💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › mine-ege-feminism-in-turkey.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:40:26. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Feminism in Turkey
Author: Mine Ege
Date: 2000
Language: en
Topics: feminism, Turkey
Source: Retrieved on June 25, 2012 from https://web.archive.org/web/20120625091617/[[http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/turkey/may5/feminism_may00.htm

Mine Ege

Feminism in Turkey

IN STUDYING the women’s liberation movement and feminism in Turkey, it

is worthwhile to browse through the recent past. Why did feminism

materialise in Turkey in the 1980s and not in the 1960s when the second

fad of feminism rose in the West? In trying to answer these questions, I

shall elaborate more on the political developments as far as the nature

of the article allows me. I shall also look at the main changes in the

women’s movement of the 1990s in relation to the past.

The women’s movement in Turkey has, in fact, very deep historical roots.

It is known for a fact that at the end of the 19^(th) century,

especially during the Second Constitutional regime period (1908), there

were several women’s associations and they published daily papers.

During this period when the Ottoman bourgeoisie promoted modernist

movements, it would be futile to comment that Ottoman middle class women

were unaware of the Suffragette movement influential in the West.

Following the National War, the privileges granted to women (Civil Law

1926; the right to vote 1934; equal rights with men in public life 1935)

from those in power pursuant to the Kemalist reforms, which were

initiated with the establishment of the new state (1923) and which

promoted westernisation, had placed women on the same footing in legal

terms. The Turkish Women Association with its roots in the women’s

movements of the Ottoman period and based on women’s free will, though

it was promoted by middle class women, had acknowledged Kemalism because

of the rights awarded to women until then by Kemalism. It considered

“state feminism” satisfactory and abolished itself to be replaced by

certain women’s associations administered directly by the Kemalist

state. In other words, educated working women were symbols of modern

Turkey for Kemalist republicans.

The privileges enjoyed by the middle class women of the Republican

period were not enjoyed by women of other classes and sections of the

society. Pastoralism and patriarchal relationships were dominant and

those who enjoyed these rights in any real sense formed only a small

percentage of the urban minority. Naturally, this minority compromised

with Kemalism, due to the privileges they acquired, and questioned

neither the sexism of Civil Law (man is the head of family; woman is

deprived of her rights of inheritance; woman may not work without her

husband’s permission; woman who commits adultery is subject to more

severe punishments etc.) nor patriarchal relationships. They did not

wear the veil and they were “liberated” women who could become pilots,

doctors, or teachers. With this point of view, they must have thought

that others too would be liberated through secularism, civilisation,

education, and westernization on the path Kemalism advised. As a result

of all these and as a negative development, the liberal women’s movement

that had begun at the Ottoman period and based on the initiative of

women ended due to the Kemalist intervention.

On the other hand, the privileges Kemalism had awarded, although they

were simply granted with no strife, had the following advantage as far

as the liberal feminist movement which would develop later on was

concerned: the fact that Kemalism, as distinct from other Middle Eastern

and Arab countries, granted equal rights to women paved the way for the

feminist movement in Turkey, which emerged in the 1980s and enabled the

movement to attack patriarchal man-woman relationships and patriarchal

establishments directly. This development led feminism in Turkey after

the 1980s to formulate a universal language on ideal platforms.

Turkey of the 1960s and 1970s

The 1968 student movement in the West was a general attack on

conventional establishments and institutions including orthodox Marxist

organisations, ideology, and institutions, as well as being against the

rising new capitalist market economy and imperialism. It is because of

this that this movement bore in its nature the black movement and the

second fad feminist movement (Women’s Liberation Movement).

In Turkey, however, although the student movement bore significant

resemblance with the student movement of the West, it had certain basic

differences. The main theme of the student movement in Turkey was

anti-imperialism. When the youth counting on the Kemalist past and the

Kemalist military intervention of 27 May 1960 took a stance against the

hegemony of American imperialism over Turkey, it joined forces with

Kemalism and certain State institutions that it could utilise against

imperialism (the slogan of “army and youth hand in hand”) rather that

attacking all establishment and ideologies that exist in society. It was

natural that such a heavily nationalist movement which viewed women as

“mothers of the nation” would not accommodate feminism within itself.

However, at the dawn of the 1970s, a radical Left owing its roots and

its leaders to the ’68 movement started forming apart from the Workers’

Party of Turkey (TIP) and the Republican People’s Party (CHP). This

Leftist movement based its ideology on Marxism-Leninism. Even though it

was divided into several fractions and organisations, this was the

common basis. The movement had significant ideological influence in the

society in general. Even the military coup d’état of 12 March 1971 could

not terminate this development. Due to the ideological influence of the

Left effective even after 1974 and losing effect with the intervention

of 12 September 1980, women took part in this Leftist movement and

became militants of various Leftist organisations. Both due to the

conventional anti-feminist character of Marxism and due to the “class

problem” being adopted by Marxist organisations as the essential problem

and diffusing all other problems into the class problem by linking all

conflicts to the former, “secondary problems like the women issue” were

never brought to the fore. Women who individually voiced this problem

were suspected of insufficient “faith and devotion in the revolution”

and were excommunicated. Some of the Marxist-Leninist organisations did

of course delve into certain formations under the name “women’s

studies,” but the main aim of these studies was to make the concerned

organisations appealing to women. During the same period, the Leftist

movement had conformed with patriarchal ideologies and establishments in

order to “unite with the people.”

Feminism in the 1980s

After the military coup of 12 September 1980, the ideological hegemony

of Marxism was broken and the idea of making a revolution with leading

Leftist organisations lost its attraction. This situation caused the

people who had fought for these organisations until then partly to

retrieve and partly to strive for new goals. While these new struggles

were relatively satisfied by the civil socialism that emerged in the

medium of ideological conflict of the times, we women, who could not

place our second rate status on the agenda and our restraints in the

organisations before 1980 regardless of how strongly we felt about it,

started questioning our female status first individually and then by

forming small groups. We realised during our discussions together that

the situations we had assumed to have experienced and sensed personally

were in fact consequences of our common female status. We were militants

in the Leftist organisations of the 1970s and could only survive in

these organisations by leaving our female identity behind. “... because

woman is considered ‘hazardous’ just like alcoholic drinks, gambling and

drugs, the Left has imposed the ‘sister’ (bacı) cliché as a solution to

protect itself from this danger. ‘Sister’ was the type of ‘female

comrade’ whose sexuality and individuality was suppressed. With the

formulation of ‘all my love is to my people, all women are my sisters,’

male militants tried to avoid the ‘discord’ element called ‘woman,’ who

could disrupt the revolutionist union and solidarity.”

Especially we, women having a Leftist background, refrained from calling

ourselves feminist openly. This is probably because we still had some

sort of a relationship with our organisational circles and we were not

very clear on this subject. However, we felt close to feminism and this

consciousness gradually developed at each stage. On the other hand, a

group of women who called themselves feminist spoke out for the first

time in public with the symposium on “feminism,” organised by Yazko and

that took place at the Journalists’ Association. The women’s page in the

Somut magazine followed this in 1983. This formation called itself the

Women’s Group by 1984. In addition, the feminist literature had been

published since 1981. By the middle of the 1980s, other women’s

associations were formed. The Thursday Group in Ankara, the Women’s

Association against Discrimination-Sexism in Istanbul, the Kaktüs

(Cactus) magazine, the Feminist magazine and a group of women in

ðzmir... Women joined together in these groups on the basis of heartfelt

solidarity, and they began organising themselves in opposition to the

practices of centralisation and individual leadership. They were

exercising an autonomous style that did not agree with the centralised

and hierarchical habits of the Left they had adopted until then. This

was a radical, pluralist, movement from below. Women organised

themselves on their own initiative and without the manipulation of any

organisation or party. For example, some of us questioned violence in

the family, while some joined in solidarity with the striking women in a

leather factory in Kazlıçeşme. It was observed in practice that these

two different actions, rather than being obstructive, reinforced each

other.

The Other World

The feminist movement had started voicing itself widely in all fragments

of society. One of the main subjects of in-house gatherings and visits

was feminism. Men tried to dismiss the topic with jokes, saying in a

semi-embarrassed tone that they helped with housework. It was possible

to see articles and discussions on feminism in the media during those

times, even though these were usually somewhat critical.

Leftist and intellectual men agreed that there was indeed a “woman

problem.” But this did not concern them. Certain “backward elements” did

make mistakes like this. And was it not Marx and Engels who brought the

matter up for the first time anyway? What was the explanation of this

separatism, this segregation in following different goals? It was

especially dangerous to pursue bourgeois trends like feminism. The

matter should have been taken in its entirety and should not have caused

separation within the proletarian class. Why did women organise

separately? It was their fault if women did not attend organisation

meetings, although they were invited to them. And was it not yet another

discrimination not to allow men in women’s associations and meetings?

What was the explanation of this “harem” attitude? The working women

never had a problem. A Leftist group attending the 8 March

demonstrations in 1989 tried to suppress our voice with the slogan “Men

and women together, for a free future.”

The discussion that took place upon women in Leftist organisations,

their being influenced by feminism and their bringing the topic on the

agenda forced the Left to surrender to the “feminism trouble.” However,

to compensate for this, it was hoped that the path of the women’s

movement under the name of “women’s liberation studies” could be

diverted and the movement could be taken under control. It was important

not to divert from the real objective, and thus we were invited to an

association which encompassed the women’s strife but took the struggle

for socialism as its basis. Organisations tried to contextualise this

with the formula that claims “the prerequisite for women’s liberation is

socialism.” However, it seemed that due to these crucial struggles, our

turn would never come. They had the wisdom of everything and everything

had to be under their control. Like the mayor of Ankara, Mr. Tandoan who

said that “communism can rule this country only through us,” they

claimed that feminism would come through Marxists. These Leftist

organisations are able to give any kind of self-criticism. Yet they are

so male dominated in nature that they are unaware of the methods they

use to suppress and oppress women within themselves.

Women on the Streets

The coup d’état of 12^(th) September 1980 meant silencing all mass

organisations and institutions as well as the Marxist Left. In those

days, one could not see a single person who was involved with the

Leftist movement and was not subjected to the rage of the military

regime. Of course, as in all wars, women paid a heavy price. As well as

being prosecuted as individual political subjects, they also carried the

secondary burden of being mothers, wives, lovers and sisters. It was

quite common to see women’s silent protests outside prison gates or

court doors. Women of every age group came together as a result of our

common destiny. Daughters, sons, or lovers were persecuted or lost.

Consequently, women were the anonymous heroines of the fight for freedom

and the leading platoon against torture and oppression. They were

harassed and abused just for hoping for some news at court doors and

prison visits. On the other hand, life was not at all easy for us at

home. In police raids (with or without permit) even our dowry chests

were searched and as if that was not enough, we were blamed for our

fertility. Because we were the mothers of the “communist/anarchist

villains.” Even the wombs of the mothers of these separatist enemies of

the State were guilty.

One of these women was Didar Þensoy, who lost her life because of a

police officer’s kick in front of the National Assembly during the

boycotts and hunger strikes against the fascist regime. In later years,

the eleven feminist women were arrested when protesting over the deaths

at Nide Prison. The fact that the Left in Turkey preferred not to notice

these struggles and the women who formed the women’s liberation movement

and who took part in these struggles that they called the feminism after

1980 “Eylülist” shows how narrow-minded they were. “...on looking back

at the start of 1982, it could be argued that the feminist movement

formed the most democratic and the leading-in many aspects-wing of the

democratic opposition against the military intervention of 1980 and that

they served an essential function in the society’s search for

democracy.”

In 1986, the petition campaign requesting that the International

Agreement on Women, which was also confirmed by the Turkish Republic as

well be put into force brought women of various levels of the society

together again. This was followed in 1987 by the Solidarity Campaign

Against Beating after an order by a judge in Çankırı legitimised a

husband beating his wife, claiming “Kids and smacks are what every woman

needs regularly.” A demonstration protesting against beating women took

place on 17 May 1987, called by the Women’s Association Against

Discrimination, Socialist-Feminist Women, and Feminist Magazine. More

than a thousand women took part.

Even though the demonstration took place on a Sunday, it attracted many

people’s attention who were watching besides the journalists’. A group

of about thirty Leftist men who wanted to walk with us followed a few

metres behind the walking convoy with their children on their shoulders,

expressing their support. It was possible to see women from every

section of society in the demonstration. The subject of beating within

the family had united us. There was not a single woman among us who did

not get her share of beating. Our signs and mottos were very colourful

and the colour purple formed the main theme. As we walked singing songs

we composed, the sight of women who clapped at us as they watched us

from their balconies was quite sad. Because it was Sunday, fathers and

husbands were at home and women who could not attend the walk, although

they were very enthusiastic to do so, could still wave at us behind

their husbands who lathered shaving cream on their faces as they closed

the windows. We were addressing them with slogans like “women gather

here, for solidarity,” “we don’t want a heaven of beating,” “harassment

to one is harassment to all.” The fury that had silently accumulated for

many years was expressed in the song “We are rising for the unjust

centuries gone by, say it loud and clear we are women.”

The campaign was one of the first examples of various groups of women

acting together, even though they were very diverse and were not

centrally organised. This was followed by the Kariye Museum Fest. Later

on, there were the small meetings and 8 March demonstrations at the

kahve’s of Istanbul which we called Feminist picnics. Meanwhile,

following the demonstration against beating, women had found the courage

to voice this subject out loud. The biggest need of women attending the

meetings and joining the associations was that they had nowhere to go.

Because of this, many women still had to go back to the cradle of

violence. Due to this immediate need, the subject of a women’s shelter

was brought on the agenda. However, there were various obstacles

standing in the way of this project:

The societal and the legal structure where beating and especially

beating in the family was considered legitimate.

The fact that we women made up the lowest group financially in income

distribution and the hierarchical division of labour in a male-dominated

society.

By 1989, the feminist movement was split within itself as well as at war

with the outside world. A three-day Feminist Weekend meeting at which

more than a hundred women attended took place in Ankara in 1989.

Different problems of feminism were discussed and at the end of this

meeting, a declaration of the “Our Bodies Belong to Us” campaign was

published. In the spring of the same year, the First Women’s Congress

took place where feminists and women from various Leftist organisations

met. Again in the autumn of 1989, protests regarding article 438 which

was inspired by Mussolini’s Italy and exercised without question were

brought on the agenda. The said article gives a punishment discount to

the abusing male at the rate of 2/3 if the raped women is a prostitute.

I believe the fact that the 11 male Judges of Constitutional Court did

not consider this article to contravene the equality principle of the

Constitution reveals yet another example of the standards of universal

male justice.

Feminism in the 1990s

The radical emergence of the women’s liberation movement in the 1980s

began to bear fruit in the early 1990s: the “purple shelter” campaign

was initiated in order to provide refuge to women who were being

subjected to violence. Also there were clear victories such as the

establishment of the Library of Works by Women. More importantly,

although in one sense the women’s movement was fragmenting, feminist

ideas did continue to spread to wider sections of the society. Feminists

identified men’s violence against women at home as a crime and

challenged the Islamic values. These issues were discussed publicly for

the first time.

Women who play prominent roles in today’s social and political struggles

are able to retain their position only because of the influence of the

women’s liberation movement of the 1980s. However, it seems as if some

of them, instead of trying to take the women’s movement forward, are

more content to stagnate, and delute the radical ideas of the past into

mainstream reformist politics. For example, they call women to join

political parties in the name of women’s politics. But in the past, even

if somebody involved herself in a Leftist organisation or party, she was

not considered to be a true feminist. In the past women in the movement

rejected to establish links with any political parties. But today some

feminists of position are very willing to join them. Are not political

parties male dominated and sexist, authoritarian and patriarchal? Do

they not exclude women from positions of decision-making? Are not they

the champions of patriarchal laws? Are not they the representatives of

the system which makes legal all forms of violence, discrimination, and

oppression against women? In the past we rejected all forms of

representation. Now do we cherish the hope that the corrupt

parliamentary system will change our lives? In the past when we cried

out “we don’t want a heaven of beating,” our voice was loud and clear.

Now we remain silent when the “Saturday Mothers” gather around the

Galatasaray avenue to protest against the police violence; we remain

silent when Kurdish women are oppressed under the double burden of

sexism and racism; and we remain silent when the secular

nationalist-Kemalist dictatorship allows the police to beat Muslim

female students, who are excluded from university education because they

choose to veil themselves. In the past we always took the side of women

who were beaten, discriminated against, and excluded etc., regardless of

their social background and nationality, political and religious

beliefs, and so on. Now they take the side of women candidates for

parliamentary elections, regardless of their political affiliations.

Those women who rise to power on a feminist platform became sucked into

the system, and fail to use their position to the advantage of other

women.

Many of us will remember George Orwell’s Animal Farm. At the end of the

book, we read: “the creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from

man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to

say which was which.” If we compare the women’s movement in the

past-what we intended to achieve in the 1980s-with what is happening

today, it is impossible to see any connection. It is inevitable that one

who decides to join in a political game becomes like his/her opponents.

---

“No Votes Thank You”

In the past we always took the side of women who were beaten,

discriminated against, and excluded etc., regardless of their social

background and nationality, political and religious beliefs, and so on.

Now they take the side of women candidates for parliamentary elections,

regardless of their political affiliations. Those women who rise to

power on a feminist platform became sucked into the system, and fail to

use their position to the advantage of other women.