Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report

Tcahr Issue 40

eZine's profile picture
Published in 
Tcahr
 · 26 Apr 2019

  


-----
) )-0----)000(----0-( (
( ----------------------- )
+-0-=0+ T + C + A + H + R +0=-0-+
( ----------------------- )
) )-0----)000(----0-( (
-----

"To aid in the incubation, breeding, and release of butterflies in Asia."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vol. 02, Iss. 16 Marxism and Women
by BMC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since its conception, the cause of socialism has been to free the proletariat
from the rule of the capitalist bourgeoisie. This freedom is to be attained by
eliminating unfair working conditions and low wages, transferring the means of
production from being privately owned to being communally owned, and
eliminating the class structure. In short, the goal of socialism is to bring
about complete equality between people of all demographics. However, it
remains uncertain whether this cause has been a sufficient advocate of womenÂ’s
rights. While The Communist Manifesto has little to say about the involvement
of women in the proletarian revolution, LeninÂ’s writings address this in
greater detail. Throughout this essay, I will explore the privileges and
conditions offered to women by socialist philosophers to the end of determining
whether or not socialist policy sufficiently meets the needs of working women
of the world.

When one talks about the work of women in a modern context, it is almost
certain that issues of domestic labour and child rearing will be brought up.
Conversely, discussion about menÂ’s work does not usually involve mention of
menÂ’s responsibility to the home and family. This is because the process of
industrialization has served to allocate men and women to separate spheres, men
to the factory, and women to the home. While the labour of men has been
exploited to produce goods for the marketplace, the labour of women has been
used to feed and refresh the factory workers and bear children who will be the
producers and reproducers of the future generation. The problem with this that
it allows a chain of exploitation to be made; the bourgeoisie exploits the male
industrial proletariat, and the male proletariat exploits the female domestic
proletariat. This turns the female into a subclass of the male, making the
female proletariat the most exploited member of an industrial society.

V.I. Lenin suggests that the socialist state should include "Full equality for
citizens, irrespective of sex, religion, or race", but socialism is often
criticized for being too broad of an ideology. While it is assumed that
socialism takes the needs of all groups into account – sex, sexuality,
language, skin colour, ability, etc., its ideology might be so wide-reaching
that it tends to pay insufficient attention to people of certain demographics.
Many feminists believe that, as socialism focuses so strongly on labour
issues, that the attention paid to issues of sexual equality is not strong
enough. In Sexual Equality & Socialism, Anne Phillips says that socialists
have "tended to play the class card to trump and excessive preoccupation with
sexual equality".

In The Communist Manifesto, PhillipsÂ’ notions are confirmed by the fact that
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels seem more interested in making the industrial
proletariat autonomous at the expense of capitalism than they are in making the
domestic proletariat autonomous at the expense of patriarchy. They are so much
more interested in the former, in fact, that they do not give a great deal of
consideration to the latter, except to ensure that the family unit will be
abolished under a socialist system. Marx and Engels accuse the bourgeois
family unit of being based on capital and private gain. Capital and private
gain are the chief enemies of socialism, and, for this reason, Marx and Engels
seek to eliminate the family structure and replace it with new social
structures. Under their plan, the wife would not be viewed as "a mere
instrument of production," as the bourgeois view "the wives and daughters of
their proletariansÂ… not to speak of common prostitutesÂ… [and] each otherÂ’s
wives" – unless, of course, it is "openly-legalized". Here The Communist
Manifesto nicely sets up future socialist proposals that will advocate an end
to the nuclear family, and promote what Lenin calls "The Emancipation of
Women."

Lenin wrote many documents on womenÂ’s rights in the capitalist society and how
they could be improved through the implementation of socialism. He suggested
that womenÂ’s attachment to domestic labour was a detriment to women in a
capitalist society, since the work could not be exchanged in the marketplace.
So, as Lenin phrased it, "No matter how much democracy there is under
capitalism, the woman remains a ‘domestic slave’, a slave locked up in the
bedroom, nursery, kitchen". Anne Phillips agrees that there can be no equality
under capitalism, saying that, "Left to its own devices, an unregulated market
can never deliver this".

Acknowledging that women are actually worse off than their male counterparts,
Lenin called them the "unfortunate double victims of bourgeois society.
Victims, first, of its accursed system of property and, secondly, of its
accursed moral hypocrisy". While the proletarian woman has to live in poverty,
she also has to stay confined to the home. Lenin believed that the proletarian
cause could be aimed toward gender equality as well as class equality, and so
advocated the removal of women from the domestic sphere and the implementation
of women in the industrial sphere. He strongly believed that "The proletariat
[could] not achieve complete liberty until it [had] won complete liberty for
women". In such an exchange, the socialist movement would happily support the
cause of women in exchange for womenÂ’s support of the socialist movement and
their integration into the industrial sphere. At first, this seems to be an
arrangement that everybody benefits from. However, the idea of the removal of
women from the domestic sphere needs to be more closely examined.

The removal all workers from the domestic labour force would certainly cause
some problems. Firstly, food would have to be prepared, children would have to
be raised, and other daily domestic matters would have to be taken care of on a
continual basis. Frigga Haug is concerned that this alone isnÂ’t enough to give
freedom to women; she asks, "Is the main problem of womenÂ’s oppression that
they have to work both in the factory and the home, so that their working days
are too long?". In response to this type of concern, Lenin assures Clara
Zetkin that "We are organizing community kitchens and public dining-rooms,
laundries and repair shops, crèches, kindergartens, children’s homes and
educational institutions of every kind". But who would be employed in these
new positions? Would the jobs be equally distributed between men and women?
As if anticipating this question, Lenin says, "Our Communist women everywhere
should co-operate methodically with young people. This will be an extension
of motherhood, will elevate it and extend it from the individual to the social
sphere". In other words, the same people will do the domestic work, but now it
will be done publicly instead of privately. This does not seem to contrast very
much, if at all, with LeninÂ’s criticism that "Bourgeois ladiesÂ… dump all
housework and the care for their children on the hired help". As the work is
transferred from the bourgeois woman to the proletarian woman, Lenin seems
simply to wish to transfer the "stupefying and humiliating subjugation" from the
private sphere to the social sphere. Anne Phillips says that this kind of
transfer is not truly an emancipation of women, stating the following:

Sexual equality, as I understand it, depends on a major
restructuring of the relationship between paid and
unpaid labour so as to detach this division between
women and men. Sexual equality cannot be achieved
simply through socialized provision of services (more
day care centers, more homes for the disabled of the
mentally ill or the elderly), for while these can
certainly help equalize conditions for women and men,
they do so by shifting care responsibilities from
women working in the privacy of their own home to
(usually) women employed by the state.

So the first problem with the socialist plan for sexual equality is that the
low-control, domestic-type work is still being performed by women.

The second problem with socialist policy for sexual equality is that it might
not be such a good idea in all instances to force women out of the home and
into the factory. While social programs are a wonderful way to lighten the
burden of domestic workers, and an absolute necessity for those households
where all members are occupied by industrial labour, some people are highly
suspicious of handing all of their responsibilities over to the state. This
may simply be a prejudice inspired by capitalist socialization since, in a
society where wards of the state are associated with abandonment,
unwantedness, and illegitimacy, the notion of turning children over to be
raised by the state is unsavoury. Lenin assures that the socialist state will
eliminate distinctions between wedded and unwedded birth, but still, people in
our society who have children usually want to socialize them in their own way,
at their own discretion. While I have no personal problem with the idea of
communal child rearing and socialization, I donÂ’t think this would go over well
with certain people, new parents in particular. However, Lenin insists that
"the working womanÂ… be the equal of the working man not only before the law but
in actual fact". In other words, women must not only be legal equals, but also
economic equals for sexism to be eradicated. And in order to be economic
equals, women must not be tied down to the domestic sphere as they
traditionally have. Speaking further to this point, Lenin declares, "She who
is a Communist belongs as a member to the Party, just as he who is a Communist.
They have the same rights and duties. There can be no difference of opinion on
that score".

Men and women should, undoubtedly, have the same duties. While we have
repeatedly heard that women should be forced to accept the same
responsibilities as men, or as Frigga Haug puts it, "That female employment is
a precondition for their emancipation has been a staple item of progressive
politics in the workersÂ’ movement", preconditions and dramatic lifestyle
upheavals are not thrust upon men in the same way. Perhaps equality of duties
should mean that domestic work, like industrial work, should be shared equally
between men and women, and not forever delegated to the realm of the feminine.
But the fact that men, even socialist men, donÂ’t want to get involved in
domestic labour is proof that there is too little value attached to the work of
women and too much value attached to the work of men. Domestic labour is not
considered to be as productive as industrial labour, and domestic labour is
interchangeably considered to be drudgery or unskilled labour. If the need to
eat food and clean oneÂ’s own domicile is absolutely necessary, why is it
ignored as a part of the functioning of society? Because it does not benefit
the greater good of society? Because it only benefits the individual?

Emancipation should give women the opportunity to do less work in the home and
more work in the public sphere, and at the same time, it should give men more
domestic labour to perform. Lenin acknowledges that "Very few husbands, not
even the proletarians, think of how much they could lighten the burdens and
worries of their wives, or relieve them entirely, if they lent a hand in this
‘women’s work’. Even though his socialist policies do not include encouraging
men to help out in the domestic sphere, he acknowledges that this is a viable
alternative. Building on this idea, it seems like the real way to eliminate
sexism in society is by eliminating those notions that make us ascribe gendered
characteristics to different kinds of work. Some solutions are the
subsidization of homecare for those who wish to raise children privately,
public care for those who wish to be active in the workforce, and a
restructuring of the modes of thought that cast women in the role of societyÂ’s
caregivers. Most importantly, to affect change we need to change the ways in
which we think! When we speak about working men, we need to question their
role in domestic labour too. It must not forever remain a topic only discussed
in relation to women. We need to insist on the importance of men as caregivers.
We need to remove the stigma that there is something wrong with men who like
children. It is not only our perception of women that needs to change, but out
perception of men as well. We must all change and work toward a more equitable
society, and we must do it for the sake of compassion and for the public good.
If women need to change their lifestyles and men do not, the policy is sexist.
Sexism cannot be eliminated through sexist policy. So we must change our policy
and change our way of thinking. The most vicious enemy of compassion is apathy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more of BMC's writing at N-Com (http://www.neo-comintern.com)

_________________________________________________________________
/ _______________________________________________________________ \
| / \ |
|| TCAHR wants your children, but will settle for your writing. ||
|| Got an idea for an article? Perhaps a rebuttal to something ||
|| you read here? Send 'em in and bask in the reflected glory ||
|| of a meglomanatical would-be dictator and his attempt at ||
|| world infection. To sweeten the deal, if we ever take over ||
|| the known universe...FREE PERSONALIZED TCAHR COFFEE MUGS. ||
|| Never let it be said that Jet Jaguar is a cheap wanker. ||
| \_______________________________________________________________/ |
\_________________________________________________________________/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee Against Human Rights -- http://maq.port5.com
TCAHR Disclaimer and Manifesto -- http://maq.port5.com/frontpage.html
The Polymemetic Textfile Project -- http://maq.port5.com/polymemetic.txt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tcahr@hotmail.com Copyright 2002





← previous
next →
loading
sending ...
New to Neperos ? Sign Up for free
download Neperos from Google Play

Let's discover also

Recent Articles

Recent Comments

Neperos cookies
This website uses cookies to store your preferences and improve the service. Cookies authorization will allow me and / or my partners to process personal data such as browsing behaviour.

By pressing OK you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge the Privacy Policy

By pressing REJECT you will be able to continue to use Neperos (like read articles or write comments) but some important cookies will not be set. This may affect certain features and functions of the platform.
OK
REJECT