Women’s Rights – some suggestions
The debate of ideas is a healthy expression that those involved in Left Unity are striving to create a substantial force to change society. It is, therefore, essential that the tone of the debate should at all times be comradely, with no hint of intimidation.
The Socialist Platform has been criticised for not referring to “feminism”. Tom Walker even demands to know why the word has not been used. The hectoring tone of his contribution is particularly ironic in the context of championing the struggle of working-class women. We must do our utmost to encourage the participation of those who may be less confident in voicing opinion.
Surely we should be discussing what we propose to advocate in combatting gender discrimination rather than nitpicking over words. Below are some suggestions for the beginning of this debate.
Left Unity should be challenging all gender discrimination with concrete proposals.
Capitalism is quite happy to have a discriminatory system that divides workers and where women still receive lower salaries than men almost 40 years after the 1970 Equal Pay Act came into force. Hourly pay rates for women across Europe are on average 16% lower than for men doing the same job and 19.5% lower in the UK. Women need to work an extra 59 days a year to earn “equal” pay. The reduction in the pay gap in recent years resulted from a decline in men’s earnings rather than an increase for women. Women aged from 50-59 endure the widest gender pay gap. The increase in the number of working women has not been matched with a change in how the family or childcare have been organized – most low paid workers are reliant on grandparents and other relatives. Britain has the highest childcare costs in Europe and it is estimated that parents meet over 90% of those costs. As a consequence, some women still cannot afford to work.
For capitalism to grant equal pay or socialised childcare would hit profits so it is not an option they want to consider. The family is still the cheapest way to care for a generation of workers and to produce the next generation. Left Unity should demand equal pay and a free national childcare service. We should campaign to reduce the working week.
There is a need to campaign to change attitudes in society that lead to discrimination. This is a complex issue that cannot be resolved by platitudes or claiming special privileges. There is a much more complicated struggle to overcome sexist attitudes and behaviour towards women. The ever-increasing objectification and sexualisation of women and girls, encouraged by the advertising industry and the media must be confronted. This society, in which appearance is all, leads to low self-esteem, eating disorders and unnecessary surgical treatment.
Left Unity should begin to discuss these and other questions, many of which do not have simple solutions. For example prostitution and the sex trade are issues that cannot be resolved merely by legislation. The same is true for the issues of rape and domestic violence. The underlying ideology needs to be challenged. But attitudes have their roots in material conditions. Ultimately, the conditions that give rise to sexist attitudes have to be confronted.
There is still a battle to be fought to ensure that women have control of their own bodies and reproduction.
Working-class women are amongst the most exploited in capitalist society. We must explain that the root of women’s oppression lies in social conditions not biology. Real equality can only be achieved by economic and social change.
Within the labour movement we must actively encourage more women to get involved and take leadership positions, confronting any obstacles. My own view is that measures such as positive discrimination or women-only shortlists will not effect this change and may even create the illusion that they are sufficient to achieve an end to discrimination.
On a practical level, we must find the resources to organise crèches and child care to ensure that more women with children can participate in Left Unity.
As for not using the word “feminism”? I am a socialist with more than 30 years’ activity in championing workers’ and women’s rights. I have never defined myself as a feminist. There are many different types of feminism, with a broad spectrum ranging from one extreme of those who consider men to be the problem to those who are socialists. I find it patronizing and arrogant for Tom Walker to think he can dictate what word I use to describe myself.
My choice – my words!
30 comments
30 responses to “Women’s Rights – some suggestions”
Left Unity is active in movements and campaigns across the left, working to create an alternative to the main political parties.
About Left Unity
Read our manifesto
Left Unity is a member of the European Left Party. 
Read the European Left Manifesto
ACTIVIST CALENDAR
Events and protests from around the movement, and local Left Unity meetings.
Saturday 21st June: End the Genocide – national march for Palestine
Join us to tell the government to end the genocide; stop arming Israel; and stop starving Gaza!
More details here
Summer University, 11-13 July, in Paris
Peace, planet, people: our common struggle
The EL’s annual summer university is taking place in Paris.
More events »
GET UPDATES
Sign up to the Left Unity email newsletter.
CAMPAIGNING MATERIALS
Get the latest Left Unity resources.
Since I’m specifically targeted here, let me re-post my response to this article, which was originally a comment by Soraya at http://leftunity.org/avoiding-the-issues/
I’m not sure where the “hectoring”, “intimidation” etc was in my comment. Perhaps you could point me to it? Let’s remember we’re [originally] commenting below an article by Nick Wrack that hardly pulls its punches in the tone it takes towards Mike Marqusee.
Of course I fully agree with your specific policy proposals (excepting your opposition to ensuring gender balance on leadership bodies). Nor am I attempting to “dictate” what word you use to describe yourself, obviously. What I am questioning is *why* the platform you have signed does not wish to include it. It is not an accusation or a demand – it is a question.
I am in favour of a party can be inclusive of people who use all sorts of different terms to describe themselves and their ideologies within the left. The Socialist Platform is not: it simply says all must sign up to “socialism”. Who is doing the “dictating” here?
Hi Soraya. Thanks for the article. Could you pick out which of these demands we might prioritise for campaigning? WHich of them could we mobilise the most allies around at the moment?
This might, on the face of it, appear like as a stupid question, but what do you mean by ‘gender discrimination’? Surely, discrimination is inherent in the social construction of gender. It is directed against those who are assigned, on the material basis of their biological sex, to the female gender. This gender assignation, having been decided at birth, is reinforced throughout life, and results in the iniquities you outline. Although you specifically refer to working class women on occassion, it’s not clear that the dicrimination here concerned, does not extend across class lines, mediated, obviously by material circmstances pertaining to wealth, and therefore, power.
What you don’t do is historically specify gender, leaving it as a detached ideological phenomenon. I think we need to argue that ideas of gender change throughout history, and in a new society, where we want to abolish class itself, it is equally important to abolish gender.
Note to Tom Walker: As a signitory to the Socialist Platform, I would be happy for it to include the word feminism. I also think it would be an unforgivable ommission if there isn’t a significant socialist feminist plank to the new LU party platform!
I think Soraya has hit the mark regarding women’s oppression within capitalism. The removal of all those obstacles to the emancipation of women and the creation of the material/social conditions to bring this about, from equal pay to free socialised child care/housework to women occupying leadership positions to challenges to sexual objectification and abuse are all essential measures needed to create the right conditions for women’s freedom. Feminists now and in the past have successfully challenged a sometimes sluggish ‘Left’ for either ignoring or marginalising women’s oppression. However as Soraya pointed out there were and are different kinds of feminism. The more separatist tendency favouring a critique of Patriarchy and men as the source of women’s oppression rather than capitalism per se. This largely abandons any class analysis and prevents women from making alliances with exploited and oppressed men. Socialist feminism on the other hand does have a more nuanced critique of capitalism and women’s oppression within it. Hence feminism isn’t all of a piece which to my thinking means I would qualify Left Unity’s support to which kind of feminism?
As to the question of gender identity as a social construction rather than a fixed entity that we should abolish. Not sure about this. Trans people can of course change their identity to the one they are clearly at home with but the rest of us are castigated more for not fitting in to the correct sex role stereotype of feminine women and masculine men. Lesbinas and gay men especially are berated for this. I suggest it is the challenge to the material conditions of women’s oppression, transitioning and questioning sex role stereotpes that will bring about real progressive social change for the better.
On a lighter note but hopoefully not a flippant one I have included below a song from 1926 about those ‘masculine women and feminine men’.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DiSlfQ49Bq1s&ei=rfGGU_q5PIvYPOqIgaAL&usg=AFQjCNFvoz5ysH31wq_h6zy3gc5oTtNR7g&sig2=1M62sAfQqMjxQaTgNzwZig&bvm=bv.67720277,d.ZWU
I have a couple of thoughts about your interesting post, Soraya.
I agree with the practical suggestions you make – equal pay and a free national childcare service, for instance – but I’m puzzled why you don’t also suggest that we should campaign for the sharing of childcare and other domestic and ‘caring’ work equally between men and women. Is this because you think this might suggest that ‘men are the problem’? I don’t think that men are ‘the problem’, but we can be part of the problem.
My other point involves what you may feel is ‘nitpicking over words’ but I think is a necessary political clarity. it is surely important not to conflate ‘work’ and ‘paid work’, especially at a time when the government is trying to get more people to do more things for nothing. Unpaid work done at home, mostly by women – looking after small children for instance -is work. When we are talking about paid work we should call it paid work.
Here here Soraya, an excellent piece!
A true story. I was Brighton’s rep. at the last NCG. When I reported back to my branch none of the women present supported the idea of fixed gender balances on leadership bodies, one comrade in particular became extremely animated when they wrongly assumed I was in favour of a motion I had actually opposed.
A few scattered points on this, in reply to various people.
How is it possible to ‘abolish’ gender? Gender is not a social category, but a biological difference. Ideas about it may change, but the underlying biological difference remains. And why would we aspire to do that anyway? Systematic inequality between people of different genders is what should be abolished, but such statements about ‘abolishing’ gender are esoteric and can easily conjure images in the minds of ordinary people of something dystopian and frightening.
Abolish all economic compulsion to particular kinds of family arrangement, or whatever people freely choose to call it. Yes, that is part of the liberation not only of women, but also of everyone from conformity and some things that are worse. That is a liberatory message. But this idea is incomprehensible to me.
And if the Socialist Platform declared itself feminist, I could not sign it. Any more than if it declared itself Arab nationalist, gay separatist, Islamist or even Zionist. All these either are now, or at one time have been, ideologies of the oppressed, but they are all cross-class ideologies that embrace elements on the other kind of the class divide. And because of that, they all have the potential to lead to reactionary conclusions that flatly contradict socialism.
Many forms of oppression do indeed cross class lines – but socialists do not embrace common politics with ruling class elements because of that. They are not socialist; though there have been attempts to mix up socialism with such things, that never work.
I note that for all the baiting of Respect for its Muslim base of support, it never crossed the rubicon and embraced the particular ideology of the oppressed that some of its base of support had at least some sympathy for – Islamism. If it had, I could not have supported that either, for similar reasons.
I do note that there is a tendency on the left to cheer for movements of the oppressed, and to go overboard in a fit of righteous anger that can often, in different instances, lead to hilariously counterposed expressions. Thus we see people coming from a tradition that only a few years ago used to chant ‘We are all Hezbollah’ in solidarity with the Lebanese Shia under Israeli attack, now demanding that we sign up for ‘feminism’. Something I doubt that Hezbollah would be too keen on.
There is a common method to be discerned here, and it can lead to regrettable and reactionary conclusions when the right circumstances arise.
Sytematic inequalility between people of different boilogical sexes, is what gender is all about. You are confused, because gender is a social construct, based on the biological function of reproduction. According to your biological sex, you are assigned to a gender, and thus begins your oppression. The biological function you are physically capable of, should not determine your individual rights, or your role in society. Gender should be abolished.
In that case, are you not using a terminology that is incomprehensible to most people, and obscuring your own argument. Rather than ‘gender’ , the term ‘sex-roles’ or even ‘gender-roles’ better expresses what you are saying. Gender implies something rather more, it implies physical biology to most people. Which makes the argument seem rather strange.
I think that working class women are one section of the oppressed who are bearing the brunt of ‘austerity’ – through pay and the attack on public services particularly. A priority of LU must be to support and encourage their fight back and show an alternative – the theme of working in communities to do this occurs in many posts on various articles.
As a working class woman I agree with a lot of what Soraya says. I am loathe to call myself a feminist as my own experience of women who use that term has been one of middle class women who wish to compete with men on their own terms in the capitalist marketplace. They are unable to relate to working class women and the issues that affect them because they have no experience of what it means to be working class. When I used to clean the houses of the middle classes to supplement my benefits there were a lot of very posh women who would sit around having conversations about how difficult their lives were because they were women, while I, a working class woman with no education and no prospects would be mopping the floor around them, ironing their clothes or stacking the dishwasher after last nights dinner party. No one asked me what I thought; I don’t think they actually saw me.
As Soraya points out working class women are the most exploited in society and the root of that oppression lies not in biology but in social conditions. The discrimination I have suffered in my life, from both men and women, has usually been as a result of my class position and not my gender. There was a time when this discrimination was based on my accent, and where I lived, now I no longer live on a council estate the discrimination is more on the grounds of attitudes and values which are very different from those of the middle class and which set me apart from them. I still have more in common with working class men then I could ever have with middle class women.
I am a signatory to the socialist platform although at the time I signed it I did not realise that it would be one platform amongst many. Unlike other people I do not find these platforms a healthy sign and I find the hectoring hostile tone of many of the discussions a bit worrying. I put my name to the socialist platform because I thought Left Unity was socialist. Simplistic as this might be, I thought that there was no longer any question about the fact that this corrupt and brutal system under which we are living could only be destroyed if it was replaced by socialism. I appreciate that there might be difference of emphasise in the interpretation of the word but rather like Chavez in Venezuela I thought we were building a socialism for the 21st century, a new socialism, but one we could define as the process of building that socialism developed.
I think the most pressing issue LU needs to deal with is classism. I am not particularly worried if there is not a gender balance at conferences etc. but I am very worried that there will not be a class balance. While categories such as race and gender may be unstable and contestable, class as a category can encompass this instability and remain constant in terms of its relation to the forces of production. People of different genders ‘races’ and sexualities can be granted equality because their assimilation into the state reinforces the legitimacy of that state as pluralistic and inclusive but this can never be true of the working class
I have spent lot of my life listening to middle class people on the left and the right who have no experience of working class life, talking about the issues that affect the lives of working class people, a problem I think is increasing as the working class has become more marginalised, demonised and excluded from the public sphere. I think if Left Unity is to become a truly inclusive organsiation it needs to be working in communities providing practical support and addressing the issues that affect the working class otherwise it is just a lot of middle class politicos sitting around debating the finer points of what it means to be a socialist.
What a fantastic common sense post, I hope you stand for one of the major positions on LU, it needs more people like you.
Thank God. Well said – the truth that has finally spoken its name.
I do not agree that consideration does not need to be given to increasing the participation of women in Left Unity. I was also at the last Left Unity Co-ordinating Group meeting and two thirds of those attending were male, 19 out of 20 participants on the policy commission for the Aims and Constitution of LU were male (this may have changed) and just look at the replies on this thread, 8 men 2 women!! The way I see it Left Unity should be proactive in developing a type of participatory democracy that is inclusive and challenges the discrimination and bias of society wherever it can. Releasing the untapped talents and skills that would otherwise be lost to the movement.What is wrong with encouraging LU groups to rotate and select positively for women as delegates to represent their group.The last thing I want, is for this organisation to mirror the sort of deferential attitudes of most organisations, where the views and opinions of some individuals are seen as more valid and important than others, either because they are middle class and therefore more confident and articulate or because they have 30 years experience or because they are men.
just a small, but I think important, point on your post, Deirdre. I very much hope that we AREN’T going to base any of the practices of Left Unity on that of the Chavez regime in Venezuela. The Chavez regime is undoubtedly “populist” and wealth redistributionery” in its policies, but it is actually a classic radical nationalist “Caudillo Populist” Latin American regime ; – highly top down authoritarian (military-chieftain ,cult of the personality-based), very, very, corrupt , and extraordinarily administratively incompetent.
The regime certainly hands out plenty of its oil-based state revenues to its urban and rural poor support base, but it makes sure this stays closely under its centralised control. Despite all the local “popular committees, and the undoubted popularity of the regime amongst the poor, its “socialism” is only skin deep. The late Hugo Chavez in fact only declared that the nationalist radical “Bolivarian Revolution” actually was “socialist” in nature a few years ago – at which point he demanded that all existing socialist parties in Venezuela dissolve themselves into his party ! NOT really “Socialism for the 21st century” then , but an authoritarian, oil state revenues-based pseudo socialist construct we’ve seen before , eg, Gaddafi’s Libya, Saddam’s Iraq – but without (so far) the mass terror, fortunately.
Many good things about the Venezuelan regime from the point of view of the urban poor, but being genuinely “socialist” in any meaningful sense of being based on democratic workers power, no. I’m not just pointlessly nitpicking here. If we fail to identify what the key components of genuine “socialism” are , worker’s power and democratic processes being two vital features, we on the Left will continue to fall for the “anti imperialist” and “”socialistic” posturing of authoritarian rulers – based on little more than a bit of nationalisation and a lot of anti US imperialist rhetoric. Which is not to say we shouldn’t support the Venezuelan regime against the plots of US Imperialism and its Venezuelan capitalist agents, as a generally “progressive” regime. But “socialist” it simply aint.
Hi John, there is an element of truth in what you say about Venezuela but it is also quite superficial as well. The thing that makes Venezuela different from the typical strongman top down and populist policies of other Latin American movements is that it really does have very considerable popular involvement and radicalisation of the masses at its base. If you miss that then your critique is very close to the right wing presentation of what is happening in Venezuela. When we spent a year in the country it was this, the presence of the masses in the political life of the country that most impressed us. I don’t think Dee was saying it was a finished ‘socialist’ project but rather that socialism is a process. What also struck us is how incredibly complex and difficult and hard it is to bring about radical social change. That should instill in all of us from the outside a certain humility when judging their success and their failures.
I’m afraod it is you who are being “superficial” Michael – confusing a bit of nationalisation and wealth redistribution and anti imperialist rhetoric for “socialism”. The Chavez regime in Venezuela has nothing at all to do with socialism – indeed until very recently it didn’t even claim to be so. Quite rightly for most of its tenure describing itself as a ” national Bolivarian revolutionary regime”. And so it was, and is — very much in the Latin American “Caudilloist strong man” tradition, not that different in content to the undoubtedly also mass radical populist nationalism of Argentinian Peronism – which , as well as neo-fascist roots, has also had its “socialist” and indeed “Marxist ” wings . The Venezuelan regime simply isn’t a “socialist project in progress ” – it’s nothing to do with “socialism ” at all . It’s an oil rich state politically captured by an authoritarian progressively nationalist political movement based on the urban poor. This authoritarian (and profoundly internally corrupt) but populist political regime will “flip” to an IMF -inspired neoliberalism tomorrow if it suits its interests – and all the grass roots “popular committees” will be wound up overnight. Romantic wishful thinking mustn’t stand in the way of hard political analysis comrades ! “Socialism” critically involves the existence of genuine workers power or it means nothing.
John, I really do not understand why you have treated us to your analysis of the Chavez version of Socialism under this thread, which is supposed to be about the rights of women.I suppose there is a connection, in that women’s oppression should come to an end, according to some under socialism and your contribution could be construed as a critical analysis of how that will never be the case, because in Venezuela it ain’t socialism. But as you don’t mention women once, I think that there is more of a connection to the addiction of some contributors (mostly male) to this website to the sight of their own words printed at length, no matter what the context.
Excuse me, Bev, but it was actually Deirdre, in her post who claimed ;
“I appreciate that there might be difference of emphasise in the interpretation of the word but rather like Chavez in Venezuela I thought we were building a socialism for the 21st century, a new socialism, but one we could define as the process of building that socialism developed.”
Just because the thread is about “Women’s Rights” doesn’t give a poster a “blank pass” to include sloppy analysis about broader political issues. I notice you have nothing to say on the issue I raised. Are you suggesting the issue of “women’s rights” has to be discussed in an independent contextual “bubble” ?
No, what I am suggesting is that by your word and practice on this thread, it is evident that you have no interest in engaging with the debate about feminism,women’s rights, how to fight for them or the sexism that is clearly evident in Left Unity. Thank you for adding so powerfully, towards the points that I have made on my other posts.
This is how shambolic LU is becoming, an article on women’s right by the SWP. Man you couldn’t make this up.
Robboh (whoever that is) does not seem to have considered my comments on the importance of the tone of any debate. why doesn’t he/she express their differences with the content? The idea was to begin a discussion on ideas for campaigning on these issues not provide all the answers!
I am not a member of the SWP.
Well, this issue can be summed up in one sentence… “Until women have equality with men, in all senses of the word, their emancipation will not be complete” And so, the fight goes on and will go on until that day arrives….
Now the word feminism doesn’t appear in “the sentence” but the sentiment contained therein is essentially feminist. Is there a fundamental problem with the above because it does not contain the “F” word..?
Ally
I actually think this article is a damn good, maybe not the finished article but still well worth adding to the debate. I personally hope this leads to policy within left unity whichever way we go forward. Congrats but please don’t get caught up in feminist arguments, that was the only thing that worried me. I actually wish one of my daughters had written this.
Yes, there is a need to use the “F” word and we do need to have a discussion about feminist theory and feminist practice. For me, being feminist means being actively anti-sexist, now!
I do not agree with patriarchy theory, i.e. that sex differences will forever structure gender differences in a universal way, but that Capitalism, has structured gender differences by creating a division of labour between men and women that is specific to capitalism. Women’s experience of oppression is connected, not only to their gender but also to their social class, their race, their sexuality, their ability and all other group factors that contribute to their individuality.
Sexist ideas are inevitably imported into any organisation, from capitalist society, they influence the attitudes that men and women have towards each other. Sexism can be treated as a mundane fact of life, get pushed to the side and subsumed under the ‘struggle for socialism’. Worse than this, it can influence the direct harassment and abuse of women and this can go unrecognised. Organisations then can become lazy about the everyday oppression of women, new ideas are not developed to counter the twists and turns in the way that sexism and discrimination change, particularly under neo-liberalism and the increased atomisation of us all. Feminism – anti-sexism is about the need for positive practical steps and practices that aim to counteract this and increase the inclusion of women in the organisation. I don’t see it as a substitute for fundamentally changing society but as a way of maximising our potential. In Left Unity, this positive practice is not established and sexism clearly exists within Left Unity. Also, in the UK at the moment there is an upsurge of active political awareness amongst women against sexism and in opposition to the current system of government that supports women’s oppression. For example, UK Feminista, an organisation for women and men, so not a separatist group, held a conference this weekend that was sold out weeks ago. I consider these people to be amongst some of the masses that we need to win to Left Unity.
I agree with Bev. Peter mentioned earlier about a socialist feminist strand in the Left Party Platform. Here is what we say in our platform’s supporting document. It also explains why we feel the need to specify feminism:
“We are feminist because our vision of society is one without the gender oppression and exploitation which blights the lives of women and girls and makes full human emancipation impossible. We specify our feminism because historical experience shows that the full liberation of women does not automatically follow the nationalisation of productive forces or the reordering of the economy. We fight to advance this goal in the current political context, against the increasing divergence between men’s and women’s incomes, against the increasing poverty among women, against the ‘double burden’ of waged work and unshared domestic labour, and against the increasing violence against women in society and in personal relationships, which is exacerbated by the economic crisis.”
In response to Ian Donovan, sex is an objective (physical) fact. Gender is socially constructed on top of that, to serve the needs of the existing sytem of exploitation. As Bev Keenan says above; “Capitalism, has structured gender differences by creating a division of labour between men and women that is specific to capitalism”. This concerns the mode of production, and reproduction.
Ian states that he could not sign the Socialist Pltform if it included the word ‘feminism’, “any more than if it declared itself Arab nationalist, gay separatist, Islamist or even Zionist. He equates feminism with these as an ‘ideology of the oppressed’. Indeed, socialism, as well as a science, may also be included as an ideology of the oppressed, or ideology of emancipation even.
But Ian’s point is that these are cross-class ideologies and “all have the potential to lead to reactionary conclusions that flatly contradict socialism”. It has to be said that this can be true of socialist ideology as well. It depends who is using it, and in whose class interest; witness the Soviet Union, for one example of an ideology of emancipation turning to its opposite.
My contention here is that the other ‘ideologies of the oppressed’, Ian cites above, are not equivilents to socialism and feminism, as the latter two are fundamentally grounded in the struggle against oppression engendered by the modes of production and reproduction, which are inextricably linked in capitalism. Ofcourse, the only route to the emancipatory goal of feminism, is when linked with that of socialism. It would therefore be appropriate, I think, to include the call for Socialist Feminism in the Socialist Platform.
A significant socialist feminist plank in the Left Unity platform would serve as a pole of attraction to the women (and men) Bev refers to who are becoming actively concerned about the sexism and oppression of women involved in the governments austerity programme. I think it would be appalling if Left Unity fails to win these people.
Firstly, I have no problem as to whether or not the word Feminist or any of it’s derivatives, is included in our Platform (ie the Socialist Platform) or indeed any platform that Left Unity decides to adopt as it’s foundation.
However, point 4: I think is pretty clear, concise and if I may say, unambiguous.
**The [Left Unity] Party opposes all oppression and discrimination, whether on the basis of gender, nationality, ethnicity, disability, religion or sexual orientation and aims to create a society in which such oppression and discrimination no longer exist.**
I am at a loss to understand why all of the above theorising over the use or none use of a word, has and is occurring. For me, when a statement proclaims that it “opposes all oppression and discrimination” and lists gender as one of the examples of such. and then further proclaims that it “aims to create a society in which such oppression and discrimination no longer exists”. I would argue that even with limited understanding of the English language such as my own, it is pretty easy to get the message that the statement is against ALL oppression and discrimination which, in my mind at least includes oppression and discrimination of women. I honestly can’t see why we have allowed ourselves to get dragged into wasting our time with all of the above theorising and declarations when the point 4 is so unequivocal and succinct.
I would further argue, that if you want lose those that you say you wish to reach – keep theorising…..
One has to remember, that the platform is a statement of aims and objectives upon which we found our methods, policies and other activities of working toward the stated goals.
There will be much work to do after its adoption, where presumably a party constitution will be drafted, setting out the democracy that we all crave. Hopefully in an equally succinct and clear way.
So for me, it isn’t the use or none use of words, just the order in which they are used and my being able to see that there is no equivocation hidden therein. I see nothing wrong or lacking in point 4.
Ally
Whilst fully supporting Soraya`s contribution and at the same time trying to respond to some of the comments above I would like to offer a perspective on the nature of oppression. The fundamental oppression under capitalism is the oppression of the working class internationally in order to expropriate their labour in order to feed and increase the profits of the ruling/owning class.
The nature of the other oppressions can be seen as ways in which the working class is divided in order to ensure that the opposition to capitalism is weaker. Therefore I don`t see the fight against any oppression as an add on, but a fundamantal aspect of the struggle for a socialist society.
The nature of women`s oppression precedes capitalism and it may well be that there were societies where relationships between men and women were different for example in early human existance where survival of the group or the tribe was the prime struggle, then in the interests of the reproduction of that group or tribe different roles were established which may have made sense then.
With the achievement of some surplus it became possible for these roles to change and certainly now it is possible that the roles of men and women are interchangeable. Unfortunately old prejudices still exist and sexism is still a major issue amongst all classes, hence the need and desirability for a constant struggle to change the attitudes of both men and women to achieve liberation. I say women because part of the effect of oppression is what I would term internalised oppression which is the way in which society operates insofar as girls and women can `accept` the roles prescribed for them. The advertising industry being a major way in which this is enforced.
It is also true that men are oppressed, but not by women, rather by the roles we are expected to enact as men e.g. the warrior, the breadwinner,the tough guy,not show weakness or feelings, big boys don`t cry etc. Most of us fail to live up to these roles except in films but it is another way in which our society attempts to distort our true nature in the interests of keeping us divided.
Perhaps one of the most ridiculous oppressions is that of racism based primarily on the colour of skin and accident of birth. Primarily this derives from and was fostered by imperialism as a means of denigrating those whose former countries have been colonialised or are `different from ourselves` to justify the murder and slavery inflicted by superior military force.To this must be added the Irish whose land the British occupied seven centuries ago.
Add to this the oppression of LGBT`s and those with disabilities who continue to suffer, despite some enlightenment, in many parts of the globe.
I have probably missed mentioning other groups in society, two come to mind namely the oppression of the young (I hate the term kids which I always associated with goats) and the old, who in addition to all the other oppressions both groups suffer,is a lack of respect.
What I am trying to say is that all these oppressions are essential from the ruling class in order to keep us divided. Therefore everytime we support or fight for the liberation of these oppressed groups, not only are we righting monstrous injustices, but we are ensuring that socialism, some of the details of which we continue to debate, can be won.
We should use the word ‘feminism’ if only to make it absolutely clear which side we’re on – hundreds of Men’s Rights Activists recently deluged Twitter with rape and murder threats because they don’t like the word, either.
An insistence on rejecting ‘feminism’ is going to look a lot like rejecting anti-sexism, women’s liberation and sex equality. Most people think they are interchangeable. The ones who don’t include women who set up vital services like Rape Crisis and Women’s Aid using autonomous self-organisation. We must be their allies against neo-liberal austerity which is known to affect working class women disproportionately.
Soraya is right in saying we should be focussing our energies on policies. Theoretical positions will be tested by discovering how useful they are in practice.