Simeon Scott
Introduction
This paper is the result of my reflections on a 2024 Channel 4 documentary The Push, which featured the trial, and conviction, of a Leeds-based man for the murder of his wife, whilst on holiday near Edinburgh. One such reflection was caused by a BBC News item (13th September 2022) charting the dramatic rise in violent crimes against women in India, an economically dynamic country, with the world’s largest population and, unlike China, a very young population. Yet, India has been dubbed “the rape capital of the world”; along with women being kidnapped, abducted, assaulted, trafficked and killed, Prime minister Modi’s religious fanaticism has added an extra element of fear into women’s lives, i.e. the fear of religious violence. For instance, the above mentioned BBC report refers to “a Muslim woman who was gang raped and saw 14 members of her family killed by Hindu neighbours…(later) freed from jail”. Alas, such crimes are by no means exclusive to India. In Britain, for instance, Roberts (The Guardian; 7th November 2021) discusses the lack of police, local authority and charity resources put into preventing femicide, male violence and abuse towards women. One woman seeking to address and reduce this crime argues “It’s not useful to hear that perpetrators had difficult upbringings, if we cannot explain why women who were also damaged in childhood have not abused on the same scale…we need to act on what we have learned”.
From an early age, I took it for granted that football and toy guns were for boys, whereas skipping and dolls were for girls and I soon noticed that I had a lot more freedom than my sister. During my childhood, like most lads, I was socialised into the process of becoming a heterosexual man. My memories include watching western films with my father, in which male and female roles were strongly stereotypically defined. I recall seeing a James Bond film, Dr No, with my stepmother, where gender roles were transmitted to the audience with no opportunity to reflect on, or challenge, them. I recently watched Thunderball on TV and noted that Bond used his greater physical strength in an attempt to impose himself on a woman hotel employee. When this approach failed, Bond succeeded in his goal by threatening to report the woman to her boss, thereby putting her livelihood in jeopardy.
As is well known, in terms of the wage labour system, on average, women are much worse off than men. Although I am highly critical of statistics, see Scott (2022), Davidson (Metro; 22nd April 2024) summarises the Office for National Statistics data on the UK’s gender pay gap and related issues. She points out, for instance, that over their lifetimes, again on average, women earn almost £700,000 less than men. Women also do “more unpaid work at home and are far more likely to take a career break or work part-time in lower paid jobs to allow them to look after children…The financial divide between men and women after retirement is more shocking still”. Davidson also refers to price differences in goods, with those typically marketed to women being more expensive than those marketed to men. However, Davidson’s article makes no mention of property and savings differentials, which will, I strongly suspect, be even more skewed in favour of men.
In keeping with the cliché of women as both Madonnas and whores, Hogg (The Guardian; 18th August 2016) refers to the contradictory attitudes held by men towards women. These attitudes include both respect for wives, mothers and daughters, whilst at the same time a wider lack of respect for women, who are treated as objects from whom they seek sexual gratification. “Many men have an interest in their daughters being free of sexual harassment…wives receiving equal pay and work opportunities…the best possible health care”. By way of partial explanation, Hogg argues: “Many men work in all-male environments… Many young men go to all-boys schools…We need to break down occupational and other barriers which segregate the sexes”.
A UK government report
…gender norms, such as what it is to be a man and ideas of masculinity, have underpinned violence against women and girls…(most) boys and young men…were unaware of how their behaviour affected women and girls and did not see that they, or their peers, had done anything wrong…most were unable to define sexual harassment and could not see why low-level behaviour, such as catcalling, was unacceptable; A House of Commons Report (2023, 9-10).
Having introduced this discussion on gender, let us turn to the above mentioned Report, entitled Attitudes towards women and girls in education settings. The Reportis “concerned with the prevalence of sexual harassment and sexual violence” against female students and staff (1).Based on oral evidence concerning “unwanted behaviour”, the text refers to “sexual advances, inappropriate touching, sexual assault, sexual jokes, displaying pornographic photographs or drawings, or sending emails with material of a sexual nature” (2). The Report records an increase in such behaviour, referring to “the toxic influence of social media” including “‘influencers’ who use it to broadcast misogyny to boys and young men” (2). The Report refers to the “misguided representation of women, men, and what sexual relationships looked like” given by easy access to online pornography: “boys cyberflashing hardcore pornographic images at girls in the corridor (or) in class (or) outside the school gates…Young people are conducting of their lives online”. It seems that “upskirting…faces being superimposed on pornographic images…Airdropping of nude images” (6-7) and more have become all too common.
Noting the use of remote learning and reliance on the internet during lockdown, the Report suggested that such behaviour had “become normalised in society” including “our schools and colleges…(having) a detrimental effect on girls’ and young women’s confidence”. Crucially, the Report continues: “Girls were more likely to make excuses for what had happened to them instead of holding boys and young men to account…if you make a stand, you just attract more attention to yourself and end up getting more harassment, and if you comply you’re easy. What are we supposed to do in those circumstances?” (2-3). The text discusses the role of Ofsted, an organisation with a chequered history which many teachers and others believe is not fit for purpose. Arguing that many schools lack “the time, money or expertise” (4) to address these gender issues, the “recommendations” offered by the Report did not, in my view, inspire confidence that things were likely to change any time soon. Similarly, the government’s Online Safety Bill is currently stalled, and a range of government guidelines on gender issues has, argued critics, been accompanied by minimal funding for schools and colleges.
In view of this, it comes as no surprise that little has changed for the better in terms the thinking and behaviour of boys and young men. It would seem to be a similar state of affairs in Britain’s university sector, the Report continues, both and off campuses; with “at least 50,000 students per year…subjected to sexual abuse at university” (12). It was further reported “that universities did not understand the scale of the problem and were more concerned about their reputations than for the welfare of their students, often downplaying incidents…nearly one third of universities had used non-disclosure agreements to resolve student complaints” (13-14). Unfortunately, the only change mentioned in the Report is for more university surveys so as to quantify the issues involved, rather than dealing with the worrying attitudes and behaviour, the ‘lad culture’, that many male students had brought with them from school.
An American report
Early adolescence is thus seen as a unique opportunity to address gender attitudes before they become more solidified; PLOS ONE (2016, 3).
An US government Report, PLOS ONE (2016), has examined these issues in a summary of 82 studies across a range of nations, mostly in North America and Western Europe. The text argues, rather implausibly, “little is known about the factors that influence young adolescents’ personal gender attitudes”, adding that family and peers “are central influences” and “socialization processes differ for boys and girls…(but) community factors (e.g. media) is less clear though there is some evidence that schools may reinforce stereotypical gender attitudes” (1-2). Despite the “little is known” comment above, this text summarises the state of gender differentiation as follows: “In every cultural setting across time and place individuals are socialized overtly and covertly from birth to conform to rules for how to ‘be’ girls and boys. These gender norms shape the way adolescents interact, form relationships, and engage in sexual and reproductive practices as well as most all (sic) social behaviours” (3). This Report cites surveys claiming that, in low and middle income nations, “over half of boys and girls aged 15-19 years justify wife beating under certain conditions” (3). It is added that “young women and girls are often under pressure to conform to stereotypical norms of female subordination, thus restricting their voice, opportunities and social and sexual decision making…With puberty freedom of movement may become more constrained for girls…they are expected to take on more household chores, marry and/or stay away from boys” (3). Referring to male gang culture, the text reports that “boys should not ‘act like girls’ or in anyway (sic) display traits typically associated with femininity (e.g. by showing emotions or physical weakness)”. In some nations, the report continues, “attitudes about masculinity were closely intertwined with heterosexual prowess and had strong homophobic overtones…having sex with (many) girls and (exercising) control over girls in relationships…men should be able to protect and provide for their families”. With regard to girls, of importance was their physical appearance, “behavioural compliance and propriety…Girls were described as physically weak and vulnerable” and therefore “have limited freedom and mobility…subordinate to male authority” (9). Girls who failed to conform to these stereotypes were often describes as “sluts” or “whores”.
Andrew Tate and the manosphere
It would seem that a large proportion of males, including very school boys, are aware of the rantings of Andrew Tate. According to a review article in the Financial Times (9th September 2020), under the influence of Tate,there is a growing trend amongst “angry” young men who claim that “white men are persecuted (and) many women lie about rape”. Such men, it is argued, are “involuntary celibates…(e)nraged with women who ‘deny’ them sex that they feel is their due”. Tate’s online interventions, have popularised such theory, and practice; he is said to be the king of toxic masculinity, the archetype alpha male and leader of the manosphere. He has become the champion of the social dominance of men and corresponding social exclusion of women. It is alleged that his views, as expressed on social media videos, have provided Tate and his associates with handsome financial rewards, including revenue from corporate advertising. It is alleged that Tate has added to this wealth by coercing vulnerable young women to generate income by appearing naked as online webcam models. An indication of his immense popularity, especially amongst young males, is, according to Tate (2024a), that he “was the third-most ‘googled’ person in 2023”. Accusations of rape, violence against women and sex trafficking, have done little to reverse Tate’s misogynistic views, which remain highly influential amongst young men and boys across the world; a source of concern to parents, teachers and all those wanting gender equality. Tate’s views on women, i.e. that they are both intellectually inferior and morally deficient, as compared with men, have influenced both the theory and notorious pracice of Donald Trump. We may also note that since buying Twitter, Elon Musk has reinstated Tate’s account on the now renamed X.
Misogyny and religion
Following earlier reports of Orthodox Christian affiliations, in 2022 Tate claimed that he had converted to Islam. Reactions to this claim amongst Muslims varied, see Tate (2024b), with one arguing that “Allah forgives all previous sins when someone converts”. Another wanted “him to be held accountable for his past actions”, ‘“harmful rhetorics like misogyny and victim blaming” have no place in Islam’. Referring to “the closure of local youth centres”, yet another argument was Tate’s views are not Islamic “in any way, shape or form”. However, the latter commentators acknowledged that some young Muslim boys “have these misogynistic opinions” and are emboldened by Tate’s views.
Gender in prehistory
Although this distinction has been challenged, sex refers biological difference between males and females, although these differences are not always clearly defined, whereas gender refers to the social, economic and cultural roles that result from these differences. With regard to gender relations in prehistory, although the archaeological record is growing, much of our understanding of this period is speculative. As Weisberger (2023) indicates, there remains a gender role stereotype applied to prehistory, with men as hunters and women as gathers. This stereotype has in large part been overturned, as Weisberger reports there is evidence that women of all ages engaged in hunting; sometimes with other women, with children or with men; “Women hunt in groups. They hunt with dogs. They use different technologies than men. Overall, they serve in a diversity of important roles that make hunting successful”. How extensive this was, she adds, is not clear, but for small bands of hunter-gatherers “survivorship cannot last with rigid gender roles…everybody has to be willing to lend a hand…rigid taboos prevent that”.
Another gender stereotype that is often projected back into prehistory is the nuclear family, with mother, father and their offspring living together. Where the grandparents live with their offspring this is known as the extended family. With regard to prehistory, both of these modes of living are being questioned.
As is clear from ancient Jewish and Christian texts, tribal polygamy (polygyny) was commonplace with men having several wives and as many concubines as they could support. Yet, as Hames and Starkweather (2021) report, polyandry appears to have been more common that previously thought, especially in small hunter-gatherer societies with a gender imbalance, i.e. more men than women due to tribal warfare or some other event or process. Polyandry survives to this day, especially in such places as India, Pakistan, Tibet along with, as recent research shows, Venezuela and elsewhere in South America. In these polyandrous societies, such matters as sexual relationships, child rearing and economic responsibilities are regulated, and socially accepted. Mace (2022) addresses these social institutions, arguing that “patriarchy isn’t some kind of ‘natural order of things’…female leaders and matriarchal societies have always existed”. With regard to hunter gatherer nomads, she claims that “a woman cannot easily be forced to stay in a partnership…if unhappy, she can walk away”. In order to understand this flexibility, it is necessary to make the point that in these were nomadic societies there was little in the way of property; tribal members were limited to what they could carry.
Gender and agricultural tribes
With the advent of settled agriculture, some members of society accumulated considerable amounts of property; from this there developed class- or caste-based societies, with some members of a tribe routinely appropriating the results of the labour of others. For the wealthier families this raised the question of how their accumulated property was to be passed on from generation to generation. High status was given to men who became warriors, argues Mace, and more generally men began to exert their superior physical strength over women. This meant that women, especially those from higher caste families, such as warriors or priests, increasingly became central to the transmission of property, which meant that their freedom, especially with regard to sexual relationships, was curtailed. This, she argues, was the cornerstone of patriarchy, with property being passed down from father to son; women were given the primary role of giving birth and taking primary responsibility for raising children. In effect, daughters became a resource, a form of property, which was passed onto the family of her husband in return for brideprice, which would have to be repaid if the bride left and returned to her family. The wealth of a family, Mace claims, in large part determined the number of wives a particular man could accumulate. For poorer families, monogamy was the norm with the bride’s parents paying a dowry, as a form of inducement, to the husband’s parents. Mace links these practices to ancient texts which emphasise the need for men to maintain this patriarchal social order by policing their wives’ behaviour: “They did not want to unwittingly invest their wealth in the offspring of another man”.
Religion and gender in the ancient city states
It is highly likely that in the above mentioned social formations ancestor worship, which often developed into polytheism, was the norm. This was the case throughout most of recorded ancient Egyptian history, with ample evidence of an array of gods and goddess. However, this polytheistic orthodoxy was interrupted in the 14th century BCE during the reign of Akhenaten. This Pharaoh had initially accepted polytheistic orthodoxy, but later broke with this tradition by worshiping Aten, the sun disk god. However, after his death the nation returned to polytheism. During the ancient Persian or Achaemenid Empire (550-330 BCE) a new god, Ahura Mazda, emerged. This god became the basis of Zoroastrianism which depicts a single good god fighting an evil deity (Angra Mainyu) in a great cosmic struggle. This clearly anticipates monotheism which, to the extent that it includes an evil deity, is something of a misnomer. According to the tenets of Zoroastrianism this good vs. evil struggle features the eventual resurrection of the dead during a judgment day on Earth, where the good go to a heavenly domain. These beliefs clearly anticipate both Judaism and, in particular, Christianity. As ancient Jerusalem grew into a city state, as Armstrong (1999) explains, modern excavation has shown that most tribes in that area worshiped both Yahweh and his female counterpart Asherah (or Astarte). In 587 BCE, Jerusalem was sacked, which constituted a major crisis for the Jewish population of Judah. Many elites were taken to Babylon and this began a long period of the Jewish diaspora in places such as Mesopotamia where, it seems, that Yahweh came to be worshiped as the only god. According to Armstrong, priests sought to impose monotheism on the Jewish tribes by ‘editing’ original Torah texts so as to remove references to polytheism; although some such references remain.
The implications of all of this for gender relations is profound. If we choose to refer to a single monotheistic god using the third person singular pronoun, i.e. he, she or it, then it is overwhelming the case today that he will be used. In other words, god is assumed to be male; however, the existence of gods and goddess in a polytheistic order is no indication of gender equality. For example, the code of Hammurabi, written on a stone slab and placed in Paris’ Louvre Museum, is polytheistic but makes clear that women were the property of firstly their father and, after marriage, their husband. Similar texts, based on polytheism, can be found elsewhere in the ancient city states, where property was unequally divided amongst the social classes and women of all classes were subordinate to men. It is often argued that, in terms of the ancient states, as Mahmud (2021) reports: “Egyptian culture was way ahead of its time when it came to female rights”, especially “when it comes to marriage, divorce and representing themselves in courts (160). As is well known, there were a number of female Pharaohs, probably four; although they dressed as men. Female gods were worshipped, including the goddess of writing Seshat, and priestesses were active in the temple of Hathor. Whilst violence against women was far from unknown prior to the Romanisation of Egypt, according to Mahmud, it increased markedly in the latter period. There appears to have been no evidence of honour killing; and sexual activity, as long as it was outside of marriage, seems to have been acceptable for both sexes; with forms of contraception available.
Religion as a legitimisation of gender inequality
Mace argues that “it is hard to make the case that religions were the original cause” of gender inequality, although “religious norms…can maintain harsh social prejudices long after their original cause”. Whilst this is true, as Hegel would say, there is another side to religion; in particular how it is used as the ideological accompaniment to physical force in colonial expansion. Paraphrasing the Zimbabwean demagogue Robert Mugabe: when the white people first came here we had the land and they had the bibles; now they have the land and we have bibles. In other words religion is used to legitimise the imposition of a set of social relations which the colonising power finds useful in achieving its economic and political goals. Having made this point, let us now turn our focus onto the texts of the three monotheistic Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. With regard to the legitimisation of patriarchy we need look no further than the first book of the Torah, Genesis, in particular Chapter 3 often referred as the The Fall from Grace, which I shall quote from using The New International Version translation. In Chapter 3 we are introduced to the “crafty” serpent, which has been described as a phallic symbol, who questions Eve, herself being made from Adam’s rib, regarding eating the fruits of the trees in the Garden of Eden. In response to the serpent, Eve reiterates God’s command: “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
As the drama unfolds, in verse 4-5 we read: “You will not certainly die,” the serpent says to the woman: “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” In verse 6, Eve reveals her vulnerability to the serpent: she “saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it”. Crucially for the future of gender relations, Eve’s behaviour here was the basis for the Catholic Church’s attitude to women as weak willed temptresses, an ever present danger to men. In verses 11-18 God asks “Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?” To which Adam replies: “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” Owning up to her misdeed, Eve admits that “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” God then reveals his anger: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers”. To Eve, God says “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labour you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” To Adam God says, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree…Cursed is the ground because of you”. God makes clear that in a society based on agriculture, life is to be very hard: “for dust you are and to dust you will return.”
As we have noted, the transmission of property was very important for prosperous tribes engaged in agriculture; it having become the norm to pass land from father to son. Therefore, as we have also noted, the control of women’s sexual behaviour, i.e. virginity prior to marriage, was of great importance. So, in Deuteronomy chapter 22, verses 13 -17 (New Revised Standard Version Updated) we read: “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity’, then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity”. And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity’. And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days”. Then comes the crunch: “but if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of the city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst”.
Moving on to New Testament Christianity, the true proselytiser was not Christ himself but the disciple Paul. In Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 5 and verses 21 to 33, we read: “Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is head of the church…Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands”. There are lots of biblical references justifying violence against those wives who refuse to accept their second class status vis-à-vis their husbands. So ingrained was this ‘privilege’ given to men, that only relatively recently has such violence become a criminal offence to be investigated by the police, with varying degrees of vigour.
Reducing women to, often “unclean”, objects in Leviticus 15:19-21 we read: “When a woman has a discharge of blood which is her regular discharge from her body, she shall be in her impurity for seven days, and whoever touches her shall be unclean until the evening. And everything upon which she lies during her impurity shall be unclean; everything also upon which she sits shall be unclean. And whoever touches her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening”. In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians 14:34-35 makes clear the patriarchy that is to be a feature of Christian church services: “the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church”. In similar fashion,1 Tim. 2:12-15 events in Garden of Eden are used to justify women’s inferior status. We read: “I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty”.
As a justification for the murderous witch hunts in European history, Exodus 22:18 is trotted out: “You shall not permit a sorceress to live”. In the case of dress code, attention is drawn to 1 Cor. 11:3, 7-9: “For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man”. Offering more detail, Deuteronomy 22:5 reads: “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God”. In 1 Corinthians 11:2-6 we read futher: “Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonours her head – it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil”. The book of Deuteronomy, here 21:11-14, might have been written for Andrew Tate, whose views we examine later: “A man may take a wife as the spoils of war…and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have desire for her and would take her for yourself as wife, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall put off her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her, and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. Then, if you have no delight in her, you shall let her go where she will; but you shall not sell her for money, you shall not treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her”.
Let us now turn to extracts from the Koran’s Surah (Chapter) Women, with English translation by Dawood (2014), which were written hundreds of years later. It is clear that Koranic gender roles, and dress codes, are much the same of those set out in the Jewish and Christian texts cited above. The opening page of the Surah justifies polygamy and accepts slavery; we read: “you may marry other women who seem good to you: two, three, or four. But if you fear that you cannot maintain equality among them, marry one only or any slave-girls you may own…Try as you may, you cannot treat all your wives impartially” (76 and 98). With regard to property inheritance, we read: “A male shall inherit twice as much as a female” (77). The Surah refers to those who commit “a lewd act” (79); however, the punishment for this undefined transgression is considerably more severe for women. The text refers to women who are “honourable and chaste and have not courted other men” (81); but is silent on relevant male behaviour. We then read: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other…Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts…As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them” (83). Reinforcing the dominance of monotheism, with God assumed to be male, we read of polytheists who “pray but to females” (96).
The limits of white middle class feminism
In a review article, Mangan (The Guardian 16th April 2024) is highly critical of actor, and Cockney geezer, Danny Dyer, who has fronted a Channel 4 documentary How to Be a Man. Referring to his working class background, including a childhood in social housing and a violent, later absent, father, Dyer’s story is, it seems, not sufficiently academically rigorous for Mangan; i.e. it features a “lack of clarity”. In short, she argues, “Nothing is properly understood, explored, no conclusions reached…A frustrating waste of Dyer”. Mangan’s comments are, my view, unfair, in that Dyer does, in his own way, seek to explore a number themes regarding the gender ideology that is all too typical of low income working class white men, which could be usefully compared with those of women of a similar class background. The views expressed by Dyer seem, for the most part, to be critical of of the kind of views often expressed by such men in, for example, a drinking session prior to attending a football match. Were Mangan to have offered an analysis of how and why this fraction of the men who rely on the wage labout system for their subsistence, as opposed to, say, IT graduates starting on £50,000 a year, adopt such views on gender, then her dismissive comments would surely have more credibilty. Alas, this is an example of the one-sidedness of white middle class feminism. I found part 1 of Dyer’s documentary an honest attempt to come to terms with contemporary gender relations by means of interviews with individuals, including his brother and his daughter, and groups of people, such as school boys who are aware of the views of Andrew Tate, and some homosexual men from Brighton. His reflections on these interviews did not offer a clear way forward, but did offer insights into the current state of British gender relations.
Based on her dicussions with girls and young women up and down Britain, Bates (2016) makes the point that “since you were a baby” women receive ‘messages’ “about who you are” (xi). Seeking to challenge the suppression of open discussion of the female body, she refers to vaginas, periods, tits, sanitary towels and he like. However, far from opening up new ideas regarding women’s roles in capitalism, Bates focusses on the images of women typically offered by social media and the internet in general. However, rather than offering a critique of these media, sounding as if she is on the payroll of X, WhatsApp and Instagram, she calls for a reform of what can be “an amazing source of support, friendship and information”. Putting the onus on individual women, rather than the American Billionaire men who run these behemoths, Bates adds that “there’s lots you can do to protect yourself and stay safe online” (4-5). Adopting a schoolteacher tone, in response to bad male behaviour online, she suggests reporting them to either the social media company or the police. As if they didn’t know already, Ms Bates tells women about privacy settings, strong passwords and the like. Rather than calling for fundamental social change, she advocates responding to photos of penises (“dick pics”), for example, by: “Play ‘em at their own game” (12), i.e. sending such pictures back to other miscreant men.
Sylvia Pankhurst (1882 – 1960) is a particular hero for many socialist women; see Dodd (1993) for extract from Women’s Dreadnought and other of her writings. She was deeply involved with the British suffragette movement, along with better known mother, Emmeline and sister, Christabel. However, she gradually came to the conclusion that middle class women, such as her mother and sister, were not overly concerned with the interests of working class women. Prior to WWI, Sylvia was involved in a cycle of arrests and hunger strikes as a result of her support for improving the working and living conditions of proletarian women; calling for solidarity between working class women and men. When WWI began, unlike her sister and mother, Sylvia opposed the call to arms and eventual conscription, offering support to conscientious objectors. After initially praising the Bolshevik coup in 1917, following a visit to the USSR, Sylvia rejected the dictatorship of Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin. In support of the German socialist Rosa Luxemburg and Russia’s Alexandra Kollontai, Sylvia advocated the setting up of a network of soviets, or workers’ councils, consisting of men and women which would run post-Tsarist Russia. Meanwhile, Sylvia continued her work in support of working women, calling for equal pay, helping to organise rent strikes, child care facilities, medical care, communal cafés and laundries for women, and men, of all races and religions not only in Britain but also India, Ireland, the United States and elsewhere. With regard to her private life, Ms Pankhurst objected in principle to entering into a marriage and adopting a husband’s name. Refusing to marry the father of her child, and tired of being persecuted by agents of the British ruling elites, Sylvia spent her remaining years living in Ethiopia.
One of the best texts on this subject is Saini (2023). She argue that much of the historical research on gender roles is overly speculative for the simple reason that it is informed by the roles that are specific to 21st century capitalism. For instance in her chapter entitled Genesis, she offers a sympathetic appraisal of the much maligned work of Marija Gimbutus who claims that much of prehistory was notable for being matriarchal and marked by goddess worship. Saini remarks that this view of history results in the creation of stereotypes of contemporary femininity projected into the past. Thus these prehistoric goddesses become the “source of life, the generative, nurturing, and creative powers of nature”, they are “peace loving, anti-warfare, and harmonious”. This implies we should return to this idyllic state and we “would all be better off with women in charge” (84).
Bourgeois feminism
Alexandra Kollontai was highly critical of middle class, often called liberal or bourgeois, feminism. The main reason for this was that such feminists of her day, and indeed those in the early 21st century, believed that “equality” for women was possible within the capitalist wage labour system. It is the case that in some areas of the capitalist economy women have achieved equal pay with their male colleagues and there are, for example, more women CEOs in the world’s largest companies than ever. Similarly, there are more high profile women in politics, the media, the arts and other areas of life than ever. Yet, far from improving the quality of life for working class women, and indeed working class men, in the most advanced capitalist nations, things have deteriorated. Since 1979 in Britain, for example, we have had three women prime ministers, yet both adult and child poverty have increased, rape and other forms of violence against women continue unabated and the use of food banks is a growing trend even for those working full time, including nurses and care workers. Homelessness and a host of other deteriorating social indicators would suggest that, despite the economic progress made by some ambitious women the vicious core of capitalism continues; with, for instance, more and more women working full time, only to come back and do the lion’s share of the housework. My own personal experience in academia, as confirmed by colleagues in other institutions, was noteworthy in that women managers were, for the most part, just as untrustworthy, nasty and corrupt, in fact even more so in two cases, than my male managers.
Such a state of affairs was recognised by such activists as Alexandra Kollontai and Sylvia Pankhurst, to name but two. Both of these women came from middle class backgrounds, yet both realised that the alienated relationships between women and men could not be overcome as long as capitalism remained dominant. Therefore both women dedicated themselves to supporting working class women and men so as to end the capitalist mode of production. Both Kollontai and Pankhurst initially supported the Bolsheviks’ rise to power in 1917. Yet, as it became clear that Bolshevism was merely a form of capitalism controlled by the state, both rejected the Party’s agenda and continued to work for an end to capitalism by means of the abolition of money and the collectivisation of all aspects of social being.
One issue that continues to excite enthusiasm amongst bourgeois feminists in payment, in the form of wages, for housework inside the home. Aside from the practical problems that such a proposal engenders, such reasoning is part of a wider liberal agenda to extend money relations into all areas of both economic and social life. I recall seeing a television play set in the Thatcherite 1980s in which two middle class couples living next door to each other decide to have a dinner party. At the end of the evening, the host couple present a carefully itemised bill for all of the food, drink and other services consumed by the guests. Not being part of this social elite, I have no idea whether such financial relationships have become the norm in Surbiton, Chalfont St Giles and the like. What would seem to remain the norm, judging by the antics of some male Tory MPs, is that payment for sex, either with young women or rent boys, continues as before, as part of the wider so-called sex industry.
Another criticism of white middle class feminism has been presented by Black and Asian women. Again, in part, this focusses on housework, including the Hollywood stereotypical image of the Black maid employed by the bourgeois white house wife. The Indian writer Saini confirms that in her country lower caste women are routinely employed in the homes of higher caste women in order to perform the cooking, cleaning and other household tasks. The full horror of contemporary capitalist social relations is the treatment of young vulnerable Bangladeshi women in workshops in Dhakar that remain crucial to the supply chain of women’s fast fashions. As reported by BBC News (23rd April 2014), “more than 1,130 garment workers were killed, crushed under eight stories of concrete. More than 2,500 people were rescued from the building alive, but some suffered terrible injuries”. I think about these women workers every time I see someone, usually young women, carrying a bag displaying a fast fashion logo.
Bibliography
Armstrong, K. (1999) A History of God; Vintage: London.
Bates, L. (2016) Girl Up: Simon & Schuster: London.
Dawood, N.J. (2014) The Koran: With Parallel Arabic Text; Penguin: London.
Dodd, K. (1993) A Sylvia Pankhurst Reader; Manchester University Press: Manchester.
Eltahawy, M. (2015) Headscarves and Hymens; Weidenfeld & Nicholson: London.
Hames, R. and Starkweather, K (2021) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367367193_Polyandry
Kendall, M. (2020) Hood Feminism: Notes From The Women White Feminists Forgot; Bloomsbury; London.
Khan, M (2019) It’s Not About the Burqa; Picador: London. Mace, R. (2022)
Mahmud, M. F. (2021) Gender Inequality in Ancient Egypt; Journal of the Faculty of tourism and Hotels-University Of Sadat City, Vol. 5, Issue (2/1), December.
PLOS ONE (2016)
Saini, A. (2023) The Patriarchs: How Men Came to Rule: 4th ESTATE: London.
Scott, S. (2022) Statistics and Capitalism: Number as Fetish; free download at https://1drv.ms/b/s!AuQwLizvJZqNgnZLgG5f95cSgDe8?e=jfpO69
Tate, A (2024a) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Tate
Tate, A. (2024b) https://www.itv.com/news/2023-04-02/is-andrew-tates-conversion-to-islam-toxic-to-the-muslim-community
The House of Commons Report (2023) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmwomeq/331/report.html
Weisberger, M. (2023) https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/30/world/women-roles-hunter-gatherer-societies-scn/index.html
Wake Up Bradford! 
Leave a comment