Sexual violence and capitalism
«Break the silence on sexual violence!» was a slogan often heard on
Victorian campuses at the end of 1991 as students organised campaigns to
force university administrations to provide a safer environment. The
annual Reclaim the Night demonstration in Melbourne is one of the
largest and liveliest rallies of the year. Whether it be a rape at a
club or a sexist judge pronouncing that prostitutes suffer less from
rape than «chaste» women, hundreds immediately protest with letters to
the papers and street demonstrations. At Queensland University a
campaign for improved parking took up the question of safety.
Governments have been forced to at least appear to take the issue of
violence against women seriously, running TV ads against sexual violence
and even providing some funding for refuges. During the eighties
governments, police forces and official bodies held an unprecedented
number of enquiries and conferences into violence against women,
increasingly concentrating on domestic violence.
This reflects the importance of violence against women as a recurring
political issue. There are three main reasons for this. Firstly, the
sexism all women endure in their everyday lives, and the violence and
rape suffered by a minority. Secondly, the increasing emphasis placed on
the issue of violence by feminists. And thirdly, changes in attitudes to
sexuality and women’s lives under twentieth century capitalism. As they
have been drawn into waged work in increasing numbers this century,
women have come to see themselves more as persons in their own right
with their own needs and demands. This contradicts the continuing
pressure to be the loving wife and mother with few rights in marriage.
In Australia the Second World War had an important impact on women’s
sexuality and identity which was never completely eliminated. Their
entry into previously male jobs in large numbers brought unheard of
economic independence. The dislocation caused by war, along with the
presence of large numbers of US servicemen alongside Australian soldiers
either on leave or waiting to be sent into battle, loosened the
traditional ties by which sexuality was controlled. The «sexual
revolution» of the sixties brought the contradictions of women’s new
position in society into stark relief. On the one hand, the impact of
waged work, the availability of contraception and limited, but
increasing access to abortion meant that women began to be seen as
sexual beings with real needs and desires. This was a step forward on
the image of them as simply passive housewives.
On the other hand, this emergence of women as sexual beings made it
easier for their bodies to be exploited even more blatantly as sex
objects. Increasingly society measures good relationships in terms of
sex, yet the use of women’s bodies to sell commodities or in pornography
reinforces the old idea that women do not have equal rights and needs
with men.
In this article I examine the themes, analysis and solutions raised by
feminists over the last decade or so, with particular reference to
recent Australian work, and outline a Marxist analysis of violence
against women.
Fundamental changes in women’s lives were made possible by capitalist
development. The industrial revolution and the rise of capitalist
production disrupted the old feudal family. The new industry drew people
from the countryside into new cities where men, women and children were
exploited in the factories, mines and mills. This brought about the
separation of work and family life. For workers in the industrial slums,
the family ceased to exist as an economic unit (though it partially
existed as a social unit). But for the ruling class the family remained
an important institution for organising their class power and wealth.
When they looked for a way to reduce the mortality rates among workers,
they naturally turned to the family as a way of having each generation
cared for and reared ready for exploitation. Marx and Engels thought the
family would die away in the working class, but their prognosis proved
to be wrong.
The reality is that women’s and men’s lives are structured by the
family. And the family structures and maintains the oppression of women.
While relations are entered «freely» by both partners, they are not
equal. Women do most of the housework and child care, even when they
work outside the home. Women are expected to provide nurturing, love and
support. Men, who provide the greater part of family income, are seen as
the «bread winners». This is backed up by unequal wages which make it
difficult for any individual family to redress this inequality even if
they wanted to. This division of labour in the family is often seen as
simply the result of male dominance, and benefiting individual men.
Actually, it benefits the ruling class because the present and future
generations of workers are cared for out of workers’ wages and by
women’s double burden of waged work and home responsibilities. Women
experience inequality with their husbands in the family, and at work
they suffer both sexual oppression and exploitation as workers. Men
suffer exploitation, but not sexual inequality.
The gender roles associated with the capitalist family – strong,
aggressive male and nurturing, passive female – pervade all of society
through the education system, the mass media, entertainment and so on.
No individual can escape them, even if they do not live in the so-called
nuclear family, whether they marry and have children or not. It is the
inequality between men and women, the contradiction between the ideal
life of happiness and bliss the family seems to hold out and the reality
of long hours of work, the struggle to make ends meet, the constraints
on social life because of the lack of decent child care facilities and
so on which make the family a site of frustration and oppression. The
use of women’s bodies as sex objects reinforces old ideas of women’s
responsibility to satisfy men’s needs. And it is not just men who view
women this way. All studies of attitudes show how women internalise this
view of their role, causing feelings of guilt and inadequacy if they do
not come up to their husbands’ demands.
Throughout the history of class society, women have suffered violence at
the hands of men. Capitalism completely re-ordered women and men’s
lives, but it maintained women’s oppression as well as class oppression.
While the family is separate from production, it is not unaffected by
changes in the workplace. That is why the changes this century have
given rise to contradictions which affect women’s lives in the family.
The rise of the women’s liberation movement in the sixties was
underpinned by the increasing numbers of women in waged work, giving
rise to the demand for control over our sexuality, improved
contraception and abortion rights. This made it possible for sexual
activity to be separated from marriage and procreation. In spite of the
ideology of family life, in most industrialised countries today, only
about one third of households consist of a man and woman with their
children. Attitudes to motherhood have changed dramatically. In the
eighties fewer than half the women surveyed in Australia thought
motherhood was a career. The number of children born outside marriage
was up to 18 per cent by 1997. The number of people living alone in
1986–87 was 20 per cent of households. It is the continuing
contradiction between the promise of these developments and the reality
of life under capitalism and women’s continuing oppression which gave
rise to concerns first about violence against women generally and then
about domestic violence and rape in marriage.
Early writings which influenced the modem wave of feminism did not deal
with violence against women in any systematic way. But Simone de
Beauvoir in The Second Sex argued that virtually all sexual relations
between men and women constituted violence. A woman’s first sexual
encounter is «an act of violence which changes a girl into a woman». She
uses all the language of unequal relationships: the woman is «taken»,
she is «invaded», she «yields» to men’s sexual advances. Susan
Brownmiller was influential in promoting this kind of analysis with her
book Against Our Will published in 1975. For de Beauvoir «this has
always been a man’s world.» And «the female … is the prey of the
species». Brownmiller argued that rape «is nothing more or less than a
conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a
state of fear.» This theme has become prominent, at times blurring all
sexism into the category of violence. It is the case that the everyday
sexism of the wolf whistle, anti-women jokes, put-downs, etc create the
environment in which violence from a minor nature to forcible rape and
battering can occur. But to blur all these situations into one is to
ignore the specificity of each and to lessen our understanding of the
social relations between the sexes which lead to violence against women.
Brownmiller’s book, apart from its serious theoretical problems, has a
weakness which has become increasingly apparent: its concentration on
«stranger danger», rape as a violent attack by strangers. It is now
recognised that most violence against women occurs within the walls of
the family home. Today, with so much emphasis on sexual violence,
especially in the family, it is hard to imagine that only fifteen to
twenty years ago, even feminists were reluctant to discuss the issue and
accepted ideas that are now recognised as part of the ideology which
minimises women’s access to support and defence against violence.
Brownmiller states that until a discussion of rape she attended in 1970
she thought «rape wasn’t a feminist issue», that «the women’s movement
had nothing in common with rape victims».
She continues by talking of the pressure for women to «draw the line»,
and while these women may actually want sex, they do not always know how
or where to draw the line, «by which time the men concerned may feel
that they have dues to collect». Diana Russell writes that even in the
eighties, feminists in the US were reluctant to take up the question of
rape in marriage. It is worth reminding ourselves of this incredible
shift in attitude even by feminists who today would correctly insist
however we dress, wherever we go, yes means yes, and no means no. In
student newspapers it is asserted over and over again, echoing
Brownmiller, that sexual violence, and in particular rape, is a means of
social control of women by all men. Unless we want to argue that earlier
feminists were complicit in this violence, their ideas require some
explanation. We can only do this by developing an analysis of such
violence as a consequence of class society, the ideas of which affect us
all.
A major reason why violence in the home was covered up was the ideology
of the family as a sanctuary of love and private life, not to be invaded
by public scrutiny. Of course this sanctuary is «the man’s castle» and
women feel pressured to be available for sex at all times. The law did
not recognise marital rape in most states until the late seventies or
even into the eighties. So it is not surprising that common sense
folklore denied it. Russell found, in developing interviewing techniques
for her study of just under 1,000 women, that it was extremely difficult
to ensure women would report rape by their husbands. The interviewers
were eventually told not to use the word rape, but to ask if they had
experienced unwanted sexual activity with their husband. Only six of the
eighty-seven women raped by their husbands mentioned it when first asked
«at any time in your life, have you ever been the victim of rape, or
attempted rape?» Virtually all thought they had been sexually abused,
but not raped, although some later described the experience as «like
rape». Rape is a specific question, and marital rape was not recognised
in most US states at the time of the survey. Nevertheless, what
constitutes «abuse» is also a subjective assessment. Many women who
expect to be at their husband’s beck and call may not regard as abuse
behaviour which would be so regarded from other men. This hidden
violence in the family was masked even more by the lack of welfare or
divorce laws which enabled women to leave abusive relationships easily.
Part of the explanation has to be that it is a minority of women who
suffer abuse. Russell, whose survey is one of the most methodologically
rigorous and therefore more reliable as a pointer to the extent of
violence, found that 21 per cent said they had suffered violence from
their husband and 26 per cent unwanted sexual experience. Given that
violence is most prevalent in less privileged, less well-off families
many middle class women in the women’s movement are not likely to have
had personal experience of such abuse.
This quote also takes up a theme which is revealed in studies where
women voice their feelings: that you can’t really expect much from
marriage – it may even be «disgusting» – but it must be endured. This
novel is an answer to the mythology widely accepted among feminists and
most of the left today that only feminists have been able to deal with
women’s oppression. Clearly, Prichard, a leading Communist Party member
from the time of its formation in the early 1920s, was far in advance of
the thinking of the new women’s movement of the sixties.
It may be tempting to think the reason domestic violence became more of
an issue was because violence was on the increase, as the press often
tries to make out.
Increases in reported sexual assault do not necessarily reflect a rise
in violence. It may, as Grabosky pointed out, reflect changes in police
practices, changes in social attitudes which mean more women feel able
to report the attack, or even the fact that the legal definition of rape
has changed. There are several reasons for the shift in emphasis which
intersect and reinforce each other. Firstly, the continuing increase in
the number of women working raises expectations of what relationships
should offer. Women who feel relatively independent are likely to be
more self-confident, more able to get out of a relationship, so they are
not prepared to accept the same level of abuse as previously. There is
quite a lot of evidence to suggest most women do not passively accept
their situation (contrary to the efforts of many academic sociologists
to establish otherwise). Eighty per cent of women contacted by the
Queensland Task Force attempted to leave at some time. American studies
back up this figure with one finding that seventy-five per cent of
abused women left the violent family situation. Even a study of
adolescent women, who could be expected to have the least
self-confidence, found that a majority were able to stop the attack and
avoid rape. Where the assault was perpetrated by a date or boyfriend,
two thirds of the relationships changed and 87 per cent ended. Women’s
ability to assert their own interests was improved from the
mid-seventies when divorce laws began to be reformed and later, when
rape in marriage acknowledged abusive behaviour as criminal. The
provision of welfare, insufficient as it is, can make the difference
between staying or leaving an intolerable situation. Many studies quote
women as giving more ideological reasons, such as commitment to the
family, feelings of guilt or even believing they were to blame, for
staying in a marriage they hated. This should not blind us to the way
economic circumstances constrain the options open to an individual,
thereby limiting their view of their position. Economic and ideological
factors feed each other. Once the material circumstances change, there
is a space for new ideas to take root and influence a person’s actions.
A later FBI report showed that more than 70 percent of all arrested
rapists have prior records and over 85 percent are reported to repeat
crimes in descending order of frequency: burglary, assault robbery, rape
and homicide. If this were the most common form of rape, it would be
fairly straightforward: rape is one aspect of the violent existence of
disadvantaged youth. The fact that Brownmiller concentrates on this data
makes it even more ironic that she was influential in shifting the
politics of feminists away from class. It was this emphasis on
«stranger» rapes which led to the categorical assumption that rape has
nothing to do with sex, but is simply an act of violence. However the
question is far more complex than that – in fact many rapes are at least
partly to do with sex. Sheila McGregor makes a distinction between three
types of rape: date or acquaintance, marital and stranger. Her material
on date rape was based on surveys of adolescents in the US over a five
year period. In contrast to some studies, the definition of forced
sexual behaviour was quite wide: touching sexual parts, and pressure
brought to bear from verbal to physical beating. On this definition,
over a three year period between seven and nine percent of female
adolescents reported some form of sexual assault.
A Ms magazine survey of US college students found that just over a
quarter of the women considered to have been victims of rape or
attempted assault did not consider themselves to be rape victims. Almost
half had sex again with the same man.
It also shows how difficult it is for women to accept that a man they
care about may rape them, or to even recognise rape for what it is.
There is the pressure of not knowing whether the man will want to date
again if he does not have sex, the feeling that a woman is expected to
be available (an attitude more prevalent for adolescents today, with the
liberalisation of ideas concerning sex out of marriage). There is the
perception created by TV and films that a young male is less than a man
if he does not go all out for sex. All of these contradictory feelings
and ideas, combined with inexperience and lack of knowledge about sex,
lead to a breakdown in mutual respect and can end in rape. To say this
kind of rape is not about sex is to ignore the dynamic of sexual
relationships among youth. They are bombarded with images which imply
that women who are not sexy and available are inadequate. Young men
watch films and TV, read books and newspapers which promote the idea
that men should take sex from women, that emotions and caring are only
for wimpy women. Of course, forced sexual acts and rape by dates and
acquaintances is not about what we would like sex to be – but it most
certainly is about sex the way it is under capitalism.
Prichard dealt with the confusion between love and possession by men of
women. They had been great lovers, and had children together with
affection. Now their relationship was eating away at their sense of
individuality. Elodie, like many women tied by the bonds of those years,
felt a sense of responsibility not just for the children but also for
Greg. She continued her life with him in spite of that horrible
afternoon.
Diana Russell’s excerpts from women’s accounts of sexual relationships
with their husbands or lovers once again show the very blurred
distinctions at times between sex and violence, consent and refusal. To
the question «Any other unwanted sex with him?» one woman replied «It’s
hard to say when you’re married … it’s hard to delineate what’s wanted
and what’s not. You can’t just call it quits and go home!»
These statements are typical of the feelings which dominate the surveys.
In many cases, because the woman feels she cannot refuse sex because of
the expectations of marriage, the husband may not think of himself as
ever having raped his wife. Of course their behaviour is uncaring and
insensitive, ignoring their wife’s sexual needs, of which at times they
appear to be oblivious. But to say this kind of unwanted sexual activity
(I call it this because in many cases the women do not feel it was rape,
or that it was forced on them, because they accepted it) has nothing to
do with sex is to gloss over the incredibly stunted and unfulfilling
personal lives women and men have compared with the happy, smiling
stereotype of the TV ads. In some ways, it is surprising that it is only
a minority of women who suffer sexual assault and a minority of men who
perpetrate it. This fact is an optimistic sign and affirms the refusal
of the oppressed, both men and women to surrender their human sympathy
completely in the face of the barrage from capitalism which degrades
everything including sex to money relations.
The crime statistics Brownmiller relied on showed a clear class bias
towards the disadvantaged involved in rape. However the question is far
more complex when we look at domestic violence. Obviously men of all
classes are influenced by the sexism of society, and are likely to see
marriage as a licence to dominate their wives, because unequal relations
exist between men and women of all classes. However, there is debate
over whether sexual abuse occurs at different rates in different social
groups and if so, why this is the case.
Because of the political shift away from class politics, not just by
feminists, but in the academic world and even sections of the left, the
analyses and surveys are heavily oriented towards trying to prove that
class plays no role. One way of doing this is to put up straw positions.
Jocelynne Scutt argues that her study «denies the theory that feelings
of powerlessness and frustration solely underlie child abuse…» (my
emphasis). Of course, these would not be sufficient to explain all abuse
in the family; firstly it has to be explained why the overwhelming
majority of abuse is by men towards women and adults to children. So the
question of gender and attitudes to childhood, the role of the family
etc have to be part of an explanation. She continues to make a more
reasonable claim, that her survey does not prove these feelings «are
experienced mainly by lower socioeconomic strata men». However, her
study cannot tell us anything conclusive about the incidence of violence
or reactions of individuals to their situation because it is too small a
sample (312 participants) and is based on replies to a questionnaire. In
another example she knocks down the argument that «unemployment
inevitably increases wife-beating» (my emphasis). Such a statement would
be absurd: today there would be a massive outbreak of marital violence,
as unemployment skyrockets. But she does admit that unemployment made it
more difficult to leave a violent situation, which does mean more
violence for that woman than if she were well off.
There is an interesting contradiction in some of the arguments. Scutt is
determined to discount economic pressures, or feelings of powerlessness
arising from bad living conditions, an oppressive job and so on. She
even suggests that men of higher socioeconomic position may be more
violent because they internalise the social message of men’s dominance
more thoroughly. She speaks for many feminists when she puts the
emphasis on the fact that «fathers are rulers in their household; he who
rules is powerful». Yet when it comes to child abuse carried out by
women, she accepts that feeling trapped, unable to cope and economic
stress are contributing factors.
In spite of all the disclaimers about social class, in Family Violence
it is accepted without question that Aboriginal communities suffer a
high level of domestic violence. Liz Orr rejects the analysis that class
may be significant, but then says «violence is endemic in contemporary
Aboriginal society» – why?
There is an assumption that if we can attribute the violence to
«colonisation», «cultural subjugation» or «spiritual denial», then it is
nothing to do with socioeconomic factors, that the theories of class
have been defeated. «Colonialism» is presumed to be something other than
imperialism, or class society, which axiomatically impacts negatively on
the lives of the disadvantaged and oppressed. The fact that cultural
subjugation and spiritual denial lead to increased levels of violence
proves, rather than disproves, that unequal relationships between women
and men can only be understood in the framework of a class analysis.
This reveals a problem which occurs throughout the writing on the
subject: lack of clarity about what a Marxist analysis is.
She maintains that domestic violence can best be understood in the
context of unequal power relationships between men and women. There is,
for example, a high correlation between traditional views of women’s
economic subordination to men and approval of husbands’ violence. She
argues that to view family violence as an aspect of normal interpersonal
conflict is misleading because all conflicts do not lead to violence and
some men attack their wives when there has been no specific conflict.
She is concerned that such an approach leads to focusing attention on
preserving the family unit rather than «empowering» the abused women.
Orr makes a distinction between causes and contributing factors, which
seems to be what Kirkby is getting at. Class deprivation may contribute
to family violence, but it is not a cause. This differentiation is too
rigid and leads to an attempt to isolate one factor which can be said to
be the cause. This is very fruitful for «proving» that the unequal
relations between men and women are the only cause, because the fact is
of course, it is women who are on the receiving end. However this is not
a productive approach if we want to understand how the situation can be
changed. And it does not explain why a majority of men do not use
violence. Unequal relations between men and women alone certainly do not
explain the conditions mentioned by these writers among Aborigines. They
are forced to acknowledge the effects of factors other than gender.
So even if we start with women’s own experience, as Kirkby wants, we
cannot escape the effects of economic and other factors on their likely
victimisation. She herself admits that «women engaged in full-time home
duties have been found in a number of studies to suffer a higher rate of
abuse.» What we have to uncover is how the various economic, class and
other factors intersect with the general oppression of women. In their
concern to constantly put what they call «men’s power» at the centre,
these writers cannot theorise the totality of women’s experience. To see
the family as a place of conflict and tension does not lead to defence
of the family. It can just as easily lead to the conclusion that, as the
source of women’s oppression, it should be destroyed. The fact is, those
who emphasise «male power» do not advocate this at all. They are too
concerned to demand that men change their behaviour – and as we shall
see below, they’re not too fussy about whom they take on as allies in
order to achieve this. Or their analysis remains vague and confused. At
the end of her article, Orr can only say lamely that violence against
women «cuts across all age, class and race barriers, although the social
response and cultural meaning of this violence is likely to vary.»
Jan Horsfall’s book The Presence of the Past attempts a more theoretical
analysis within the framework of patriarchy theory. Despite partial
insights she cannot offer an analysis which explains why violence
occurs.
She blithely ignores this potent question, asserting that male batterers
of women gain «significant advantages» by their violence. What they are
remains a mystery given that «the non-batterer can wield power in the
same arenas without resorting to violence.» All we get is a hotchpotch
of theories which see a fundamental division in society between a
supposedly public, «male» domain and the private, «female» domain. Trade
unions and the workplace are simply another place where working class
men experience «male» solidarity and «retain some power in the public
domain».
The ignorance of such a statement is breathtaking, given that women make
up over 40 per cent of the workforce. The workplace is where women can
gain potential power, as working class men do. Trade union organisation
(and struggle, which she never mentions) is precisely where there is the
greatest potential for unity between men and women which can undermine
sexism and violence towards women.
The chapters on the structural causes of violence towards women remain
purely descriptive. Aspects of Freud’s and others’ theories are thrown
together to describe what are supposedly the ways male and female gender
attributes are constructed. The serious weakness is that it assumes
children universally grow up in a two parent family. Only a third of
families live this way in Australia today, divorce and remarriage are
common, and in some countries in the less developed world workers often
live in compounds and hardly experience this kind of family at all. Her
narrow-minded, psychological approach blinds her to the fundamental
problem. Capitalism depends on the ideology of the family as a
justification for the lack of socialised facilities and for the burden
women workers’ bear in reproducing the workforce. So the male and female
stereotypes are produced socially, via education, the media and so on
and backed up by very material discrimination against women.
The book is riddled with logical contradictions and muddle. She says
that violence in the family occurs irrespective of class, income or
social situation. Two pages later, she lists dissatisfaction at work,
combined with other factors such as low selfesteem which «could account
for the higher rates of wife battering amongst the working classes.»
The confusions and lack of clarity of these more theoretical works are
reflected in more popular articles. For instance, in a pamphlet put out
at Monash, two authors argue that it is in the «male ruling class’s»
interest. This implies it is not in the interest of the females of the
ruling class for women to be passive sex objects. But for women’s
oppression to be seriously challenged, the class society which gives
rise to it must be threatened. Whenever this has happened, ruling class
women have not sided with the oppressed, but have supported their male
counterparts’ attempts to put down such a challenge. Once again there is
the attempt to separate women’s oppression from class society. Repeating
a common theme, the editorial states that violence against women «cuts
across race, class and religion». This is true up to a point, but as a
statement on its own, it tells us very little. As we have seen, it
repeatedly has to be modified to account for differing levels of
violence in different social layers.
So far I have argued that violence against women is the consequence of
the way capitalism structures women and men’s lives into different
gender and class roles. But where does pornography fit in – is it a
cause of violence? Some feminists such as Brownmiller, Andrea Dworkin
and Catherine Mackinnon claim it is. A popular saying is «porn is the
theory, rape is the practice». Scutt was asked by Rebellious, the
women’s student paper at La Trobe University, «does pornography cause
more violence?» She replied «we are never going to get an answer that is
conclusive.» Then she went on to equate pornography with violence.
There is an assumption that pornography is distinguished by its
depiction of violence. McGregor found this was not so: 90 per cent of
pornography is routine sex. The levels of violence in Playboy have
decreased since 1977 to below that of kids’ comics. Some researchers
report that porn is overwhelmingly boring. Experiments found that films
about sex had no impact on men. Films about violent rape were found to
produce increased levels of aggression in men if the woman being raped
was shown to enjoy it or if the male viewer had already been made to
feel angry with a woman. These studies were used to argue pornography
causes violence and so should be banned.
Pornography is a reflection of the stunted sexual relationships under
capitalism, not their cause. The growing market for it is a consequence
of the changes already talked about. Young people grow up in a world
full of sexual imagery, but actually learn very little about sexuality.
Many of them turn to porn out of curiosity or even a substitute for real
human relationships. To equate pornography with violence is dangerous.
Scutt explained this point to mean that the industry exploits the women
it employs, which it surely does. But if a woman’s employment per se is
violence, how then do we distinguish it from battering and rape? Were
there no distinction made between prostitution and rape, a prostitute
would have no rights against a rapist. It is interesting to note that in
the most recent books, the question of pornography is not taken up. This
is a welcome shift in the arguments, especially if it indicates a
recognition that pornography has not been shown to cause more violence.
Marx argued that the way production is organised is fundamental to all
aspects of social relations in any society. Under capitalism, the mass
of producers is divested of any control over the means of production.
Instead, workers’ ability to work is itself turned into a commodity.
This very activity, which should be creative and life-affirming, becomes
nothing but a chore, producing wealth for those who dominate our lives,
and in fact increasing their power over us.
This means that the products of workers’ labour stand as alien objects,
as a power beyond and opposed to them. This alienation means that for
the worker, life appears to be dominated by the products of labour over
which she/he has no control. Instead of labour being the source of the
needs of life, it becomes drudgery and the means by which capital
dominates society. Labour is not voluntary, but forced, no longer
satisfying in itself, but merely the means for satisfying needs. In
other words, rather than the workers creating their own needs, they
produce whatever capital needs to make a profit.
This alienation from labour, the conscious, creative aspect of humans
which marks us off from the animal world, results in the estrangement of
one human being from another. This is the real problem with pornography:
sex is something alienated from real human relationships. The sex act is
portrayed in an alienated, objectified form for a passive, anonymous
viewer – as if it is a mirror reflecting the distorted lives of women
and men under capitalism.
For Marx, «the whole of human servitude is involved in the relation of
the worker to production, and all relations of servitude are nothing but
modifications and consequences of this relation.» Put simply, all the
oppression and horrors we see around us arise from the basic fact of
exploitation of the working class by capital and the particular way that
is carried out. Because of this alienation, everything is turned into a
commodity: the ability to work, everything we need to survive, even
leisure and sex (i.e. in the form of pornography, advertising which uses
sexual exploitation of women, and prostitution). The feelings of
powerlessness workers experience are based on the reality of
exploitation and their actual lack of power. This leads them to accept
the domination of capital and along with that the dominant ideas of
capitalism. This then explains why both men and women by and large
accept sexist ideas – not some malignant desire by men to dominate
women.
Alienation permeates all of life and all classes, though in different
ways depending on their degree of social power. To understand its
manifestations this philosophical theory must be concretised.
And to understand society, or any aspect of it we have to understand the
totality of all the social relations which make it up. The parts of
society cannot be understood abstracted out of that totality, but only
as parts of the whole. So to understand women’s oppression and the
resulting unequal relationships of women and men in the family, we have
to find how they are part of the class society we live in. That is why I
began with the way capitalism moulded the family, and how changes in the
way production is organised brought changes and contradictions in
women’s lives. To say that class is fundamental to an understanding of
family violence is not to simplistically «reduce» women’s oppression to
class, but to situate that oppression in capitalism, to show how gender
oppression intersects with class oppression. They do not just
«intersect» as separate aspects of society. Class exploitation gives
rise to oppression and so they are fundamentally linked.
Ale question is frequently posed: why is it that men are the
perpetrators of violence rather than women? Marxists and feminists agree
the primary reason is because of the unequal relations between the
sexes. However, it is worth remembering that most violence is actually
carried out by men against other men. Under capitalism, people’s lack of
control over their lives makes them frustrated, at times angry, at
others passive and apathetic. Anger among workers can lead to trade
union organisation and class actions such as strikes. But at an
individual level, it can lead to lashing out at fellow workers. The
divisions caused by sexism and racism create easy targets for this
lashing out. This may mean at times attacking migrant or black workers
who can be mistakenly blamed for unemployment or simply seen as inferior
and easy victims. To call the relationship of the attacking worker one
of «power» over the migrant or black is to miss the point of the real
source of the violence: alienation, or lack of power.
It is easier to see the difference between the actions of the worker and
those who possess real power if we look at racism and the ruling class.
Ideologues such as Geoffrey Blainey actively campaign to have racist
ideas accepted. He actually does have influence: access to journals, the
media etc. At the time of writing, there is a conscious campaign by
employers to convince workers that immigrants are the cause of
unemployment, not the system of exploitation. Unlike workers, employers
and governments have the means to propagate and establish these ideas as
the accepted wisdom. The ruling class also gains from their acceptance:
workers turn their anger against other workers instead of the government
or the bosses. Workers lose from racist attacks, because it is more
difficult to unite against their exploiters.
In the family, women are on the receiving end of alienated behaviour.
Here, there is a whole ideology which lays the basis for it: women as
sex objects, as bound to satisfy their husbands’ every demand, doing the
housework and child care as well as working for a wage. When Marxists
argue that it is the lack of power which underpins men’s violence to
women, this does not deny the unequal relations between women and men,
but locates the fundamental reason why individuals bash or rape other
human beings in the first place. The oppression of women and the
masculine stereotypes explain why it is overwhelmingly men who attack
women, not the other way around. However, women do attack those less
equal in their homes: their children. I have never found a feminist who
will argue this is because of women’s power. To be consistent with the
«male power» theories, this would have to be the explanation.
The problem with most research done on these questions is not only that
the Marxist concept of class is not understood (often for instance,
including white collar workers as middle class, blurring different class
positions so that it is impossible to interpret the data in class
terms); but also that most research actually sets out to discredit class
theories, which affects the clues they look for and the way data is
recorded. A survey in which women say their husbands battered them
because they did not provide meals on time or refused them sex does not
disprove the theory of alienation. No-one, when asked why they drink
heavily or indulge in other alienated behaviour will attribute it to
«alienation». If it could be recognised so readily, it would be easy to
organise to rid ourselves of the cause of the alienation – capitalist
class society!
However, analysing violence against women in class terms does not simply
involve dividing society into classes and measuring the level of
violence. The working class is not a homogeneous whole – there are all
kinds of divisions, some of which (such as religious or ethnic) are
often deliberately fostered by the ruling class, or are strengthened as
workers look to these identities for solace and support in difficult
circumstances. Others arise more directly from divisions in the
workplace: white collar workers as a group have different traditions and
see themselves differently from wharf labourers or coal miners. These
divisions are not set and static. White collar workers identify much
more as workers today then a few decades ago. Therefore any study which
examined the incidence of violence would have to be sensitive to many
varying factors, influences and sometimes rapidly changing situations.
Workers involved in high levels of struggle are likely to exhibit less
violence. This is often remarked on by participants in mass struggles,
especially revolutionary movements. None of these factors is taken
seriously in studies which are intent on proving the fundamental
division is men against women.
The actions of men who assault women and those of the ruling class, both
male and female, shows the difference between alienated behaviour, the
result of powerlessness and the use of real power. The media barons
actively promote sexist images. They are responsible for helping create
the environment where women are attacked. But this is only part of the
picture. Employers use the oppression of women quite blatantly to employ
them for lower wages in factories with the most appalling conditions and
often humiliating practices designed to keep the women in their place.
Women in the ruling class employ women as servants for low wages,
reinforcing the unequal relations of men and women in the workforce.
Prominent middle and upper class women such as Caroline Chisholm last
century, Women Who Want to Be Women today, and women who edit women’s
magazines for mass circulation, actively promote the sexual stereotypes.
At a meatworkers’ picket in Albury in 1991, women played a prominent
role trying to stop scabs. Wives of the meat bosses came to the picket
and argued to the women workers that their behaviour was unfeminine, and
they should not be involved in such disgusting activity. This incident
highlights how the feminine stereotype benefits the ruling class. If
women can be convinced that class struggle is unfeminine, it weakens
workers’ ability to win concessions. On the other hand, the stereotype
is not in the interests of working class men, an argument which is often
won on picket lines with previously sexist workers. To compare the use
of the stereotypes for profit of the ruling class with the violence of
men with no social power, oppressed in the workplace and with few
options in life is to completely confuse the idea of what social power
is, and to let those responsible for the kind of society we live in off
the hook. If we merely want to analyse people’s activity as a matter of
academic interest, this remains an abstract question. If we want to
change the world, it becomes of central importance.
The method adopted by Kirkby and Orr of attempting to distinguish
between fundamental cause and less fundamental contributing factors is
fair enough. The problem lies in their separation of gender oppression
from class relations and their concern that giving any weight to the
other contributing factors somehow will downgrade the importance of
gender oppression. A Marxist approach is to attempt a concrete analysis
in the framework of an understanding that alienation and class
exploitation are fundamental. Then we can show how women’s own economic
independence (or lack of it), changing (or static) attitudes regarding
women’s role come together in the institution of the family.
For all their weaknesses, the most recent books at least focus on
women’s experience in the most important institution for understanding
women’s oppression – the family. The shift in emphasis from the
«stranger danger» stressed by Brownmiller, to the endemic violence
towards women in the family is welcome not simply because it more
accurately reflects reality, but also because it has encouraged analysis
of the family as an institution. For all the weaknesses of a book such
as Family Violence, it avoids the sweeping generalisations of earlier
feminists such as de Beauvoir and Brownmiller who shared a vision of
women as universal victims of male dominance. Their books are immensely
influential and back up the widely held view in academic anthropology
that women have always been regarded as inferior to men. The most recent
books do not explicitly support this idea. Nevertheless, the idea that
society is fundamentally divided between men and women is so powerful
that without a complete break from it any analysis ends up accepting
some version of the idea of «male power». So it is necessary to
establish the serious flaws in the work of writers who propound theories
of patriarchy or male power and to show that women have not always been
oppressed. This provides a sound basis on which to understand that class
society is the fundamental cause of women’s oppression, and the fight
for women’s freedom from violence is bound up with the fight for
socialism.
Marx explained the rise of classes as the result of the production of a
sufficient surplus in society to enable a minority to be freed from work
and to live off the labour of the majority. Friedrich Engels argued in
The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State that women’s’
oppression arose with the development of private property and this
division of society into classes. In order to keep control over their
property and right to exploit, it was necessary for men of the new
ruling elite to exert control over women’s reproduction in a way
previously unknown. This led to the family where women were subordinated
to men. In order to oppress the women of the new elite, all women had to
be controlled and regarded as inferior. Engels concluded from this that
women’s oppression would only cease with the end of class society.
Engels’ theory was grounded in the proposition that the way human
society organises production is central to all other aspects of life,
that ideas do not come out of the blue, but are products of real
material and social circumstances.
Brownmiller and de Beauvoir share a glaring weakness; the enormity of
their assertions compared to their research or analytical material. De
Beauvoir, in a chapter on the supposed «Data of Biology» writes about
all mammals as though the sexual activity of whales and dolphins can
tell us about human society. From this, the male is the superior,
aggressive, competitive being, while the female is «first violated …
then alienated – she becomes, in part, another than herself’ by the fact
of a lengthy pregnancy. In an attempt to deny her biological
determinism, de Beauvoir appeals to the individualistic theories of
existentialism which in turn confirm woman’s «enslavement… to the
species» She accepts the reactionary concept «man the hunter» so common
in anthropology and right wing popularised views of human nature: «In
times when heavy clubs were brandished and wild beasts held at bay,
woman’s physical weakness did constitute a glaring inferiority.»
So in spite of her professed attempt to show that women’s position is
defined culturally, she repeatedly returns to the concept of a fixed,
unchanging human nature, and one which fits with reactionary views of
humanity at that. It is not clear why, if this will to dominate is part
of original human consciousness, there is any point in discussing
women’s oppression – surely it is inevitable.
Brownmiller has been very important in establishing the idea that men
have always been violent towards women. It is therefore worth looking at
her argument at some length. The striking thing about the book is its
complete lack of knowledge of anthropological studies and complete lack
of scientific enquiry in support of her sweeping generalisations. How do
we know rape is used by all men to intimidate all women? Brownmiller
«believes» it.»
It was women’s «fear of an open season of rape» which led them to strike
the «risky bargain» of «conjugal relationship» and was the «single
causative factor in the original subjugation of woman by man.» Since
Brownmiller wrote, there has been a wealth of anthropological studies
which throw serious doubt on the assertion that women have always been
oppressed and therefore have suffered male violence. She cannot be
blamed for ignorance of these (although those who continue to propagate
her ideas can), however she was not ignorant of evidence which
contradicted her statements, and even included it in the book.
For instance, some attempts to understand what the earliest human
societies would look like have been based on studies of non-human
primates, extrapolating from them to build a picture of human evolution.
Brownmiller quotes Jane Goodall, who studied wild chimpanzees and found
the female did not accept every male who approached her. Even persistent
males were not known to rape. Brownmiller also quotes Leonard Williams’
Man and Monkey which concluded «in monkey society there is no such thing
as rape, prostitution, or even passive consent.» Brownmiller claims that
because human females are sexually active any time, unlike other
primates, men are capable of rape. The implication is that monkeys and
chimps are physically incapable of rape. However Sally Slocum found that
non-human primates «appear not to attempt coitus (when the female is
unreceptive), regardless of physiological ability.»
This might seem an esoteric discussion in an article about violence
against women today. However, the idea that men are violent by nature
and women passive and nurturing, always an idea of the right wing, is
now widely held in feminist circles. So we need to be aware there are
two quite distinct strands of feminist thought on the question. The
right wing argument was backed up by the anthropological theory that the
dawn of humanity was made possible by «man the hunter.» From the
mid-sixties there were challenges to this interpretation. New research –
much of it, but not all, by feminists – shows that there is the
possibility of humans living in harmony and that violence towards women
is explained by social and material developments rather than by biology.
The other strand, to which de Beauvoir and Brownmiller contributed, can
sound radical because it criticises men’s violence and stereotypes of
masculine aggression rather than glorifying them. But let’s be clear,
their ideas are just as reactionary as the old «man the hunter» myth
because fundamentally they accept the same premise: men are naturally
predatory and violent, more capable of dominating than women. Some of
Brownmiller’s argument is simply dishonest. She quotes the
anthropologist Margaret Mead about a society where rape was unknown;
«the Arapesh (do not) have any conception of male nature that might make
rape understandable to them.» This clearly raises the concept of rape as
a social phenomenon and not simply the result of men’s physiological
attributes, apart from the fact that it proves rape has not always been
a feature of society. But Brownmiller blithely skips over this
inconvenient fact to go on to societies where violence towards women is
extreme with no attempt to explain the differences.
When she does attempt an explanation of the absence of rape, Brownmiller
is not beyond repeating sexist, elitist attitudes to women’s
experiences. Mrs Rowlandson, wife of an ordained minister, was taken
captive by American Indians in 1676.
She did well to add the last sentence, but it does not save her from the
feminist author three centuries later. Brownmiller admits this story was
«not atypical»; she quotes a historian of 1842 who concluded the Indians
only learnt to mistreat women by contact with whites. But to admit that
Indian men did not rape and abuse women, even those from an invading,
pillaging society, would be to admit rape may not be explained by the
fact that man discovered at the dawn of time «that his genitalia could
serve as a weapon to generate fear.» Instead, she dismisses the evidence
by an appeal to the prejudice Mrs Rowlandson foresaw: «the natural
reluctance on the part of women to admit that sexual abuse has
occurred.» She does not attempt to explain why women were less reluctant
in the later period. She even upholds the old wowserist idea that women
do not seek sexual activity, they only have it thrust on them by
disgusting males: she dismisses Fanny Kelly’s description of «several
braves who went out of their way to do her favours» as «apparent
innocence.»
«Rape in warfare (says Brownmiller) is not bounded by definitions of
which wars are ‘just’ or ‘unjust’.» The examples she gives are the
«German Hun» (presumably it is acceptable to be racist about men) in
Belgium during World War I, the Russians in World War II, the Pakistani
army in Bangladesh in 1971, and the American GI’s in Vietnam – none of
which could be called a just war from a left wing perspective. The
Vietcong (who were fighting a just anti-imperialist war), according to
news correspondent Peter Arnett and not disputed by Brownmiller, «were
prohibited from looting, stealing food or rape … We heard very little of
VC rape.» Arnett thought their (extraordinary by his experience)
behaviour needed some explanation which he attempted by reference to the
fact «they had women fighting as equals among their men». Brownmiller
offers none.
Brownmiller and de Beauvoir could claim credibility because
anthropologists until the 1960s almost universally agreed women had
always been oppressed. Anthropology, because of its claim to scientific
research, was difficult to challenge. However a key starting point for
assessing anthropological evidence is a recognition that it is nothing
more than collected observations of academics from the more developed
world who visited pre-capitalist societies. Their observations cannot be
read at face value. Firstly, they took with them the cultural and social
views of capitalist society which distorted their interpretation of what
they saw. Anthropologists such as Eleanor Burke Leacock, Karen Sacks and
others have convincingly shown how male-oriented and prejudiced
influential anthropologists such as Malinowsky and Levi Strauss were.
Western anthropologists and other observers, imposing their view of the
world on the societies they studied, assumed the nuclear family of
modern capitalism to be a universal feature of human organisation of
reproduction and sexuality. Society was assumed to be divided into the
«public», male sphere and the «private», female sphere, a concept
clearly associated historically with the rise of capitalism and
completely useless in understanding the co-operative, collective nature
of gatherer-hunters’ lives. In many societies there was a sexual
division of labour in which women took most responsibility for children
and gathering, while men did most of the hunting. Because women’s
responsibility for child care in our society contributes to their
inferior status and oppression, it was erroneously assumed this could be
read into the meaning of their work in all societies. Even many feminist
anthropologists «assume low status for maternity, which they see as
constraining activities, hindering personality development, and reducing
women’s symbolic value. They project the values of our culture onto
other cultures.» Judith Brown, writing about the division of labour by
sex, assumes that women’s reproductive role determines their existence
as gatherer-hunters, and that women’s «tasks are relatively monotonous
and do not require rapt concentration; and the work, is not dangerous,
can be performed in spite of interruptions» (by children). This ignores
evidence from many societies where women’s work is very skilled and
varied, providing, the bulk of food. Sacks shows that in some societies
women adapt the number of pregnancies to the needs of production. She
showed that! Kung women do not take a break from gathering while nursing
their infants, which «attests to the cultural centrality of women’s
productive roles, as well as countering a simple minded reproductive
determinism.»
Нашли опечатку? Выделите и нажмите CTRL+Enter
