Valerie Bryson

Conservatism and feminism: the case of the British Conservative Party

This article explores the potential links and contradictions between conservatism and feminism in the light of the British Conservative Partys recent claim to ‘ideological renewal’ under David Cameron. It identifies a number of long-standing, significant and sometimes unexpected overlaps and resonances between some conservative ideas as these have developed in the party over time, and some elements of feminist thought. However, the article also argues that no strand of conservative thought supports the robust analysis that would be needed to tackle entrenched gender inequalities and injustices, while many of the partys underlying assumptions are deeply anti-feminist. This means that Camerons pro-feminist rhetoric is likely to be both divisive and incapable of realization, so that a focus on feminism highlights the hazardous nature of his attempt at ideological renewal.

Time-Use Studies

Abstract Many feminists see inequalities in time use as a key aspect of male privilege and female disadvantage. Many also see quantitative time-use studies as an important resource, providing empirical evidence to support their claims. However, more theoretical work on the nature and meaning of time suggests that the studies are based on male experiences and assumptions. As such, they cannot capture the implications of caring responsibilities, and their use both obscures important aspects of temporal inequality and reinforces the hegemony of male perspectives. This article assesses these arguments, focusing on western democracies and using childcare in the UK as a case study. It finds that some time-use research has indeed misrepresented the extent and nature of continuing temporal inequalities. However, some more recent work is clearly informed by feminist concerns and has the potential to provide more sophisticated understanding. The article concludes that time-use studies can serve as a feminist tool, but only if their limitations are recognized.

Marxism and feminism: can the "unhappy marriage" be saved?

This article examines the relationship between Marxism and feminism from the late nineteenth century to the present day. It draws on the concept of patriarchy to argue that Marxisms claim to provide a comprehensive theory of human history and society is flawed by its marginalization of experiences and aspects of life traditionally associated with women. It introduces the concept of (re)production to argue that domestic, procreative and caring activities and relationships should be seen as part of the material basis of society. It also argues that the complex interconnections between production and (re)production should be an important focus of materialist analysis. It concludes that Marxism and feminism can be complementary aids to the understanding of society, but only if this is a two-way process, and Marxism itself is transformed.

Women and Citizenship: Some Lessons from Israel

Many of the conditions which British feminists have identified as necessary for the full citizenship of women seem to have been met in Israel. Even Jewish women, however, remain disadvantaged in many ways. This paper analyses the causes of their disadvantage, showing that some are shared with other nations while others are specific to Israel.

Recent feminisms: Beyond dichotomies?

MARYSIA ZALEWSKI, Feminism After Postmodernism. Theorising Through Practice (Routledge, London and New York, 2000), 162 pp., ISBN 0-415-234611 (pb) SUKI ALI, KELLY COATE and WANGUI WA GORO (eds), Global Feminist Politics. Identities in a Changing World (Routledge, London and New York, 2000), 187 pp., ISBN 0-415-21470-X (pb) LYNNE SEGAL, Why Feminism? Gender, Psychology, Politics (Polity Press, Cambridge, 1999), 296 pp., ISBN 0-7456-23476 (pb)

Early feminist thought

Contrary to popular opinion, feminist theory did not begin with Mary Wollstonecraft at the end of the eighteenth century, but goes back at least to medieval times (and no doubt found private expression much earlier). As far as we know, the earliest public debate was conducted entirely by men, but from the fifteenth century women’s voices were beginning to be heard, and the first woman to write about the rights and duties of her sex seems to have been the Frenchwoman Christine de Pisan (1364–1430). From the point of view of feminist political theory, what is interesting about the earliest writings is not so much the details of what individual writers of the time had to say, for these did not yet constitute an analysis of power relations or any kind of political programme, but rather the fact that debates over women’s role in society that include a recognisably feminist perspective go back further than had been commonly assumed. It is also interesting to note that from the first such debates had an international character so that, for example, de Pisan’s influence can be traced to the debates in England at the end of the seventeenth century (Ferguson, 1985, p. xi; see also de la Barre, 1990; Willard, 1975; Shahar, 1983).

Men and Sex Equality: What Have They Got to Lose?

This paper explores the gains and losses that might be involved in a shift to greater sex equality. It argues that in addition to practical changes, genuine equality would displace men and their needs as the unquestioned standard of humanity. Men are likely to find this deeply threatening. They could, however, benefit in the long run. Some men might, therefore, support sex equality on the grounds of self-interest as well as justice; they will, however, also experience short-term losses, and women cannot rely on their support.

The contribution of Marx and Engels

It is at first sight odd to include in a work on feminist political theory a section on classic Marxism, because Karl Marx was not a feminist. This does not mean that he was hostile to female liberation but simply that, unlike Mill or Thompson, he did not see issues of sexual oppression as interesting or important in their own right, and he never made them the subject of detailed empirical or theoretical investigation. It is true that he several times stated that the condition of women can be taken as an index of social progress; however by the mid-nineteenth century this idea was commonplace (see Mill’s Subjection, p. 38), and it certainly cannot be taken as evidence of feminist insight. Indeed recent writers have suggested that, far from providing a feminist view of history, it gave women an essentially passive role, seeing them as the sufferers or beneficiaries from man-made history (Coole, 1988; Barrett, 1987); cynics might also draw support from Marx’s least frequently quoted formulation of the approach: ‘Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex (the ugly ones included)’ (1868 letter, quoted in Draper, 1972, p. 88). Nevertheless, although Marx himself had little to say directly about women, his theory does claim to provide a comprehensive analysis of human history and society, and later writers have attempted to apply it to feminist issues.

Marxist feminism in Germany

Before the First World War, the German socialist movement was the largest and most successful in the world; as such, it had a dominating position with the Second International (1889–1914), and debates within the German Social Democratic party (SPD) had a far-reaching influence. The SPD itself was formed in 1875 as the result of an uneasy coalition between reformist and Marxist socialists, but by the time of the Erfurt Programme in 1891 it was, under the leadership of August Bebel, fully committed, in theory at least, to a thoroughgoing Marxist position, complete with the rhetoric of class war, revolution and the inevitable victory of socialism; it was also, despite anti-socialist legislation during the 1880s, now the largest party in the German parliament. This shift in a Marxist direction was accompanied by a shift in attitudes over the role of women, as the debate between those traditionalists who thought woman’s destiny lay in the home and those who welcomed her entry into the labour force was resolved in favour of the latter. However, both at the level of general politics and on women’s issues, there appeared to be growing contradictions between the party’s formal commitment to the long-term goals decreed by Marxist orthodoxy and its more pragmatic pursuit of short-term reforms and parliamentary success.

Marxist feminism in Russia

Although the Russian revolution has often been seen as a testing-ground for Marxist theory, it must be stressed that for Marx himself communism was essentially the product of industrial capitalism, in which technology could be used to liberate men from drudgery, and problems of scarcity would be ended; as capitalism was becoming a worldwide system, he also believed that communism would replace it on a world scale. All this was very different from the situation facing the Russian Bolsheviks when they seized power at the end of 1917, for although Russia had been industrialising rapidly it was still basically a peasant society, and the war with Germany had had a devastating effect on the economy. Moreover, contrary to the expectations of its leaders, events in Russia did not spark off successful proletarian revolutions in the more advanced European nations, but were followed by both civil war and foreign invasion. Many Western defenders of Marxism would therefore argue that the material preconditions for a successful communist revolution simply did not exist in Russia in the early twentieth century, and that failure was inevitable. From the point of view of the Woman Question, the resources needed to liberate women were not available: Engels, Bebel and Zetkin had all argued that women in communist society would be freed from domestic toil, but the provision of adequate public facilities was a luxury unattainable in a society fighting for its very survival.