsible for the
washing and ironing and the bulk of the domestic jobs. Maybe 'we've made
it' means the beds. We're still acting as unpaid domestic servants; the
only real change is that many men think they do more. There's a million
excuses for why not, but men rarely take an equal share of cooking and
household chores. Revolutionary groups seldom address the day-to-day
inequalities in their own kitchens. Issues around housework are seen as
trivial. Twenty years ago the expression for it was 'women's work'.
Lefty 'man' may claim to be fighting for the freedom of mankind, but
that doesn't mean he wants his girlfriend to stop doing his washing.
Part of the problem is that housework has been tagged 'personal
politics'. 'Personal' like 'middle class' is just another way of saying
irrelevant to the overall struggle. Class War has always understood that
'politics' is about improving the day-to-day realities of our lives.
Unfortunately, that understanding doesn't seem to extend to women. Too
often issues are prioritised on the grounds of whether or not they make
men feel heroic. Rioting does; shopping doesn't. Washing up just doesn't
get the adrenalin going: ask any woman.
Post-feminism has a cute chorus-line of girls flashing their knickers as
a sign of liberation. We've got the Girlie Show, The Pyjama Party and
the Spice Girls sticking their tits and their tongues out on prime-time
TV. All three were put together by blokes. We're supposed to see them as
symbols of the new 'sassy' woman, but all are a bloke's idea of the
perfect feminist. They make a lot of noise but never say anything which
actually threatens the status quo. They're Stepford Wives with better
thighs, and a carefully programmed attitude. They're go-go dancing for
equality.
At the same time there's a constant media crusade to show us what a
dangerous place the world is for women. Less than eight per cent of all
violent crimes are sexual attacks on women (the highest mortality rate
is among young working class men), but the media loves to highlight our
rapes and murders by deranged strangers. The message is that we need the
security of male protection. The sub-text is: 'your relationship might
be crap and abusive but look how much worse off you'd be without him'.
The irony is that at least a third of all women killed in Britain are
murdered by their husbands or boyfriends - the majority just after they
declare their independence by breaking off the relationship.
We don't live in an equal world. We need a feminist analysis as much as
we ever did. All around us the gains of the last thirty years are under
attack. The Left bowed out of women's struggles years ago, and since
there isn't really a women's movement to speak of, individual women are
left to slug it out alone. The whole point in joining a movement is to
fight alongside people who share the same ideals and dreams. There's not
much incentive for women to join revolutionary groups when the general
ethos is: you can fight our battles but we're not interested in yours.
Women join revolutionary organisations because they want to change the
whole of society not just the sexist bit. But to survive within them we
end up having to 'put up and shut up'. Just because we've prioritised
class and capitalism as major oppressions doesn't mean that we don't
give a shit about gender.
The old chestnut about 'single issues' distracting the focus of the
struggle has been dragged out too many times when women's struggles come
up. The anti-JSA campaign or prisoner support are 'single issues'; race,
class and gender aren't. We can't pick up and put down our class, our
skin colour or our sex. Whatever comes after Class War needs to take a
less one-dimensional approach. We don't know what will make a unified
movement, but we do know what won't: ignorance.
No one is 'just' working class, 'just' a woman, 'just' black. Our
politics are a mesh of different experiences, and half the time there's
no cosy alliance between our different oppressions. A woman's
experiences under patriarchy help shape her perceptions of class. We've
been guilty of pretending that working class men and women would all
live happily ever after once we've banished capitalism. Not if we still
have one half serving the other half. Life isn't simple. Those who are
our comrades in one area may well turn out to be against us in another.
When conflict comes up we're forced to say what matters most; sometimes
it's our class and sometimes it isn't. We have to acknowledge
difficulties before we can start to deal with them. We don't know if we
can resolve these dilemmas but we're certainly willing to try.