ACM: On Reproductive Justice, the dangers of Malthusianism, Neo-Malthusianism and Social Policy

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday August 06, 2023 · 3:05 PM PDT

2023/08/06 · 15:05

Sometimes you need to return to the past in order to understand some of the issues of the present. There have been several things that have come together recently in terms of social policy and discussions among environmentalists that have their roots in very old theories (despite their flaws, incoherence and lack of evidence). The influence of these theories has persisted for a very long time and has had repercussions since they were first advanced and are still utilised today and they continue to be used as a hammer against the working class, especially women, and especially disabled women and women of colour.

Several of these arguments have united together in a web of racism and misogyny that still plays a role in divide and conquer ideology advanced by mainstream politicians and economists. We can find its influence historically in discussions about birth control, sterilisation abuse, eligibility for welfare benefits and now recently in overpopulation arguments blaming the climate crisis on poor women that have too many children. What is a consistent thread in these arguments, is that it is not the exploitation and oppression of the capitalist economic system, nor its need for constant growth, capital accumulation and profitability (also known as the laws of motion of the capitalist system), but rather it is the fault of the exploited and most oppressed and marginalised populations.

Some Historical Theories (Classical theories of Poverty and wages and Malthus’s Principle of Population)

One of these theories has its roots way back at the end of the 18^th Century; an economist by the name of Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus put forward a doctrine which shifted the responsibility for poverty away from the capitalist economic system onto the backs of the poor themselves. The term poor referred to those people that do not own wealth meaning that they are dependent upon wage income earned through sale of their ability to labour. Called “An Essay on The Principle of Population” (it went through several editions which expanded the original argument), Malthus articulated several points all of which unfortunately have had a lasting (and pernicious) contribution to discussions on wages and poverty. When united with the theory of rent in the later editions of the Essay, Malthus was able to argue that poverty was not a social thing deriving from capitalism and the lack of ownership of property and means of production; rather it derived from nature itself and it could only be combatted by a change in the actions of the poor (who were of course responsible for their own poverty). Moreover, Malthus’s theory of wages was appended onto the Classical Economic theory of wages (adding inconsistencies to the theory itself) and was carried over into the later wages-fund doctrine of the post-Ricardians like J.R McCulloch and Nassau Senior who further developed this argument and which was easily appropriated and utilised by early Austrian marginalists.

Let’s start with Adam Smith who preceded Malthus and we can see how Malthus altered the discussion of wages and poverty.

In The Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith puts forward the first coherent Bourgeois understanding of the nature of the capitalist economic system. The theory of wages articulated by Adam Smith recognised that unemployment was part and parcel of the capitalist system; specifically, the level of employment depended on both the level of accumulation of capital to set labour into motion and the techniques of production in use. Techniques of production in use by capitalists, depended upon the wages and rate of profits, the level of output needed given the demand for the commodities and knowledge of available techniques themselves which is taken as known by capitalists.

In terms of wages, Smith argued that there was an historically and socially determined level of subsistence wages which itself depended upon what were the recognised needs of the society that workers and their families needed to produce and reproduce their class. This is important, Smith argued that this subsistence level of wages was the floor to which wages could sink and that they were socially determined; this was not conceived of as a biological subsistence level. So, if there was a temporary crisis (e.g., short term harvest failures, drought, famine) the market of wages (wages earned in the labour market) could fall a bit to biological level, but could not be eroded further and that the historical subsistence level would be restored once the crisis ran its course. Smith also argued that with economic growth and the use of technology leading to the increased productivity of labour could mean that workers would actually be able to get higher wages above the subsistence level (this means that the natural level of wages – the average level of wages actually paid – would rise above the subsistence level of wages) and if it persisted, the subsistence level of wages and the commodities now consumed would rise as this would be recognised by society as the new subsistence wage bundle and level of commodities.

Essentially Malthus argued that rather than the insufficient accumulation of capital to employ workers and the lack of stability in the capitalist system, and the lack of wealth of the poor being responsible for the poverty of the poor, instead it was the actions of the poor themselves that created their own poverty. According to Malthus, subsistence wages (which are strictly biological subsistence wages in his theory or it doesn’t work even in the inanity of his argument) are determined by the supply (level of working population) and the demand (the capital available for the employment of labour) for labour.

So, Malthus argued two things fundamental points. The only way to impact the level of wages of workers either had to operate on these two things. Either the supply of labour had to be constrained or capital accumulation needed to be increased. Malthus does not believe in birth control (note the Reverend in front of his name and the fact that he is writing in the late 18th and early 19th centuries; unfortunately some things do not change over time). Positive constraints (excepting birth control) mean that workers are less dissolute and overwhelmed by their inherent sexuality (this is probably the early basis for sexual abstinence nonsense we see from the right-wing Christians for the past 30 years). This way population increases are more closely matching to increases in capital accumulation designed for the employment of labour.

This discussion on capital accumulation is further developed by James Mill in the last edition of Elements of Political Economy who actually argued that it was easier to increase population than capital and was the first to argue that capital derives from capitalists abstaining from consumption (this is the beginning of the abstinence theory of capital) and hence was difficult to increase – yes, it is nonsensical, but it became a major point to justify the right of capitalists to earn profits and still exists in modern economic theory with a beautiful mathematical model to sustain the ridiculous argument where capital is deferred consumption.

Returning to Malthus’s principle of population and labour supply again, according to Malthus, attempts to alleviate the poverty of the working class were doomed to failure because if you increased wages by redistribution for example or an exogenous increase in wages, workers would breed uncontrollably and that increase in population would force wages back to the biological subsistence level (never mind that it takes some time for children to grow up to be used as workers, figure 7 years at that time as children did work which would mean if the economy continued to grow there would be no problem with insufficient levels of capital). This is called Malthus’s “Iron law of Wages” – subsistence wages are biologically determined and we cannot change them. The addition of the theory of differential rent of which Malthus was a main exponent although not the inventor, allows Malthus to add another constraint. According to Malthus’s version of the theory of differential rent, the amount of fertile land that can be used for the production of agricultural production is limited by nature, as such, increasing the amount of agricultural production is limited to an arithmetic increase as we are forced to use lesser and lesser fertilities of land to produce agriculture production. Since humans cannot control their inherent need to breed, if there is increase production of food production for workers’ consumption, workers will continue to breed; Malthus argues that population increases rise geometrically.

This means (according to the “Dirty Reverend” as Marx calls him) that human population increase will outstrip the ability of agricultural production to satisfy these needs. This leads to the negative constraints on overpopulation, meaning wars, famines, diseases, etc will arise which will lower human population to bring the population (and remember this is the working class) back to consistency both with the biological subsistence level of wages and agricultural production (food). There is much wrong with Malthus’s argument, Godwin discusses methodological problems of Malthus generalising from what are specific examples in the book, there is also the obvious fact that all demographic evidence is contrary to his predictions; we can see historically that the more wage incomes people have, the less children they have and that we do not breed out of control and that wage incomes are at not biological subsistence level unless persistent droughts, famines, etc occur.

His analysis although inconsistent with limited or little analytical and historical evidence of course served an important role; it naturalised the poverty of the working class rather than putting responsibility on the capitalist economic system where it belongs and this also have had a lasting impact on discussions of overpopulation and the responsibility of the poor for their own poverty removing and obfuscating the truth that the capitalist economic system is responsible for poverty.

Once the obvious solution to Malthus’s overpopulation nonsense was appended to the theory by the liberal-reformer Francis Place to call for birth control for the “poor” to prevent both the “permanent and natural” poverty of the poor, this heralded the birth of neo-Malthusianism which still places the issue of overpopulation at its centre and the dangers of overpopulation for the planet. It should be noted that Place advocated using contraceptives despite fathering 15 children of his own; as such, the problem is the poor having children not those with wealth and power, despite their working-class origins.

On its own, arguing for access to birth control is excellent as it offers choice to women in terms of if, when and how many children they have. What is not good and is oppressive is linking birth control, sterilisation and abortion to coercion and that is the danger we have found ourselves in time and time again. Place’s argument was not advocating for all women to have access to birth control; this was specifically aimed at working class women to limit their reproduction and hence to prevent their poverty; but the reality is poverty is the cause of overpopulation, not vice versa.

Moreover, the historical linkage between the birth control movements in the US and UK and the eugenics movement in the early 20^th century reinforced the argument relating the misery of poverty with having too many children; we can see this discussion underlying the sterilisation abuse of poor women (initially poor white women and then women of colour through the social welfare state) and disabled women and also the linkage to benefits being tied to use of birth control. This is the reason that we must discuss reproductive justice rather than simply reproductive rights.

That has been the basis of eugenics policies used against oppressed and exploited minorities (from indigenous populations, to poor white women and disabled people to women of colour, and still in use against disabled women). Whenever eugenics raises its ugly head, disabled people take the first hits. This was clearly the case with benefit policy in Britain, with the Nazi genocides, and with the coronavirus pandemic where disabled people died in far higher numbers than those without impairments in all waves of the pandemic. Now, the Tories have decided to once again force disabled people back into employment to address “the labour shortage” – in their minds disabled people are “living off the generousness of society without contributing” – the same thing applies to women who cannot access childcare and cannot work.

Social policy trying to limit both the cost of welfare benefits to the state and access to benefits for poor women are essentially the same as social policies linking receipt of benefits to contraceptives and forced sterilisation. State and government eugenics policies already had impacted indigenous women in the US who were often sterilised after giving birth. The creation of a social welfare state gave the state further access and control over women’s reproductive choices and the possibility of linking this to release from prison, access to birth control and sterilisation abuse. Unfortunately, this is not just an historical discussion; the whole debate on overpopulation and climate change reeks of neo-Malthusianism and places the fault for the planetary climate crisis on the backs of poor women especially women of colour in the global south rather than on the capitalist economic system which is responsible for destruction of the planet and the climate. It is the capitalist economic system which needs to be eliminated, not the choices of people that can get pregnant.

The recognition of the right of bodily autonomy for those that can get pregnant, access to contraceptives, abortion and choice as well as health care (reproductive and regular health care), education, housing, drinking water and having more wage income will prevent poverty and give people more choices in life. We want and need choices and blaming the most marginalised and trying to coerce the most marginalised in the global capitalist economy is the last thing we should be arguing.

Austerity and Poverty

It is useful to explore the use of Malthusian arguments still existent in social policies today and to do this, I will discuss social and economic policies of the Tory-Liberal Democrat government and the Tory government.

During the introduction of Austerity following the 2007-2008 crisis, whose purpose was to push the costs of the Banking crisis onto the working class, the Tory-Liberal Democratic government put a freeze on public sector wages from 2010-2012 unless wages were below £21,000 (public sector wages were higher than in the private sector) and then put a cap of 1% on public sector wage increases which lasted from 2013-2017. It was only in 2021 that private sector wages passed the public sector and then came the pandemic … this impoverishment of the working class was a deliberate policy of the Tory party government.

The government also introduced a change in the benefits system which was pushed forward by Iain Duncan Smith. The creation of the Universal Credit was predicated upon the idea that those on benefits were lazy and dissolute and didn’t want to work and were taking advantage of the “generosity of the British people” and government and must be forced back to work. As part of the changes in the benefits system, a maximum benefit cap (introduced in 2013) was placed on how much you could receive if you were not employed and sanctions were used to punish those who refused to work in paid employment. They also introduced a system of workfare (thank you again to the US for this pile of crap) which was essentially treated as training to learn to work and for which you received benefits which are far lower than wages; this notion of less eligibility (which has survived the demise of the Poor Law in the early 20th Century) that those in paid work must receive more than those on benefits comes from Jeremy Bentham and is an essential component of Universal Credit.

The attack on disabled people was extremely strong; first eliminating the Independent Living Fund and then subjecting disabled people to a series of assessments to ascertain whether they were disabled enough to get benefits. These assessments were conducted by companies whose goal was to get as many off of benefits as possible, resulting in the impoverishment of many disabled people who were able to get benefits again following appeals, but in the meantime, until appeals come through they had little (if there were saving) or nothing to survive on.

In many senses, Universal Credit had a two-fold target: 1) reduce the spending on social welfare while forcing the “lazy” workers back into work; 2) undermine the social subsistence level of income as the amount received as benefits was below the social subsistence level of income itself. We can now argue (since it is obvious) given the impact of Universal Credit, that benefits now simply serve as a way to pay workers lower wages as wages are essentially supplemented by the benefits system. Given the destruction of working conditions due to privatisation and zero hours contracts used in the private sector, they have created a whole class of the working poor unable to survive on wages and with a limited social net to help when the inevitable economic crisis arrives; this is the race to the bottom justified by the “nature of competition” under capitalism.

Additionally, there were two special programmes that were part of the system which especially targeted women. In earlier forms of benefits, women were given the benefits (this was a victory) towards women’s financial independence and because women ensured that money would be spent on children’s necessities. Universal Credit changed this and the benefit money was given to the highest income earner in the household. Given the lack of access to childcare, the fact that women have to work around school hours (if their children are in school) in several part-time jobs; this means that women will not be the highest income earners in the family unless they are single parents. While you can ask that benefits be given to women, this is not necessarily easy or straightforward if you are from a more traditional culture in which men are more dominant, are in an abusive relationship, or are simply uncomfortable or unable to cope well with dealing with bureaucracy.

There is a second programme that is even more pernicious and that is the two-child maximum benefit cap introduced in 2017. Despite everyone at the time saying that this policy would lead to both an increased level of both relative and absolute child poverty, this policy installed a cap on how much child benefit you could receive (if you were not in work), specifically only two of your children would be eligible for benefits. This is the case unless your third child was conceived as a part of rape (sound familiar?) or was part of a multiple birth. This appalling programme has led to a massive increase in poverty especially for larger sized families and as expected, women themselves have decreased their food consumption to ensure that their children get enough food and necessities,so whole families have been impoverished due to this policy.

A study released in July 2023 on the impact of both the benefit cap and the two-child maximum policy discussing the impact of the two-child maximum on large size families, As discussed in the Guardian:

“The research, published on Monday morning by academics from the Universities of York, Oxford and LSE found both the two-child limit and the benefit cap had failed to meet their own stated aims, having had no positive incentive effect on employment, nor produced a reduction in fertility among poorer families.

The benefit cap, first implemented in 2013, places a cap on the amount a household can receive in benefits if they have no, or low, earnings, with the average household losing £50 a week. The two-child limit was introduced in 2017 – an estimated 32,000 households containing 110,000 children were affected by both policies at the same time in March 2022.

Ethnic minority and larger families were disproportionately likely to be hit by the two-child limit and benefit cap, typically leaving them unable to afford essential items for their children, such as food, clothes and heating, with a consequent negative effect on children’s emotional and physical development, the study found.”

Up until very recently, the Labour Party, women’s groups, groups working against poverty, etc (essentially anyone with a basic sense of morality) has condemned this appalling piece of legislation and called for its elimination; just removing it will relieve child poverty and the poverty of single parent homes immediately. According to the Guardian, the estimated costs of removing the policy will cost £1.3 billion. Now that the Tories are hopefully looking to be on their way out, it was expected that the Labour Party would eliminate this. It now turns out that this will not be the case; this was announced by both Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves (the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer) the excuse being that they don’t want to say they will eliminate it as they do not know if they have the money given the state of the British economy. Really, if the most impoverished actually have enough money to survive (it is shown that they end up £3000 in debt a year in the report) would that not be good for the economy? How does not decreasing child poverty benefit the British economy? There are some obvious ways to cover the cost of removing this appalling policy: a wealth tax targeting those with more than 1 home and significant amounts of financial assets; a financial transaction tax could also be a good suggestion; another obvious target is to switch subsidies for the fossil fuel industries to cover the costs of eliminating the two-child benefit maximum). It never ceases to amaze me that there is “no magic money tree” until it is needed for wars, covering emergencies, or payoffs to corps, etc.

The Cost-of Living Crisis in Britain and the “battle” against inflation

The cost-of-living crisis in Britain has further undermined wage incomes (i.e., wages + benefits); it is not only the price of fossil fuel and electricity which have risen (and these were the only things that were covered partially and inadequately by the Tories package to deal with rising inflation), it is the price of food, clothing and other necessities that have risen and continue to rise.

The rising prices in the cost of living derived from several things. The primary one is the breakage of supply chains during the pandemic. Additionally, there is the fact that rising fuel prices have led to increasing transport costs (used for distribution of commodities and services) and the fact that rising fuel and energy costs have also increased production costs as it is an intermediate product in the production of most goods. The third cause, which is specific to Britain and is the reason that inflation is continuing to be high is due to Brexit (which is a continuing problem for supply chains) and the obvious fact that somehow the Tories did not understand is that Britain is not food sovereign; we import large amounts of food consumed in Britain. Tariffs due to leaving the EU will add to costs, buying food goods from further afield will increase transportation costs. Finally, there is climate change which has impacted food production in Europe and elsewhere which has also led to a rise in price of food which is being passed onto the working class.

Moreover, the attempts by all Central Banks to address inflation was increases in the rate of interest. While this may be an appropriate response to a demand driven inflation; that is an overheating economy where increasing consumer and business demand is driving up prices and you want to cool off the economy by increasing interest rates to encourage savings; it does nothing for inflation that derives from breaks in supply chains.

That honestly requires that the breaks in supply chains that initially caused the crisis (and which is then continuing as the fossil fuel industry reaps record profits) are re-established. It will also require caps placed on price increases which are all going to profits (it is far easier to do that than to directly regulate profits, but profits can be capped or even better excess profits taxed at a very high marginal rate of taxation which will reduce incentives for capitalists to increase profitability so high that they fall into a high marginal tax rate). What we need to understand is that inflation is a direct class warfare between wages and profits; we need to protect workers not the ruling class — instead what is happening is the converse.

What increases in the rate of interests do is increase the cost of borrowing which is what most businesses (especially small and medium size businesses who don’t have capital on hand) run on; they borrow and then pay off when the goods are sold. However, with costs rising due to rising borrowing, that is then passed on to consumers if it is possible. If not possible to pass onto consumers, then they will borrow less as the costs of borrowing are too prohibitive and that means that there is a decrease in production. What else runs on borrowing? The housing and rental market. Increases in the rate of interest mean increases in mortgage payments unless you have a fixed term mortgage; if these are rental properties, the owners of property will increase rents. Even if the mortgages are paid off, they will still try to raise rents to cash in on the increase in prices. Borrowing to buy a home is more expensive meaning that people are less willing to take out a mortgage because they do not know how the rates will change and they do not want to get trapped in a fixed-term mortgage. Consumer costs of borrowing either loans or using credit cards also increase with rising rates of interest. It is interesting that while banks have quickly moved to increase the rates of interest on borrowing, they have yet to increase interest payments on money in interest-bearing accounts as quickly (please do not tell me you are surprised!).

What the purposes of increases in interest rates do, as said above, is to cool down a capitalist economy; they encourage savings, not investment. So, they actually present a far greater danger to an economy which is stagnant (like the British economy) and they will not address the causes of inflation; this is because they lead to a decrease in investment and economic growth, which can lead to a recession. While the British economy is not technically in recession, it’s stagnated. Moreover, the long-term wage income stagnation which was how the costs of austerity were forced onto the working class has led to the working class again bearing the brunt of another economic crisis.

You literally hear on every MSM about the danger of increased wages making inflation worse and workers were asked not to demand wage increases for the “good of the country” … in other words, for the good of British capitalism. But the reality is the working class have little or nothing to give up; their incomes were already too low relative to costs in this country. Now, prices of necessary consumption goods continue to remain high, the working class has nothing left to give up, food banks are in regular use for those in paid labour, and while the public sector trade unions continue to strike for better wages (and are still getting below inflation offers), those in private sector employment are mostly non-unionised, those dependent upon benefits are in serious crisis as they need to get both higher wages and benefits and once again it is the poorest and most marginalised that are paying for a capitalist economic crisis and being told to do so for their country. To add to the mess, it looks like the Labour Party is not going to help those in desperate need despite their saying they are the party of the working class. Alas, they are more concerned with winning over the right-wing to the LP for the election, not actually serving the interests of the working class. What else is new?!

Marriage Inequality and Marijuana Edibles.

A Pagan in Arizona for Street Prophets

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday July 11, 2023 · 2:20 PM PDT

2023/07/11 · 14:20

no image description available — Welcome to the Street Prophets Coffee Hour.

Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas. Theirs is a love story for the ages.

In 1906 San Francisco was devastated by that famous, horrendous earthquake. The following year an adventurous young woman, a few days shy of turning thirty, left her shattered hometown in search of a new life. Who can say if she would have done so, had that 7.9 magnitude quake not trashed the place. Maybe she'd have left anyway; I can't help but think that the earthquake, and it's aftermath, had something to do with it.

Anyway, she clearly felt that a change was in order. So she headed for Paris. The City of Love was where Alice B. Toklas met fellow American expatriate Gertrude Stein. It was love at first sight; Gertrude and Alice were famously devoted to one another for 39 years. Lovers, best friends, partners, collaborators, in every way that truly matters they were spouses for almost four decades. Only one thing was missing. It was the one thing they were not allowed to have. And it's absence would have serious repercussions later on.

It was that ceremony, those spoken words, that piece of paper, and the legal recognition it confers. Regardless of how deep their love and commitment to each other, in the eyes of the law Gertrude and Alice were just friends. Really, really close friends. But just friends all the same.

When Gertrude died in July of 1946 following surgery for what turned out to be inoperable stomach cancer, she left the bulk of her estate to her beloved Alice. Which included a valuable art collection they'd spent decades assembling. That collection, which included works by a friend- Pablo Picasso- had appreciated in value considerably. Gertrude's relatives decided that they deserved it more than Alice did. Because Gertrude and Alice's relationship had no legal status, and because garbage people are going to do garbage things, those relatives got into the apartment while Alice was away on vacation. They picked it clean, stowed all those artworks away in a bank vault, and got away with it. That art collection was the most valuable thing that had been left to the bereaved Alice. Losing it left her all but impoverished.

As if life in post-war-and-f*cking-Nazi-occupied-France wasn't already difficult enough.

For many years Alice and Gertrude had enjoyed a large and brilliant circle of friends; fortunately for Alice, those who remained after the war ended still cared about her. Several were able and willing to step up in support of their grieving friend. Which brings us to Marijuana Edibles.

This 1960 edition features artwork by Pablo Picasso on the cover. I like to imagine that cover art is a subtle, elegant middle finger to the people who robbed Alice of her inheritance.

Gertrude wasn't the only writer in the family; Alice was also an author. By the early 1950s Alice was having serious financial difficulties, and she made the decision to author a cookbook/memoir featuring her own favorite recipes. Problem was, those recipes made for a rather slim volume. So her friends contributed recipes of their own to plump it up, so to speak. One of those friends was the British-Canadian author, artist, and inventor Brion Gysin, whose contribution- a recipe for "Haschish Fudge"- was a great hit with readers, and was censored from the first American edition because publishers were concerned about legal consequences. The Alice B. Toklas Cookbook was first published in 1954, and became one of the bestselling cookbooks of all time.

Brion Gysin's recipe was the inspiration for the pot brownies that figure prominently in the 1968 romantic comedy film "I Love You Alice B. Toklas!". In which a buttoned-down, conventional young lawyer (Peter Sellers) takes pity on a sweet-natured, homeless hippie girl (Leigh Taylor-Young) by allowing her to stay at his apartment temporarily. She uses his kitchen to bake a batch of weed brownies which end up being eaten by the lawyer, his parents, and his secretary/fiancee. Hilarious hijinks ensue, and the young lawyer ends up dumping his career, fiancee, and the whole straitlaced life he'd been living to become a counterculture dropout, getting high and enjoying free love with his brownie-baking hippie sweetheart. The film did well enough that the following year the writers, who'd previously worked in television, were able to make directing it a condition of selling the script for "Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice".

Groovy movie still from "I Love You Alice B. Toklas!"

For many of us of a certain age (and by that I mean, Boomers like me) pot brownies were our first experience with marijuana edibles. Indeed, for myself, it was my first experience with marijuana, period. It wasn't until later that I learned about the cinematic inspiration for the sweet treat that showed up regularly at the parties I went to. And later still that I learned about it's connection with Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas, the enormously talented and achingly romantic couple whose love story will endure as long as there are lovers in this world.

These days, cannabis infused edibles are a staple at legal dispensaries across the country, and made by home cooks. Gummies, chocolate bars, cookies, hard candies, and yes, brownies are legally enjoyed by millions. Including me. I thank you, Alice B. Toklas.

Their shared gravestone at Pere Lachaise Cemetery, Paris, France.

Alice B. Toklas passed away in 1967 at the age of 89. She is buried next to her Gertrude, and her name is engraved on the reverse side of Gertrude's gravestone. Alice's last years were difficult, her health was poor and she died in poverty. But in the end they were reunited, never to part again.

France legalized same sex marriage on May 18, 2013.

Thank you for reading. This is an open thread, all topics are welcome.

My opponent is co-sponsoring another extreme bill.

Michael B Moore

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday July 05, 2023 · 11:46 AM PDT

2023/07/05 · 11:46

Dear Daily Kos family:

My opponent, MAGA Rep. Nancy Mace, is co-sponsoring another extreme piece of legislation in Congress. According to the Messenger:

“The bill, H.R. 7, would codify the Hyde Amendment, which since 1976 has been added to federal spending legislation to block Medicaid from paying for abortions. But H.R. 7 would go even further, expanding the restrictions to people who buy private insurance from Affordable Care Act marketplaces. In doing so, it would override laws in eight states – including New York and California – that require most private insurers to cover abortion.”

Mace’s decision to co-sponsor H.R. 7 shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, she voted for a six-week abortion ban in the South Carolina legislature — before most women even know they’re pregnant.

Nancy Mace wants it to be even more difficult for women and their doctors to make critical medical decisions. But when I’m in Congress, I’ll fight to get government out of your lives and restore rights to South Carolinians — not strip them away.

If you support women’s health, join me today to help defeat Nancy Mace and remove MAGA extremism from Washington.

Sincerely,

Michael

When it comes to women's health, it's OK to lie

S L Clarke

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday July 03, 2023 · 8:59 AM PDT

2023/07/03 · 08:59

WHEN IT COMES TO WOMEN’S HEALTH, IT’S OK TO LIE 2023/07/03

An article in Raw Story, by Greg Larose, last week, was about the governor of Louisiana, John Bel Edwards, signing a bill allowing tax-deductible credits to “Pregnancy Centers”, places where women go for abortion information, not knowing the intent of the center is to stop her from ending her pregnancy. Those centers present themselves as legitimate medical facilities, when, in fact, they lie, distort, make up stories, and more importantly, give information that is often incorrect, and, in some cases, actively threatens the life of the mother.

An article in Daily Kos by Lucy Clawson, printed the same week, is about a woman who went to one of these pregnancy centers, thinking it was medical clinic. She was given an ultrasound, which was read by a nurse (who was not qualified to read ultrasounds), and told her pregnancy was viable. It wasn’t. The fertilized egg was implanted in the fallopian tube. She ended up in the emergency room, and had to have immediate surgery, because her fallopian tube had ruptured, a serious, life-threatening event. Because of this, she lost one of her fallopian tubes, so the eggs from that ovary cannot now reach the uterus, thereby imperilling her ability to get pregnant again. All the time, she thought she was getting state sanctioned medical care in a licensed facility. And this because politicians, government, people think that saving a fertilized egg is more important than protecting the life of a human being, albeit a female human being

I remember, as a young woman, in the home for unmarried mothers, in Afton in Surrey, England, on the regular Sunday meetings with a local priest, listening to him tell us that saving the baby was more important than saving the woman who carried that baby. At the age of twenty, I was horrified at the callousness of the Catholic faith, and horrified, when it came down to it, of the odd, anti-survival position this priest and his organization held, and ultimately, the woman-hating, or woman ignoring, or woman using part, for after all, what else could it be, to know that if, when pregnant, a woman’s life was less important than an egg, a fetus, less important than any ability, in the future, to have a healthy child, one that is not a threat to health and well-being.

In America, some towns and cities have passed ordinances fining these centers if proved they gave inaccurate information. Others towns are fearful of running afoul of the First Amendment. I find that odd. How, in these facilities, is giving inaccurate information about pregnancy a protected form of speech when hospitals and doctors can be sued for misdiagnosis? Why are these pregnancy centers immune?

For instance, liability insurance for an OB/GYN is one of the highest of any of the medical specialties, and are frequent subjects of malpractice with claims averaging $300,000 a year. So, how come it is okay for these establishments, with their clearly substantiated history of medical misinformation, to sidestep any consequences? How can any group, particularly a religious one, think it okay to deliberately, cold-bloodedly, cynically, give women in need, information that will, and does, injure them? What gives?

I don’t get it. Where is the regulation of these centers? Where does any group get off on, again, deliberately telling women stuff that will hurt them, harm them, kill them. I grew up in the Catholic church, in a convent and was taught not to lie, either by omission or commission. But these are lies, lies of commission, and that is alright by the authorities?

There was a case reported this week, concerning a Christian school, where the young women were required, by school rules, to wear dresses and skirts, because, as the principal said, we have to protect these girls, protect the “fragile vessels” they are. If indeed, he was really concerned about protecting women, why does his faith allow “pregnancy centers” to exist. They do not protect women.

The morality of the whole conversation around abortion and reproductive health care in general is so skewed. For instance, Amy Klobuchar, my Minnesota Senator, last week, said she was conflicted about third trimester abortions. Really? There is only one reason a woman would have a third trimester abortion, and that is because the fetus has a life-threatening condition, where the severe anomalies either threaten the life of the mother, or are inconsistent with survival outside the womb, conditions which only show up in the later stages of pregnancy. Why would Amy Klobuchar want to deprive a woman from being able to take the best of health care at that time. I can only assume she is ignorant, and on this subject, willfully ignorant. The information is out there for any woman to read, and she, a woman, a lawyer, well-educated, should know the facts.

Such is the state of reproductive health care in America, and, in much of the world as well. What a strange conversation, that women, who bear the brunt of furthering the human race, are not considered adequate enough people to make decisions about what is happening in their own bodies.

ACM: Continued Attacks on the Right to Bodily Autonomy in the US

NY brit expat

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday June 11, 2023 · 3:01 PM PDT

2023/06/11 · 15:01

NYC June 22nd 2022 protest against the overturn of Roe vs Wade

Almost one year has passed since the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overturned both Roe v Wade and Casey v Planned Parenthood which had codified the right of abortion on a national level; thereby sending decisions on the right to abortion back to the states. The right of bodily autonomy is one of the most basic fundamental human rights; if one does not have this right (or the right of property in one’s own body) that means that we are less than human in civil society. The elimination of this right for women combined with the wide-ranging attack against trans people and non-binary people undermines our legal recognition as human beings with basic rights and it is a vicious tool in the hands of people hell bent on ensuring that our traditional dualistic roles are maintained in our societies even as more people reject them. This is a dangerous reactionary resurgence and quite honestly, the divisions and lack of solidarity between oppressed people only facilitates the attacks on all. Solidarity for those under attack and between those facing attack is the least that we can expect.

This year has seen a continued attack on the right to choose in various states controlled by the right, as well as the codification of abortion right in other states controlled by the Democratic Party. As was the case before the overturn of Roe and Casey, where state laws were passed in the hope of overturning Roe, right-wing politicians continue to push restrictions on access either banning abortion completely or rolling it back to the supposed “foetal heartbeat” restrictions (around 6 weeks). However, there has been little done at the national level to protect the right to abortion. The Hyde Amendment which places limits on federal money used for the purposes of abortion still stands as a rider to all government spending legislation and this impacts those that directly receive medical help from the federal government like military personnel, government employees and Native Americans.

The world-wide political shift to the right has led to attacks against the bodily autonomy of women and LGBT+ people alongside of rising racism in many countries, especially against migrants and refugees. The use of hate to enable divide and rule is a powerful focus especially for the far right and its normalisation in mainstream politics on a world-wide level means a general attack against marginalised and oppressed people not only in countries controlled by the far-right but reflects the shift towards the right of mainstream political parties.

Unsurprisingly, the elimination of the right of bodily autonomy for those that can get pregnant has increased attacks on others fighting for recognition of their gender preference like trans people and non-binary people. As such, there are continued attacks on the right to bodily autonomy have spread to wholescale attacks on trans people accessing medical treatment and support; these attacks are often seen in the same states by the same right-wing forces not only attacking marginalised and oppressed people; but also trying to maintain strict dualist gender roles in our societies.

What we need to understand is that attacks on bodily autonomy against women and against trans people and non-binary people are part and parcel of the resurgence of the far right using divide and rule to split us. Whenever, we discuss bodily autonomy, we need to recognise that the right to choose means the right to choose, if, when and how many children we have. The right to choose is constrained by laws, by culture, by incomes and wealth; racism, disablism, homophobia and transphobia, along with misogyny are institutionalised and structural in our societies.

We must be demanding not only reproductive rights, but reproductive justice for all. Both people of colour and disabled people have faced forced sterilisation denying them their right to be parents; poverty undermines security and religion and cultural beliefs impact our choices. This means that there are vast inequalities that impact our choices and with bodily autonomy under wide-spread attack, the only coherent response is to stand in solidarity supporting the right of bodily autonomy of all people and demanding reproductive justice is part and parcel of that due to systemic racism, misogyny, disablism, transphobia and homophobia.

Continued attacks at the state level

The Guttmacher Institute has revised their estimate of the number of states expected to ban abortion from 26 states to 24 following the success of the ballot measure overturning the ban in Michigan in the mid-term elections and challenges to a previous banning attempt in January failing arising from the right to privacy stated in in South Carolina’s Constitution. Currently this leaves the right to abortion legal up 5 and ½ months while the outcome of a revised 6 week “foetal heartbeat” law that is currently awaiting a ruling from South Carolina Supreme Court (expected 27 June, 2023).

These attacks at the state level against the right to choose means that currently there are 14 states with 1.78 women, trans and non-binary people unable to access critical healthcare in their states.

According to the Guttmacher Institute:

“Drivers of inequity such as income and health insurance disparities and health provider bias (including a history of racist attempts to limit childbearing among Black and Indigenous women) are not simply the result of individual acts of discrimination but rather the result of how institutions and public infrastructures function. As a result, people in these groups are systematically denied access to quality health care and safe communities that would help them determine whether and when to become pregnant and to parent children.

Just looking at health insurance by race/ethnicity and income, for example, 23% of Latinas and 13% of Black women aged 15–49 have no health insurance, compared with 8% of White women in the same age-group. Similarly, 22% of women aged 15–49 with incomes below the federal poverty threshold have no health insurance, compared with 11% of those living with incomes above poverty.”

What we need to acknowledge and organise around is that access to health care and reproductive health care under Roe meant that access was far more limited for people of colour and those with less wealth. While many people seeking abortions were already leaving their states prior to the overturn of Roe, this has only increased as accessing surgical abortions is increasingly harder; there is no question that this impacts those that are poorer, or are in jobs that do not allow sick-days or holidays and who have little savings or wealth.

The failure of the Dems to address unequal access to general and reproductive healthcare and to actually enable the right of choice when abortion was legal has meant that the situation has not only continued by has exacerbated by the removal of Roe and Casey and the passage of laws further limiting choice; unsurprisingly those receiving welfare benefits are sometimes pressurised into taking long-term contraceptives rather than ones they would prefer.

The same inequalities that existed when abortion was legal at the federal level still exist and the elimination of Roe will only exacerbate them. As such, there is no question that people of colour are impacted in far greater numbers due to lack of access to health insurance, reproduction healthcare, healthcare discrimination against people of colour, poverty, and lack of social support to raise children such as paid holidays, access to childcare and insufficient welfare benefit levels. All of these issues impact decisions around choice and further restrict options.

There has been a wide attack on trans youth accessing gender affirming care for trans youth, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Alabama and Oklahoma have laws complete with felony charges for healthcare providers giving this support. Aiding and abetting includes parental support in many states. According to the Movement Advancement project, only 11 states have shield protection in place for trans youth to get support and care. These state laws specifically target trans youth getting support and assistance (both medical and surgical care), 19 states ban best practice medicine and surgical care for trans youth, and Arizona bans best practice surgical care for trans youth. DeSantis has passed wide-ranging attacks on both on abortion access as well as trans youth gender definition. These include banning access to both medicines (like puberty blockers and hormones) as well as gender affirming surgery, banning children from drag shows, not allowing use of gender preferred toilets and changing rooms in schools, government offices, and universities; laws also force teachers and school staff to not use self-defined gender pronouns. In April, the US House of Representatives passed legislation to prevent trans youth from participating in sports at federally funded schools and institutions; the same bill also banned trans people from participating in women’s sports. While not taken up at the Senate, this bill was a gratuitous attempt at exclusion of trans people and is part of a larger attack against bodily autonomy. A recent law passed in Florida not only impacts trans youth, but also something that is seen as a test case in relation to gender affirming care for trans adults that requires informed consent as well as requiring in-person visits to doctors rather than accessing medical support from nurses or through telehealth.

NYC protest against the overturn of Roe vs Wade, June 22, 2022

Despite widespread national support for accessing the right to abortion (an NPR/Marist poll say 61% support the right to abortion), state legislatures and anti-abortion groups have continued to restrict the right to abortion in many states. As such, there are wide swathes of the United States where accessing abortion is extremely difficult; this is the case for many states in the US Southeast and the Midwest where the inability to access abortion care forces those seeking support to travel out of state. While this was already the case prior to the overturn of Roe, there are now laws in place which makes it even harder, this applies not only to surgical abortions but now there are attempts to eliminate the use of Mifepristone.

Finally, since medication abortions are the most common manner that that abortions happen in the US, several states had already tried to limit people’s access to these pills. We have seen a failed attempt to revival the 1873 Comstock Act relating to sending lewd and lascivious material through the mail to prevent shipping abortion pills. This is important as mailing abortion pills within and between states has already been raised in some of the legislation like the Texas anti-abortion bill. So while this has failed at the first attempt, keep an eye out for further attempts to revive the Comstock Act as an attack on sending abortion medicine. If successful, this means that those seeking abortions would have to rely upon surgical abortions which are becoming harder to obtain in many states.

Two recent contradictory rulings have come from federal judges of the states of Texas and Washington in relation to the drug Mifepristone (used in combination with Misoprostol) for medication abortions. The Washington state court case tried to remove FDA control over Mifepristone to ease access to it raising the question whether the judiciary could rule on medicine. The federal judge in Washington state placed an injunction against any restrictions against Mifepristone.

In Texas, the attack came through a lawsuit from a lawsuit filed by the anti-abortion Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and the Alliance Defending Freedom (whose Freedom you ask?). Trump appointed State Supreme Court Justice Kacsmaryk which upheld the allegations that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pushed through the availability of Mifepristone without testing its safety (despite it being used for 23 years safely) questioning the role of the FDA and the federal government in approving medicine for public use. The hope for anti-abortion activists is that this decision will become a national law further constraining abortion access. The Biden administration finally intervened along with the producers of Mifepristone (Danco) and put in an emergency request which called for a stay in stopping the use of Mifepristone which was granted by the SCOTUS. The contradictory decisions means that the SCOTUS will probably hear the cases. Given the hard right (they are not conservatives by any definition) controls the SCOTUS and they have already interfered on medical decisions, this could mean that this case will end poorly. However, if they rule against the use of Mifepristone, while this will further constrain access to abortion, it must be noted that even if the Texas decision wins, Misoprostol on its own can be used for abortion purposes.

Some Gains amidst the Losses

To end on a positive note, in several instances where either the right of privacy has been enshrined in state constitutions or the right of property exists in one’s body (e.g., Kansas) and where direct ballot measures at the mid-term elections either on legalising and strengthening abortion rights (the Michigan ban was overturned, Vermont strengthened its commitment to access), or demanding medical care for aborted foetuses that are “alive” like in Montana’s) and/or changing the state constitution to ban abortion (Kentucky), citizens have voted to reinstate or maintain abortion rights. As raised previously, right-wing controlled legislatures are trying to make it harder for ballot measures to get on the ballot and often ignore the results. The attempt to remove the ability for direct democracy in a situation where there is wide-spread gerrymandering and voter disenfranchisement not only impacts elections at the state and national level, but ensures that a minority political position can completely destroy the possibility of redressing discrimination and oppression passed by right-wing controlled legislatures.

The states that have maintained the right to abortion has not only strengthened access but often have ensured that those from other states travelling to get an abortion will be covered by state funds. On the 9^th of June, Maine has not only protected access to abortion which is legal until viability (6 months), but also extended access post-viability if approved by a doctor. Late procedures happen rarely, but literally lives of pregnant people can be endangered in an emergency situation if this is not addressed. Already laws like the one in Ohio which requires attempts to “reimplant ectopic pregnancies” cause doctors worried about the law to wait until the ectopic pregnancy fails, but this clearly endangers the lives of those with an ectopic pregnancy. These laws are incredibly dangerous to the health of pregnant people who show more concern with zygotes rather than living members of their states. Closing loopholes and ensuring access in states where abortion is legal is essential to protect those seeking abortion who can travel.

It is necessary to fight against all laws that attack the right of bodily autonomy using whatever tools are available. This means using lawsuits, when possible, but also grassroots, local and state organising to support the right to choose in an atmosphere of repression and oppression. While the struggle for access continues state by state, covering costs for travel and ensuring access to medication abortions is essential and both the contributions to and support for the National Network for Abortion Funds (or local groups) must be prioritised. However, the reality is that many people cannot afford to travel and cannot take off from work and there are massive inequalities existing in the US accessing general and reproductive healthcare and the anti-abortion laws and bans which means that the burdens against access still far hardest on the most marginalised and oppressed people. Fighting for the right of bodily autonomy and reproduction justice must be a priority for all.

Some Thoughts On The Patriarchy

bisleybum

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday May 22, 2023 · 8:34 AM PDT

2023/05/22 · 08:34

NEW YORK, NEW YORK - JANUARY 06: Protesters gather as Harvey Weinstein arrives at a Manhattan court house on January 06, 2020 in New York City. Weinstein, a movie producer whose alleged sexual misconduct helped spark the #MeToo movement, pleaded not-guilty on five counts of rape and sexual assault against two unnamed women and faces a possible life sentence in prison. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

A confluence of three separate memes impinging on my subconscious has got me thinking about the patriarchy. The first was an essay written by Emma Goldman on Trafficking and Women, published in 1910 in the collection Anarchism and Other Essays. I had read Goldman before, but this essay took me by surprise as it spelled out in great detail how women and even children were shuffled around by elaborate networks for the benefit of rich corporate white men working in the far flung outposts of capitalist resource plunder. For those whose familiarity with the Jeffrey Epstein case thought (as did I) that his was an extreme outlier (surely), well, it shows that this has been going on for so much longer.

I then happened to hear on the radio, on the way to the post office, a song by Arianna Grande called God Is A Woman. My brain made a mental page mark on that one, and for awhile thought little of it, at least until this morning. But it also so happened that my wife and I watched just last night Amazon’s She Said, about the Harvey Weinstein serial abuse investigation by two women reporters at the New York Times. Some time this morning my brain pulled out these three confluent mental inputs and cognitively choked as if I had inhaled some talcum powder.

As if spitting out a hairball, I formulated the words ‘don’t fuck the patriarchy; make them beg for it’, which didn’t make a whole lot of sense unless you are familiar with Aristophanes’ Lysistrata. Anyway it sounded like decent bumpersticker material. I thought of using that as the title of this diary, but thought better of it. I will leave it to others to review She Said, or to recount the plot of Lysistrata, but I will conclude with my thoughts on Emma Goldman, an activist, feminist, and writer filled with fire, passion and courage. If Emma could enjoy a revival of new and younger readers, the patriarchy wouldn’t stand a chance.

Disturbing experiences in the everyday life of a female. Comment update below***

Cmae

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday April 28, 2023 · 3:29 PM PDT

2023/04/28 · 15:29

An acrylic heart painting I did a few years ago — A heart I painted years ago .

Hello, I am not writing this to garner sympathy. I am writing this because I thought it would be informative for people to read about what i have gone through concerning scary and sexually abusive experiences in my life. Just normal life as a female. I think it is important to state that nothing I list below is unusual for most of the women I have talked to about these types of things.

I am going to list these experiences as they come to mind. They are not going to be in any particular order. Some things are much worse than others, however, they are all important to list, as they all concern different types of abuse, sexual and otherwise. I have been thinking about these experiences of mine, quite a lot lately. My go to is to write things down when they start to get overwhelming. Sometimes painting and reading are not enough. So here goes.

* At five years old, I was taken into the room of a fifteen year old neighbor girl, who used to babysit me and my sister. She took off my shirt, and her own, then touched my chest, and made me do the same to her. She put her fingers on my vaginal area, over my pants. I don't remember what happened after that. I kept this to myself, and finally told my parents about it when I was 13.

* I have been whistled at by males in cars many times, screamed at about my different body parts, and let me just say that when you are walking down the street, minding your own business, and someone yells at you from behind or beside you, it makes you jump, and scares the shit out of you, because you are not expecting it.

* The first time I remember being screamed at, I was fourteen. NICE ASS! Which came out of the mouth of an adult male. I was walking up the steps at the fair, going into the history exhibit. There were lots of people around, no one blinked an eye.

* Adult male carnies, at the same fair, triying to pick me up.

* My mother and I were at the seafood market, and an old man started talking to me, telling me that oysters were sexual aphrodisiacs. (I was fourteen) apparently, fourteen was the magic number, for the most part. Of course, we got the heck out of there.

* When I was sixteen, mom and I went to lunch at a restaurant/bar. The men at the bar started loudly talking about how they wanted to have a piece of me and my mom. How we were fine looking, and other vulgar stuff. The bartender did nothing, we had to leave.

*I was walking down the path to the office, in high school one day, and 3 boys told me they were going to rape me, after school.

*Again, a teenager, I was walking down market street, in San Francisco, and a man started following me, telling me that he wanted some, "trim."

*I was sixteen, my girlfriend was fourteen, we were walking down market street, and two sailors kept following us around, offering to buy us anything we wanted, if only we would go out to dinner with them that evening. Of course, we said no, and told them our ages. Didn't matter to them at all.

*Went to a friend's wedding, and her friend's husband, came up behind me and put his hand/fingers, way down low, on my rear.

*My roommate's fiance told me in front of her and her family, that I would look beautiful in the clothes she was showing them, that she had picked out for her wedding party.

*I was grabbed in a suffocating hug, kissed forcefully, and told that I needed to leave my husband.

* I was grabbed again, hands going over my breasts and rear, and french kissed. (A different guy and time)

*I was grabbed and held by the sides of my face and French kissed, I was seventeen, the guy was in his twenties.

*Grabbed in the walkin freezer at work by the bread man, he attacked me, I got away and ran into the office and locked myself in.

*Same bread guy was always saying inappropriate shit to me.

*At work as a waitress at the country club, i was sexually harassed by my manager. An example, he walked up behind me when i was rolling silverware, and put his arms on either side of me, rubbed his penis on me, leaned in my ear, and asked me if i was wet.

*The male members at the country club continually hit on me, asking me how many guys I dated, etc.

*Cooks at the country club sexually harassd me, and were verbally abusive when I told them to leave me alone.

* A guy I had went to school with, starting in elementary, (I considered him a friend.) Saw me walking down the road one day, offered me a ride home, told me he heard I was getting divorced, and did I want to go have a drink with him. (He was married) I said no, I didn't think so. He kept asking me if we could go have a beer at my house. I said no, he kept circling the block and would not let me out of the truck. Oh, I forgot, when I first got in the truck, he told me that he had always hoped he would see me walking down the road, so that he could offer me a "ride somewhere." I finally got him to let me out of the truck.

*My ex husband and I had friends of his over from his school days, we lived in a two room apartment. I had too much to drink, and went in our room to lay down. While my husband was outside with some other friends, two of his childhood friends mauled me in my bed and kissed me. Hazy memories of that incident.

*Walking down the street one day, and 3 guys drove in front of me, cut off my ability to walk around them, and asked me if I wanted to go and "party" with them. I Ignored them and they kept following me, shouting obscenities.

*Followed around the block by guys in cars more times than I can say. One guy was so persistent that I screamed at him, "get the fuck away from me, you murderer."

*Went out on a date, and was raped. Afterwards, The guy told me that he really liked me, and would I like to go out to dinner with him the next night?

* My ex husband raped me.

* Dinner with my parents, with his work colleague and his wife. Age fourteen again. My dad's work friend started talking about my "budding body" and how pretty i was.

*Walking down the street, going to meet my now husband, and a group of guys, as they were walking towards me, told me that I was "going to get fucked tonight." They all laughed at me as they walked past me.

*Can't forget the classic, "Smile, you would be so much prettier if you smiled." Said more times than I can count.

*Husband's uncle was continually pinching my rear and telling me that when I got bored of his nephew, he was willing to "take care of me."

*Followed home from a restaurant one night, by a man in a truck. I had to walk past my house, and run away from him, so he wouldn't know where I lived.

*Got disgusting sexual calls at my work, and no matter who else answered the phone, including other women, he would wait until it was me on the phone.

*Was at a party, and one of the guys tried to break into the bathroom, while I was in there. He was pushing the door inward, I was able to keep him out, I have no idea how I was able to do that. Terror?

*At fifteen, my first boyfriend, who was 18, tried to rape me on the wet football field one night.

*My first time going out with a boy in high school, he parked and grabbed me and kissed me, without my consent.

*Went out with my girlfriend one Friday night, and a group of men tried to convince us to go to a party with them. We were both fifteen.

Well, I do think that this list gives enough of a glimpse of what has happened to an ordinary woman during her life. I am now 56 years old. I must say, when I have thought about this stuff, it did not seem this extensive. Writing all of this down though, has made me realize the enormity of it all. Internalizing this crap is one thing, seeing it all down here, is blowing my mind. This is mostly what I can remember right now, I am sure there is more I am forgetting.

I can't say this enough, this list is not strange or unique, which is a big part of why I wanted to write this all down here. Some women and girls have had more terrible experiences, some less, but the awful thing about this is that these types of behaviors by men happen every single day to women and girls, and some men do not seem to understand the day in, day out reality of it. It is exhausting emotionally. Reading through this list, I am amazed I am still here, and surviving.

P.S. I intentionally did not include how some of these experiences were resolved, as it would be too much and too long to write about all of that. Also, if anyone is wondering, I have never had a driver's, incense, I rode my bike, or walked everywhere. I lived in a pretty small town.

HELLO, I WANT ALL OF YOU TO KNOW, I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO REPLY TO ALL OF THE COMMENTS, IT IS QUITE A LOT, SO IF I MISSED SOME OF YOU, I AM SORRY!

THANKS ALL, FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!

ACM: Women's Continuous Impoverishment as UK Government Policy; Women and the Cost of Living Crisis

NY brit expat

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday March 12, 2023 · 4:06 PM PDT

2023/03/12 · 16:06

On March 6th 2023, while watching Sky News, they reported on a paper entitled “Growing Pains” which was from the Centre for Progressive Policy which stated the fact that women cannot access childcare due to its costs and that was impacting their ability to work. Honestly, childcare is so expensive that their wages would be eaten up just paying for it and it makes little sense to essentially work to pay for childcare.The news report also raised the fact that women are leaving paid employment to take care of their families because of the costs of childcare. The news report continued that this means that they aren’t able to work as much as they would like; essentially women are forced into involuntary unemployment — the majority of part-time workers are women and much of part-time and temporary work is involuntary, but arises due to childcare and women’s responsibility for support and assistance to disabled people in the family. The news report concluded that this situation is having an impact on the economy in terms of “lost potential economic growth” as though this is the major concern that we should be concentrating on. Since we actually have a “labour shortage” (deriving from a high number of “economically inactive” people and Brexit), needless to say the government suddenly sat up and declared that the upcoming budget will have “try” to have something to provide childcare so that women can re-enter the paid workforce. Undoubtedly, they will come up with another sticking plaster on the open wound that is the British economy. Privatisation of childcare centres is part of the problem; will they actually provide more “free” childcare (again there is a shortage of spaces in creches) or will they instead insist on more sanctions against people that are “economically inactive and receiving benefits?

There are times when you actually wonder whether you are simply talking to the walls or perhaps politicians and the whole mainstream media are suffering from short-term memory problems. This is nothing new, issues around the cost of childcare and the amount available was raised during the introduction of austerity, and throughout the covid pandemic and the economic crisis that arose from it. Moreover, the fact that large numbers of women are part of the reserve army of labour to be brought into work when the economy needs it. But that only can happen if the social responsibilities that women have are covered so that they can enter the workforce.

Lack of access to childcare is what traps single mothers by the benefit cap which is part of the benefit system of Universal Credit (UC). The benefit cap is the highest level of benefits you can receive if you are not in paid employment. If you are by the benefit cap, that means that only two children are covered by child benefits irrespective of how many children there are in the family. In 2019, 85% of those hit by the benefit cap were single mothers with at least one dependent child.
Lack of access to childcare is what forces women into part-time and temporary employment. While some women may prefer to do part-time work, not all women do. Moreover, not only are part-time worker’s wages lower (they work fewer hours) but these paid jobs are more precarious as many women working part-time are on zero hours contracts for which there is no recompense when your work is cancelled.
The linkage of accessing childcare with employment is also a major problem. It is literally a catch 22 situation … you need work to get childcare and you need childcare to get work.
Once children are in school, we often find women holding down two part-time jobs around school hours to make enough income. But the reality is working does not ensure a safe and consistent level of income for many women and that is what the whole of UC is based upon

What the cost-of-living crisis has meant for everyone:
1) increase costs of heating and hot water;

2) increase prices of food and other basic necessities;

3) increased rents due to rising interest rates on mortgages which are being passed onto renters (especially in the private sector) and higher rates of interest on mortgages and finally higher rates of interest on credit cards.

Office of National Statistics, Consumer Price Inflation, January 2023

Why does this inflation affect women worse?

Women have lower wages than men. The days (if they ever existed) when women’s paid employment was “pin money” are long gone. Over a decade long stagnation of wages and the destruction of working conditions means that women’s incomes (wages and benefits) are an essential part of normal household income. Women leaving work destabilises household incomes increasing financial in security of the household and single-parent households are the worst affected.

This is due to three things:

1) women often work in segmented labour markets; these labour markets or sectors are often based on traditional unpaid women’s labour in the home which are treated as unskilled labour and undervalued and underpaid in capitalist society (e.g., cleaning, cooking, caring, primary school teachers, nurses, and hospitality, retail and the travel industry). Many women still work in the informal sector especially when they enter the paid labour force; women doing domestic labour for women that are wealthier or working full time – wages in the informal sector are not regulated and these are often based on agreements between the domestic worker and the woman of the household (there are no pensions, no benefits, and no sick days).

2) Despite the equal pay act, women working in the same jobs as men still earn lower wages doing the same work. This is, in part, due to taking off work to have children, care for children and disabled family members (social reproduction responsibilities). This negatively impacts your ability to move up the job ladder. Then, of course, there is still sexism, racism, and other oppressions impacting the amount of their wages.

3) Large numbers of women if they are in full-time employment work in the public sector and public sector wages are lower than private sector wages (this was one of the aims of austerity in Britain; this finally happened right before the pandemic).

New research from the Living Wage Foundation shows that women are more likely to be struggling with the cost-of-living crisis than men.

14% of women (over 2 million) who are in work are paid below the real Living Wage, compared to 9% of men (1.4 million).[1]

Women in shift work are also more likely to be on a zero-hour contract than men in shift work (13 vs 9%). They are also less likely to receive payment when shifts are cancelled: 27% of women (compared to 17% of men) said they were paid nothing when shifts are cancelled. [2]

The real Living Wage is currently set at £10.90 in the UK and a higher rate of £11.95 in London. It is voluntarily paid by over 12,000 businesses […]. According to the Living Wage Foundation, over 2 million women (that’s 14% of all women) in work are paid below the real Living Wage, compared to 1.4 million (9%) of men. That’s over half a million more women workers earning below the real Living Wage compared to men. As a result, jobs held by women account for almost 60% of all jobs paid below the real Living Wage. [1]”

From Now Pensions we have the following:

From the Institute for Fiscal Studies, we have a comparison of private pension savings overtime between men and women at different ages; the government did extend the time that women need to work before they can retire:

What was interesting is the original news report discussed at the beginning of this piece, actually laid bare not only women’s oppression (their unpaid labour at home), but also their exploitation in the paid work force (more precisely, the capitalist system’s exploitation of women’s ability to labour), and yet neither of those words were used in the report. What seemed to be their main concern was that the economy was suffering and economic growth was potentially lower due to the situation.

Yet there was nothing said in that news report above about why in this day and age, these social reproduction responsibilities are predominately the responsibility of women in our society. This is not a natural or biological situation – really anyone can do most of these tasks; yet these responsibilities still predominately fall on women. These are social responsibilities and as such affect women (especially working-class women) significantly.

Women still bear predominate responsibility for large part of the social reproduction of the economy. Part of that is done by paid workers producing goods and services entering the workers’ consumption bundle. But the other part is done as unpaid labour by women at home. Specifically, it is predominately women’s responsibility for ensuring not only the physical reproduction of their class, but also the responsibility for socialisation, care and education of children, nursing and support and assistance for members of the immediate and extended family that are sick, infirm and disabled, household tasks that ensure that the family home is clean, clothes are wearable and clean, and they are responsible for household expenditures and budgeting to ensure there is food on the table, necessities (school uniforms, clothing, etc) are purchased.

This does not mean that they do each and every one of these tasks at home, but that they bear the primary responsibility for these things in the household and hence in the economy; it is a social problem, not an individual household issue. Neither does it mean that men do not help in any of these things; what makes this oppression is not specific individual arrangements, but a general social role. Women’s work at home is not a “gift of nature”, it is social and this oppression has been and remains part and parcel of how the capitalist system is run.

The Impact of Austerity on Women

Following the banking crash and the economic crisis in 2007-8, the UK government responded to the crisis by introducing austerity. What was clear was that all the costs of bank bail-outs would be forced onto the British working class; in other words, while the Tories claimed that everyone had to bear the cost of the economic crisis, the reality was that it was the working class. Even more so, back in 2014, when the Con-Dem government was introducing austerity in Britain, it was evident that austerity would affect women more than men. In fact, it was expected that 73% of austerity measures would fall predominately on women.

The reasons for the stronger impact of austerity of women were clear then and they are still clear today when we look at the cost-of-living crisis. Moreover, we can saw that austerity had already left women in a precarious position and made them more vulnerable to other economic crises. What we saw during the period of austerity was the following:

Job losses primarily occurred in the public sector where women’s labour is predominant (65% of public sector workers were women at the time). But interestingly, more men than women lost their jobs in the public sector during austerity, due to which sectors cuts were made. But when those that lost their jobs found new ones; men found full-time jobs and women found part-time jobs and this held for those that became self-employed as well. For those workers still employed in the public sector, wages were first frozen and then capped at 1%increase per year on the basis that wages in the public sector were higher than those in the private sector.
Women’s wages are lower than men in the same jobs. In 2018, the gender gap was 84p per pound on average. In 2022,according to government statistics, women earned 90p on average compared to every pound a man earns (this differs between sectors; for example, the gender pay gap is closer in social work and further apart in construction). What we need to understand is whether it is because women’s wages have risen or men’s wages have fallen? Back in 2016, it was due to men’s wages falling. The additional problem is that women’s pensions were (and remain) lower than men’s pensions reflecting both wages and time in work; women live longer than men and hence they live longer in poverty.

The women’s labour market was/and still is strongly gender segregated and women are employed in what are termed traditional women’s labour which is undervalued and underpaid. Moreover, women predominated in part-time labour, this still holds and derives in large part due to childcare and caring responsibilities in the home.
Fourth, women are more dependent on the social welfare state due to childcare, part-time work and other caring responsibilities. The introduction of Universal Credit impacted women much harder. Writing in 2014, Ellie Mae MacDonald argued that a higher proportion of women’s income was made up from benefits (19 per cent) compared to men (8 per cent). Lone parents (of which 9 out of 10 are women) were expected to be on average £2,380 a year worse off, while families with two children lose £1,100 on average and those with three children lose £2,540. She noted that other benefit changes introduced such as the restriction of the Sure Start Maternity Grant, the two-child limit on child benefits and the ban on housing benefit for 18 to21-year-olds were likely to damage women’s incomes more than men’s income. The two-child limit on child benefits which came into effect in 2017 and the benefit cap for claimants out of work has hit the poorest hardest, especially single parent homes (90% of whom are women-led households).

In an IFS Report, reproduced by The Guardian, in July 2022, the Institute for Fiscal Studies described how the introduction of UC has impacted relative child poverty. What is important that they predicted this would happen when UC and tax changes were introduced. We can see relative child poverty since 2002, we can see how those families with 3 or more children were impacted (see the 2-child rule) after it came into effect in 2017 and how this has impacted relative child poverty. Note this was the situation prior to the Coronavirus pandemic.

Finally, and this was clear and is still a major problem for women, the British state has historically failed to provide completely for social reproduction, especially in childcare and social care for infirm and disabled people. This means that women work part-time, temporarily and have a more chequered work history due to work absences to care for children and support and assistance for infirm and disabled people in the family.

It turns out that this estimate of 73% was an underestimation. In 2016, the Women’s Budget Group, projected that 85% of austerity would fall on women; hitting women’s incomes twice as hard as men by 2020. They estimated that women would be £1,003 a year worse off by 2020 on average; for men, this figure was £555. Poorer women were projected to be the worst affected: those with below-average incomes would find themselves £1,678 worse off. According to projections run in 2017 by the Labour Party, 86% of austerity would fall on women by 2020. As reported by The Guardian (2017), Labour MP Sarah Champion said:

“In total, the analysis estimates that the cuts will have cost women a total of£79bn since 2010, against £13bn for men. […] It shows that, by 2020, men will have borne just 14% of the total burden of welfare cuts, compared with 86% for women.”

Relearning the Lessons from the Coronavirus Pandemic

Just as a reminder let’s look at what suddenly everyone realised during the Covid pandemic. The pandemic laid bare the reality that all women know: that we hold up more than half the sky.

Traditional women’s labour, derided as unskilled labour and massively underpaid, is what keeps our economy running. The lie that women’s traditional labour is unskilled was ripped apart during the Covid pandemic as so much of our work is classed as key/essential labour.

In the absence of women doing paid labour as essential key workers and providing unpaid labour at home ensuring that our families are fed, clothed, and cared for, the society would have ground to a halt as these essential workers perform labour which is necessary to keep the economy functioning; without this economic growth will not happen as this is essentially the simple reproduction of the economy.

Women carry out this labour at home for free and often come into the labour market to do similar work (both in the formal and informal labour markets). This feeds the assumption that “anyone” can do these jobs of cooking, cleaning, education and socialisation of young children, and caring for families and extended families. In the paid employment sector, wages for these types of traditional women’s labour are low due to their “unskilled” status with many women still working in part-time employment (voluntarily and involuntarily) due to their still being primarily responsible for social reproduction work in the home.

Certain facts emerged about women during the Coronavirus pandemic, which are summed up below from by the Women’s Budget group:

“Key facts: Women and Covid- 19

Women are the majority of health and care workers. 77% of healthcare workers are women,[1] as are 83% of the social care workforce.[2]

Women are the majority of workers with highest exposure to Covid-19. Of the 3,200,000 workers in ‘high risk’ roles, 77% are women.[3] Over a million of these workers are paid below 60% median wages. 98% are women. [4]

Young women are disproportionately likely to work in the sectors that have been hit hardest by the lock-down. 36% of young women and 25% of young men worked in sectors that have been closed down including restaurants, shops, leisure facilities and travel and tourism.[5]

Women are more likely to be low paid and in insecure employment. Women are the majority of low paid earners (69%[6]) the majority of those in part-time employment (74%), involuntary part-time employment (57%), temporary employment (54%), zero-hours contracts (54%) and part-time self-employment (59%).[7]

Women are the majority of people living in poverty and female-headed households are more likely to be poor.[8] For example, 45% of lone parents (90% of whom are women) are living in poverty.[9]

Pre Covid-19, women were more likely to struggle with debt and bills. 39% of women and 34% of men reported it was a struggle to keep up with bills, some or most of the time, 26% of women and 23% of men said they ran out of money by the end of the month and 29% of women and 23% of men said they would not be able to make ends meet for a month or less if they lost their main source of income. [10]

On average, women carry out 60% more unpaid work than men.[11] This means they earn less, own less and are more likely to be living in poverty (WBG).”

Women are more likely to experience domestic and sexual violence and abuse. 20% of women and 4% of men have suffered sexual assault, including attempts, since age 16, equivalent to an estimated 3.4 million women and 631,000 men.^[12] More than 1 in 4 women will experience domestic abuse during her lifetime [13]: that is 1.3 million women under 60 in the last year alone. [14]

Women are the majority (67%) of people living in homelessness, with single parents making up two-thirds of homeless families with children.[15]

The lie that women’s traditional labour is unskilled was shredded during the Covid pandemic as so much of our work is classed as key/essential labour. The problem is what defines skills in a capitalist system; that is closely tied to profitability considerations and that often bears no relation directly to covering the needs of the members of society.

Some Conclusions

The impact of austerity on women and introduction of the Universal Credit benefit system had already impacted women far more than men. The pandemic demonstrated how much women contribute to our societies and how little they get back. We’ve discussed in detail that the manner of oppression (unpaid labour at home) along with issues around women’s pay and working conditions (their exploitation) impact women in modern capitalist society at all ages. Women’s pensions reflect the impact of both their oppression (breaks in working due to care responsibilities and childbirth and rearing) and their exploitation. The fact that women live longer than men means that they live longer in poverty.

Looking at the impact of various crises on women and the reasons for these impacts have been discussed, described and demonstrated in a multitude of analyses. While all these things are known, nothing is being done to ameliorate the specific impact of oppression and the nature of the women’s labour market on women. Moreover, we see that these conditions of work of undervalued, underpaid labour along with precarious unemployment has spread beyond women. Male workers have been facing the same destruction of working conditions and wage stagnation as a part of neoliberalism. The race to the bottom essentially means the feminisation of male labour.

But women are still facing the same problems that we have. Equal pay for equal work still remains a relevant demand and women are still trapped in segmented labour markets. The notion of comparative worth with respect to pay still remains a demand due to our still being trapped in what is designated as “women’s traditional labour. Every attack on welfare benefits hits women harder as they are more dependent on benefits due to their low wages. Our pensions (if we have them, so many women work in the informal sector) are lower reflecting those low wages. Rather than offer childcare and social care free at the point of demand, these social responsibilities are treated as though they are women’s natural role in society. So much of what women have struggled for in the past are still struggles in the present.

If anyone thought that the recognition of the importance of women’s labour (both paid and unpaid in the home) would change following the revelations during the Covid pandemic in terms of pay, benefits and working conditions of women in traditional women’s labour or enable a transformation ensuring high quality free childcare on demand and a complete transformation in social support, assistance and care for older and disabled people they were quickly disabused of that delusion. As is usually the case, all that women saw in response to the “unveiling” of women’s oppression and exploitation was lots of talk from politicians and little, if any, action.

ACM: In Honour of International Women’s Day: In the Words of Our Founding Mothers

NY brit expat

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday March 05, 2023 · 3:03 PM PST

2023/03/05 · 15:03

The Covid pandemic laid bare the reality that all women know, we hold up more than half the sky. Traditional women’s labour, derided as unskilled labour and massively underpaid, is what keeps our economy running. In the absence of women doing paid labour as essential key workers and unpaid labour at home ensuring that our families are fed, clothed, and cared for; the society would grind to a halt. Or heaven forfend, the ruling classes would be forced to pay for this work; which would impact their ability to continually accumulate capital and generate the levels of profits that keep the constant growth needed in capitalist societies continuing.

Women carry out this labour at home for free and often come into the labour market to do similar work (both in the formal and informal labour markets). This feeds the assumption that anyone can do these jobs of cooking, cleaning, education and socialisation of young children, and caring for families and extended families. In the paid employment sector, wages for these types of traditional women’s labour are low due to their “unskilled” status with many women still working in part-time employment (voluntarily and involuntarily) due to their still being primarily responsible for social reproduction work in the home.

The lie that women’s traditional labour is unskilled was ripped apart during the Covid pandemic as so much of our work is classed as key/essential labour. This of course also demonstrated how much women contribute to our societies and how little they get back. Equal pay for equal work still remains a demand and we still are trapped in segmented labour markets. The notion of comparative worth with respect to pay still remains a demand due to our still being trapped in what is designated as “women’s traditional labour. Every attack on welfare benefits hits women harder as they are more dependent on benefits due to their low wages. Our pensions (if we have them, so many women work in the informal sector) are lower reflecting those low wages. Rather than offer childcare and social care free at the point of demand, these social responsibilities are treated as though they are women’s natural role in society. So much of what women have struggled for in the past are still struggles in the present.

If anyone thought that the recognition of the importance of women’s labour (both paid and unpaid in the home) would change the pay, benefits and working conditions of women in traditional women’s labour or enable a transformation ensuring high quality free childcare on demand and a complete transformation in social support, assistance and care for older and disabled people they were quickly disabused of that delusion. As is usually the case, all that women saw in response to the “unveiling” of women’s oppression was lots of talk from politicians and little, if any, action.

July 24, 2022 saw the right of abortion on a Federal level overturned by an unelected and ideologically right-wing dominated Supreme Court of the United States. The Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization Decision stripped the right of bodily autonomy from women and other people that could get pregnant. Their justification that the US constitution did not contain some holy writ by the founding fathers on the question of abortion, that abortion was illegal both in Britain and in the colonies at the time of the writing of the US Constitution, and queried whether the interpretation on the right to privacy on a Federal level implied in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution was a coherent decision as it was not explicitly stated in the Constitution (thereby threatening other judicial decisions based around around the right to contraceptive use, the right to gay sex, and the right to gay marriage). Moreover, they argued that even if the right of privacy could be inferred from the 14th Amendment, what is different about abortion is that it destroys a potential human being (or as Alito called it “the life of an unborn human being.)” Combined with additional charming pieces of right-wing misogyny that there were insufficient children for those that want to adopt and the fact that the civil rights of women essentially were being overridden by a potential human being (embryo or foetus). We now await further judicial opinions that will undermine basic rights that these right-wing thugs can somehow determine the historical context and “intent” of the founding fathers; the ideology of Originalism is extremely dangerous and is a bizarre legal interpretation, making the law itself and Constitutional interpretation static and independent of transformations in society. Civil law and constitutional law cannot remain static and independent of reality — society develops and civil law must change with it. The law itself and the Constitution become some form of holy and sacred writ unable to be changed and places other previous landmark decisions of SCOTUS and our civil rights under threat.

Women’s oppression is intersectional, combining misogyny, racism, disablism and homophobia and transphobia. Exploited in paid employment and oppressed due to our primary role in social reproduction, women’s struggles for social, economic and political equality are ongoing. Our oppression is social, it is not biological or natural. Recognising our intersectional oppression requires us to join together to struggle against all oppression and exploitation at all levels. We celebrate International Working Women’s Day on March 8th, but our struggles for economic, political and social justice happen on a daily basis.

This article is a co-production of NY Brit Expat and Geminijen. What we decided we wanted to do was to allow women to speak for themselves, so we reproduced some quotes from the women that are the founders of the movement that led to the creation of International Women’s Day in the First Wave of Feminism. We wanted to discuss not only women that were known as leaders or that were heralded during their times; we also want to remind people of the voices of those who fought on the shop-floors, those that became “leaders” due to circumstance. Their actions and speeches inspired and moved others and they are still relevant.

YouTube Video

Since the inception of International Women’s Day in the early 1900s, it has inspired many other actions and women around the world from Africa to China to Latin America and Europe. In the United States it was repressed for much of the 20th century, except in small radical communities, due to the strong anti-socialist bias. It was revived under the second wave of feminism in the 1970s and is still celebrated among feminists and progressives today.

The History of International Women’s Day

International Women's Day (8 March, IWD) was originally called International Working Women’s Day. It was a socialist holiday established in 1910 by the Socialist International and is celebrated by women's groups around the world. In many countries, it is a national holiday and has recently been officially recognized by the United Nations. However, up until the 1970's, with the advent of a new women's movement, the radical working class roots of IWD had been practically forgotten. Due to its socialist leanings, it was excised from United States memory, much as Labor Day replaced May Day, only being celebrated in small immigrant enclaves or radical union groups. In Europe and the rest of the world, it continued to be widely celebrated, but tended to honour women in name only, mostly with flowers or by simply putting a woman's face on a male agenda. IWD, in fact, was the culmination of a century of women working in the labour, feminist, socialist, and anti-slavery and anti-segregation (i.e., anti-racist) movements to bring together the common interests of the working class and women's rights advocates.

There were several major trends that led to the establishment of IWD:

The first was a revolutionary fervour in Europe and the United States toward socialism, democratization and the vote. In Europe it was exemplified by a movement for working class men without property seeking the vote to further a socialist government, paralleled by a movement for middle class women to get the vote. This situation was mirrored in the United States by the struggle to gain the vote for black men and white women. The contradictions between these two types of suffrage movements were evident (should we fight for the non-propertied or black men to get the vote, even if women were excluded?). The solution, of course, was to get the vote for both groups.

Clara Zetkin was among the early socialists to see working class women as the driving force towards universal suffrage (everyone gets the vote independent of property qualifications to which it had been historically tied) since they bridged the divide, yet retain the principle of a revolutionary socialist agenda. In 1907, Clara Zetkin founded the Socialist Women's International in Stuttgart, of which she became president. In 1910, it was Clara Zetkin and Luise Zietz who advocated for merging the working class socialist movement and the women's movement through the establishment of International Women's Day as a way to forward the goals of both labour and women.

Zetkin opposed the stagist approach by the mainstream Women’s Movement in Britain which advocated first getting women over a certain age with property the vote (i.e., the Representation of the People Act of 1918 which gave all British men over 21 the vote and women of property and over 30 getting the vote) and then later that women without property be granted suffrage. It took another decade; in 1928, women without property finally gained the franchise.

In 1906, Zetkin addressed why socialists should support Women’s suffrage and Universal suffrage:

“We must always press on the question of Woman Suffrage when we are agitating about the Suffrage. We have always argued in the Suffrage agitation that it was a question of equal rights for men and women, and we must continue to do so till we succeed. We must be united. We know that we shall not attain the victory of Woman Suffrage in a short time, but we know; too, that in our struggles for this measure we shall revolutionise hundreds of thousands of minds. We carry on our war, not as a fight between the sexes, but as a battle against the political might of the possessing classes; as a fight which we carry on with all our might and main, without hatred of the other sex; a fight whose final aim and whose glory will be that in the broadest masses of the proletariat the knowledge shall arise that when the day of the historical development shall have made sufficient progress then the proletariat, in its entirety, without distinction of sex, shall be able to call out to the capitalist order of society: “You rest on us, you oppress us, and, see, now the building which you have erected is tottering to the ground (Social Democracy and Women’s Suffrage, 1906) .”

Under the leadership of working class women, the first clear victory following the establishment of IWD was won in the organization of the textile workers and fighting for women's suffrage in the United States. The second victory was the Russian Revolution in 1917 which began with a massive strike by women textile workers in Petrograd (St. Petersburg) on International Women's Day. This strike was called against the orders of the trade unions and left-wing political parties who viewed it as premature. The strikes by women textile workers lit the match of a country on the verge of revolution; strike numbers doubled in size to 200,000 workers and over the next few days, 66,000 men of the local army garrison joined forces with the strikers. The February Russian revolution began and Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate.

Uprising of the 20,000: striking textile workers
Garment Centre, New York City

The second important factor was the increased numbers of women in the labour movement, particularly in the textile industry, as more and more women were pulled into factories and out of homes with the rise of industrial capitalism. Their struggle to free themselves from the patriarchal home and obtain decent work conditions in the marketplace instead of being viewed as cheap labour is exemplified in the call for both "bread and roses." The wave of textile strikes in the United States beginning in 1857 and the massive strikes between 1908 and 1915 were the activist expression of women's struggle for power. This was especially true after the horror of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory strike where mostly women workers, but also children and a few men were killed in a horrific sweatshop fire soon after a strike of textile workers (The Uprising of the 20,000) in New York City demanding trade union recognition, better wages, working conditions and health and safety measures.

While initially the feminist movement focused on human rights issues for women such as suffrage, many of the women felt allied to working class struggles for decent wages and rights and took up the call that freedom and equality for one group meant freedom and equality for all.

The third major trend was the anti-racist struggle in the US. While the anti-slavery movement seems distinct from this trend, it is not. The end of slavery pushed all workers, black and white into the same labour struggle as wage labourers. Once this occurred, it was up to anti-racist groups to fight for equality within the labour movement. This, of course, always raised the question of equality for the other major group excluded from equality in the labour force … women.

These movements, occurring in a short period between the end of the US civil war (including the Reconstruction and Post-Reconstruction Period) and the end of WWI, provided the activist and theoretical foundation to try to unite diverse groups into the revolutionary struggle. The formation of IWD was an explicit effort to unite the interests and theories of women and male labour (including workers of colour that was implied in the socialist agenda) under a revolutionary socialist agenda in support of universal suffrage and economic equality.

We need to go back to the rise of the post-Civil War labour movement and the first wave of feminism to see the inevitable class contradictions that arose between women of the bourgeoisie and women of the working class. The differences in approach are obvious when we look at the issues. Bourgeois women advocating women’s suffrage linked it to property qualifications and argued that women as a group should be enfranchised without looking at how this left blacks and many non-propertied workers without the vote. The birth control movement also wound up linking to eugenics groups that were aligned to repugnant issues targeting the poor, disabled people and people of colour.

To win equality for all people, women of the left argued that the economic and social exploitation endemic to the capitalist system be eliminated by the triumph of socialism. While suffrage and access to birth control were clearly important reform issues, they would not, in and of themselves, enable all women’s equality, or for that matter, the equality of all people. However, when reformist men chose to limit their call for the vote to blacks and non-propertied working men – conveniently forgetting that this still excluded women – the dynamics of the struggle shifted and the call for socialists to specifically include women in their demand for the vote was born.

The following excerpts (which we hope you will read, view, sing-along-with, explore and enjoy) are just a sampling of some of the actions and words of some prominent working women and movements.

The Words of Our Founding Mothers

“Sojourner Truth" (1797-1883)

Harriot Stanton Blatch recalled how as a 10-year-old, she once read the morning papers to visiting SOJOURNA TRUTH as she smoked her pipe. Young Blatch asked,"Sojourner, can't you read?" To which Truth answered,

“Oh no, honey, I can't read little things like letters. I read big things like men."

Born a slave named Isabella, Sojourner Truth bore at least 5 children, 2 girls sold from her, won her son back from an Alabama slaveholder, worked as a cook, maid and laundress in New York City. Although illiterate, she preached against prostitution (1830), worked as a mystic, and chose name her name in 1843. Sojourner Truth preached throughout Long Island and Connecticut at abolitionist meetings. She spoke at women's rights meetings in the 1850s, and is remembered for her dramatic "Ain't I a Woman?" speech delivered at the Women's convention in Akron, Ohio in 1851.

“Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about? That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman? Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full? Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him. If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them. Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say (www.fordham.edu/...).”

There has been some debate as to whether or not Sojourner Truth actually said the words "Ain't I A Woman" as the speech was reconstructed. For balance we are including the original 1851 report by Marcus Robinson (both versions of the speech are here), although the words "ain't I am woman" are not there, the content of the speech clearly says this without using the words. Alice Walker prefers the original speech above and we are keeping it. Essentially, the controversy is over a resource written by a man in a newspaper who knew Sojourner Truth that was published one month after the event vs. an informal report by a woman who was at the event. Which resource is more legitimate? Since sources from the side of the oppressed are always both "stronger" - less polite - and de-legitimatized, we are opting for the female on the spot source (but recognise that there is a controversy) as opposed to the male resource with a specific agenda in terms of tone. Read together this would enable us to understand the differences in emphasis in both accounts.

Labour and Organising: Early 20th century US labour history and its relation to International Women’s Day

MARY HARRIS “MOTHER” JONES (1837-1930)

"A lady is the last thing on earth I want to be. Capitalists side-track the women into clubs and make ladies of them.” “No matter what the fight, don’t be ladylike! God almighty made women and the Rockefeller gang of thieves made the ladies.”

Labour organizer Mother Jones worked tirelessly for economic justice. While her opponents called her the “most dangerous woman in America,” fellow organizer Elizabeth Gurley Flynn called Jones “the greatest woman agitator of our times.” Jones combined dynamic speaking skills and radical organizing methods to mobilize thousands of laborers and working-class families. She said of herself,

“I’m not a humanitarian; I’m a hell-raiser.”

Mother Jones' organizing methods were unique for her time. She welcomed African American workers into the struggle and involved women and children in strikes. She organized miners’ wives into teams armed with mops and brooms to guard the mines against scabs. She staged parades with children carrying signs that read, "We Want to Go to School and Not to the Mines."

Mary Harris "Mother" Jones was born in Cork, Ireland, moved to the United States in the 1840s, where her father worked in railroad construction. Mary became a teacher after trying her hand at dressmaking. In 1861 married a member of Iron Molders’ Union in Memphis. Six years later, she lost her husband and four young children to a yellow fever epidemic, and returned to Chicago to open a seamstress shop. After losing all her possessions in the great Chicago fire of 1871, Jones sought community in the Knights of Labor. She reconstructed herself as “Mother” Jones, radical organizer. Five-feet tall with snow-white hair, black dress and confrontational style, Jones was indeed a fierce maternal presence.

From the late 1870s through the early 1920s, Jones participated in hundreds of strikes across the country. Living by the philosophy, “wherever there is a fight,” she supported workers in the railroad, steel, copper, brewing, textile, and mining industries. In 1903 she organized children textile workers to march on President Theodore Roosevelt’s home. Mary, like many working class women of the time, saw the suffrage movement as an upper class women’s distraction, saying,

“the plutocrats have organized their women. They keep them busy with suffrage and prohibition and charity.”

Although she was suspicious of feminists, her courage and organizing were part of the struggle that informed International Women's Day and deserves to be remembered on this day if for no other reason that the preceding cautionary quotes.

Lucy Parsons (born c. 1853 – March 7, 1942)

Lucy Parsons was a founding member of the IWW (International Workers of the World). She worked as an organizer for the IWW and as an anarchist activist was a major organizer of the Haymarket Affair of 1886 in Chicago that led to the massacre of eight workers. Her husband, Albert, was executed in 1887 on charges of conspiring with the Haymarket Riot.

Lucy Parsons, addressed the founding convention of the IWW on two occasions. She was described by Chicago Police Department in the 1920s as “more dangerous than a thousand rioters .” Her speeches touched on issues close to her heart: the oppression of women and how to develop radical new tactics to win strikes. Her ideas clearly were in advance of the time, presage the "sit-in" strikes of the 1930s, the anti-war movement of the 1960s, and her words resonate today. Delegate applause interrupted her speech several times and at the end.

From her (1905) speech to the IWW:

“We, the women of this country, have no ballot even if we wished to use it, and the only way that we can be represented is to take a man to represent us. You men have made such a mess of it in representing us that we have not much confidence in asking you [...] We [women] are the slaves of slaves. We are exploited more ruthlessly than men. Whenever wages are to be reduced the capitalist class use women to reduce them, and if there is anything that you men should do in the future it is to organize the women [...] Now, what do we mean when we say revolutionary Socialist? We mean that the land shall belong to the landless, the tools to the toiler, and the products to the producers. [. . .] I believe that if every man and every woman who works, or who toils in the mines, mills, the workshops, the fields, the factories and the farms of our broad America should decide in their minds that they shall have that which of right belongs to them, and that no idler shall live upon their toil . . . then there is no army that is large enough to overcome you, for you yourselves constitute the army [...]. My conception of the strike of the future is not to strike and go out and starve, but to strike and remain in and take possession of the necessary property of production […].” (Lucy Parsons, 1905).

The Uprising of the 20,000

Interestingly enough while people may have heard the name of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory, it is often mostly known due to the horrific fire in 1911. However, the Triangle Shirtwaist factory plays quite a role in the history of trade union struggles in NYC; it was in response to the horrific working conditions at the factory that workers staged a short-term strike which resulted in a lock-out by the company. This led to a strike lasting 14 weeks known as the "Uprising of the 20,000."

At that point a 19-year old girl named Clara Lemlich who was sitting in the crowd stood up and began walking towards the podium while shouting “I want to say a few words!” Once she got to the podium, she continued,

“I have no further patience for talk as I am one of those who feels and suffers from the things pictured. I move that we go on a general strike ... now!”

The audience rose to their feet and cheered, then voted for a strike.

"The news of the strike spread quickly to all the New York garment workers. At a series of mass meetings, after the leading figures of the American labor movement spoke in general terms about the need for solidarity and preparedness, Clara Lemlich rose to speak about the conditions she and other women worked under and demanded an end to talk and the calling of a strike of the entire industry. The crowd responded enthusiastically and, after taking a traditional Yiddish oath, "If I turn traitor to the cause I now pledge, may this hand wither from the arm I now raise," voted for a general strike. Approximately 20,000 out of the 32,000 workers in the shirtwaist trade walked out in the next two days."

A song dedicated to the workers of the Uprising of the 20,000:

The Uprising of the Twenty Thousand Dedicated to the Waistmakers of 1909.

In the black of the winter of nineteen nine, when we froze and bled on the picket line,

We showed the world that women could fight

And we rose and won with women's might.

Chorus: Hail the waistmakers of nineteen nine, Making their stand on the picket line, Breaking the power of those who reign, Pointing the way, smashing the chain. And we gave new courage to the men Who carried on in nineteen ten And shoulder to shoulder we'll win through, Led by the I.L.G.W.U. (From: Let's Sing! Educational Department, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, New York City, n.d.)."

The strike was not completely successful. While union recognition was not achieved, improved conditions on working hours, health and safety standards and wages were agreed but many employers in the industry (including the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory owners) refused to sign the agreement.

In 1910, the International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ILGWU) led a strike of 60,000 cloak-makers called "The Great Revolt" that lasted several months and which led to higher wages, union recognition rudimentary health benefits, and an agreement of arbitration rather than strikes to settle disagreements between workers and employers.

Following the strike of the 20,000, waves of strikes spread through the garment trade starting with Cleveland and Philadelphia and in 1910 and 1911, they hit Chicago. Beginning at Hart, Schaffner, and Marx in September 1910 when 16 women struck. While wages, working conditions and working hours were bad, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the imposition of a bonus system that allowed supervisors to play favourites with some workers, as well as a cut in the piece rate of from 4 cents to 3 ¾ cents.

By the end of the week, the original 16 strikers were joined by 2,000 other women. When the United Garment Workers union (UGW) officially sanctioned the strike, 41,000 workers walked off the job. The UGW refused to call a general strike and only called out workers that were without contracts.

Hart, Schaffner and Marx shifted work to non-union sub-contractors. As the autumn progressed, the strike increasingly looked like a lost cause. In early November, the Chicago Federation of Labor and the Women's Trade Union League (WTUL) urged the strikers to settle, and the UGW withdrew support in December. Workers under Sidney Hillman's leadership ratified a contract with HSM that went into effect on January 14. Other workers, the most radical of the strikers, held out until February, when the general strike was called off. As many workers as could returned to their shops, but many were refused re-employment.

Hannah Shapiro Glick

It wasn't because I wanted to work, but I could see that every little cent helped. [...] I went to work at Hart, Schaffner & Marx; I thought, "I have to better myself." [...] There's nothing like in a big place to work; 'cause they have a wonderful system to work. [...] We got along nicely with every language, let me tell you, but I always minded my own business, but when it came to this, [the strike] I couldn't stand this [...]. They were all afraid to say a word but I wasn't [...]. People who are older than I am would stay in the house and not to budge. So I was the first one [...] If not for me, it seems they couldn't move [...] I'm a strong girl; I never regretted it [...] I think if not for the strike, they would never have what they have now; we had to strike and I think we had the right to go [...]. They stayed like glue; they felt they had to show we have to be recognized as people and, really, we struggled; it wasn't easy [...]The workingman has to live too, that's what it had to show and it did too (Identifying A Lost Leader).” (Excerpted from research by Rebecca Sive).

In 1922, Hannah Shapiro was identified in the Amalgamated Clothing Workers Joint Board Report as the initiator of the 1910 Chicago strike. Although she never emerged as a political leader, Glick was one of the "girl strikers" that many Socialist thinkers admired.

On September 22, 1910, Hannah [a.k.a. "Annie"] Shapiro (later Glick), a seventeen-year-old Jewish immigrant born in Ukraine, initiated the workers' walkout in shop 5 of a major clothing manufacturer. Shapiro, complained to her foreman about a cut in the piecework rate from 4 cents to 3 & 3/4 cents for seaming a pair of trousers. He replied that nothing could be done.

Under Shapiro's leadership, workers from shop 5 of Hart, Schaffner and Marx walked out. By Wednesday, workers in other company shops refused to do the work of Shapiro's shop and, by the end of the week, workers in seven out of ten Hart, Schaffner & Marx shops were out.

A month later, 40,000 Chicago garment workers were on strike. By her own account, Glick was young, fearless, and responsive to the righteousness of the workers' struggle. Her convictions gave her strength; she was a tireless picketer and a good speaker, though not a trained organizer. Although she remembered meeting Jane Addams, dancing with Clarence Darrow [who represented the workers during arbitration], organizing with Agnes Nestor and Mary Dreier Robins, and watching Bessie Abramovitch (Hillman), she had no memory of Clara Masilotti, the Italian strike leader. Furthermore, Glick does not appear "conferring" in any photographs, nor did she write any articles about the strike, or teach English to strikers She did not speak at meetings of the workers, as Abramovitch did. However, she was always her own woman. She did not participate in the selling of the "Special Girl Strikers' Edition" of the Chicago Daily Socialist because she did not agree with Socialist organizing tactics. Of her own significance in the strike, Glick said

"The strike, I'll tell you the truth for me, it was a joke, but for the married people [...] But I was the spokes [sic] [...]. At first they said, 'A young girl, what does she know, good from bad, couldn't she make up 1/4 cent? [...] Women can't stick to anything.”

In retrospect, she saw her importance as having been a model of steadfast courage.

The Creation of International Women's Day

The declaration of a women's day was called by the Socialist Party of the US in 1909 and was celebrated across the US on February 28th. In fact, it was celebrated in the US on the last Sunday in February up until 1913. In 1910, at the Socialist (second) International in Copenhagen, Clara Zetkin suggested the creation of International Women's Day be established to honour women's rights and to support the struggle for women's suffrage. In 1911, the first international women's day was celebrated on March 19th by demonstrations in Austria (1918), Germany (1918), Denmark (1915) and Switzerland (1971) where over one million women and men attended the demonstrations. The dates in parentheses indicate when women achieved not only the right to vote, but the right to vote independently of property qualifications. This most basic right of bourgeois democracies was denied to women and is still denied in many countries.

US Labour History

Understanding the situation that led to the creation of International Working Women’s Day requires an exploration of labour history in the US and understanding the working conditions of women in sweatshops, with high levels of exploitations, low pay and unsafe working conditions.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

And this brings us back once again to the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory and the fire on March 25th 1911. The death of 146 people (129 women mostly young immigrants and 17 men; that is, 146 out of 500 people employed at the company) either burnt to death or who died after jumping from the building.

These deaths all happened in the space of 18 minutes when a rag caught on fire in the space housing the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory (they occupied the 8-10 floors of the Asch Building). In order to prevent workers from leaving early or stealing from the firm, workers going off shift had to pass through doors where their bags would be searched. The exits of the 9th floor were simply impassable, some doors were locked, the fire escapes buckled due to the heat of the flames.

The locked doors ensured that those trapped inside (those on the 10th floor were able to make it to the roof) had the choice of being burned to death or jumping out the windows to their deaths. The fireman's safety nets could not hold the weight of people from those heights, the fire ladders were too short to reach these floors and the water hoses could not reach a fire that high.

These unnecessary and horrific deaths became a unifying theme for international women's day and its link to working class struggles for justice. Cornell University's International Labour Relations Department has a 100 year tribute to the Triangle Shirt Waist Factory Fire. This is a fantastic resource and includes a history of the struggles for wages, better working conditions, the demand for limits to working hours of the early 20th century in the garment district, eyewitness accounts of survivors, photos of the fire, its aftermath and the funerals.

There are also transcripts of the trial against the owners of the Triangle Shirtwaist Company (Max Blanck and Isaac Harris) that were found innocent of second-degree manslaughter as they denied knowledge that the doors were locked. In 1914, they finally settled a civil suit paying $75 per victim. 350,000 people participated in the funeral march a few days after the fire.

Triangleshirtwaistfactoryfirefuneralcortege_cropped.jpg

At the memorial meeting, Rose Schneiderman gave a speech that still has meaning today.

“I would be a traitor to these poor burned bodies if I came here to talk good fellowship. We have tried you good people of the public and we have found you wanting. The old Inquisition had its rack and its thumbscrews and its instruments of torture with iron teeth. We know what these things are today; the iron teeth are our necessities, the thumbscrews are the high-powered and swift machinery close to which we must work, and the rack is here in the firetrap structures that will destroy us the minute they catch on fire. This is not the first time girls have been burned alive in the city. Every week I must learn of the untimely death of one of my sister workers. Every year thousands of us are maimed. The life of men and women is so cheap and property is so sacred. There are so many of us for one job it matters little if 146 of us are burned to death. We have tried you citizens; we are trying you now, and you have a couple of dollars for the sorrowing mothers, brothers and sisters by way of a charity gift. But every time the workers come out in the only way they know to protest against conditions which are unbearable the strong hand of the law is allowed to press down heavily upon us. Public officials have only words of warning to us – warning that we must be intensely peaceable, and they have the workhouse just back of all their warnings. The strong hand of the law beats us back, when we rise, into the conditions that make life unbearable. I can't talk fellowship to you who are gathered here. Too much blood has been spilled. I know from my experience it is up to the working people to save themselves. The only way they can save themselves is by a strong working-class movement (Rose Schneiderman).”

The Bread and Roses Strike (Lawrence, Massachusetts 1912)

Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, along with Joseph Ettor was one of the major organisers for the 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike, aka the “Bread and Roses Strike” derived from a sign carried by a woman worker.

Lawrence Massachusetts was a mill town; housing was “provided” for workers and was priced higher than elsewhere in New England. Other workers lived in cramped tenements. According to Jone Johnson Lewis, the average worker at Lawrence earned less than $9 per week; housing costs were $1 to $6 per week. Introduction of new machinery led to a speed-up leading to increased productivity, accompanied by lower wages and less hours available to work. The strike began on January 11th when a few Polish women workers went on strike as their pay was shorted. The next day, 10,000 workers went out; strike numbers rose to 25,000.

The IWW was the main organising force, after meeting with them, the workers demanded: • 15% pay increase • 54 hour work week • overtime pay at double the normal rate of pay • elimination of bonus pay, which rewarded only a few and encouraged all to work longer hours

Needless to say, the city responded rather badly to the strike.

“The city reacted with night time militia patrols, turning fire hoses on strikers, and sending some of the strikers to jail. Groups elsewhere, often Socialists, organized strike relief, including soup kitchens, medical care, and funds paid to the striking families.

The death of a woman striker, Anna LoPizzo who was killed as police broke up a picket line on January 29 increased tensions.

“Strikers accused the police of the shooting. Police arrested IWW organizer Joseph Ettor and Italian socialist, newspaper editor, and poet Arturo Giovannitti who were at a meeting three miles away at the time and charged them as accessories to murder in her death. After this arrest, martial law was enforced and all public meetings were declared illegal.”

Elizabeth Gurley Flynn and Big Bill Haywood of the IWW bring the children of Lawrence back home

Dynamite was planted around the town by people paid by the company owners to try and win public sympathy at the expense of the strikers and IWW. Children of the strikers were evacuated to NYC on trains where temporary foster care was provided for them (as an aside, Margaret Sanger was one of the nurses on the train).

When the next attempt to relocate children happened; the city reacted violently, mothers and children were clubbed and beaten and children were taken from their parents. This led to a Congressional investigation in which the workers actually testified; Helen Taft (the wife of President Taft) actually attended the congressional meetings in sympathy with the workers. This enabled the building of public sympathy as the IWW brought attention to the situation and held solidarity rallies in NY (led by Flynn) and Boston. The company gave in on March 12th to the original demands of the strikers and Ettor and Giovannitti were acquitted of murder on November 26th.

ELIZABETH GURLEY FLYNN (1890-1964)

The song, Rebel Girl, written in honour of Flynn by Joe Hill expresses her life well.

Born in Concord, NH to a family of socialists and feminists that finally settled in the Bronx in 1900, Flynn attended public school in the Bronx in New York City. At the age of 16 she gave her first public address to the Harlem Socialist Club, where she spoke on "What Socialism Will Do for Women." Upon her arrest for blocking traffic during one of her soapbox speeches she was expelled from high school, and in 1907 she began full-time organizing for the International Workers of the World (IWW).

Flynn's efforts for the IWW took her all over the United States, where she led organizing campaigns among garment workers in Minersville, Pennsylvania; silk weavers in Patterson, New Jersey; hotel and restaurant workers in New York City; miners in Minnesota's Mesabi Iron Range; and textile workers in the famous Lawrence, Massachusetts, strike of 1912.

She spoke in meeting halls, at factory gates, and on street corners in cities and towns across the country. Many of the workers whom Flynn sought to organize were women and children, and Flynn combined her class-based politics with recognition of the particular oppression women experienced because of their sex. She criticized male chauvinism in the IWW and pressed the union to be more sensitive to the needs and interests of working class women.

With other Communist leaders, Flynn fell victim to the anti-Communist hysteria that suffused the United States after the World War II. After a nine-month trial in 1952, she was convicted under the Smith Act of conspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the United States government. During her prison term from January 1955 to May 1957 at the women's federal penitentiary at Alderson, West Virginia, she wrote, took notes on prison life, and participated in the integration of a cottage composed of African-American women.

Flynn published two books about her life: The Rebel Girl, An Autobiography: My First Life (1906-1926; revised edition, 1973) and The Alderson Story: My Life as a Political Prisoner (1955). The following books provide discussions of Flynn in the context of women activists and labor radicals: Melvyn Dubofsky, We Shall Be All: A History of the Industrial Workers of the World (1969); Meredith Tax, The Rising of the Women: Feminist Solidarity and Class Conflict, 1880-1917 (1980).

Women’s Suffrage, Race and Class Struggle

The Women’s Suffrage movement split on the issues of both race and class early in its history.

Clara Zetkin (1857-1933)

In 1896, Zetkin wrote “Only in Conjunction With the Proletarian Woman Will Socialism Be Victorious.”

“As far as the proletarian woman is concerned, it is capitalism’s need to exploit and to search incessantly for a cheap labor force that has created the women’s question. It is for this reason, too, that the proletarian woman has become enmeshed in the mechanism of the economic life of our period and has been driven into the workshop and to the machines. She went out into the economic life in order to aid her husband in making a living, but the capitalist mode of production transformed her into on unfair competitor. She wanted to bring prosperity to her family, but instead misery descended upon it. The proletarian woman obtained her own employment because she wanted to create a more sunny and pleasant life for her children, but instead she became almost entirely separated from them. She became an equal of the man as a worker; the machine rendered muscular force superfluous and everywhere women’s work showed the same results in production as men’s work. And since women constitute a cheap labor force and above all a submissive one that only in the rarest of cases dares to kick against the thorns of capitalist exploitation, the capitalists multiply the possibilities of women’s work in industry. As a result of all this, the proletarian woman has achieved her independence. But verily, the price was very high and for the moment they have gained very little. If during the Age of the Family, a man had the right (just think of the law of Electoral Bavaria!) to tame his wife occasionally with a whip, capitalism is now taming her with scorpions. In former times, the rule of a man over his wife was ameliorated by their personal relationship. Between an employer and his worker, however, exists only a cash nexus. The proletarian woman has gained her economic independence, but neither as a human being nor as a woman or wife has she had the possibility to develop her individuality. For her task as a wife and a mother, there remain only the breadcrumbs which the capitalist production drops from the table.

Therefore the liberation struggle of the proletarian woman cannot be similar to the struggle that the bourgeois woman wages against the male of her class. On the contrary, it must be a joint struggle with the male of her class against the entire class of capitalists. She does not need to fight against the men of her class in order to tear down the barriers which have been raised against her participation in the free competition of the market place. Capitalism’s need to exploit and the development of the modern mode of production totally relieves her of having to fight such a struggle. On the contrary, new barriers need to be erected against the exploitation of the proletarian woman. Her rights as wife and mother need to be restored and permanently secured. Her final aim is not the free competition with the man, but the achievement of the political rule of the proletariat. The proletarian woman fights hand in hand with the man of her class against capitalist society. To be sure, she also agrees with the demands of the bourgeois women’s movement, but she regards the fulfilment of these demands simply as a means to enable that movement to enter the battle, equipped with the same weapons, alongside the proletariat (Zetkin).”

Revolutionary Socialist and feminist, Clara Zetkin joined the Social Democratic Workers' Party of Germany in 1875. Zetkin belonged to the Radical wing of the Party along with Rosa Luxemburg. She married a Russian revolutionary living in exile (Clara Zetkin bibliography).

Clara Zetkin was influenced by Bebel's position in Women and Socialism which argued that it was the goal of socialists "not only to achieve equality of men and women under the present social order, which constitutes the sole aim of the bourgeois women's movement, but to go far beyond this and to remove all barriers that make one human being [economically] dependent upon another, which includes the dependence of one sex upon another."

In 1889, Zetkin wrote:

"What made women's labour particularly attractive to the capitalists was not only its lower price but also the greater submissiveness of women. The capitalists speculate on the two following factors: the female worker must be paid as poorly as possible and the competition of female labour must be employed to lower the wages of male workers as much as possible. In the same manner the capitalists use child labour to depress women's wages and the work of machines to depress all human labour."

In 1891 Zetkin became editor of the SPD's journal, Die Gleichheit (Equality). An impressive journalist, Zetkin took the circulation from 11,000 in 1903 to 67,000 three years later. She was also active against militarism. Opposing entry into WWI, Zetkin wrote in November, 1914:

"When the men kill, it is up to us women to fight for the preservation of life. When the men are silent, it is our duty to raise our voices in behalf of our ideals."

A strong campaigner for women's suffrage, Zetkin was elected secretary of the International Socialist Women. In 1907, she became the leader of the women’s office at the SPD (German Social Democratic Party) and organized the first international women’s conference in Stuttgar. She wrote:

Kollantai and Zetkin (1910) Second International Women’s Conference Copenhagen

"The socialist parties of all countries are duty bound to fight energetically for the implementation of universal women's suffrage which is to be vigorously advocated both by agitation and by parliamentary means. When a battle for suffrage is conducted, it should only be conducted according to socialist principles, and therefore with the demand of universal suffrage for all men and women [irrespective of class and property ownership].”

In 1910 at the Second International Conference of Working Women in Copenhagen, Zetkin advocated (along with Luise Zietz) for the formation of International Women's Day on March 8th).

IDA BELL WELLS-BARNETT (Holy Springs, Mississippi) July 16, 1862 - March 25, 1931)

The following story illustrates how Well's long history of fighting for black rights influenced the suffrage movement:

Ida B Wells

On March 3, 1913, as 5,000 women prepared to parade through President Woodrow Wilson's inauguration, demanding the right to vote, Ida B. Wells was standing to the side. A black journalist and civil-rights activist, she had taken time out from her anti-lynching campaign to lobby for woman suffrage in Chicago. But a few days earlier, leaders of the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) had insisted she not march with the Illinois delegation. Certain Southern women, they said, had threatened to pull out if a black woman marched alongside whites. A constitutional amendment for woman suffrage, the object of the parade, would have to be ratified by two-thirds of the state legislatures after garnering two-thirds votes in both the House and Senate. In the Southern states, opposition to woman suffrage was intensified as legislators feared that granting women the vote would add even more black voters to the voting rolls. So, the parade organizers reasoned, a compromise had to be struck: African American women could march in the suffrage parade, but in order to prevent raising even more opposition in the South, they would have to march at the back of the march. The organizers of the march asked that the African American women march at the back of the parade. Mary Terrell accepted the decision. But Ida Wells-Barnett did not. She tried to get the white Illinois delegation to support her opposition of this segregation, but found few supporters. The Alpha Suffrage Club women either marched in the back, or, as did Ida Wells-Barnett herself, decided not to march in the parade at all. But, as the parade progressed, Wells-Barnett emerged from the crowd and joined the (white) Illinois delegation, marching between two white supporters. She refused to comply with the segregation. This was neither the first nor the last time that African American women found their support of women's rights received with less than enthusiasm. Didn't black women have as much right to vote as white women? Sixty-five years earlier, at the dawn of the woman's suffrage movement, most suffragists would have said yes. In fact, early feminists were often anti-slavery activists before they started arguing for women's rights. And the parallels between black slaves — who could not vote or hold property — and women — who could do neither in most states — couldn't be ignored (Sources: Civil Rights Activist and Women Marchers).

Born to slave parents, Ida B. Wells became a teacher, refused to give up her seat to go to the “coloured section” and sued the railroad in the 1880s. She led the national campaign against lynching, and founded Alpha Suffrage Club of Chicago with Black suffragists. A highly respected journalist and political activist, she was one of the co-founders of the NAACP.

But the rights of blacks and women did not always go hand in hand. In 1869, as America was about to give black men the right to vote, the woman's movement split in two. Half the activists felt that any expansion of voting rights was a step in the right direction; the other half were angry that women were being left behind. By 1900, most suffragists had lost their enthusiasm for civil rights, and actually used racism to push for the vote. Anna Howard Shaw, head of NAWSA, said it was "humiliating" that black men could vote while well-bred white women could not.

Other suffragists scrambled to reassure white Southerners that white women outnumbered male blacks in the South. If women got the vote, they argued, they would help preserve "white supremacy.

But not all white suffragists shunned blacks, but Wells was never really embraced by the white suffrage movement. And though both white and black women won the vote in 1920, they did not do it by marching together. The discussions on the left addressed Women’s Suffrage differently and from a critical perspective compared to those of bourgeois feminist movements.

Questions were raised amongst the anarchists: Emma Goldman asked whether the ballot was a priority, that it distracted women from true emancipation and tied our emancipation towards participating in elections rather than elimination of oppression and the state; Mother Jones argued that it was not a priority, we should be fighting class oppression. Amongst the Socialists and Communists, support for Women’s Suffrage was strong. However, their argument was strongly differentiated from the bourgeois Women’s Suffrage movement and emphasised that while extension of bourgeois democracy was appropriate if nothing else on social and economic grounds; simply getting women into political movements was important. However, it was always emphasised that true liberation and emancipation would only come through the struggle and creation of socialism.

Emma Goldman (June 27 [O.S. June 15] 1869 – May 14, 1940)

“The history of progress is written in the blood of men and women who have dared to espouse an unpopular cause, as, for instance, the black man's right to his body, or woman's right to her soul.” “Needless to say, I am not opposed to woman suffrage on the conventional ground that she is not equal to it. I see neither physical, psychological, nor mental reasons why woman should not have the equal right to vote with man. But that can not possibly blind me to the absurd notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed. If she would not make things worse, she certainly could not make them better. To assume, therefore, that she would succeed in purifying something which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit her with supernatural powers. Since woman's greatest misfortune has been that she was looked upon as either angel or devil, her true salvation lies in being placed on earth; namely, in being considered human, and therefore subject to all human follies and mistakes. Are we, then, to believe that two errors will make a right? Are we to assume that the poison already inherent in politics will be decreased, if women were to enter the political arena? The most ardent suffragists would hardly maintain such a folly. As a matter of fact, the most advanced students of universal suffrage have come to realize that all existing systems of political power are absurd, and are completely inadequate to meet the pressing issues of life (Women's Suffrage).”

Born in Kovno in the Russian Empire to an orthodox Jewish family, Goldman emigrated to the US in 1885 and moved first to Rochester, NY before she moved and settled to live in NYC. An anarchist writer, theoretician and activist, Goldman wrote and worked extensively on women’s issues on birth control, marriage (she was an ardent supporter of “free love”), and freedom of speech. She was a strong opponent of homophobia, militarism and conscription.

A believer in direct action and violence to support political ends, she was imprisoned several times for “incitement to riot.” In 1892 she was involved in the Homestead Steel Strike by the Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers (against the Homestead PA steel plant owned by Andrew Carnegie and run by Henry Clay Frick a strong opponent of the union). Her lover, Alexander Birkman, tried unsuccessfully to kill Frick in an attempt to strike terror and raise political consciousness (he was sentenced to 22 years in prison for the attempt).

In 1901, Leon Czolgosz shot President McKinley (who died from his wounds). Czolgosz said that he was inspired after listening to one of Goldman’s speeches but said that she had no role in the assassination. He was executed for the crime, but she refused to condemn his actions and was vilified leading to a crackdown on anarchists under Teddy Roosevelt the President who succeeded McKinley. Goldman founded the journal “Mother Earth” in 1906 and when Beckman was released from prison he took over control of the journal while she toured the country advocating anarchism, birth control, free-love and freedom of speech for the next 10 years. Their relationship broke down and Goldman formed a relationship with Ben Reitman (her "hobo" doctor).

Following the passage of conscription for WWI, Goldman became active in the anti-conscription movement and formed the No Conscription League with Beckman leading to her arrest in June 1917 and imprisonment until 1919. Attorney General Alexander Mitchell Palmer and J. Edgar Hoover, head of the U.S. Department of Justice's General Intelligence Division, were intent on using the Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1918 to deport any non-citizens they could identify as advocates of anarchy or revolution. "Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman," Hoover wrote while they were in prison, "are, beyond doubt, two of the most dangerous anarchists in this country and return to the community will result in undue harm." They (and 247 other people) were deported en masse to Russia.

Initially supportive of the Russian revolution, Goldman and Beckman became rapidly and strongly disenchanted and left the country in 1921. She then lived in the UK after marrying to get British citizenship to provide her with some safety; she started writing her biography in 1928 and then travelled to Canada. She was allowed to return to the US for a lecture tour in 1933, as long as she did not speak of politics or current events. She visited Spain (she strongly supported the anarcho-syndicalists during the Civil War and championed their cause) and her support for their struggle was formally recognised by the CNT-FAI. She died in 1940 in Toronto, Canada (Emma Goldman).

Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919)

From Women’s Suffrage and Class Struggle (1912)

“Economically and socially, the women of the exploiting classes do not make up an independent stratum of the population. They perform a social function merely as instruments of natural reproduction for the ruling classes. The women of the proletariat, on the contrary, are independent economically; they are engaged in productive work for society just as the men are. Not in the sense that they help the men by their housework, scraping out a daily living and raising children for meagre compensation. This work is not productive within the meaning of the present economic system of capitalism, even though it entails an immense expenditure of energy and self-sacrifice in a thousand little tasks. This is only the private concern of the proletarians, their blessing and felicity, and precisely for this reason nothing but empty air as far as modem society is concerned. Only that work is productive which produces surplus value and yields capitalist profit – as long as the rule of capital and the wage system still exists. From this standpoint the dancer in a cafe, who makes a profit for her employer with her legs, is a productive working-woman, while all the toil of the woman and mothers of the proletariat within the four walls of the home is considered unproductive work. This sounds crude and crazy but it is an accurate expression of the crudeness and craziness of today’s capitalist economic order; and to understand this crude reality clearly and sharply is the first necessity for the proletarian woman (Women's Suffrage and Class Struggle).”

Rosa Luxemburg was born in Russian-controlled Poland. She was the 5th child of a Jewish Timber Merchant. Rosa Luxemburg was a leading Marxist theoretician and organiser whose writings were pertinent to many debates of the period and are still relevant to contemporary debates especially on Reform versus Revolution, Tactics and Strategy, Political Organisation, Political Economy and discussions of the National Question.

In 1886, Luxemburg joined the Polish Proletariat Party which organised a general strike in 1887 which resulted in 4 party leaders being killed and the party disbanded. Rosa fled to Switzerland in 1889, studying at Zurich University. She co-founded the Social Democratic party of the Kingdom of Poland (and later Lithuania joined the group) with Leo Jogiches. She wrote extensively on the national question, political economy, politics and history. In 1896, she married Gustav Lübeck, got German citizenship and moved to Berlin. She was active in the left-wing of the SPD leading the fight against Bernstein’s revisionist policies (her response to Bernstein can be found in Social Reform or Revolution). A supporter of the use of direct action and the general strike, she ran into difficulties with the right of the SPD and also the government. She was imprisoned 3 times for her political activities between the periods of 1904-6.

She finally broke with the SPD in 1914 when they voted to support World War I and agreed to a truce with the Imperial Government. In 1914, Karl Liebknecht, Clara Zetkin, and Franz Mehring, founded the Die Internationale group; it became the Spartacus League in January 1916. The Spartacist League vehemently rejected the SPD's support for the war, trying to lead Germany's proletariat to an anti-war general strike.

As a result, in June 1916 Luxemburg was imprisoned for two and a half years, as was Karl Liebknecht. During imprisonment, she was twice relocated, first to Posen (now Poznań), then to Breslau (now Wrocław). Freed from prison in Breslau in 1918, Luxemburg and Liebknecht reorganised the Spartacist League which along with the Independent Socialists and the International Communists of Germany (IKD) united to form the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) on 1st January 1919 under her and Liebknecht’s leadership. In January 1919 a second revolutionary wave took Berlin. The leader of the SPD (Friedrich Ebert, a former student of Luxemburg) ordered the destruction of the left-wing German revolution and its leadership and called in the Freikorps to put an end to the revolution. Luxemburg and Liebknecht were captured on the 15th of January in Berlin and were first questioned and then murdered by the Freikorps' Garde-Kavallerie-Schützendivision. While Leibknecht’s body was delivered anonymously to a morgue; Rosa Luxemburg's body was dumped in a river (see, Rosa Luxemburg).

Alexandra Kollantai (1872-1953)

For International Women's Day, we are including the words of Alexandra Kollantai, on the question of maternity insurance, motherhood and children from her introduction to Society and Motherhood (1915) . Many readers might ask why? Isn't the question surrounding reproductive rights the purview of bourgeois feminists? Shouldn't we be focused on articles that pertain to women's role in the workforce and IWD, especially when the writer is Alexandra Kollantai, a leading advocate of IWD during the Russian Revolution?

However, we chose the article on maternity insurance because: 1) if you watch the news today, we still see the same problem of maternity insurance, motherhood and children (albeit an updated version) being argued in the halls of the U.S. Congress in 2021 just as it was argued by Russian society in 1902; the struggle over maternity benefits and childcare continues and this was clear from the pandemic; and 2) as Kollantai, herself notes, it is the most vital and urgent problem created by the large-scale capitalist economic system. The article, although already significantly edited, is very long.

“Among the numerous problems raised by contemporary reality there is probably none more important for mankind, none more vital and urgent than the problem of motherhood created by the large-scale capitalist economic system. The problem of protecting and providing for the mother and young child is one that faces social politicians, knocks relentlessly at the door of the statesman, engages the health and hygiene specialists, concerns the social statistician, haunts the representative of the working class and weighs down on the shoulders of tens of millions of mothers compelled to earn their own living.”

“Side by side with the problem of sex and marriage, enveloped in the poetical language of the psychological suffering, insoluble difficulties and unsatisfied needs of noble souls, there is always to be found the majestic and tragic figure of motherhood wearily carrying her heavy burden. Neo-malthusians, social-reformers and philanthropists have all hastened to provide their own particular solution to this thorny problem, and all sing the praises of their own method of restoring paradise lost to mothers and babies. The prosperity of national industry and the development of the national economy depend upon a constant supply of fresh labour… the principle of state maternity insurance [is] a principle in sharp contradiction with the present social structure as [it] undermines the basis of marriage and violates the fundamental concepts of private-family rights and relationships. However, if, in the name of 'higher' considerations of state and under the pressure of necessity, the state authorities have been compelled to advance and implement a measure so at odds with the prevailing spirit of the representatives of the bourgeois world, at the other end of the social scale, among the working class, the principle of providing for and protecting mother and child is welcomed with enthusiasm and sympathy. The demand that the social collective (the community) provide maternity insurance and child protection was born of the immediate and vital needs of the class of hired workers. Of all the strata of society, this class is the one which most requires that a solution be found to the painful conflict between compulsory professional labour by women and their duties as representatives of their sex, as mothers. Following a powerful class instinct rather than a clearly understood idea, the working class strove to find a way of resolving this conflict (Society and Motherhood 1915).”

An ardent supporter of working class women, Kollantai came from the bourgeois intelligentsia. Her father was a general and her mother came from a wealthy peasant family. Her mother's divorce from her first husband and the long and unhappy struggle of her parents to be together helped develop her ideas on love, sex and marriage which became a critical part of her feminist theory. Her own early marriage ended because she felt "trapped."

She became increasingly involved with the populist ideas of the Peasant Commune in the 1890s which led her to the budding Marxist movement in Saint Petersburg. In 1898 she left her child by her first marriage with her parents and went to study economics abroad in Europe. In 1899, she returned to Russia where she met Lenin who supported her feminist ideas. She was a witness of the popular uprising in 1905 (Bloody Sunday), at Saint Petersburg in front of the Winter Palace. She went into exile to Germany in 1908. She left Germany when the SPD supported WWI which she adamantly opposed. She settled in Norway where her anti-war views were accepted. She finally returned to Russia after the Tsar abdicated in 1917.

Zetkin (3rd from the Left) and Kollantai (to her right) (1921) at the International Women’s Conference

Kollantai became the most well-known advocate for women's equality in Russia and the most prominent woman in the Soviet administration. She was best known for founding the Zhenotdel or "Women's Department" (1919) where she worked to improve the conditions of women's lives, fighting illiteracy and educating women about the new marriage, education, and working laws put in place by the Soviet Union.

In the 1920s, she joined a left-wing faction of the Communist Party, the Workers Opposition, that opposed Lenin and the Bolsheviks on the role of trade unions and the organisation of the economy. The Workers Opposition faction were marginalised after their defeat at the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (1921) when factions were banned and their dissolution was required. By the 11^th Congress, an attempt to expel them from the Russian Communist Party; while defeated, this spelled the end of the Workers Opposition. Many of their members were murdered by Stalin in the late 1930s. However, because of her previously close relationship with Lenin, Kollantai was allowed to live out her days in various diplomatic positions abroad.

Alexandra Kollontai raised eyebrows with her unflinching advocacy of free love. Kollontai's views on the role of marriage and the family under Communism were arguably more influential on today's society than her advocacy of "free love." Kollontai believed that, like the state, the family unit would wither away. She viewed marriage and traditional families as legacies of the oppressive, property-rights-based, egoist past. Under Communism, both men and women would work for, and be supported by, society, not their families. Similarly, their children would be wards of, and reared basically by society. Kollontai admonished men and women to discard their nostalgia for traditional family life. In “Communism and the Family” (1920) she argued:

"The worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; she must remember that there are only our children, the children of Russia’s communist workers." However, she also praised maternal attachment: "Communist society will take upon itself all the duties involved in the education of the child, but the joys of parenthood will not be taken away from those who are capable of appreciating them."

ACM: Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? Some thoughts …

NY brit expat

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday February 19, 2023 · 3:58 PM PST

2023/02/19 · 15:58

My answer to this question is probably obvious, I would say no. Just because there is a specific thing that we may agree upon, why we agree and how we have come to this position is probably very different. This is a broad question and applies to a number of issues from who we can work with in a United Front on some issues, who will we engage with over an issue, who can we trust as comrades in solidarity, and who or what is an ally and what does it mean in terms of truly trusting them to actually stand with us (is it momentary, a single issue or is it broader)?

The rise of and normalisation of the far-right has always meant the increase in political attacks on those already oppressed in our societies; attacks against people of colour, attacks against migrants and foreigners, attacks against women’s rights and attacks against LGBTQ+ are part and parcel of the propaganda of the far-right and fascists. For obvious examples, take a look at Poland and Hungary, take a look at some US states where the far-right is in control, like Texas, and then take a look at the United Kingdom. What we have been witnessing for years is creeping fascism; attacks on the rights of marginalised people then the move to attack the rights of the general population. It doesn’t always require the far-right to be in control of a country … it is a process and we are living through it.

It comes as no surprise that in a political situation in which the left is extremely weak and there is no political party willing to fully oppose and counteract the usage of division and hate created by both mainstream and far-right politicians that we see an increase in hate; nor is it surprising that we actually see the exploited and oppressed buy into the hate and lies. As part of the rise and normalisation of the far-right and fascism, we are seeing the rise of another bizarre phenomenon, alliances between fascists and groups of people who would also be persecuted if the far-right and fascists come to power.

Strange bedfellows are not new, political struggles have sometimes created alliances that are surprising. Sometimes this arises out of who or what group is dominating political struggles and whether they are ignoring the needs of minoritized groups and their demands in the context of struggles. Sometimes this arises from groups unwilling to actually move in solidarity with other oppressed and exploited people, not recognising that these are their natural allies. Sometimes an alliance is done because they fear their “enemy” so much that they will ally with their enemies as well. Sometimes they may actually believe that these oppressed people deserve to be oppressed. Historically, parts of the working class have been fascists themselves.

The Invasion of Ukraine

Discussing this phenomenon in the context of discussions on the invasion of Ukraine by Russia where we have seen Stalinists, campists and the far-right aligning to support Putin and his invasion as part of a struggle against Western and NATO imperialism. These alliances are predicated on the belief that Ukrainians themselves have no agency, and no right of self-defence and self-determination. Some argue that somehow the fact that there are Ukrainian fascists damns the whole population Name me a country without fascists and I will say you are deluded. The normalisation of fascism means that there are few countries where there is no far-right or fascists. Those that demand multi-polarity seem to insist that instead of opposing both western imperialism and Russian imperialism, we simply pretend that Ukrainians have no right to defend themselves or to determine their future. Then there are the positions of some pacificists arguing that we must demand that the war stop as though the peace of the grave is the only choice for Ukrainians; we are not looking at a situation where civilian life is respected by the Russian invasion. Any negotiations must be between the Russian government and Ukrainian government. Again, this is part of the agency of Ukrainians who have not started the war and they cannot be ignored in any peace talks; parts of their country have been conquered and annexed; Ukrainians have the right to demand not only the return of these places but compensation for the destruction wrought by the invasion. People on the left that support the right of self-defence and self-determination have been called collaborators with western imperialism and NATO; this is absurd. They seem to be living in the past and holding tankie positions; Vladimir Putin is not a progressive, he is not a socialist; instead he is the dictator of a Kleptocracy attempting to revive Greater Russia … he is not an ally and I understand why the far-right supports him, what I find appalling is that people on the left are providing cover for him and supporting him … the enemy of my enemy is clearly not my friend; he is still my enemy and the enemy of socialists and all notions of socialist democracy that the left must support.

Feminism

The agency and demands of oppressed minorities are often ignored along with the specificity of their intersecting oppressions deriving from racism, gender, homo and transphobia, disablism and class; their demands subsumed in a wider movement against oppression. Whose perspectives dominate in a wider oppressed group often reflects the divisions in our society and as such this is then reflected in movements.

For example, liberal white feminists in the second wave of feminism during the struggle to reform sterilisation laws which prevented white married women from obtaining sterilisation without the agreement of their husbands ignored the reality that for Black, Native American, and Latina women sterilisation was forced on them, often following childbirth. Disabled women were routinely sterilised or encouraged not to have children as part of eugenic laws which existed in many states in the US and in other countries. In many countries, trans people were forcibly sterilised as part of their transition; this was only recently made illegal in the EU, but this policy still persists in some countries in Europe and elsewhere. In all cases, these laws are/were part of the general oppression that these groups of people live with on a daily basis. Oppression plays out differently within a broader group of oppressed people which depends on class, racialisation, disablism, cultures, religions, etc and if the views of those who oppressions are intersectional are ignored then do not be surprised that splits in a general movement happens.

Given the nature of the liberal feminist movement of the second wave of feminism and who dominated the movement (predominately white heterosexual middle class women), addressing these differences in personal and group history, culture and experience should have been reflected in the struggle; but the reality is, that rather than address these historical differences and come to a consensus on how to fight on these issues together, the reality of those facing intersectional oppressions was ignored. The movement splintered, those that were forcibly sterilised could not work with the mainstream feminist movements on this issue. Women of colour had to work together with religious organisations demanding a delay in sterilisations. Given that all they wanted was a delay in sterilisation and there was no opposition to voluntary sterilisation, this is a failure of the white liberal feminist movement which undermined the struggles of women of colour against sterilisation abuse.

These differences were not only around sterilisation abuse, it also impacted struggles around bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. When we say we are pro-choice that means that we support women’s choices to determine if, when and how many children they have; we are not only supporting their choices at a specific moment in time not to have a child. Supporting the right of bodily autonomy and reproductive choice are a general political position which has strong roots in grassroots feminism and political movements. Historically in the US, people on welfare benefits (especially younger racialised women) have faced pressure to use longer lasting contraceptives to get benefits, women in prisons were often “offered” sterilisation to get early release so as not to be a “burden” on society. Disabled people who have always been treated as a “burden” on society are routinely discouraged from having children and laws of guardianship still permit forced sterlisation of disabled women.

The Hyde Amendment predominately impacted women of colour and women that were poor; the relationship between oppression of marginalised people and their having higher income (and better jobs) and ownership of wealth means that the oppression faced by poorer people and women of colour differs than those who have higher incomes and wealth as they can cover costs for abortion. That means that the access to abortion and federal funding and the limits imposed by states to getting funds for Medicaid funded abortions meant that while abortion was formally legal, accessing it depended on your ability to cover costs for obtaining abortion. That meant that women of colour, and poor women were far less able to access their right to abortion. The fact that the Hyde Amendment still exists as federal law despite no federal law to guarantee the right to abortion on a national level speaks volumes.

This failure is not only a failure of the mainstream feminist movement far more concerned about glass ceilings than standing with women on the ground, it is a failure of the Democratic Party and the fact that they didn’t combat the Hyde Amendment, and they have done little or nothing to ensure not only reproductive rights and the right to abortion for all women; they have refused to address the issue of reproductive justice and the right to bodily autonomy for all women. Any alliances on the struggle for women’s reproductive justice must be based on the demands of women of colour, disabled women and working-class women and allied with the struggles of LGBTQ+ people; the reality is that we cannot trust liberal feminists to lead this movement. Their leadership has failed badly, our alliance with the democratic party as a whole has failed us. We need to have a movement to fight for ourselves and make demands and it needs to be led by women marginalised in our society.

Trans rights

The current struggle over the rights of trans people in the UK (and US) to self-identify and remove the “medical” certification of Gender Dysphoria as essential to get a gender recognition certificate (GRC) also has led to an incredibly unpleasant alliance between trans exclusive radical feminists (TERFs), anti-trans bigots and far-right Christian and fascist organisations.

Part of what we are seeing derives from the normalisation of the far-right and fascists as part of mainstream political parties (in Britain, the Tories; in the US, the Republican Party). In essence, the normalisation of the far-right and fascists as part of mainstream parties has led to increases in attacks on those already marginalised in our societies.

Following Boris Johnson gaining the leadership of the Tory party and the ascendancy of the far-right of the Tory (many one-nation Tory MPs just quit) we are seeing the consolidation of right-wing arguments in the party. Given that the right-wing of the Tory Party has adopted the terms and slogans of the far-right members of the Republican Party about “woke” culture as an “existential” threat to the UK; we (like the US) we are experiencing attacks on our human rights, especially the right to protest and the right to strike as well as attacks on the rights of migrants and refugees and trans people.

The reform of the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 (GRA) to be more consistent with changes already begun in Europe; this reform was proposed when Theresa May was Prime Minister. These proposed changes has led to the a vehement (and often vicious) response on the part of both Trans-exclusive Radical Feminists and Gender Critical Feminists; those that believe that women’s oppression relates to their sex (biological) or that sex is the root of women’s oppression, rather than their gender (social oppression). Many of their arguments that Trans people are “predatory” and “paedophiles” bear a strong resemblance to attacks against Gays and Lesbians fighting for their civil rights. Additionally, much of what has been argued about access to women’s only spaces are irrelevant to much of this discussion and already exists in the GRA, so that reform of the GRA would not change what already exists.

Recently the Scottish Parliament voted to change the requirements to obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in a Gender Recognition (Scotland) Reform removing the requirement of a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, lowering the age of beginning the process to 16 (consistent with 16 year olds already having the right to vote in Scotland) and decreasing the time required to live in your self-defined gender. This reform was negotiated between political parties in the Scottish Parliament. It had the support of most Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) including some Tories. So the Scottish Greens supported it, the SNP supported it, Scottish Labour
supported it.

As Mike Picken writes:

“The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed by the devolved Scottish Parliament, following six long years of debate, on 22 December 2022 by a two thirds majority of 86 to 39 votes. The Bill simplifies the process whereby a trans person living or born in Scotland could obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to change their gender on official documentation. It would change the process to a system of self-identification for living in their new identity for three months, rather than the current complex process of medical diagnosis of mental ill health and the need to live in a new gender for two years. The legislation would also apply to 16 and 17 year olds enabling them to obtain a GRC for the first time, with some slightly different procedures and safeguards to those of adults.”

The Scottish Gender Recognition reform specifically stated that this reform did not affect UK laws around this issue. Laws that are passed through Parliaments are then sent for approval to the King to become law. The UK government refused to send to the King for royal assent on the excuse that it changed UK law and then using Section 35 on Scottish devolution which allowed the UK Parliament to veto a Scottish law if it threatened the laws of the UK; think of it as the nuclear option; it has never been used previously. The decision by the Tories to block the reform bill was aided by the fact that English Labour is divided on this issue; Keir Starmer does not agree that 16 year olds should be able to legally change their gender has put him at odds with Scottish Labour who supported the gender reform bill and some members of the Parliamentary Labour Party as well as members of the party.

In doing so, not only did the Tory government undermined devolution and the rights of the Scottish Parliament, but they also attacked a small oppressed group of people; note that this reform is far more consistent with changes that are ongoing in Europe. An obvious question is would the UK refuse to recognise a GRC from a European country where the medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria was not required?

To say the past week has been appalling is not an exaggeration.

On the 11^th of February, a protest of Gender Critical feminists, right-wing Christian fundamentalists and fascists (the so-called Patriotic Alternative) at a Drag Queen story hour at the Tate Britain. Drag Queen story hours are something that began in the US but have been adopted around the world; they promote diversity and inclusion and that is something that the right-wing alliance cannot countenance. There was a counterprotest of anti-fascists but their movements were restricted (rather than those of the fascists, fundies and transphobes). Imagine that parents bringing their children to this event had to pass by a line of fascists; because that is what the police allowed. The anti-trans politics of Gender Critical feminists and TERFS is bad enough; but their alliance with open fascists is appalling. Can they not recognise that fascists would discriminate against them as well? It is not as if the fascists pretended to be anything but fascists and this was an accident, for that matter do they not think that right-wing Christian fundies are allies and support women’s rights? No, for some reason they believe that drag queens are more of a threat than fascists and Christian fundies and that should tell you more about their politics than they probably want revealed. We must stand together with the Trans community; we must fight against all oppression of marginalised people. We do not make alliances with fascists and Christian fundies whose purpose is to increase the oppression of marginalised people.

Also on the 11^th of February, Brianna Ghey, a 16 year old trans youth was murdered in a park in Warrington. She was well-known in social media, especially TikTok where she had many followers. Initially, the police stated that her murder was not a hate crime against trans people despite saying that had no motive for why two 15 year olds stabbed her repeatedly in a park in broad daylight. The viciousness of the attack is incredible; it took police until Tuesday to say that they are now investigating whether this may be an anti-trans hate crime as they continued to question the perpetrators of the murder. One wonders what the police were thinking about the violent murder of a young trans girl by two other children and how they could make that initial statement that it was not a hate crime without supposedly “having a motive for the crime.” What is clear is that not only are the British police as an institution racist and misogynist, they are also transphobes; any idea that justice can be won at the hands of these people is absurd. Denying Brianna Ghey her chosen gender (see Gender Recognition Act above) and then denying her being trans irrelevant to her death is shocking. Whether or not her being trans is proved to have played a role in her death, assume the obvious and then search for other motives.

To add to anger, Brianna was deadnamed in the right-wing media and her gender was changed from her. Her murder has led to anger about not only how this murder could happen, but the denial of who she was even in death.

As Robin Moira White has said:

“Trans people experience this, too. We face journalists and politicians playing the game of getting the word “trans” and “paedophile” or “child-molester” in the same sentence to create an impression. WE see people suggesting that conclusions about all trans people can be drawn from exceptional (always exceptionally awful) trans people. The parallels with the treatment of gay people during the time of section 28 are stark – and hard to bear.

Be in no doubt: if you indulge in these activities you are putting real people at risk. Trans people are not going away – and increasingly expect to take their rightful place in society.”

Dept of Education London, Vigil in solidarity with Brianna Ghey and Trans Youth, 15th of February 2023 — Vigil for Brianna Ghey and solidarity with Trans Youth, Dept of Education, London, February 15th 2023

Needless to say, it has rightfully increased fear among trans people. Vigils have been held around the whole of the UK in solidarity with her and with trans people demanding that trans youth be protected. These protests not only consist of trans people and LGBT+ people, but also allies horrified at what had happened. Having attended both vigils in London; the first at the Department of Education on the 15^th of February and the second yesterday in Soho Square on the 18^th, I was struck by the solidarity in which we gathered. People were predominately young and female; they were angry, saddened, and scared, but also full of solidarity with each other. Expressions of solidarity with migrants following a fascist attack on an hotel in Knowsley (on February 11^th) which housed asylum seekers were raised by speaker after speaker; linking movements of the oppressed and their unwillingness to allow the oppression, violent attacks and the murders of marginalised people whether trans, migrants, black, or disabled that we must support.

It is only through unity and solidarity against oppressors, fascists and the far-right that we can fight effectively to build a socialism. To be honest, many groups of the left and individuals that consider themselves left, unfortunately have a lot to learn about how to stop and fight attacks against rising hate in Britain.

Colorado hospital says women can’t get their tubes tied unless they have cancer

Aysha Qamar

Daily Kos Staff

Tuesday February 07, 2023 · 10:32 AM PST

2023/02/07 · 10:32

Abortion rights activists protest outside the US Federal Courthouse after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe Vs. Wade, in Detroit, Michigan on June 24, 2022. (Photo by JEFF KOWALSKY / AFP) (Photo by JEFF KOWALSKY/AFP via Getty Images)

As conservatives across the country make moves to ban abortion and limit access to reproductive rights, some hospitals are also making restrictions of their own. But what’s surprising is that these restrictions are coming in a state where abortion is legal at all stages. As one of six states in the country without any term restrictions in regard to when a pregnancy can be terminated, Colorado has statutory protection for abortion as a fundamental right.

So while hospitals cannot restrict abortions, they are targeting other reproductive rights including letting women get their tubes tied. According to the Colorado Sun, not one but two hospitals in the state have decided not to let women get their tubes tied without a public announcement. The second and most recent is the only hospital in Durango with a maternity ward, Mercy Hospital.

triumph110

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday December 30, 2022 · 5:17 PM PST

2022/12/30 · 17:17

Outgoing Arizona Attorney General Brnovich had ruled that a law on the books from before Arizona became a state completely outlawed all abortions in Arizona was valid. This ruling from Brnovich has just been overturned by the Arizona Appeals Court. As such as of now abortions can occur in Arizona up to 15 weeks are allowed. Although this is not ideal, it is better than nothing. Here is the ruling.

Incoming Governor Katie Hobbs “In November, Arizonans made clear they believe in women’s fundamental rights. Starting in January, I will do everything in my power as governor to ensure women can exercise their constitutional rights and keep fighting to restore reproductive freedom in our state.”

Newer
Older

RSS