A-Infos (en) France, Soc.Lib: THE QUESTION OF FEMINISM (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

"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
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en