Bread and Roses: Gender and Class Under Capitalism

Bread and Roses, Gender and Class Under Capitalism, Andrea D’ Arti, translated by Nathaniel Flakin, Ediclones, Argentina, 2004, Pluto 2011This is a brief overview of women’s oppression and capitalism from a Marxist viewpoint. It generally seems to accord with Feminism for the 99% and the International Women’s strike but without implying that the Feminist movement can be the center of a socialist transformation---so a definite improvement.The organization Bread and Roses seems to be a way to inject Marxism into the women’s movement. The leaders of it may see this as a practical way to attract women to Marxism. It does however differ from the Bolshevik approach of the Party as a whole taking up all instances of oppression , rather than creating a separate women’s movement that attempts to base opposition to sexism on Marxism. I am sure that the author and other Bread and Roses activists see their approach as within the Bolshevik tradition.Most of the book is taken up with historical examples which are interesting. The author usefully defines oppression as:“ … a relation of subjugation of one group by another for cultural, racial or sexual reasons,…use of inequalities in order to put a particular social group at a disadvantage---a difference transformed into a justification for the domination.”In actuality, the original reason can be political and often especially economic. Instead of reasons, it should be “ on the basis of”. Otherwise ,good definition. On page 5 the author notes that women are the majority of the world working class but a minority of major property holders. This is true , but women actually make up a half or majority of the ruling class as a whole.On page 7, she notes that unpaid domestic labor mostly by women lays the basis of capitalist profit. True , but ambiguous in not distinguishing that this labor does not directly create surplus value. This page also helpfully states that the oppression of women, the maintenance of gender roles is the basis of the oppression of LGBTQ peoplesPg 15---The French Revolution raised the “woman question” for the first time. Pg 17— “ Without a class perspective it is impossible to struggle against patriarchal oppression”. Not true. It is impossible to win without a class perspective. However, most movements against oppression have been cross class movements , as the author notes on page 16. She notes that the woman question rose during the French revolution as a combination of bourgeois women seeking equality with their class brothers and working women entering the work force.Pg 35—“ The change in historical epoch can always be determined by women’s progress toward freedom” !!!Pg 39---Not until 1891 did the SPD in Germany demand equal rights for women ! pg 64---but they were still the first to demand equality ! Even then misogyny still prevalent among socialists , Bax , pg 66, even Bebel , pg 68Pg 42---Napoleanic Code only allowed women to win divorce if their husband brought home a permanent mistress!!! So much for rights for women after the bourgeois revolution!67---Division among unionists over whether to allow women in industry. Socialists sometimes had to wage an uphill battle.72---Most Feminist organizations supported WWI76—As after WWII, after WWI , campaign to get women out of the factories to give returning men the jobs.77---Women’s rights come as result of revolutionary struggle ( or fear of them SL)83---Mensheviks argued that only women should participate in IWD demos !!84—Krupskaya’s crude approach “ The divisions between men and women does not have great importance in the eyes of working women”95 and 97---Counterrevolution on women’s equality under Stalin---fiercely anti-abortion.101—Kollantai didn’t like abortion !111---cooptation of workers in economically central countries?116—Too many Leftists saw women’s liberation as a petit bourgeois issue. Feminism took off in the 80s in Latin America119-20 Good differentiation of Radical Feminism which sees class as irrelevant and Socialist Feminism which combines Marxism with a view that working class men exploit the labor of working class women. The Author here seems to rightly differentiate each of these from Marxist Feminism though doesn’t say so explicitly.124---NeoLiberalism transformed Feminism into individualism and “recognition”(125)130—“ difference Feminism posits the existence od an idealized and laudable femininity that is intrinsic to being a woman” This form embraces women’s counter culture and sometimes separatism---return to biological essentialism (131)131—Equality Feminism pushed for equal integration into the current system. Difference Feminism was a response to that132---explanation of the Marxist Feminist response to the dilemma of incorporation into an oppressive system or separation from it---transformation:“ For Marxism , it is a question of equal attention to diverse needs; this is the only way that difference is not hierarchy and equality is not uniformity…Only a society of free producers can be a society in which equality is not based on a despotic norm that seeks to conceal differences , but rather on equal respect for differences …”135---Emergence of difference among Feminism led to the rise of class as Important , but only as one factor among many138 ---critique of Post Modernism146 “ Terry Eagleton defined post modernism as “ politically oppositional , but economically complicit”149---W-C can only win by leading other exploited and oppressed sectors