Welcome to this propaganda conference on the woman question. Women’s Day is growing so much it takes days to celebrate as evidenced by this past weekend’s activities, the events on the Boulder campus this week, and tonight’s conference. These activities mark the growing awareness, the development of consciousness and analysis in the various movements. We’re glad many have taken up this question in theory and are finding more ways to put it in practice.
In our party building work, COReS has seen the need to have advanced, intermediate and Marxist-Leninists develop lines particular to our conditions. In upholding this we have asked different people who we have discussed the woman question with to not only help in the writing and development of this propaganda session, but also to make presentations, This is the first time we have pulled several people in this way and would like your criticisms of this method at the end.
We do not see the women’s movement as an easily identifiable and consistent movement with shared unities. Within the women’s liberation movement we see many different analyses of who the main enemy is, many lines and solutions. The most common right line, the reformist line, is upheld by Bourgeois liberal feminists. They believe equality can be achieved under capitalism and are busy working through the system. They push for laws that will give some women a bigger piece of the pie, becoming bank presidents, senators; replacing men, and putting women in their positions as an answer to woman’s inequality. What we’ve seen is that a woman’s bank, a woman’s magazine with centerfolds of naked men, or passage of the ERA does not achieve liberation for women.
The Bourgeois liberal feminists are in leadership of the present organized women’s movement such as it is. Two other trends, radical feminism and socialist feminism have strong influence in the organized women’s movement. These two trends, contrary to the line of the Bourgeois liberal feminists, call for revolution. The apparently revolutionary stance taken, makes these lines appealing to women who see the futility of legal reforms under capitalism. But the lines of both, no 1 matter how revolutionary they may sound, are qualitatively different from the revolutionary stance of Marxism-Leninism. Socialist feminism is particularly dangerous because it takes a pseudo Marxist analysis to support much of its line which is in essence feminist.
Tonight we will discuss in depth the socialist feminist and radical feminist lines in contrast with the communist line by examining four points:
1) the origin of women’s oppression and identifying the main enemy;
2) how to end this oppression and exploitation;
3) the struggle against male chauvinism and the unity between men and women;
4) demands and reforms.
The CP-ML (October League)’s line on the points will also be discussed as an example of a right opportunist line.
We’d like to start off by what COReS sees as the Marxist-Leninist analysis to the four points.
The woman question is a class question primarily. We can see the material basis for this in the development of civilization. Under primitive communism men and women had large responsibilities in working for the survival of the people. Labor was divided up along sex lines. Women, because of her childbearing functions, stayed near the home raising the children, cooking, weaving and making the clothes, tending the garden. Because of these tasks, she had the principle role in the home. Her work produced indispensible social value. Thus women had a high position in society. Men’s principal role was as hunters and warriors.
As civilization progressed it was discovered metals could be shaped into tools that made work easier. Along with this discovery, domestication of animals came about. Both of which made it possible for a group of men to accumulate the excess, the surplus wealth. Because tending the animals was part of the men’s responsibility and division of labor, he naturally owned this surplus. With this evolution and progression, it then became possible to own privately the surplus and means by which the surplus is produced – the tools, animals and later even slaves.
A social division between men and women came about because women’s work in the home produced no wealth. Thus the ideology of male supremacy also came about; women are seen as inferior.
With the development of private property the collective communal ownership was destroyed. Because group marriage previously existed whereby men and women were common wives and husbands of each other, the children were identified by the mother. The new property owners wanted the wealth not to stay in the common hands of the commune but to pass on to the man’s own children. To do this “father right” had to come about. That is children now were identified by the father. Thus monogamous marriage developed, but it was monogamy just for women.
As man appropriated the surplus, he also became the owner of the labor force by making other men their slaves. With the added work of raising and breeding animals, more manpower was needed. This came in the form of slaves. When society passed on from primitive communism to slavery, a social economic system characterized by exploitation of man by man, and dividing society into classes took place. Now one small group of people owned and controlled the political and -economic life of society while the majority worked and created the wealth.
As society accumulated more wealth and land, private property became an institution that had to be protected from attacks of the exploited, property-less class. So slavery also marked the birth of the State, an instrument of domination of one class by another.
Thus with the division of society and classes there arose the monogamous family, institution of private property, and the state. From then on women were made “private property” of men, dealing a blow to the position of equality previously held in society. The class struggle became fiercer and fiercer. The struggle between slaves and slave owners moved society onwards to feudalism. Under feudalism, society was divided into two fundamental classes, serfs and feudal lords; as under capitalism, the following period, society was divided into the proletariat and bourgeoisie. In all these periods “male supremacy” was consolidated. The oppression of women was sanctioned by the State, with an image of women as mentally and physically inferior beings, whose function was to rear children, take care of the domestic chores and be instruments of pleasure for men. Under the present imperialist system, class antagonisms have risen to their maximum degree in the history of humanity, and so has the oppression of women. No longer can woman endure her conditions of existence, she is already rising up to break her chains.
So we see the woman question is a class question and can only be resolved by getting rid of the imperialist economic and political system based on classes and private property and replacing it with a socialist system. The fight to end women’s oppression, to win equality, must continue even after we get rid of imperialism. Under socialism the conditions for true equality will be set up.
The struggle against male chauvinism will be one of the hardest repudiation and rectification processes we will go through. To remold our outlook, we first have to admit we have these ideas. And we all do because this ideology has been with us since the beginning of civilization. Male chauvinism is not just who does the dishes but who is involved in decision making and problem solving. We must learn to identify these tendencies and start personally changing in our homes, workplaces, meetings, etc. This remolding can be done. In fact we must start now, we can’t wait till revolution. In order for our proletarian revolution to win, we must have unity between men and women. We cannot win the revolution just with men. We need both men and women. The contradictions between men and women are contradictions among us, the people, and can be worked out non-antagonistically.
Understanding the conditions for revolution are not yet ripe, there are some demands and reforms that should be supported and pushed now, that would alleviate the suffering of the working class. Some demands we can take up are: equal pay for equal work, paid maternity leave with no loss of seniority and job guarantee, free child care facilities, end forced sterilizations, free and safe abortion on demand, end male chauvinism at the job, school and home; the right to self defense against all physical attacks.
It is important that we look closely at each reform to ascertain whether implementation would raise the capacity to wage class struggle. Our organization, COReS, recognizes many reforms sound good but some are sham and against the interests of the working class. Sham reforms, which we cannot support are those where the improvement is bound up with such things as corruption of political consciousness, subjugation to a benefactor and a lowering of human dignity. COReS sees the ERA is an example of a sham reform. It furthers the illusion that women’s equality can be gained by reliance on the courts and legal system. Thus it falls into that category of those reforms that are bound up in corruption of political consciousness.
We have given a brief explanation on the solution to women’s oppression, the unity between men and women, and demands and reforms. We hope that the analysis done in the next three presentations will draw lines of demarcation and help to deepen and clarify our positions.