International Socialists

Rae Sinclair / Penny Hayes

Part 1 - Rae Sinclair
In our socialist organisation it is consistently women that are asked to speak on issues of women's oppression and liberation. This never fails to enrage me! For a number of reasons.

Firstly, for reasons I cannot fully explain, asking a woman to talk on women's oppression seems to me to be patronising, condescending and even sexist. My gut reaction is to say, "Why don't you men give the talk, after all, you're the oppressors! Why don't you tell us why you do it and when you are going to stop." Secondly, I am a woman but I do not feel as though I am oppressed by my gender. Obviously I cannot deny that women in our society are, in fact, oppressed. There are screeds of statistics to show that they are.

Women earn less money than men, are more likely to be the victims of violence in the home, are more likely to be disadvantaged by a relationship break-up, take more responsibility for work in the home and so on, the list is endless. However I do not believe that I am more or less oppressed than anyone else, male or female, in my socioeconomic position. The oppression or lack of power, related to a low socioeconomic position has a greater effect on me and my life than my gender. I find it difficult, therefore, to talk of oppression of women, when I see it as secondary to other oppression.

I cannot see how it would be useful to talk about how women's oppression manifests itself statistically in society when it is not something that I experience personally. I think that I do not consider myself oppressed by being a woman as I was born in the early 1960s and grew up amongst the women's liberation movement of the 1960s and 70s.

Women were modelled to me, not as submissive second-class citizens, but as people that recognised injustice in society, fought to change it and achieved their aims. In my eyes, women are a strong, powerful and determined group that took on the establishment and won.

This brings me to my third point, which may be considered minor and pedantic, but I believe that the terms "women's liberation" and "oppression" are firmly associated with Second Wave feminism of the bra-burning 1960s and 70s and to continue to use these terms is to fail to acknowledge the gains that the women's movement made. I would like to suggest that the socialist movement find different terms to describe sexism and the inequalities between genders.

Of course it must always be remembered that as Marxist/socialists our first division when describing society must always be class. A woman's place in society determines the type of and how much oppression they are subjected to. A rich woman suffers less oppression than a poor woman (and a poor man, for that matter.) She may still be exposed to sexist behaviour and gender inequalities but it is likely to be different than that experienced by a poor women. Issues of ethnicity and related power differentials must also be considered.

In other words women cannot be considered as a mass homogeneous group. It was useful to do this during Second Wave feminism as there were obvious structural inequalities that affected all women to fight against, such as the call for equal pay for equal work. It was also appropriate for a small group of women (Second Wave feminism was dominated by white middle class women) to led the struggle for issues that affected all women. However, now that it seems that gender inequality and sexism is situated in the social level, rather than the structural level, it is no longer appropriate to think of women as just one group.

Feminists generally concur with this and have responded by forming different camps, influenced by postmodernism and identity politics. All camps have differing opinions as to the cause of oppression and the way to move on from here. With the absence of structural inequalities, enshrined in law, the fight for "women's liberation" has ground to a halt.

So, what are the central points of my objection then? Although the "pay women to stay at home" and "backlash" crowds are clearly heading to right-wing conclusions, we should remember they do have some good points. But - and this is crucial - they still relate domestic labour to gender. Maybe this is the relationship we should be focussing in on, and focussing on removing.

I worry that as an organisation and as a tradition we've been too quick to dismiss these good points that other arguments can bring up. The same could be said for postmodernism. Identity politics makes the good point that, surprise surprise, different people are oppressed in different ways for different reasons. Surely this will also mean there are going to be different ways of organising and talking about their resistances?

Women's oppression in society can't be something that can be left until "after the revolution" for two really obvious - but often neglected - reasons. Firstly, this revolution may be a long way off yet, and women don't want to - and shouldn't have to - wait that long for the end of oppression. Secondly, the revolution will probably come about a lot quicker if we can manage to stop fighting between the genders and instead focus out together.

But none of this will make the slightest bit of difference unless, before and after the revolution, we have learnt to value housework more - not just as the "boring stuff" that needs doing, but as the work of survival we can't do without.

Until then, visions of both women's "liberation," however outdated that word might be, and the liberation of society will stay as nothing but dreams.

Part 2 (Reply) - Penny Hayes
A socialist perspective identifies the central role that class plays in stratifying the society in which we live. With regard to feminism, this is highlighted in the important distinction between the interests of, say, the female chief executive of Telecom, or your average working class woman employed at the local chocolate factory. However, within the context of capitalism, women are still subordinate to men, in the sense that they are more likely to be employed in the working class, that housework is unpaid and undervalued, and they still maintain most responsibility for child care.

As socialists however, we would reject the notion that men on their own are the deliberate perpetrators of women's oppression, with no other objective in mind. Oppression and liberation based on gender are the result of social constructions of what it means to be female and what it means to be male. Importantly, these constructions mean nothing unless they are defined in response to or in contrast with each other.

One clear way in which the role of women and men is defined is with respect to labour. The gendered division of labour that places men in the public sphere of paid work outside the home and women in the private sphere of unpaid work in the home is vital to the oppression of women - this is widely accepted amongst the left. What isn't as widely accepted is the way in which this is related to the productive capacity of capitalism and the wider issue of class oppression, which underpins a socialist or Marxist feminism.

Unpaid work in the home sustains paid work outside the home. It is far easier to go out and earn a living when you come home to a clean house and a cooked meal every night. In this sense, the undervalued, unpaid work of looking after the house and family has a direct impact on the productivity of the working class and for this reason is central to profitability.

The social construction of gender that contributes to this outcome works in the interests of the capitalist class, allowing it to generate its unprecedented levels of output and profit. The ruling class will go to the ends of the Earth to construct and reconstruct gender differences to its advantage, as these differences manifest themselves in the gendered division of labour. It also has the rather useful side effect of creating some sense of division between men and women, which underpins the unity of the working class as a collective force to be reckoned with.

So, yes, capitalism has specific effects on women and men generally speaking as an outcome of its structural needs, more crucially linked to class and relations of production than to gender or ethnicity. The use of the terms "oppression" and "liberation" are still relevant to the class struggle - our key aim in this regard being the full and total emancipation of the worker.

However, it is a mistake to assume that the centrality of class renders the analysis of other types of stratification redundant. As long as you can speak of inequality as it relates to a specific group in comparison to another group - and there is no denying that fact - the terms "oppression" and "liberation" remain useful, even if your explanation of that struggle is formulated within the context of another struggle (the class struggle).

The argument has often been put forward that we have made progress, but we have not reached a point where gender inequality is situated at the social and not the structural level. It is true we have moved closer to "illusory" structural equality, given that in most if not all the advanced capitalist societies it is illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of sex, but it is highly misleading to argue that gender inequality is not structural given its lack of overt appearance in the form of legalised discrimination. Rather like the class struggle, the legally equal status of men and women (or employees and employers) is not reflective of reality.

While it is the social construction of gender that generates and supports the continued oppression of women, this is maintained deliberately as a pathway to further profitability. This is precisely the way in which the social interacts with and is inseparable from the institutional or structural level, in terms of both gender inequality and the wider class struggle. The removal of overtly institutional discriminatory practices against women in the statute books is merely a step - a good starting point - but there is a long way to go.

Clearly, as outlined above, there are structural causes of women's oppression which are not arbitrary - relating to the needs of the ruling class. This is not to say that all women are oppressed. The extent to which we each are individually subjected to sexism and the diverse ways in which we interpret let alone experience it are enough to make women a highly heterogenous group. However, by recognising the structural role played by gender construction it is possible to step beyond the superficial differences of experience and acknowledge that, as women, our common enemy is not men but the context (capitalism) which results in the desirability of the construction of gender identity.

While not trying to ignore the concrete realities of dealing with one's experience, its usefulness in actually fighting oppression is limited, in both spurring collective action, and in blurring the perspective of an individual. I am a women in my mid-twenties, and I don't consider myself oppressed by my gender. I am a postgraduate university student, and believe my father when he tells me I could be a civil engineer if I wanted to. I don't think I am treated differently as a woman. However, how the hell am I to know how I would be treated as a male? I've never been one nor with three sisters have I seen my parents treat a son any differently to me.

The point is, my experience is limited and myopic, but that doesn't prevent me from understanding oppression in the world around me, and it certainly doesn't make me not want to fight against it, nor does it make me feel ill-equipped for the task. Furthermore, rather than thinking of women's oppression as a women's issue, we should all own it. In practice that means that men as well as women should be giving talks on International Women's Day and the Beauty Myth, and marching to Reclaim the Night. Not because they are the perpetrators (although some obviously are), but because it is their family members, friends and comrades who are beaten, raped, and killed, suffer eating disorders and depression, and fight heroically for better working conditions and manage the household all at the same time.

Under a truly democratic socialism, such invisible structural sources of gender oppression will be far less essential to sustaining capitalism's profitability. The absence of such pressures will make it much easier to challenge constructions of gender identity. Quite rightly though, for both reasons mentioned, the issue of gender inequality can't be left until after the revolution, and in the meantime, the role of a socialist organisation is a busy and varied one.

We must continue to support the fight for the liberation of women (and men), both in protest and when confronted in our daily lives with sexism and unfounded expectations of gender identity. Internally as an organisation we have to examine ourselves and our practices to ensure that we combat the effects of outside influences. But most importantly, we must continue to fight for the emancipation of the working class.