The Not Very
'Natural' Oppression of Women
Aileen O'Carroll
Approximately 14,000 years ago the first agricultural communities, and
with them human civilization, were founded. Humanity is 600 generations
old.
We hold
the position of 'most successful species' because unlike animals we have
been able to modify our environment to suit our needs. To early humans
nature was a powerful and frightening force, the bringer of plagues,
storms and droughts. Nowadays we control our environment to such an
extent that nature is no longer a demon spirit or an instrument of the
wrath of god. In much of the world nature is way down on our list of
worries, it is more likely to fear us. As the capability to control the
world around us has increased from the first primitive farmers to the
high-technology multinationals, the way we perceive the world around us
has also changed. So has the way we perceive each other.
One
thing, however, that has remained constant throughout this time is that
in the majority of societies half our species (women) has been held in
an inferior position to the other half (men). Why is this the case? The
answer to this question should explain two things. It should explain why
today with all our equal rights legislation women are still second class
citizens, and secondly it should indicate the mechanisms and tactics we
have to use to achieve women's' liberation. If we know what the problem
is, we can find a solution.
CIVILIZATION DAWNS
Early
humans were hunter/gatherers living in nomadic communities, living from
hand to mouth. The discovery of agriculture led to huge changes in the
organization of humanity. Agriculture was the point at which
civilization began. This is because there are a number of ways in which
an agricultural community is different from a hunter/gatherer clan.
Communities remain in the same spot. Agriculture can support more people
than hunting/gathering so communities get larger. Farming leads to the
development of new technology. New skills lead to a greater division of
labor. Individuals specialize in certain types of work, be it tool
making, leatherwork or defense.
However
the key difference is that farmed land becomes a valuable resource. Land
provides a surplus, that is land provides more food than is necessary
for day to day survival. More importantly, land will provide this
resource in the future, for the next generation. None of this is true of
the herd of wild animals pursued by the hunter-gatherer. The concept of
ownership developed.
So
civilization began when man began to acquire wealth in the form of land,
food and animals. If a rich man wants to ensure that his offspring alone
inherit his wealth, he must be sure that his wife is only mating with
him. Thus, he has to be in a position of control over her. He needs to
portray this as part of the 'natural order'. To accommodate this need
society, through the use of religion, developed a rationale to justify
the inferior position of woman.
GOD'S CHOSEN RULERS
Rulers
have always been good at rationalizing unfair practices, take for
example the idea of the 'divine right of kings'. Popular for centuries,
the church and state argued that kings and queens were appointed by God.
The status quo was natural and good, any opposition to it was evil and
doomed to eternal hell. These days kings don't have much power, which is
why not many people rushed to describe Charles and Di as God's chosen
rulers.
In much
the same way, it was necessary to have women inferior to men to ensure
inheritance rights. In order to keep women in this position a whole
mythology of women as second class humans was developed. It was the
accumulation of a surplus and the desire of a minority to monopolize it
that led to the class division of society and to the oppression of
women.
Now we've
established the motive and the cover story, but of what relevance is the
status of women in early history to their status today? As capitalism
evolved it built on the existing model of the family, adapting it to
suit its own interests. Assurance of inheritance rights isn't as
necessary today, however the family provides other services which
capitalism does require. Initially, when the industrial revolution first
began men, women and children were drafted wholesale into the factories.
DEATH IS NOT ALWAYS
ECONOMIC
Quickly,
however, the bosses realized that this was not the most economic way to
run the system. The labor force was weak and the children who were to be
next generation of workers were dying in the mills and mines. The
solution was was to be found in the family.
Before
the rise of capitalism, society was based around a system of slaves/serfs
and kings or lords. The problem with slaves or serfs is that the owner
must provide food, basic health care and subsistence in old age, i.e.
maintain the slave at a cost for those times when he or she is not
productive. A much more cost efficient way to keep a workforce is
through the nuclear family. In this scenario, it is up to the family to
provide itself with food, shelter, healthcare, look after the elderly
and young (who will provide the next crop of workers). Within this
family unit it is normally the woman who fulfills the functions of
housekeeper, nurse, child-minder and cook.
There are
two knock-on effects of women staying at home minding the family. First, they are not financially independent. They do not earn any money
and are dependent on income received from their partners. Because nobody
gets paid for rearing a family its status as an occupation is at the
bottom of the ladder and because women are financially dependent on
their husbands it means they, in the past, have had little input into
the major decisions affecting the family.
ISOLATION
This led
to women having no input into the decisions affecting society. A woman's
place was in the home. A second effect of women's position in the family
is that they are often isolated from each other and from society in
general. Unlike a paid worker they have little opportunity of meeting
and sharing experiences with others in the same situation on a daily
basis, and do something about it. They, on their own, have little power
to change the conditions they find themselves in.
Today the
family is a trap for women as much as it was for women at the beginning
of the industrial revolution. Women are paid on average 2/3 of the wage
that men are paid, so within any partnership it obviously makes more
sense for the woman to undertake responsibility for the care of
children. It is for this reason, common sense rather than sexism,
that the vast majority of part-time workers are women, juggling two jobs
at the same time.
Having
said that, why is it that women are among the lower paid in society? Is
it necessary for capitalism to exploit women workers to this degree? The
simple answer to that is sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The only
important difference between a male and female worker is that the female
has the potential to get pregnant, that is the potential to want
maternity leave and need crèche facilities. In other words they are
slightly more expensive to employ than men. So when women are asked
(illegally!) at job interviews if they intend to marry, such
discrimination has a material basis. An employer isn't interested on the
good of society at large, but in obtaining the cheapest, most reliable
workforce possible.
DISPOSABLE WORKERS
Historically women have been encouraged to work and have been
accommodated when it suited capitalism. When there was either a shortage
of male labor due to war as during the 1st and 2nd World Wars or an
expansion of industry as in the dawn of the industrial revolution or the
1960s. When times are tough, when recession sets in, women are
encouraged back into the family.
The
conclusion for most socialists is that women's liberation can only be
lastingly obtained with the overthrow of capitalism. This is not to say
that reforms should not be fought for at the moment, but to recognize
that some of the gains may be short-term ones which can be withdrawn.
This
conclusion isn't accepted by everyone concerned with women's liberation, and certainly is rejected by large sections of the feminist
movement. A good example of the alternative analysis can be seen in the
following extract from the British Survey of Social Attitudes (a survey
carried out regularly by an independent body).
WHO MINDS THE
CHILDREN
It found
that the provision of childcare was one of the impediments preventing
women from working. Their conclusion was that "in the absence of changes
in men's attitudes, or working hours outside the home or in their
contribution within the family it seems unlikely that even a greater
availability of childcare outside the home would alter domestic
arrangements greatly. Without these changes, it is conceivable that many
useful forms of work flexibility - that might be offered to women such
as job sharing, career breaks, special sick leave or term-time working -
might reinforce rather than mitigate the formidable level of
occupational segregation based on gender, to women's longer-term
disadvantage."
The
authors of the survey note that as long as responsibility for childcare
rests with the women they will remain trapped in the family. They also
point out that concessions to women in the world of work often result in
women being pigeon-holed into less well paid jobs. This already happens
in regard to part-time workers who are paid a lower hourly wage than
full-time workers. They point out that men have to square up to their
responsibility as fathers. The key they emphasize is a change in men's
attitudes.
However
what was not mentioned is that no matter how attitudes change, men are
as powerless as individuals in regard to their working conditions as
women are. With all the good will in the world they cannot change their
employer/employee relationship, they cannot adjust their working hours
to suit childcare--just as women cannot. A more fundamental conclusion
would be that society at the moment, capitalism, does not want to
accommodate any of the problems of childcare preferring to leave it up
to the individual to make their own arrangements as best as they can.
CONTROL OF OUR
BODIES
It is for
this reason that the issue of women's ability to control their own
fertility is key in obtaining women's liberation. That is the fight for
abortion rights, for freely available contraceptives, for 24 hour
quality childcare.
Women
will remain as second class citizens as long as they are relegated to an
inferior position in the work force. They are now in that position
because to the bosses they are an unstable workforce, likely to want
pregnancy leave, likely to come in late if a child is sick, likely to
require a crèche or want to work part time. It is because men in society
are seen as the breadwinners that they have slightly more secure,
slightly more dependable jobs.
It's a
vicious circle, because men are in reality better paid, it makes more
sense within the family to assign the role of main earner to the male
and the role of career to the female. The only way to permanently get
out out of this circle is to change the system. In a society organized
to make profits for a few, women lose out. In a society organized to
satisfy needs, women's fertility would no longer be a limiting factor.
INTO THE MAINSTREAM
Women can
of course win gains at the moment. In Ireland women are no longer forced
to stop working upon marriage (though lack of childcare can make it
impossible to continue). Attitudes have changed considerably in the last
thirty years. Most importantly, the position of women is now an issue.
Whereas before it was only addressed by the few socialist or women's
groups, now it's taken up in the mainstream media, in chat shows and
newspaper articles. However, any of our new freedoms are very much
dependent on the economic conditions of the day. So, while in the
booming sixties American women won limited access to abortion, now in
recession those rights are being pushed back inch by inch.
When the
reality is weighed up, equal education & job opportunities and equal pay
are limited without free 24 hour nurseries and free contraception &
abortion on demand. While a small minority of women can buy control of
their own fertility, for the majority family and childcare is still - as
it has always been - the largest problem faced by women workers. In this
argument capitalism won't concede, it must be defeated.
Aileen
O'Carroll
From
Workers Solidarity No35, 1992
back to top |
