Thanks to Jane Kelly for sending me this report on a significant socialist feminist meeting.

image The meeting on ‘Feminism Today’ with Nina Power and Lindsey German at Housmans’ bookshop (Saturday, March 6, to celebrate International Women’s Day) attracted a hundred strong audience of women, especially young women and a few men. It was a stimulating and lively meeting, with a sense of dynamism and energy I have not experienced in a women’s meeting since the days of Women for Socialism – an offshoot of the Socialist Movement – in the late 1980s. This meeting reinforces the observation that many women are becoming angry about their situation, especially in the face of a prolonged period of austerity.

Both speakers have had books published – German’s Material Girl: Women, Men and Work in 2007 and Power’s One Dimensional Woman in 2009 – and their thought-provoking introductions gave a taste of the contents, in particular the relationship between oppression, gender and class. Unfortunately there was not enough time to develop discussion of the role of the family in capitalist society. Nina Power made an interesting critique of what used to be called ‘cultural’ feminism, or lifestyle feminism, arguing that unless you analyse the position of women at work and what she calls the ‘feminisation’ of labour, you cannot start to understand the position of women in today’s society.

imageLindsey German pointed out that, despite some pessimism at the state of the contemporary women’s movement and its interests – a tendency to individual solutions, self-empowerment, alongside a capitalist labour market which emphasised female eagerness to please, ‘perky-ness’ and a general commodification of sex, including among young girls – there have in fact been huge changes in the lives of women (in Britain) since the 1960s. Many of these changes are a direct result of the activities and battles by the women’s liberation movement (WLM) of the 1970s and 1980s. But, and it is a big but, many of the expectations raised by the second wave of the WLM have not been met. The most obvious is the question of equal pay, with women still earning only around 80% of the male wage, and for the millions of part-time women workers the situation is even worse.

 The introductions were followed by a wide-ranging and interesting discussion from the floor. It was noticeable that speakers for the most part had a socialist feminist framework, including the many young women present. This was especially inspiring to those socialist feminists like myself who have been active since the 1970s. The political level of discussion was high too, including on the other main debate that was about the hijab and the right of Muslim women to wear it. There was more or less a consensus on this among the women who spoke, though there were a couple of men who suggested that supporting this right to choose was a derogation of socialism. But this was a minority view and there were some witty and sharp responses to it such as the speaker who pointed out that how the viewer feels looking at Islamic dress is neither here nor there. Others pointed out that Christian religious dress codes, such as the demand that women wear a scarf in a church, a requirement until quite recently, were rarely objected to, including by men!

In my contribution I pointed out that this was also the 40th anniversary of the first Women’s Liberation conference, held at Ruskin College, Oxford in 1970. Just as Lindsey pointed out, many of our objectives have not been met.

The demands of that conference were as follows:

· Equal Pay

· Equal education and job opportunities

· Free conception and abortion on demand

· 24 hour free nurseries

On equal pay women earn around 82% of male wage in full time work, but it is much worse if you compare hourly rates of women in part time work and men in full time work – a 40% gap. And large numbers of women work part-time because of child care commitments. Furthermore women concentrated in a segregated labour market in 10 or so service and caring occupations despite increased educational attainment at all levels. And childcare, an essential component of giving women choices about when, how and what to work at is very expensive and mostly in private hands etc. ‘Free nurseries’ is still a demand we need to fight for.

Some figures from the early 1990s show how women have been used as a reserve army of labour to push down wages generally and to push all workers – men and women – into temporary, part-time and poorly paid work. This is Power’s ‘feminisation’ of the workforce.

By the middle of the 1990s the composition of the labour force had changed. According to Labour Market Trends, March 1997, over 70 per cent of women between the ages of sixteen and fifty-nine were economically active at the start of 1996. Forty-four per cent were working part time, compared to 8 per cent of men. Of the 5.8 million people working part time, 82 per cent were women. However the 8 per cent of men working part time had doubled between 1986 and 1996, whereas the percentage of women working part time had only increased by one per cent. The figures for temporary work are even more striking: the number of women in temporary jobs increased by 23 per cent, while for men the figure was 74 per cent.

Lindsey German had produced a draft Manifesto for 21st Century Feminism that was distributed at the meeting. Many people signed up for a proposed meeting to discuss it – date to be announced – and I look forward to more discussion on the issues facing women in the next period of capitalist crisis, and the activities and campaigns that will be necessary.

5 responses to “‘Feminism Today’ with Nina Power and Lindsey German”

  1. Thanks to Rachel for this piece of news

    A group of Bangladeshi women ESOL students are holding a Teddy Bears Picnic in an unusual public place on Monday morning 8 March, International Womens Day.

    They are meeting at 10 o’clock at Lifra Hall, Halley St. E14, before setting off for the picnic.

    They are campaigning to save the creche that Tower Hamlets College have withdrawn from their English class, effectively barring 3 existing students,
    and another 3 potential students, from joining the class. But many more women will be affected if the College go ahead with their plans.

    Other English classes have also had their creche provision cut, new classes have started without a creche, and the creche at the Bethnal Green Centre is
    planned to be cut completely, leaving some of the very women who need English
    most, unable to attend.

    The women desperately need to learn English, initially simply to be able to take part in everyday life. Yet without onsite creche provision, they cannot
    do so.

    The College cut the creche provision with no consultation, told women they should use childminders, or, in the case of the Bethnal Green Centre, told women they should take children to another creche, then walk back to their classes. Neither of these is good for the women.

    For more information contact Sally Haywill at shaywill@blueyonder.co.uk

    Like

  2. The culture of bigotry by gender, male against female, is a road that we in our life time may progress as un socialist.Yet the bigotry of capital we can seriously presently effect.We as male socialist ,in general, tend to forget the right of all us socialists and that sould not be discrimatory.

    Like

  3. […] video taken from a meeting over the weekend in London entitled “Feminism Today” where the speaker, Nina Power, […]

    Like

  4. Sunday, 28 March 2010
    A reply to Carrie Hamilton’s economistic and sectarian line on aspects of a new Feminist radicalisation! by Anthony Brain.

    This is a reply to Carrie Hamilton’s article in the Guardian published on the 24th of March 2010:-

    Carrie Hamilton makes classical mistakes historically associated with Sectarian Economists. Lenin and Trotsky always faught against such currents. The American Socialist Workers Party developed when they were Trotskyist during the late 1960/early 1970s this Leninist-Trotskyist position by developing a programme and strategy of a combined third American Socialist revolution. This combined Socialist revolution would be under the leadership of workers (which makes that revolution having a Socialist character) but winning over oppressed Afro Americans and Women from working class and some middle class backgrounds by a programme of specific demands related to their oppression.

    Lenin argued in “What is to be done” in 1902 that a revolutionary party had to champion the struggles of oppressed elements in order to stop ruling class elements dividing and ruling and winning these movements over to the working class. Trotsky deepened this understanding by arguing that revolutionaries in America had to lead the workers towards a Socialist revolution required winning white workers away from Racism by winning them to fighting for certain specially oppressed demands such as mandatory quotas to reduce Racist discrimination of Afro Americans in employment. During this process of winning over white workers to fight against Racism it unites the workers to fight the common enemy which is American Capitalism. This is how Trotsky saw Permanent Revolution being creatively applied to America. As Anthony Marcus points out in his introduction to a 2005 book editing George Brietman’s writings on Afro American struggles one major reason American workers have not won the same welfare state gains as Western Europe is by some white workers being Racist to Afro Americans. In other words the Racism of some white workers played into the hands of America’s rulers in dividing and ruling.

    Trotsky when he analysed the rise of Fascism during the 1930s stated that everything rotten in Capitalism
    comes to the surface. All the worse aspects of class exploitation and oppression in terms of Racism and Sexism is re-emerging. This confirms my prediction made on my last blog 1 (“Brain on Trotskyism”) article on January 1st 2008 that this would lead to all past struggles aganist exploitation and oppression coming to the political centre in a growing radicalisation. Also I was correct that this depression is the worse Capitalist crisis and Trotsky would develop into a major politiclal figure on a scale not seen since the rise of Stalinism in the 1920s.

    Hamilton argues a totally sectarian line towards women who are beginning to enter the political arena against extrmee Sexism which this Capitalist crisis is making worse. On an abstract level she attacks sexual violence. Then she condemns the early stages of a movement fighting against it for being limited. This is sectarian abstentionism of the worse kind. When Afro-British and British-Asians fight against forms of Racist violence we would not probably have the same sectarianism from Hamilton. It is very positive women are beginning to fight against extreme Sexism which stems from seeing Women as sexual objects. The worse mistake of Hamilton is her refusal to condemn men working in the sex industry. They are being used to oppress Women which increases super- profits for Capital. Trotskyists would also call on workers not to comply with Racist practices.

    It is fundamentally wrong of Hamilton to draw an analogy between male Sex workers and Women secretaries. In the tradition going back to Marx and Engels Trotskyists intervene against exploitation by working with fellow workers in the factories and offices but refuse on principle to work in oppressive areas against oppressed ethnicities/nationalities and Women. There is some useful points in Nina Power’s presenation launching the 21st Century manifesto despite her Economistic focus. Power locates correctly all workers in a contractual employment (even unemployed workers, some of which are called job seekers).

    Additionally she points out there is a class difference in attitude by ruling class ideologues between higher class (middle class women) and sexually permsisive women who are working class. There is some truth to this but has a dual and contradictory character as all Women are oppressed which as Capitalism’s crisis deepens is intensfied. This is what the sectarian Economists downplay in not recognising the special character of oppression. Most ruling class women will have to be destroyed in the process of a Socialist revolution because they will put their class privliges before their oppression. The Leninist-Trotskyist strategy is to win the working class and decisive middle class layer of Women over to the workers struggle for power by winning their confidence through having a specific series of demands drawing them into struggle against Capitalism related to their oppression, and in this process win them over to seeing their liberation can only be acheived by a workers-led Socialist revolution.

    Hamilton has no idea of a Trotskyist transitional approach. She has an abstract and Maxiamist approach of uniting all partial struggles to end class rule. This has to be part of a revolutionary strategy. In order to achieve this as Trotsky points out you have to start where the specially oppresed and workers are at in consciousnes and link by involving them in struggles through Transitional Demands to ultimatley towards a Socialist revolution.

    There are partial struggles breaking out against extreme Sexism which is leading to violence against Women and battles against increasing Xenophobia. The growing xenophobia and limited Fascist successes is encouraging Fascists to post openly pro-Nazi videos from the 1930s and 1940s Nazi Germany on You Tube There are strikes breaking out against Capital trying to make workers pay for this Capitalist crisis. Trotskysists have to link single issue campaigns and movements against xenophobia; and Sexism with the workers struggles against Capital lowering their standard of living. Tactical timing is important. There are wider demands Trotskyists would raise in social movements on general oppression. In single issue campaigns there are maybe more limited demands to keep a united front together and mobilise the maxinum number through mass actions by one or two demands which shows in practice the power of masses being mobilised. Brinking the Trade Union into these struggles will bring the workers and oppressed unity closer.

    The Tories are planning to attack the workers and oppressed. A right wing Tory think-tank called the Cornerstone group has its stated aim to destroy Bourgeois Liberalism by whipping up Xenophobia. They also want to attack womens rights to Abortion. By fighting for a Labour government at this general election we can begin through united front with Social Democrats warn the workers and oppressed how they be attacked by the Tories through cutbacks; by reducing abortions; and more xenophoblic leglisation. If the Tories are defeated this strengthens the workers and oppressed to fightback as the Social Democrats adapt to stop a growing radicalisation of workers and the oppressed through the social movements. Trotskyists by going through their experinces with Social Democracy can win the workers and oppressed over to a programme of Socialist revolution.

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending