IMAGINING OTHER
People Power (Social Movements)
The
women’s movement.
Links: Imagining-Other Home Page
Part One: Introduction
and History.
1. Introduction:
1.1 Definitions of feminism:
Maggie Humm
(author of: Feminisms, a Reader, Harvester 1992 and The Dictionary of Feminist
Theory, Harvester 1989):
"[feminism]
incorporates both a doctrine of equal rights for women (the organised movement
to obtain women's rights) and an ideology of social transformation aiming to
create a world for women beyond simple equality... it is the ideology of
women's liberation since intrinsic in all its approaches is the belief that
women suffer injustice because of our sex.”
Rebecca West,
1913:
“I
myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is; I only know
that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate
me from a doormat or a prostitute."
Wilson, E.:
Hidden Agendas... Tavistock 1986:
“[Feminism]
embraces many theories - is a political commitment – or... an ethical
commitment.. - to giving women their true value. It is not even possible to say
it is a commitment to equality, since some feminists have argued... for
separate spheres of influence, emphasising difference and complementarity
rather than equality...”
Notes:
-
women ‘suffer injustice because of our sex’ – that is,
women as a category are in a different position to men
-
there may be other injustices – unfair treatment of
groups of people due to class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability etc,
but the way we deal with the sexes cuts across all of these (this is called ‘intersectionality’:
there are interlocking systems of power that affect different sections of
society)
-
feminists are not all in agreement on everything,
however, since some argue for equality (and would minimise the differences
between the sexes), and others argue for a new order that recognises the
differences between men and women but does not privilege men at the expense of
women.
1.2. What kind of changes does the women’s
movement seek?
Kate Millett,
Sexual Politics 1969 (first published in Britain 1971) ‘A sexual revolution would require, perhaps first of all, an end of
traditional sexual inhibitions and taboos, particularly those that most
threaten patriarchal monogamous marriage – [for example] homosexuality,
‘illegitimacy’... It would ‘bring the institution of patriarchy to an end,
abolishing both the ideology of male supremacy and the traditional
socialization by which it is upheld’ 1971 (p 62)]
1.3. Patriarchy and tradition:
Although much
of history has been just that (history),
there were, in early times, cultures with significant goddesses; these were superceded by e.g. Judeo-Christianity and a "male" God. There is evidence
for this in the fact that Celtic
Christianity has retained the equal treatment of male and female.
Pythagoras: (500 BC):
"there is a good principle which
created order, light and man, and a bad principle which created chaos, darkness
and woman."
It might be
worth pointing out that other early philosophies, notably Taoism, believed
everything in the world could be put into one of two categories – however, for Taoism both elements of the duality are
equally important (you cannot have light without dark, dry without wet,
success without failure, etc).
Aristotle (4th century
The great
philosopher Aristotle believed that
there was a distinction between (mere) ‘matter’
and ‘form’. Whatever gave matter its
form was clearly of more importance than the matter itself. He then decided
that when a child is created, the ‘matter’ is provided by the mother (in the
womb), and the ‘form’ by the father (presumably via the sperm). He also argued
that women (like slaves and children) did not have the same reasoning capacity
as men, and therefore should not be given citizenship, or involved in political
decision-making, let alone become rulers.
Galen the 2nd century AD
physician and biologist wrote:
"The female is more imperfect than the
male... just as man is the most perfect of all animals, so also, within the
human species, man is more perfect than woman.
The cause of this superiority is the [male's] superabundance of warmth,
heat being the primary instrument of nature."
Christianity:
With the
advent of Christianity came the view that Eve
was responsible for tempting Adam to disobey God – leading to our inherent
sinfulness, and the need for Christ to come and die for us to save us from our
sins… Although the Virgin Mary has an important part in Catholic doctrine, God
is of course a Father, and Jesus was his son. The disciples were all men
(though radicals argue that Jesus mixed happily with women, even with a
prostitute). Given this dominant hostility to women, the native idea of the
"wise woman" had to be
replaced by male priests, bishops etc, and male religious experts. The ideas of
St Paul and St Augustine were part
of the ‘mix’ as they continued the Judaic
tradition of regarding the body as
sinful, and women as temptations for the body.
Science:
The growth of science from the
sixteenth century on, in Europe: male experts in ‘medicine’ replaced wise women,
even in matters such as childbirth (apart from the midwife). "Witches" were killed off in vast
purges: some were burned, others were drowned – if they failed the notorious
test: they were held or thrown into water, and if they floated they must be witches,
if they drowned they weren’t...
- Isaac Newton (perhaps our greatest
scientist) saw sexual temptation as a threat (Easlea 1981)
- Francis Bacon, 1561 - 1628, (who laid down the principles of
scientific procedure) saw women as closer to nature (cf.
"dualisms"...), and science's task was to unveil nature, penetrate
her secrets even against her will (Easlea). This reflected a broader anti-woman
stance:
"He that hath
wife and children hath given hostages to fortune; for they are impediments to
great enterprises, either of virtue or of mischief. Certainly the best works, and of greatest for
the public, have proceeded from the unmarried or childless men."
Eighteenth
century:
Note
especially Rousseau's ambiguous view that women were more sensitive than men,
and therefore it was right to leave childcare to them, so as to cultivate
‘sensitivity’ in the boys who would grow up to be the decision-makers in
government… The education of boys and of girls should be different, as well, to
prepare them for their different roles in society.
Darwin:
In the 19th
century, with the development of biology as a science, it is perhaps not
surprising to find that ‘explanations’ for the differences between men and
women were promulgated; (even!)
"Man is the
rival of other men; he delights in competition, and this leads to ambition...
With woman, the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of
imitation, are more strongly marked than in man, but some, at least of these
faculties are characteristic of the lower races, and therefore of a past and
lower stage of civilisation.
The chief distinction in the
intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence,
in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain – whether requiring deep
thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and
hands".
2. History of the
movement:
2.1 In the 17th and 18th centuries, women played
important roles in the struggles against the power of the old regime, the king
and aristocracy, in the French Revolution.
Olympe de Gouges wrote a
Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen in 1791. Written
after the revolution of 1789, it expresses the disillusion that was growing
among women with the male-oriented new regime – despite its dedication to
‘liberty equality and fraternity’. The Declaration includes the view that: “ignorance, omission or
scorn for the rights of woman are the only causes of public misfortunes and of
the corruption of governments…”.
Article 10:
“woman has the right to mount the
scaffold [i.e. to be guillotined!], she must equally have the right to mount
the rostrum…” – women should have the same share of jobs, official
positions etc as men.
Article 11:
women should have the right to identify the father of their child, and not be
forced to hide the truth – clearly the latter must have been a common practice
at the time.
Article 17:
“Property belongs to both sexes…” and no-one can be deprived of it without due
legal process.
2.2 Kate Millett identifies the Enlightenment [see: Notes on the Enlightenment] as the point during
which women’s issues first arose – especially with Mary Wollstonecraft: Vindication of the Rights of Woman, 1792…
Mary Wollstonecraft: (1759 –
1797) - (Outram) – Wollstonecraft first worked as a
teacher and then was a headmistress. She realised that girls were being
educated to an inferior position, and wrote Thoughts on the Education of Daughters, 1787 – she argued that
Enlightenment ideals demanded that women be given a decent education
- she
became a governess to Lord Kingsborough, then went to France to observe and write about political upheaval there
- back in England
she joined a radical group along with William
Godwin (anarchist), Tom Paine (socialist/liberal)
[see: Notes on Burke and Paine], Henry Fuseli (artist, influenced
William Blake) and Joseph Priestley (scientist)
- wrote Vindication of the Rights of Men, 1790,
attacking Burke
- she wrote
her Vindication of the Rights of Woman
in 1792
- Gertrude
Himmelfarb (The Roads to Modernity , 2008) says this is mostly an attack on
Rousseau, and although not systematic or cohesive it criticised women for
allowing themselves to be placed in a subservient (domestic, family) role – she
wanted women to become like (the best kind of) men – rational, independent, and
above all educated.
- she also
attacked Francis Bacon (see above)
- "the distinction of sex (i.e. gender)
[should be] confounded in society, unless where love animates the
behaviour" – her perspective was a ‘liberal’ one, i.e. social
attitudes needed to change (not a radical/socialist perspective), and she
minimises the difference between men and women (other feminists acknowledge
there are differences, but re-write them/reverse the value-judgments that go
with them)
, argued that
women have the ability to reason but have been prevented from developing and
using it by being expected to be merely "beautiful": they are told
their main value is in their beauty – they are praised for this to ‘compensate’
for their treatment as inferior beings:
"Pleasure is the business of woman's life,
according to the present modification of society; and while it continues to be
so, little can be expected from such weak beings. Inheriting ... the sovereignty of beauty -
they have, to maintain their power, resigned the natural rights which the exercise
of reason might have procured them, and chosen rather to be short-lived queens
than labour to obtain the sober pleasures that arise from equality. Exalted by
their inferiority... they constantly demand homage as women...
Why do they not discover that they
are treated like queens only to be deluded by hollow respect, till they are led
to resign, or not assume, their natural prerogatives?... It is true they are
provided with food and raiment, for which they neither toil nor spin; but
health, liberty and virtue are given in exchange.
I lament that women are
systematically degraded by receiving the trivial attentions which men think it
manly to pay the sex, when in fact, they are insultingly supporting their own
superiority."
2.3 Women also played an
important part in the anti-slavery
movement, including in the Caribbean:
the first female anti-slavery
convention in America (1837)’ (p 66). Sojourner Truth in 1851 [quote p 72].
2.4 What changed during the Enlightenment and
what caused the change?
Millett points
out that the three main strands of change during the Enlightenment (industrial,
economic and political revolutions) had nothing
to say about ‘one half of humanity’. The changes in technology, production
and even in politics, did nothing directly for women. Millett’s view is (like
mine): what needed to change was ways of
thinking about men and women…
However,
‘anti-patriarchal’ and pro-women beliefs began to appear at this time – what
caused this change?
-
perhaps it goes back to the Renaissance with the opening up of education, including to women;
-
or the Enlightenment’s
rationalism (which actually was in opposition to the Christian religion
with its patriarchal attitudes);
-
and its humanism
(a concern for deprived groups),
-
and even its science
(examining what the real differences/similarities between men and women are,
and examining nature).
-
the French
Revolution also contributed with its overthrow
of traditional authority, and the
notion of individual rights and government by consent (Wollstonecraft
was a friend of Tom Paine).
3. The ‘first phase’ in the ‘sexual
revolution’, for Millett, stretches between the 1830s and the 1930s.
For Millett,
the decade of the 1830s marks the beginning of the first stage in the women’s
movement, since it brought:
- ‘the coming
of age of the reform movement in England, the Reform Act of 1832 which extended the franchise, didn’t actually
give women legal rights– in fact it was the first legislation de jure to exclude women, since it used the word ‘male’ instead of ‘people’,
but it paved the way for other important legislative changes in the next
decade.
However,
progress would be very slow: and there were profound contradictions in social attitudes to women (Paradoxes p
66) - which ran very deep:
-
Marriage, whilst leaving women in a condition of complete property-less
subservience to men, was therefore much the same as ‘feudalism’ P 68).. In
marriage a woman had no control over her earnings, was not allowed to choose
where she lived, could not manage her own property, nor sign papers or bear
witness… (p 67). [Quote Blackstone p 68
on non-existence of the wife, except as inferior…] On the death of the
husband, if he was intestate, the woman could be disinherited by the state.
-
But this went alongside the use of women for extremely
hard work, e.g. in the mines as
‘drawers’ [quote p 70].
Another
contradictory attitude can be seen in the (Victorian especially) belief in ‘chivalry’… [see quotes p 69 especially] where women were well cared for by
their ‘natural protectors.’ Millett
argues (p 73) that the doctrine of chivalrous protection rested on ‘a cleverly
expeditious bit of humbug’ i.e. that all women were ‘ladies’ (i.e. like the
minority of upper-class women) and all were able to indulge in indolence,
luxury – provided they found a man
to protect and look after them!
Education.
The ‘first
priority’ for the liberation of women (as with any oppressed group) was education.
Note the
dominant view for a long time was that education should serve to make them
better wives – not to be so educated as to threaten men’s superior position,
nor so ignorant as to be of no use to their husbands. [Quote Rousseau’s view p 74].
‘The whole education of women should be relative to men…’ (Millett then
explores Tennyson’s poem The Princess, which shows a similar ambivalent
attitude, as well as Tennyson’s confusion over the whole issue).
But ‘a little
knowledge is a dangerous thing’ – as it creates the desire for more. In
Political organisation.
In
Note that not
all Abolitionists were in favour of emancipation of women – and in London at
the World Anti-Slavery Convention, 1840, two women were excluded, including
Lucretia Mott (a Nantucket Quaker) who went on to found the first women’s
Anti-Slave Society.
At the
1850 Harriett Taylor in
1866 J.S. Mill presents the first suffrage petition to parliament, and
publishes Subjection of Women in 1869.
United Nations
Committee on the Status of Women set up.
1880s Women’s
Suffrage Societies e.g. NUWSS, also Women’s Protective and Provident League for
protective legislation against exploitation of women workers.
Differences between ‘constitutional’ and
‘militant’ wings of the movement emerge. More mass demonstrations,
parades and pickets, then the Pankhursts’ followers took to arson and
window-breaking – the process of ‘educating’ the public was taking so long, it
was inevitable that more radical tactics would be use, and this ‘kept the flame
alive’. Public sympathy grew with the violence
of the police treatment of the suffragettes (including forced feeding).
On the other
hand the non-violent approach of much of the movement influenced later civil
rights and non-violence movements (Gandhi, Martin Luther King)
1903 WSPU (Women’s Social and Political Union)
– Emily Pankhurst (in the ILP) – 1908 rally of 250,000 - 500,000
Women’s
Freedom League
In 1905 Emmeline’s daughter Christobel was the
first WSPU member to be imprisoned. The Daily Mail invented the term suffragettes as a term of abuse, but
the women adopted it in pride. The women chained themselves to railings,
sabotaged political meetings, clashed with the police and smashed windows. Some
of the women consequently sent to prison went on hunger strike, and were
brutally force-fed. In April 1914 they attacked major works of art (e.g.
Velasquez’s Rokeby Venus was slashed: ‘destroying the most beautiful woman in history
as a protest at the destruction of the most beautiful modern woman Mrs.
Pankhurst), and the police began to follow them more closely, monitoring
meetings and phone calls. Files show
that in 1913 Home Office instructions were to take the photos clandestinely (many women had refused to have their photos
taken).
[Alan Travis
(G 10.10.2003) notes that police surveillance techniques, e.g. taking photos of
demonstrators, were first developed to deal with the suffragette movement –
photos are printed of 18 suffragettes who went to prison in 1914, and most of
them are ‘snatched’ as today’s paparazzi would do. They could be seen in an
exhibition marking the founding of the Women’s Social and Political Union, 100
years ago at the
The jailed
women adopted brooches designed by Sylvia Pankhurst as ‘medals’ (showing the
House of Commons portcullis with a prison arrow though it). They saw themselves
as ‘soldiers’ in a ‘war’. More militant tactics were evolved, including hunger
strikes, chaining themselves to
In 1912 Una
Dugdale Duval married Victor Duval and refused to use the word ‘obey’ in the
ceremony – causing a national scandal!
In 1914
Pankhurst got the WSPU to support the war – when the war ended, in 1918, women over 30 got the vote. (See Footnote). Only in 1928 was the
franchise extended to everyone over 21.
Millett views the campaign for suffrage as a
‘red herring’ [quote p 83] – once the
vote had been gained, the movement faded away; and yet little had changed… She
also says (p 84) that it was too bourgeois, and was ‘never… sufficiently
involved with working women’.
Economy and production:
For some
feminists, the problem was women’s exclusion from the economy and from production; 1921 Six Point Group demanded: equal
pay; widow’s pensions; equal rights of guardianship; laws on child assault;
equal civil service opportunities; provision for unmarried mothers. After the Second World War it was
difficult to go on holding the view that women could not do equal work to men!
However, as Millett points out (p 85 ff), the objection was raised to women
working in the professions – not to their doing hard manual work, since this
had been open to them for a long time (see above, re ‘drawers’ etc). Middle
class women had to deal with male
notions of ‘decorum’ (i.e. it was not fitting for a woman to use her mind).
In the working
classes and the unemployed, women were subject to despair. [Quote from American Knights of
labour investigation p 86].
There were gradual changes in terms of protection at work – which benefited men as well as women. But
women did not have the unions to back them – unions had, and
still have, an ambivalent attitude to women workers: they are often seen as cheap labour that can undermine the
employment of men. Patriarchal attitudes
can be found here still – under the guise of ‘protective’ reforms:- if
women go to work: family structures are
disrupted; they will have access to sex; they will not have enough time to work
at home as well etc.
There was no
concern about women having fulfilling work, or equal pay – rather ‘a frequently
patronizing air of concessions made to
the physically inferior.’ Women and
children are lumped together in British Parliamentary discussions and papers of
the time, and in America, Louis Brandies’ (1908) Oregon Brief, which won
protective legislation was based on the assumption that ‘women are fundamentally weaker than men in all that makes for
endurance, in muscular strength, in nervous energy, in the power of persistent
application and concentration.’
Alongside
this, there was discussion over women’s work in the home, and some feminists demanded ‘wages for housework’… For many of these feminists, the stress on
economic change was allied to a belief in socialism
– or Marxism – the latter arguing that equality would come with communism. It
was also argued by Marxist feminists (not all Marxists were feminists!) that
women had a crucial role in the "reproduction
of the labour force" (a discussion taken further in the second wave –
see below). In fact, many women found Marxist and socialist groups a
disappointment: in Marxist theory, women found, their experience was excluded
from the central category of "class";
and in practice, inside socialist groups they were still exploited: it was
expected they would make the tea, look after any children in a crèche, and
maybe sell newspapers, while the men took part in meetings and discussions of
strategy, policy and theory. In the WRP women were actually viciously exploited
by the leader Gerry Healy – and the group fell apart when the extent of this
exploitation was revealed [though this was not the only factor: such groups
have a tendency to fragment quite often!]. The negative experience of women in
the Soviet Union – who were
encouraged to go to work, but who found they were still primarily responsible
for housework and childcare as well! – contributed to both the second and third
wave critiques of socialist ideas. (See below)
The movement
grew through the ‘60s alongside other protest movements, e.g. CND, Vietnam
Solidarity, the New Left… also Ford strike for equal pay.
Part Two: ‘theory’:
A distinctive feature of the Women’s Movement
is that it has developed in stages or ‘waves’, and each wave has been based on
a new set of ideas about feminism.
Note that the discussion of ‘theory’ has always
been an essential part of the movement – as noted above, even ‘liberal’
political philosophers have had anti-woman elements to their theories. The
bracketing of periods of feminist activity into ‘waves’ relates very much to
the theory as well as the practice. (see also: Notes
on feminism)
All the above events and ideas can be described
as belonging to the first wave of feminism, because they shared the
following ideas:
It was
believed that political equality (the
vote) would lead to legal, economic,
and social equality and equal treatment/rights – and political equality
would also lead to changes in attitude.
But when the
vote was obtained, and nothing else changed, then formal equality was seen as
not enough. There was still a need for material and attitudinal changes, or as
Millett puts it - p 85 - ‘changes in
social attitudes and social structure, in personality and institutions’.
This led to the ‘second wave’ (see below).
The main
political perspective (philosophical viewpoint) adopted during the ‘first wave’
was a liberal perspective (though
some were socialist, see below): central to this is an emphasis on beliefs/values, justified by reasonable arguments, but it is also primarily based
on an individualistic outlook:
liberal political philosophers (Locke, especially) argued for the freedom of
the individual from government interference, the right to protection by
government, and the right of the individual to influence government
(democracy). For Locke this right was based on property ownership – if I have
property then I can expect to be protected against others who might steal it. I
have, as it were, an interest in government decisions if they are likely to
affect my property.
Clearly, the
goal of freedom for the individual was shared by women – though of course in
the 18th century the fact that Locke’s argument was based on
property ownership meant that women were excluded.
It also
follows that one early aim of the women’s movement was to get acceptance that
women had an equal ability to reason
(see the extracts for examples of philosophical and other views claiming that
women were inferior in their rational abilities).
It is
important to note that the ability to exercise moral responsibility (an indicator of adulthood, legal responsibility, autonomy etc) is regarded as being
dependent on a person being accepted as rational.
Feminists at
this stage argued social conditions prevent women realising their potential,
and that women were as capable of reasoning as men. The Liberal Feminist view,
then, minimises the differences between men and women. Thus, cf. Mary
Wollstonecraft "the distinction of sex (i.e. gender) [should be]
confounded in society, unless where love animates the behaviour."
Socialist feminists were also involved
in the first wave of feminism: for them, economic and social equality would
entail equality for women. This was because economic inequality and
exploitation was seen as at the root of all other forms of inequality and
exploitation. Moreover, capitalist property relations were such that they
exclude women as well as men – all are part of the exploited working class, and
only a revolution abolishing class difference would bring equality for women.
A deep and critical examination of theories
about women in society was one of the main factors that led to the ‘second
wave’.
2. The second wave of feminism:
It became
clear, during the first half of the 20th century, that the
conventional political struggle had failed, - the vote had not changed the status
of women - and there was still a need to change the dominant thinking about
women.
Moreover,
after the upheavals of 1968, (the youth revolt, and the May Days in France)
feminists realised that the struggle had not been primarily about women and had
not addressed their concerns (and, as noted, after the experience of some women
in socialist and "liberation" movements...). It was clear that a more
radical stance needed to be taken.
In 1970 the first Women’s Liberation Conference
was held in Oxford. There were 600 women present, and they formulated demands
for: equal pay, 24 hour child care, free contraception, free abortion on demand – the new
focus on reproduction, women’s experience, and the new
argument from some feminists that there are important differences between men and women is all part of a new way of
thinking in the movement.
Thus this
phase stressed "difference" -
and problems of “identity”, and it
drew on biological, anthropological and psychological evidence and theories
(e.g. de Beauvoir). The political outlook of the second phase/wave was more
radical than the first, i.e. demanding more profound social changes.
During this
wave, women’s papers such as Spare Rib, Shrew, and Wires were started. Refuges for battered women, and rape crisis
centres were established. And within the movement, groups tackled specific
issues and especially violence against
women, (e.g. Women Against Violence Against Women; Reclaim the Night; the
Working Women’s Charter 1974).
Key texts of
the second wave:
The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan, 1963 – resisting
the pressure on women to adopt the role ascribed to them of mother; used
arguments such as that the children of mothers who stayed at home did not
benefit but were bored and dependent.
Of Woman Born by Adrienne Rich, 1976 – motherhood
as penal servitude, and as a patriarchal institution.
The GLC also
had an important role in promoting women’s causes (it gave £4.6 million to
women’s projects before being closed down in 1986), and there were links with
the political ‘left’ over Clause 28 (which restricted discussion of homosexuality in schools). See, for
example, Beyond the Fragments by Sheila Rowbotham.
During the
1980s/90s: as in
See http://www.feministactivistforum.org.uk/page23.htm
and http://www.jstor.org/pss/1395018
(the first page of an article about OWAAD.)
From 1981 a
camp was established at Greenham Common, (site of US nuclear weapons and
missiles, especially cruise) which linked
the women’s movement with the anti-war movement. For many feminists, war is derived from, or part of the problem
of, male violence… The camp caused controversy (of course!) by excluding
men. In 1982 30,000 women surrounded the base – by 1990 were over 100 peace
camps around the world. Eventually the base was closed down – though it is a
matter of debate as to whether the camp contributed to the decision to close
it.
See: The Road
to Greenham Common, by Jill Liddington,
The perspective/philosophical viewpoint of the
second wave was ‘radical feminism’: central issues concerned
women’s control over their bodies, sexuality, and reproduction. The importance
of reproduction lay in the fact that if women are tied by it, or to it, it
prevents them going into public life. (The feminist analysis of the role of
‘reproduction’ later came to include the reproduction of ideas… see the third
wave below).
Common to this
perspective is the belief that there are physical/biological
as well as psychological and socio-economic dimensions to the exploitation
of women, which go beyond capitalism. In other words, patriarchy and dominance over women are found in other socio-political
systems, and not only in capitalism.
Simone de
Beauvoir’s book The Second Sex (1949) was very influential on this phase of the
movement. (See pp21feminismdebeauvoir.htm).
The book contained an analysis, and rejection, of other explanations of the
position of women – Marxist, Freudian etc – and advocated an approach based on existentialism. For existentialists
there is no pre-given human nature (hence no pre-given differences between men
and women, other than the purely biological) – we make choices in life that
define our being; and these choices are very often affected by others – or by
the Other, as they sometimes put it. For de Beauvoir, women are an Other to
men, but men have defined themselves (their role, identity etc) first, so that
women are always explained in relation to men: men are the ‘norm’ against which
women are measured – and women are not taken as existing in their own right.
Hence: ‘the second sex’. Of course,
biological differences were used as a justification for the roles that women
were expected to adhere to – but de Beauvoir argued that there was nothing to
stop women taking on other roles in society.
She asked why
men alone were assumed to be capable of undertaking ‘projects’ that were
creative, and that gave meaning to their lives – while women were seen as
occupying a secondary place. Men were not held back by any physical/biological
constraints, and they could be creative, take part in politics etc – which she
saw as ‘transcending’ the realm of the physical. She then asked why shouldn’t
women also ‘transcend’ their physical constraints (in particular
child-bearing)?
There were
many other ways in which the 2nd wave of feminism contributed to
politics, social issues (and philosophy):
- Feminism
threw new light on the ‘public/private’
distinction. Hitherto (especially in liberal political thinking) these were
regarded as completely separate – what happens in the home has nothing to do
with public issues such as politics; but when it is argued that ‘the personal
is the political,’ this has repercussions on political thought. Nowadays it is
accepted that contraception, abortion, domestic violence, rape etc are matters
that need to be publicly discussed; and governmental policies are crucial in
determining how women (more so than men) are treated in relation to these and
other issues. (Take the current debate over the identification of men accused
of rape… or the Catholic position on condoms in dealing with the spread of
AIDS).
- The second
wave of the movement led to a celebration of diversity, which arose out of discussions of women’s ‘identity.’ In
addition it was soon recognised that although they have many experiences in
common, white women and black women (for example) experience sexism differently
– black women having to face a double discrimination; similarly with other
categories such as ‘class’, sexual orientation, ability/disability… Finally, it
was important (given the way ‘women’ had all been squeezed into one ‘identity’)
to counter this stereotyping with a celebration of our diversity.
Recently, ‘identity politics’ has come under
attack – presumably because it lacks a way of bringing together the experiences
of different ‘identities.’ Other criticisms are based on the danger of
‘essentialism’ – the view that women are ‘in essence’ different from men.
‘Essentialism’ is a view that should run counter to how feminists think, if
they accept what e.g. de Beauvoir argues, that women are ‘made’ not ‘born’.
Bearing in mind that we are talking about the ‘women’s liberation movement’, the question has to be asked whether
‘identity’ is a liberating concept, or one that traps individuals and groups.
Nationalism, if taken as a type of identity politics, illustrates this nicely I
think. (The Wikipedia discussion, though abstruse in places, adds to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_politics).
- Second wave
feminists practiced ways of organizing that were non-hierarchical – since a key feature of patriarchy is that it is
a power-relation. These ideas and practices had an impact on other social
movements (e.g. greens).
Towards the
end of this period, there was a ‘backlash’ against feminism (though we might
argue that there has always been a backlash against feminism!), and Backlash, by Susan Faludi, 1991 – noted
that feminism was being blamed for women’s woes in the ‘80s. This she saw as a
way of re-domesticating women.
3. Third wave (and perspective):
This wave is distinctive because the ideas
behind it are ‘post-modern’.
Postmodernism
is a difficult idea, but in this context one way of describing it is ‘the
deconstruction of all dominant narratives’. (See Notes on feminism and I hope to
complete notes specifically on postmodernism and feminism).
‘Deconstruction’: taking apart, breaking down so as to reveal hidden
meanings (a philosophy mostly associated with the French 20th
century philosopher Derrida – though he went beyond deconstruction, some
argue).. For example, feminists point out that the use of the word ‘he’ or
‘mankind’ as if it includes women is
deceptive – since women have been excluded from e.g. citizenship, and denied
equal rights with men. Yet most people who use the word ‘mankind’ don’t realise
this hidden past in its meaning.
‘Narrative’ is a word used to
indicate that we should question the idea that there are ‘truths’: since the
‘truth’ has been established by white western men… perhaps the word truth hides
the fact that what is being claimed is not true. For example, in politics the
definition of the purpose of the state was for a long time (especially since
the 18th century, and the ideas of John Locke) that it ‘defends our
rights and our property’ – yet women (and blacks…) at the time had neither
property nor rights – so in relation to the state they didn’t exist? If, it was
argued, modern thinking had such appalling beliefs at its core, (because we were ‘modern’ we were
superior and justified in exploiting others) then it was necessary to take
apart (deconstruct) these ‘modern’ beliefs and to think in a new way – one that
gave women, people of other races, and the natural environment their rightful
place. Putting this in philosophical language, postmodernism saw that
"discourses of power assume inequality at their very roots" (Whelehan
1995).
What is the ‘dominant narrative’? The dominant
narrative is ‘modernism’ – the ideas
brought about by the Enlightenment: these include a belief in individual rights
as inviolable, individual property, freedom, and the scientific method. Radical
political theorists, including some feminists, want us to examine these ideas
more closely – to ‘deconstruct’ them: questions then arise such as: is there
such a thing as an isolated individual whose freedom is sacrosanct? Are we not
social beings – what about our responsibility to each other? How can a mother
exercise her individual freedom and take care of a baby? What rights do people
have if they have no property? (At this point in time the Roma are being
expelled from
The version of
postmodernism that I believe is the most useful follows the seminal work by
Jean-Francois Lyotard: The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, 1979.
In fact Lyotard with this work brought about the idea of ‘postmodernism’.
Feminist postmodernism:
Some versions
of postmodernism seem to be apolitical, or as leading to cynicism, since it
rejects all modern ideas; but the ‘third wave’ of feminism, together with
anti-colonialism in recent times, has adopted postmodern ideas in a way that
enables a critique of modernism and of patriarchy. The ‘modern’ world, it is
argued, came about with the scientific revolution and with the colonization by
(This is the
‘flip side’ of the Enlightenment that Kate Millett saw as having contributed to
the growth of the women’s liberation movement. For critics of the Enlightenment
there was much more about it that was conducive to the emergence of patriarchy
than the liberation of women – see notes on the Enlightenment, especially: Race,
slavery and women in the Enlightenment).
Feminists came
up with new concepts to describe, for example, the way that men’s view of the
world had taken over and was used to support men’s power over women: such
thinking was ‘phallocentric’...
Where exactly
this new ‘postmodern discourse’ has got us is a matter of controversy – but its
strength lay in not only challenging ideas that had been accepted
unquestioningly, but in its being interdisciplinary (breaking down barriers
between ‘disciplines’ such as ‘politics’ and ‘morality’ for example).
Postmodernism sees the fragmentation and pigeonholing of knowledge into
disciplines as a product of the old, ‘modern’ way of thinking.
Some critics
of postmodernism say that it is ‘relativist’ – i.e. if all discourses or all
points of view, are simply the expression of a will-to-power on the part of
some group or other – where is the ‘truth’? Or should we agree with
postmodernists and say that ‘truth’ is another of these terms used to bolster
the ‘modernist’ view of the world?! A less difficult criticism is that
postmodernism is simply far too academic to be of much use in confronting
real-life problems of male domination!!
As an example
of the way that the third, postmodern, wave opened up questions in the women’s
movement, there ensued an argument as to how women should behave: if men have
been able (had the right!) to be openly sexual (wolf-whistling, lads mags etc),
while women are expected to be modest – and with this to have no power or
status, then why should women not gain power by having the same freedom as men
to be openly sexual? Women then demanded the right to decide what the limits
were to their own sexual behaviour - women having always been told by men how to be ‘sexual’ – or how they should
not be! Previous feminist arguments, that appearing attractive to men was
playing into their hands, (as it were!) now came under question: being
attractive to men can be ‘empowering’ after all.
Thus,
(following a recent discussion in the pages of the Guardian) for Rebecca Walker, daughter of the novelist Alice
Walker, the ‘third wave’ meant continuing the second wave activism ‘but still
shaving your legs.’ On the other hand, for Wendy Shalit, the third wave carried
the sexual revolution too far, and ‘conditioned young women to become sluts’ –
pole-dancing [some feminists said they saw nothing wrong in women doing this if
they chose to] cannot be empowering,
and women should be ‘modest’.
For Siegal there are still issues of power, not
just sexual power either. ‘It is confusing to be a daughter of feminism in a
culture that has changed in your favour – but stopped half way (at most)’. The
stripping pole (pole dancing) has become a distraction – much as ‘bra-burning’
did in the second wave. ‘We need to keep our eyes on the wider array of women’s
issues.’
4. Achievements
of the women’s movement? New concepts
and perspectives:
Feminism has
had a substantial impact on philosophy: it has developed new perspectives, and
new concepts – or at the least, a re-thinking of existing concepts.
Some of these
concepts have entered our everyday language – though not always in the sense
intended by feminist thinkers!
For much of
our intellectual history we have assumed that men have certain ‘natural’
characteristics, and women have others. Feminists have pointed out that there
is a difference between ‘male’ (a biological category) and ‘masculine’ (a
character trait), likewise: ‘female’ and ‘feminine’. Men (males) do not have to
be ‘masculine’ (strong, ambitious, ‘big boys don’t cry’ etc) – nor do women
(females) have to be ‘feminine’ (delicate, sensitive, nurturing, intuitive
etc).
In other words
we need to distinguish between ‘nature’ and ‘culture’:
Men and women have different biological
characteristics = sex (male/female), but culture determines/defines gender, i.e. what
"masculinity/femininity" mean.
4.2 sexism:
To my mind,
this is one of the least-understood words used in discussions about the
relations between the sexes. Too often it is used whenever someone says
something about a difference between men and women… However, it should only
apply in situations where ‘women's characteristics’ are said to be not just different to men’s but
"inferior" or not "normal".
Simone de
Beauvoir pointed out that, of course, "different" implies different from
something, and the crucial question that is often overlooked is that men’s
characteristics are regarded as ‘normal’ or ‘essential’ and women’s as somehow
lacking or inferior. As she said: the question is often asked ‘what is a
woman?’ – whereas no-one asks ‘what is a man?’ ‘Man’ is assumed to be the norm, woman somehow deviant from the norm.
I return to the question of ‘differences’ after giving a more precise
definition of ‘sexism’:
Sexism means arguing
three things:
(i) Women are
different, and (ii) this is by nature
(women – and men - have no choice over how they are, they cannot be
changed...), and (iii) since it is
assumed that ‘men’ represent what is normal, or best, then women are (by
nature) inferior (if they were merely culturally inferior they could be
re-educated...).
Notice, in
other words, that the concept ‘sexism’ depends on what was said above about the
difference between ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ with regard to sex/gender….
The
consequence of sexism is to reinforce the lack of power that women have – to
continue to take power from women by defining them in a certain way.
It is when we
look - closely and critically - at the ways in which women have been
described as different that we begin to see the power-relations involved.
So, it is not
sexist per se to say women are
different – it depends on the kind of difference! It is not sexist to say women
are biologically different (unless from this you draw conclusions that put
women down). The term ‘sexism’ was devised by analogy with ‘racism’… There is no point in pretending that black
people don’t have black skins, and other physical difference to whites. On the
other hand, if you use these differences in a way which indicates you think
they make the black person inferior, you are being racist.
To my mind –
and this may be controversial but I believe it follows from the above, and many
feminists would also argue this way: a disparaging remark or statement about
men is not truly sexist: men generally (men as men – this is not a question
merely of individuals, as there are of course exceptions to the rule) are in a
position of power and privilege, and no amount of negative remarks or
statements about men can alter that. On the other hand, the problem with sexism
is – as stated above – precisely that it reinforces a position of inferiority
on the part of those to whom it is directed (and superiority on the part of the
originator).
4.3 It is important to note that sexism can be
deeply embedded in the language we use:
I call this way
of thinking ‘normative dualism’ - the
pairs of characteristics represent: the ‘norm’ – on the left below - and
against it an inferior or ‘abnormal’ counterpart. But of course, the
left-hand side represents attributes of men…
same thing, different values:
angry hysterical
assertive/dominant bitchy/bossy
talk/converse gossip/chatter
complain nag
stud/Don
Juan/Casanova whore/slut/slag
hierarchical categories:
superior inferior
normal different
essential complementary
distinct characteristics:
mind body
reason/logic/analysis intuition/feeling/hunch
transcendence immanence
culture nature
active passive
public/state/society private/community/family
universal particular
impartial/objective personal/subjective
truth opinion
autonomous/independent dependent/nurturing/relational
self-regarding other-regarding/altruistic
hard/strong soft/sensitive/weak
polygamous monogamous
penetrating receptive
active passive
4.4 a new way of seeing the world: the personal
is the political:
This kind of view explains why some women feel
patronised by having doors opened for them,
or being called ‘dear’ or ‘darling’ (terms
which, when used between people who are close
indicate simply affection; but when addressed
by a male stranger to a woman they reinforce the
perception of the man’s superiority).
An early demand of the women’s movement was for
‘wages for housework’ – this raises other
issues, but also relates to the question of
what is personal or private and what is ‘political’ (i.e.
reflecting power relations – not only between
the individuals concerned but in the wider society
as well). As John Lennon pointed out, in the
context of revolutionary politics, ‘how do you treat
the woman back home?’ is a pertinent question!
In looking at the origins of the women’s
movement we can see that the way women were
treated in radical, even supposedly
revolutionary, left-wing groups (to mind the crèche,
sell papers, make the tea – but not get
involved in serious debates) led many such
women to build their own movement.
Finally, as can be seen from the statistics on
domestic violence, as well as in the anger at the
inadequate policing of rape and stalking,
violence even in the home is not a purely ‘personal’
matter… (See: Statistics on Inequality etc).
Amartya Sen, the
economist, points out that:
- There are some 100 million “missing women” in the world - i.e. women who would be alive today if they had received the same quality of nutrition and health as men.
- Each year some 100 million girls suffer genital mutilation.
- Approximately 1 million children, mostly girls, per year are forced into prostitution.
- In South Asia, female literacy rates are 50% those of males, and in Afghanistan: 32%, Sudan: 27%.
- One third of women in Barbados, Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and the U.S. report having been sexually abused as children or adolescents.
- In the U.S. in 1993, 1,530 women were killed by their partners. Each year in the U.S. approximately 7 million women report being subject to various form of physical violence at the hands of their male partners.
Source: notes by Professor Stephen Darwall,
University of Michigan – http://www-personal.umich.edu/~sdarwall/
- this site has notes on courses at the university of Michigan, on philosophy:
see especially course 152.
In Britain:
- One in four women will experience domestic violence according to the British Crime Survey (2009).
- Domestic violence accounts for 16% of all violent incidents reported to police.
- On average, two women a week are killed by their partner or former partner in England and Wales – over 100 a year.
- Women who are abused by their partners are likely to be attacked 20 times before they report it.
Some statistics from
2007 (Emine Sauer, Guardian 24.08.07):
- 81% of domestic violence is committed by men against women.
- Over 50,000 women and children seek safety in refuges every year.
- Up to 10 commit suicide every week.
- Police receive nearly half a million calls a year from women about domestic violence – almost certainly only the tip of the iceberg.
- Only 13,000 cases are considered by the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales.
- Women’s Refuges, and Charities: The first refuge was set up in West London in 1971 by Erin Pizzey, and there are now around 400 refuges in England and Wales.
5.
Recent issues, and where is the women’s movement now? Discussion.
The ‘glass ceiling’, inequality in pay, #meetoo movement, FGM…
Footnote:
When did women get the vote?
Extracts from
from Atlas of Women by Joni Seager:
1848 French
men – women not until 1944
1893
1902 white
Australian women - Aboriginals not until 1967
1915
1918
1920 white
1928
1929
‘literate’ Puerto Rican women – rest not until 1835
1930 Turkish
women
1931 white
South African women – Indians and ‘coloured’ women in 1984, blacks not until
1994
1956 Egyptian
women
1963 Iranian
women
1971 Swiss
women
1974 Jordanian
women
1980
1989
1999
2001
2005
In 2005 men
were allowed to vote in local elections in