18.04.2013
Neoliberal feminism: Out of the mainstream, into the revolution
Yassamine Mather critiques neoliberal feminism, which is now the dominant mode of thought
There are many variants of feminism, and communists, who should be in the forefront of the struggle for women’s liberation, obviously have more in common with Marxist feminists than others. This article is an attempt at a critique of the hegemonic form, neoliberal feminism, and inevitably relies on the work of Marxist feminists as the main source on the subject.
In the summer of 1976 a wedding took place between two upper class gay men in Tehran. Forty years later the rulers of Iran’s Islamic Republic still claim, and many of them still believe, that homosexuality is a disease. Working class homosexuals are the main victims of the Islamic Republic’s ‘moral’ order, while the upper classes have remained immune from discrimination and indeed criminalisation.
It is the same with women. It is working class women who have to bear the brunt of discrimination, and not just in Iran. For all the talk of sisterhood and gender wars, the difference between upper class women and working class women throughout the world is more pronounced today than ever before. In Johanna Brenner’s words, it is “the best of times” for middle and upper class women and “the worst of times” for working class women.1 In a world where the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider daily, class trumps gender, as far as gay liberation and women’s rights are concerned.
Of course, this does not mean we can ignore women’s oppression or postpone such matters to after the revolution. The question is how we deal with discrimination against women (and gays, lesbians, etc) amongst the majority of the population, not the elite.
For Marxists it is a nonsense to suggest, as do some feminists, that women constitute a “class”: for Marx, class expressed a relationship to the means of production. But for Christine Delphy, for example, gender can also be defined in relation to the mode of production because of domestic labour. So for her the main enemy of women is not capitalism, but patriarchy.2
The radical left has a tradition of making a strong stand against rape, domestic violence within its own ranks and in society in general. No-one on the left should claim such issues are unimportant compared to the class struggle. Nor can we argue, for instance, that because the imperialists are targeting the Islamic Republic we can ignore women’s rights in Tehran. However, there is no denying that the forces upholding a truly radical approach to women’s rights are weak - a reflection of the weakness of the working class movement itself. It is also true to say that sections of the Marxist left seem to have abandoned theoretical work on class-related women’s issues for most of the last three decades. There is little sign of grassroots mobilisation, limited Marxist academic work on the changing role of women in and out of work, in society and in the household, few new articles on domestic labour, dual systems theory… Some say poverty is feminised, yet there is little Marxist research about the effects of unemployment and the economic crisis on working class women.
Mainstream feminists have concentrated on the career prospects of professional women, while ignoring important issues, such as the capitalist commodification of women’s bodies. Of course, there are exceptions - mainly US-based Marxist feminists who have examined how gender, identity and culture affect class politics, but the dominant feminist discourse is used by neoliberal capitalism to intensify the exploitation of the working class in a globalised economy. Hester Eisenstein points out that mainstream feminism is the “unwitting handmaiden” of the capitalist class.3 She and Johanna Brenner argue that the hegemonic form propagated by neoliberal feminists has become an integral part of what is considered common sense.
Of course, we must welcome some aspects of this ‘common sense’ - for example, the fact that “assumptions about natural gender differences in intellect, character and capacities have been widely challenged”,4 and that overt discrimination against women is frowned upon in most western countries (although that is not true of most of the third world). However, we must also be wary that, while these and similar measures have allowed middle class and upper class women unprecedented progress in the political, economic and social spheres, their effect on the day-to-day life of working class women has been more problematic, often negative. We cannot just rely on quoting Zetkin and Kollontai - we have faced three decades of massive investment by capitalism into propagating the discourse of this neoliberal feminism. The challenge is posed by Cinzia Arruzza in her book, Dangerous liaisons: the marriages and divorces of Marxism and feminism5. Nancy Fraser sums up the current dielema as follows : “How, in the wake of a capitalist crisis of global dimensions, can struggles against male domination be made to synergise with struggles against neoliberalism (finance capital)?”
The worst aspect of the current debate about feminism amongst sections of the left is the fact that their reaction to allegations in the Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party in England and Wales is virtually indistinguishable from what you might find in the Daily Mail or The Times. In my opinion this reflects, on the one hand, the influence and triumph of neoliberal feminism and, on the other, the low level of Marxist understanding. In the case of the pro-war ‘left’, there is a subordination, be it unconscious, to neoliberal, imperialist feminism. Unlike ‘first-phase feminism’, ‘second-phase feminism’ was not marginalised: it was institutionalised.
The problem with the hegemony of neoliberal feminism is not just the fact that it promotes market capitalism, but the fact that it protects the interests of managerial women at the expense of the working class. In the absence of a rigorous Marxist approach to the issue of gender inequality, there is little work done on the effects on women of casualisation, part-time and contract work. In the UK women face lower job security, greater pay inequality and higher unemployment, although there is a higher proportion of women working full-time in comparison with other advanced capitalist countries. Of course, the situation is far worse is the ‘developing countries’, while in the United States Marxist feminists report a situation similar to the one in the UK.
You do not need to be an economist to know that it is women who pay the main price for neoliberal deregulation at work, and have borne the main brunt of the tough measures adopted as recession took over. A 2012 study by Barbara Gunnel quantifies this: “The number of 16-24-year-olds looking for work remains stubbornly high at more than a million ... For women, too, the August [2012] figures show a bad situation deteriorating further”, as savage cuts in the public sector take their toll. Even if the economy recovers, these jobs are unlikely to return.6
Traditionally women have preferred lower-paid public-sector work to the private sector, because it allows a level of flexibility in terms of working hours as well as the guarantee of pregnancy leave. Yet they are amongst the first groups to face redundancy, as severe cuts in the public sector are implemented. Mass unemployment amongst women is set to become an even more serious issue.
Marxist feminism
When Marxist feminism had its heyday in the 1970s, Engels’s book, The origins of the family, private property and the state, was used to explain the reasons behind women’s subordination in the family. In dismissing bourgeois sexual morality, Marxists tried to show how the development of exclusive male control of private property was related to the male obsession with ensuring their inheritance is passed to their own offspring. Critics of Marxist feminism had argued that by placing too much emphasis upon class relations in the economic sphere (women considered as part of the working class, for example) it did not pay enough attention to female experiences outside the labour market, especially within the family and in the domestic sphere.
Some looked at domestic labour as well as wage work. For them the family was an ‘institutional representation of male demands’ - women’s domestic labour is unpaid, after all. So their slogan was ‘Wages for housework’. Sylvia Frederici, who was amongst the initiators of this campaign, writes in a more recent book, Revolution at point zero: housework, reproduction and feminist struggle, that in late capitalism relations of production are indistinguishable from social relations: in other words, the latter have become relations of production. Capitalism is maintained by a system of hidden labour, in the form of care for children and the elderly, childbearing, food and clothes production (preparation of food and mending clothes), house cleaning, not to mention emotional support.
Others have argued that no surplus value is extracted from a woman’s housework, or only to a limited extent when middle class women entertain their husband/partner’s work contacts or colleagues to further his career. But this phenomenon is increasingly marginal: married middle class women hold demanding jobs and in the main do not perform the role of housewife.
According to Heidi Hartmann, “The marriage of Marxism and feminism has been like that between husband and wife depicted in English common law; Marxism and feminism are one, and that one is Marxism.” To continue the metaphor further, she claims: “… either we need a healthier marriage or we need a divorce.”7
Sexism
What does it mean to say we live in a sexist society? How does it affect the way we address the issues facing the organisations of the left? Are they just as sexist? My experience in left organisations, including militarist, Stalinist ones, is that they provide a far less sexist environment than society in general. I am making this comparison not just with misogynistic, Middle Eastern societies, but also with Europe - here one could discuss sexism in institutions of higher education, in corporations; the way women are portrayed in the media. A number of comrades have questioned the validity of this statement and I will try to explain aspects of it.
Let me start with the worst example: misogynistic Islamic societies. Iran’s Islamic Republic and Mohamed Mursi’s Egypt present good examples. For all the noise made by defenders of Islamic feminism, the clerics ruling these countries have no respect for basic women’s rights. That is why the women’s movement in Iran is one of the main forces opposing Islamism. So we have to argue against apologists for religious states, be it in the anti-war movement or anywhere else, and this is what we in Hands Off the People of Iran have tried to do. The Iranian women’s movement has opposed Islamism with some success, especially in view of the might of the fundamentalists; they have challenged every misogynistic decision, sometimes forcing the state to back-track.
So it is right to reiterate the fact that anti-imperialism has nothing to do with cultural relativism. We are opposed to religious excesses such as sigheh (temporary marriage), the abuse of women, including stoning to death. Koranic verses on the right of a man to beat up his wife have no place in the 21st century. That is why Islamic feminism was and remains an oxymoron and no-one on the left should try to excuse such behaviour under the guise of supporting anti-imperialism or fighting Islamophobia.
However, this does not mean that organisations with the wrong analysis of women’s rights in Islamic countries practise misogyny in their own ranks. It is ridiculous to make such claims.
For all the funding that goes into gender studies in every social science department in universities up and down the country, universities themselves are sometimes home to extreme forms of sexism. Anyone wanting to understand sexism in advanced capitalist societies should visit engineering faculties in UK universities. These bastions of male chauvinism are places where the language and behaviour of male students act as a serious deterrent to any female student attempting to finish her course. Few women study engineering - I assume the reputation of ‘lager lout’ engineering students is amongst the reasons. Those that do often end up in academia or research and development, mainly because engineering workplaces are not pleasant or indeed safe places.
In my experience, the worst students in this regard have been those from the RAF, army or navy on placement in engineering courses. They are supposedly part of the elite of imperialism’s military forces - like those sent to uphold the freedom of Iraqi and Afghan women. If there was a war with Iran, no doubt they would also be dispatched there to liberate women. That is why I find it particularly galling when pro-war ‘lefts’ lecture revolutionary groups about women’s rights.
We live in a sexist, capitalist society and the press and media influence our daily lives. The Daily Mail and other mainstream papers which have tried to smear the left using the current debacle in the SWP are, of course, examples of unfettered sexism. Their coverage of women’s issues is an insult to the intelligence of all. They feature stories about the appearance of sham personalities undergoing plastic surgery and salacious gossip about who has left whom - these papers still value a woman’s worth in terms of the man she can keep. They imply that women who have an extra-marital relationship are slags, yet they can give a positive spin to middle-aged male celebrities who leave their wife for a woman half their age. The press promotes the commodification of women in the form of advertising. Their obsession with size and weight is now recognised as an important cause of physical and mental illness amongst young women.
Violence
Marxist feminists rightly point out that women’s freedom has come at a cost to their security. Women are frequently the victims of violence.
The left has to find a political solution to this issue, including how to react if there is an allegation of rape or domestic violence within our own organisations. Those accused of such behaviour should be suspended from membership, but where do we draw the line? Should anyone who defends a comrade facing such accusations be banned from political meetings? Should we no-platform those who defend a comrade facing any accusations even before the allegations are proven?
For its part, neoliberal feminism ignores another widespread form of violence against women: the suffering caused by the pressure on women to appear attractive to men. Naomi Wolf, in the introduction to her book, The beauty myth, writes: “The more legal and material hindrances women have broken through, the more strictly and heavily and cruelly images of female beauty have come to weigh upon us ... During the past decade, women breached the power structure; meanwhile, eating disorders rose exponentially and cosmetic surgery became the fastest-growing speciality”.8
According to Wolf, 33,000 American women told researchers that they would rather lose 10-15 pounds than achieve any other goal. Her claim that 150,000 US women die from anorexia each year has been challenged. However, there is no doubt that the high failure rates amongst female undergraduates, or the fact that depression and other side effects of eating disorders have been blamed for the major discrepancy between pre-university achievements amongst female students compared to degree results, is an indication that we should take Wolf’s warnings seriously. Yet this aspect of violence against women is hardly mentioned by hegemonic feminism: it is deemed to be a private matter. After all, one cannot challenge the market.
Plastic surgery has now become part of the lives of many young women. A total of 43,172 surgical procedures were carried out in 2012, according to the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons.9 Neoliberal feminism has nothing to say about this - in fact some such feminists tell us it is a woman’s right to use such drastic measures to look better, but we Marxists should remind everyone of the fallacy of the “beauty myth” that claims so many victims amongst my gender every year.
We live in the period of late capitalism, when commodity fetishism dominates our lives. Here I am not referring to the perception of the social relationships involved in production, but the consumption of commodities. As far as the consumer of contemporary commodities and services sold in the market is concerned, brands can offer unlimited promise, yet the commodification itself leaves the alienated consumer with little control. Women as organisers of social life, as carers and budget holders for households, are themselves victims of this alienation as consumers.
I do not think there is any doubt that attempts at creating alternative societies within the existing capitalist sexist environment have failed: we are not a primitive African tribe and we cannot mimic their practices in London, Paris or New York. However, I would argue that when ‘liberated zones’ have been created out of necessity (mainly following civil wars) in circumstances when the left has been to the fore, we do see glimpses of another world, where a woman’s political, military, organisational capabilities are more important than her looks, where communal kitchens and socialised domestic rotas free up women’s time, allowing them to be equal in terms of their freedom to engage in politics, including in defence of Maoist spontaneity.11 I would argue that my own experience in such an environment was liberating. However, the artificial creation of such ‘zones’ have led to farcical situations and I am not advocating a period of exile to ‘liberated areas’ for educational purposes.
Women and the left
It is true that there are fewer women in the organisations of the left. However, this issue has a number of complex causes and to assume from this that women are not ‘safe’ in left organisations is crass and superficial. The same organisations have few members from ethnic minorities and it would be equally wrong to claim that this is because the left is racist.
Having said that, there is an issue with confidence for women at work, in education and in politics - an issue we must deal with. According to (neoliberal) feminists, there is nothing wrong with women spending an enormous amount of time on housework or their appearance, but as communist women we have to accept that equality with men requires a more efficient use of our time. We cannot be the wage earner as well as the person responsible for housework, the principle carer for children and/or the elderly, spending hours devoting ourselves to our appearance, and still have sufficient time to read, educate ourselves, write and speak in public. Confident participation in a political debate requires discipline, hard work and persistence, and in this regard the sexist society we live in constantly presents serious obstacles to women.
My emphasis on ‘sexist society’ is precisely to remind everyone that, with the best intentions in the world, it is impossible to achieve full equality between men and women under capitalism. The presence of token women in bureaucratic positions, far from representing their equality, symbolises lack of equality. That is not to say that women’s liberation can only be achieved after a socialist revolution and nothing can be done in the meantime. The problem is, we are talking of the liberation of half of the population - their participation in the revolution is not just desirable: it is an essential part of the revolutionary process. Yet in many ways the ascendancy of neoliberal feminism, including amongst the left, makes this prerequisite even more difficult to achieve.
Yes, we need a more democratic left. Yes, we must empower women to be equal, active members of the political organisations of the left. But that is not enough: we need to overcome the issue of lack of confidence. If you ask intelligent young women in universities why they do not contribute, say, to a seminar discussion, nine out of 10 would cite lack of confidence. If you ask female postgraduates why they want to give up their PhD, nine out of 10 would do the same. This is also evident in our own organisations. Why is that the case?
Two reasons amongst many:
1. As a result of their conditioning in sexist society, women are more sensitive as to how they are perceived.
2. The demands on women’s time are extensive - it is true that a woman’s work is never done. Yet the pressures of a sexist society demand that she looks her best, even at the cost of suffering or going without sufficient food.
So women are as much victims of the conditions as they are contributors to the problem.
For communists the political is personal - as opposed to the 1970s feminist slogan, ‘The personal is political’, which led to reinforcing the idea that the most basic social division is between the sexes. I argue for the exact opposite, based on Ellie Smeal’s slogan, “Out of the mainstream, into the revolution”. Women can do more to rebel against the mainstream.
I started this article by blaming the current rightwing backlash on neoliberal feminism. I want to finish it by arguing that there is another side to this, and that is the conformism of the radical left - a type of conservatism, or passivity, which has ironically followed in the footsteps of 1970s radicalism. So, in defence of ‘Maoist spontaneity’, I would argue that at least the radical left of the late 1970s was seeking ‘revolutionary’ solutions and, as far as women’s issues are concerned, we have lost this radicalism.
We can wait for working class men and women to organise and mobilise together en masse ... However, if we call ourselves communists, the working class would expect us to be a bit more proactive and, yes, revolutionary. Making a serious effort to expose institutionalised neoliberal feminism, developing a revolutionary personal and political attitude in relation to women’s rights - these are obvious steps in that direction. And in this task women have as much to do as men.
yassamine.mather@weeklyworker.org.uk
Notes
1. J Brenner, ‘The best of times, the worst of times: US feminism today’: http://newleftreview.org/I/200/johanna-brenner-the-best-of-times-the-worst-of-times-us-feminism-today.
2. C Delphy L’ennemi principal Vol 1, Paris 2008.
3. H Eisenstein Feminism seduced: how global elites use women’s labor and ideas to exploit the world Boulder 2010.
4. J Brenner, ‘The best of times, the worst of times: US feminism today’: http://newleftreview.org/I/200/johanna-brenner-the-best-of-times-the-worst-of-times-us-feminism-today.
5. C Arruzza Dangerous liaisons: the marriages and divorces of Marxism and feminism The Merlin Press 2013.
6. www.opendemocracy.net/printpdf/67697.
7. H Hartmann, ‘The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism’ in L Sargent (ed) Women and revolution Cambridge, Mass 1981.
8. N Wolf The beauty myth: how images of beauty are used against women London 1991.
10. See M Macnair, ‘A useless product of 1970s radicalism’ Weekly Worker April 11.