For the alternative point of view please read here

There may be many differing theories of patriarchy, but they all share one basic assumption: that the oppression of women is a system of domination which is independent of any given social structure. It exists as a set of ideas and practices such as sexism and male violence which reproduce themselves. Patriarchy theories see the oppression of women as preceding capitalism and, without a separate revolution to get rid of male domination, succeeding capitalism. In my view none of these theories can be integrated into a Marxist framework. It is one of Engels’ enduring achievements that he recognised that the monogamous family was the first to be based on economic relations rather than stemming from natural conditions. Morgan (the anthropologist) had argued that in pre-commodity societies, social organisation was dominated by blood ties rather than the mode of production itself: “At this stage the type of production is less decisive than the degree in which the old blood ties and the old mutual community of the sexes within the tribe has been dissolved.’ In other words the social relations of these societies were determined by natural conditions and therefore tended to vary according to the circumstances of different tribes and peoples. It is true that Engels tended to idealise these pre-class societies. It is obvious that in subsistence societies, life was extremely hard and also possible and probable that certain inequalities existed between men and women because of the exigencies of child-care, and the low level of technology. The situation was however uneven according to prevailing natural conditions, and in societies of more abundance there is evidence that such inequalities did not exist. But Engels proposition is not refuted by this, for he argued that before class society social relations were not determined in the same theories can be integrated into a Marxist framework.

It is one of Engels’ enduring achievements that he recognised that the monogamous family was the first to be based on economic relations rather than stemming from natural conditions. Morgan (the anthropologist) had argued that in pre-commodity societies, social organisation was dominated by blood ties rather than the mode of production itself: “At this stage the type of production is less decisive than the degree in which the old blood ties and the old mutual community of the sexes within the tribe has been dissolved.’ In other words the social relations of these societies were determined by natural conditions and therefore tended to vary according to the circumstances of different tribes and peoples.

It is true that Engels tended to idealise these pre-class societies. It is obvious that in subsistence societies, life was extremely hard and also possible and probable that certain inequalities existed between men and women because of the exigencies of child-care, and the low level of technology. The situation was however uneven according to prevailing natural conditions, and in societies of more abundance there is evidence that such inequalities did not exist. But Engels proposition is not refuted by this, for he argued that before class society social relations were not determined in the same way by a mode of production and certainly not by a ‘system of male domination’. It was only with the emergence of class society that the monogamous family emerged and was reproduced from generation to generation. It was only then that the ‘historic defeat of the female sex’ was finalised in a certain direction. For the first time the oppression of women was systematised and organised by class society and through the state. For Engels the appearance of the monogamous family marked not reconciliation between the sexes but the subjugation of one sex by the other, parallel to class society.

Engels also established that the root of woman’s oppression was her ‘exclusion from social production’. He pointed out something which has been proved correct subsequently-that capitalism is the only form of class society to produce internal contradictions acute enough to destroy class society as a whole.

By analogy, the capitalist form of family also contains within it a massive contradiction. It offers the opportunity for women to become involved in social production and yet also needs women’s domestic service in the home. As a system it produces abundance and a level of technology sufficient to overcome all kinds of inequality in society. Yet because it is based on profit it cannot fulfill this role as a system. It is this kind of contradiction which itself gave birth to the modern women’s liberation movement. In putting forward this thesis Engels whole purpose was to challenge women’s isolated role in the home and to demand the socialisation of domestic work, and the abolition of the family.

Contrary to what many feminists assume, Engels’ method was the opposite of economist. Engels said that the form of the family was determined by a mode of production which gave rise to class society. This does not mean that he argued that the family is merely the sum of its economic functions. It is a system of relationships. According to Engels the family gives rise to a series of juridical relations which safeguard paternity, lifelong monogamy for the woman and more than this social/sexual mores. Before Freud, Marxists were the first to understand the possibility that sexual behaviour itself was determined by social conditions. Thus while Engels may have theories about sexual relations under socialism which we would not agree with now the method he adopted is hardly invalidated by this.

One revolution or two?

These are the main theoretical gains of Engels which we should uphold and which are totally contradictory to any theories of patriarchy or a system of male domination. The debate on the origins of women’s oppression is so crucial because the theories of patriarchy conclude that as patriarchy existed and exists before and separate from class society, two revolutions and political struggles are necessary, It is, indeed, a challenge to the whole basis of Marxism to argue that a system of ideas and ideology (patriarchy), can in and of itself be the determining force in social relations. The mode of production and reproduction are related and the latter is determined by the former. In Origins of the Family, Engels’ whole argument is based on the thesis that the two modes tend to exist less and less separately and towards ‘a society in which family relations are entirely subordinated to property relations’.

However, this does not tell us everything about the nature of the relationship between the two which, of course, has changed under different class societies. In capitalist societies women’s role within the family, which is important for capitalism, is further used to keep women as a reserve force to be pulled in and out of work according to the needs of capital. This is made possible by her role in the home. Through this and other mechanisms the family under capitalism takes on а specific form even though it may have borrowed characteristics from previous societies. Under each form of class society the relation of the mode of production to the family and to ideology has been different.

Do men have an interest in oppressing women?

Thus Engels asserts that the family was an instrument of class rule. The historic mission of the working class is to abolish the family and class rule. The working class does not consciously understand this task and is not united behind it- it is divided by sexism, racism, economic differences and so on. Working class men in many instances actively oppose women’s liberation. This does not prove they have interests or benefits to defend (this is indeed an economic determinist argument). Insofar as working class men oppose women’s liberation, this is an expression of false consciousness.

Many working class women in the first instance are often moved into struggle to defend their families: women struggling against deportation, women struggling for the right to work because they are the only breadwinner, and so on. Do we deduce from this that women have an interest in maintaining the family? No, this would be absurd. Do we even deduce that in these cases women’s immediate needs clash with their long term needs as members of the working class. No, of course we don’t. Why, then, apply this method of approach to working class men?

When we look closely at these supposed benefits or material gains which men have in oppressing women, several flaws in the argument arise. Hartmann and others have used the example of the debate around protective legislation in the 19th century as proof that men have an interest in maintaining women’s oppression.¹ She says that men wanted to exclude women from the labour force for two reasons. First, that they wanted to preserve their own jobs and felt that women would take them away, and secondly, they wanted women to be in the family to look after them.

But there were many and complex reasons why working class organisations at the time might have supported protective legislation. Clara Zetkin, a leader of the German social democracy, changed her opinion during the debate. At first she was opposed to protective legislation because it excluded women from certain jobs. Then she was in favour of it because of the appalling conditions in which women and children had to work and because it could lead to a fight for better conditions for men as well. So the reasons being put forward for protective legislation were by no means all based on an anti-women perspective.

But it is evident from the debates in the Ist and 2nd Internationals that many sections of the workers’ movement at the time were simply opposed to women going out to work for the two reasons outlined above. This does not prove they had a material interest in so doing. In fact we can see clearly that this was against the interests of the working class as a whole. Sending women back into the home and out of the workforce did nothing to alleviate unemployment. Women’s role in bolstering the family actually helped to increase the rate of exploitation of male workers because there was more chance of imposing the strict regimentation of capitalist life on the workers; there was also less money coming into the home, two people were now being fed for the price of one. It was sections of capital who were the motor force behind the move to exclude women from certain areas of production and who benefited from it.

Today many trade unionists argue that the family wage is an important bargaining counter in negotiations even if it does deny women’s rights to work. Does this mean there is a conflict of interests here between working class men and women? No, the family wage is a con by the capitalist class. It means they can shove onto the individual worker the costs of the welfare state.

The costs of maintaining the welfare state come out of the surplus value of the capitalists. The concept of the family wage means that this can instead be deduced from the individual wage packet. Thus it is against the interests of male and female workers to defend such a concept in bargaining. Insofar as male workers do defend this then they are displaying false consciousness.

Because the family does not oppress men in the same way it does women and children, it does not mean to say that men benefit from or have an interest in maintaining it. If this was the case then surely men’s and women’s interests would be irreconcilable in the way the radical feminists suggest. Even if they did have some common causes in other spheres-if men have an interest in maintaining the family and women don’t then they are irreconcilable. Of course men get their washing and ironing done in the family. Of course women act as emotional props to men in the family. And of course many men would rather live in a family than fend for themselves. But this doesn’t tell you anything about whose interests are at stake in all this. You could even argue that children have an interest in the family if you use this method. Nor should we exaggerate the idea of the family as a haven from capitalism. Under a decaying capitalism the family is an institution which means violence, repression and sexual misery. Why then does the family continue to exist? Why would most men, women and children in this country fight to defend it? Is it because men have an interest in it? No, it’s because there is no alternative to the family under capitalism.

Under capitalism. Insofar as working class men oppress women they are acting against their own interests and in the interests of the capitalist class. Alternatively a step forward for women is a step forward for the class as a whole. Men are the agents of women’s oppression, acting on behalf of the ruling class to keep the family going, but they have no interest whatsoever in maintaining this system.

The need for unity

The demands of the women’s movement should not and indeed do not centre on the ideological aspects of women’s oppression -trying to pinpoint the way men oppress women. Our demands should be directed against the state to expose the class nature of women’s oppression. The ideological battle whilst being a part of this does not have the same weight or importance as campaigns at a national level like women’s rights at work or a woman’s right to choose.

The demand for a woman’s right to choose is primarily a legal demand for democratic rights and it is this concept which has determined the direction of the campaign and the basis of the united front around abortion. The ideological aspects are drawn out in relation to this, not to challenge male attitudes as the prime focus. It is only when these ideological issues find some reflection at the level of the state that this becomes possible anyway. For example, in the William Patten case a challenge was mounted by an individual man against his wife’s right to an abortion. It was only because of the possibility of the courts making a ruling on this case that it became a focus for activity.

Of course it is true that the practice of women’s oppression operates across classes -that is all women are oppressed in some way as a sex and all men act as agents of women’s oppression. But as socialists and revolutionaries we are talking about how to change this situation and how to mount the counterattack at the crucial points for the ruling class. Take the issue of violence and sexual harassment of women. The main focus of the campaign has been to place demands on local councils, on the government and so on, not on individual men. In fact to focus on individual men, on punishment, on general propaganda about women’s sexuality is to approach the whole issue from a thoroughly reformist perspective.

There is furthermore an assumption here that men constitute an identifiable social group without any differentiation between them. This encompasses men in the union bureaucracy, male employers and working class men. We put demands on the bureaucracy of the labour movement which is male-dominated and we fight to commit them to action, recognising that they have no interest in fighting consistently for women’s liberation. This is not to deny that they don’t reflect the backward attitudes within the working class as a whole, but we should concentrate our fire on the bureaucracy because they help to crystallise and reproduce these attitudes by failing to lead the class. While it is true that male workers do harass women workers on the job, the implications of harassment by the foreman or the boss are far more serious, for they have the real material power over a woman and her job.

Any credence given to theories of patriarchy is therefore misleading for practical orientation. To argue that all men have an interest in women’s oppression is to pit men’s interests against women’s and to ignore the crucial role of the family. It questions the idea that a women’s movement in alliance with the labour movement is the way forward. The position of socialists should be that working class men and women should fight together to smash capitalism and to develop alternatives to the family. We realise that women are doubly oppressed and will be the most consistent fighters against their own oppression whereas working class men will not; but this is the reason why we fight for a mass independent, proletarian women’s movement.

We must pose the issue of an independent women’s movement not by emphasising the divisions within the working class, but positively, by stressing the need and potential for unity within the working class to fight for women’s liberation.

1. Heidi Hartmann and others, The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism, Pluto Press, 1981. ↩︎