"It is not enough to say: "We must target women through our propaganda and attract them into our ranks." ---- We must go much, much further than that. The vast majority of male comrades-with the exception of half a dozen well-meaning individuals-have their minds infected by the most common bourgeois ideas. Even though they rail against property, they fundamentally have a property mentality. Even though they rage against slavery, they are the cruellest of "masters." Even though they vent their fury against monopoly, they are the most die-hard monopolists. And all of this stems from the most false idea that humanity has ever managed to conceive: the supposed "inferiority of women." A misconception that is likely to have delayed the evolution of civilization for centuries.
The humblest slave, once he crosses the threshold of his home, becomes lord and master. His slightest whim becomes a categorical command for the women of his household. He who, only ten minutes earlier, had to swallow the bitter pill of bourgeois humiliation, now rises up like a tyrant and forces these unfortunate creatures to swallow the bitter pill of their supposed inferiority...
From time to time, I had the opportunity to strike up a conversation with a male comrade who struck me as rather sensitive and whom I had heard emphasize the need for a female presence in our movement. One day, there was a conference at the Centre and I asked him:
"And your partner? How come she's not attending the conference?"
His answer left me speechless.
"She has enough to do taking care of my children and me."
On another occasion, I was in the courthouse corridors. I was with a comrade who held a position of responsibility. A lawyer emerged from one of the rooms, perhaps representing a working-class person. My companion gave her a long, sidelong glance and muttered, a mocking smile on his lips:
"I'd tell people like that to get lost."
These two seemingly ordinary episodes reveal a great deal about a sad reality.
First and foremost, they tell us that we have neglected something very important: that, while we are concentrating all our energies on agitation, we are neglecting the educational aspect. That our propaganda aimed at recruiting women should not be directed at women but at our male comrades. That we should begin by banishing the idea of superiority from their minds. That when we say that all human beings are equal, "human beings" also includes women, even if they are up to their necks in housework and surrounded by pots and pans and pets. We must tell them that women possess an intellect like theirs and a keen sensitivity and a burning desire for progress; that before putting order in society, they should do it in their own homes; that what they dream of for the future-equality and justice-they should practice here and now toward the members of their own families; It is absurd to ask a woman to understand the problems facing humanity if he does not first allow her to look within herself, if he does not ensure that the woman with whom he shares his life is aware of her individuality, if, in short, he does not first and foremost grant her the status of an individual...
There are many male comrades who genuinely wish to see women contribute to the struggle; but this desire does not bring about any change in their ideas about women; they seek their cooperation as a means of envisioning the prospect of victory, as a strategic contribution, in fact, without allowing themselves a moment to think about women's autonomy or without ceasing to consider themselves the center of the universe...
A certain union propaganda meeting, which I attended, is etched in my memory. It took place in a small provincial town. Before the meeting began, I was approached by a comrade, a member of the most important local committee... Through his overflowing enthusiasm about the "sublime vocation" of women, the raw argument put forward by Oken-whom he probably didn't know, but with whom he was connected by the invisible bond of atavism-was clearly and precisely apparent:
"Woman represents only the means, not the end of nature. Nature has only one end, one object: man."
...He was complaining about something that, as far as I could tell, was the main source of satisfaction: that women had broken with the tradition that had made them dependent on men and were entering the workforce in search of economic independence. This saddened him and pleased me because I knew that contact with the street and social activity would provide a stimulus that would then awaken their sense of individuality.
Her complaint had been the universal complaint a few years earlier when women first left the home for the factory and the workshop. Can we conclude from this that it harmed the cause of the proletariat? The integration of women into the workforce, coinciding with the introduction of machinery into industry, only intensified competition among the labor force and led to a significant drop in wages.
On the surface, we might say that the male workers were right. But if we were to dig a little deeper and explore the heart of the matter, we would discover that the outcome could have been very different if the workers hadn't been misled by their hostility towards women, based on some supposed female inferiority...
The struggle was waged on the basis of this supposed inferiority; lower wages were tolerated, and women were excluded from class organizations on the grounds that wage labor was not a woman's calling. It was on this basis that unfair competition between the sexes was built. The idea of woman as overseer of the machine aligned well with the prevailing notion of the feminine spirit at the time, and so they began employing women who, convinced by the age-old idea that they were inferior, made no attempt to set limits to capitalist abuses. Men found themselves relegated to the hardest and most specialized tasks.
If, instead of behaving this way, the workers had made some room for women, encouraging them and placing them on the same level as themselves, accepting them from the outset into class organizations, and demanding equal conditions for both sexes from employers, the result would have been radically different. Initially, their physical superiority would have given them priority with an employer, since it would have cost the employer the same to employ a weaker person as a stronger one. And for women, their desire for advancement would have been awakened, and, united with men in class organizations, together they could have made greater and faster progress on the path to liberation.
At present, the theory of the intellectual inferiority of women has been rendered obsolete; a significant number of women from all social backgrounds have provided concrete evidence of the falsity of this dogma, let's say, by demonstrating the excellent level of their talents in all areas of human activity...
But, just when the path seemed to be clearing, a new dogma - this time with a semblance of scientific basis - arises in the path of women and erects new barriers against progress...
In place of the dogma of intellectual inferiority, we now have that of sexual differentiation. The point of contention is no longer, as it was a century ago, whether woman is superior or inferior; the argument is that she is different. It is no longer a question of a brain that is heavier or lighter or larger or more voluminous, but rather of spongy organs, called secretory glands, which give a child a specific character, determining its sex and, consequently, its role in society...
According to the theory of differentiation, woman is nothing more than a tyrannical uterus whose harmful influences are felt even in the most remote corners of the brain; all of woman's psychic life obeys a biological process which is nothing other than the process of gestation... Science has tinkered with the terms without touching the essence of this axiom: "Birth, gestation and death." The one and only feminist perspective.
Clearly, an attempt was made to frame this conclusion in a way that was overly complimentary. We are told:
"The vocation of woman is the most elaborate and sublime that nature can offer; she is the mother, the guide, the educator of the humanity of the future."
But the point is to direct each of his movements, his entire life, all of his education, towards this single objective: the only one consistent with his nature, it seems.
So now we have the notions of femininity and motherhood reunited. Because it appears that the wise men have not found common ground; throughout the ages, the custom has been a mystical praise of motherhood; until now, praise was reserved for the prolific mother, the one who gave birth to heroes, saints, redeemers, or tyrants; from now on, it will be reserved for the eugenic mother, the conceiver, the pregnant woman, the immaculate biological mother...
I said that we had the notions of femininity and motherhood combined, but I was wrong; we already have something worse: the notion of motherhood eclipsing that of femininity, the function annihilating the individual.
One could say that throughout history, the masculine world has oscillated, in its relationship with women, between the two extreme notions of whore and mother, between the abject and the sublime, without ever settling on the strictly human aspect: woman. Woman as an individual, rational, capable of thought, autonomous...
The mother is the product of the brutal masculine reaction against the whore, which he sees in every woman. It is the deification of the womb that sheltered him.
But - and let us not be scandalized, because we are among anarchists and our fundamental commitment is to call things by their name and to bring down erroneous ideas, however prestigious they may be - the mother as an asset to society has therefore been only the manifestation of an instinct, an instinct that is all the more virulent because the life of the woman has been reduced to it for years; but an instinct, nevertheless, with the exception of a few superior women who have acquired the status of feeling.
Woman, on the contrary, is an individual, a thinking being, a more complex entity. By focusing on the mother, we seek to banish woman, whereas we could have both woman and mother, because femininity never excludes motherhood.
You look down on women as determining factors in society, assigning them the status of passive recipients. You look down on the direct contribution of an intelligent woman, preferring the perhaps inept contribution of a man. I repeat: we must call things by their name. Women are women first and foremost. Only if they are women will you have the mothers you need.
What I find shocking is that male comrades, who define themselves as anarchists, perhaps dazzled by the scientific principle on which the new dogma claims to be based, are capable of defending it. Seeing them, I am assailed by this doubt: if they are anarchists, they cannot be serious, and if they are serious, they cannot be anarchists.
According to the theory of differentiation, the mother is the equivalent of the worker. For an anarchist, a worker is first and foremost a man, and first and foremost, the mother should be a woman. (I'm speaking in a generic sense.) Because, for an anarchist, the individual comes first...
This may be regrettable, but campaigns for greater sexual freedom have not always been properly understood by our young male comrades, and on many occasions, they have attracted into our ranks a large number of young men and women who are completely uninterested in social issues and are simply on the lookout for romantic adventures. Some have interpreted freedom as an invitation to excess and view every woman who passes as a target for their desires...
In our centers, which are rarely frequented by young women, I've noticed that conversations between the sexes never revolve around any issue, much less a work-related topic. The moment a young person meets someone of the opposite sex, the question of sex captivates them, and free love seems to be the sole subject of conversation. And I've observed two types of female responses to this. One is instant surrender to suggestion; in this case, it doesn't take long for the woman to become the plaything of male whims and completely lose all social awareness. The other is disillusionment: so the woman who arrived with high ambitions and aspirations leaves, disappointed, and eventually departs from our ranks. Only a few women of character, who have learned to judge the value of things for themselves, manage to overcome this.
As for the men's response, it is always the same, despite his much-vaunted sex education, and this is evident when, in his various romantic entanglements with the woman he considers a "comrade," the figure of Don Juan transforms into Othello, and the woman-if not the couple-is lost to the movement...
My considered opinion, ultimately, is that the resolution of this problem depends solely on the resolution of the economic question. On revolution. And nothing else. Anything else would mean calling the same old slavery by a new name. -
Lucía Sánchez Saornil , in Solidaridad Obrera , September-October 1935
https://www.socialisme-libertaire.fr/2026/08/la-question-du-feminisme.html
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten