In view of the importance of the theme and its implications for the political and social conditions which exist throughout Latin America, this workshop had the largest turnout of any at the Meeting. Below we give as complete a resume as possible of the discussion, interspersed with quotes from some of the participants.
The discussion was based on the following propositions:
— feminism addresses problems which affect women but which at the same time involve all groups of the population, including men and children.
- feminism means creating a new way of living, based on the premise that the private is political.
— feminism addresses the process of change, questioning several fundamental aspects of life such as biological and social reproduction, domestic work, and the relationships of power and domination.
- feminism recognizes the existence of specific oppression of women, which is more acute for working class women.
The discussion centered on three points:
1. autonomy of feminist groups
2. double militancy
3. feminism and anti-imperialism
During the workshop several definitions of feminism were presented. One position considers feminism as confronting the oppression of women and as a progressive social movement helping to change social structures. Another position believes that feminism has the potential of being an integral political plan for social change in Latin America and in the world, because it questions fundamental aspects of the system such as the other aspect of production (housework, reproduction, etc.) and the relationships of power and domination not only between classes, but between sexes, generations, races and nations. Feminism implies a new approach without excluding the need
to work with other groups.
"I think that feminism means autonomy but that in Latin America feminism as a political option means working with processes of change. However, this autonomy and alliance will only be possible if the feminist movement is a social force able to enter into discussion with political parties and unions, and it will only be a social force when it ceases to be the concern and the movement of a group of middleclass women, intellectuals, and students, and becomes a movement of the masses, when it loses its fear of power, and establishes itself as a revolutionary strategy, as a carrier of true socialism, of cultural revolution and can include the proletariat as allies. Then we can begin the fight.
"But the problem of autonomy and alliance is connected to our developing feminism as an option of power. We have to lose the fear of power and the struggle for power, and come closer together, make priorities, and find out which women control the base, who are engaged in historical change and who can contribute to the making of a revolutionary movement. To be feminist is to take on a lifetime project, to assume it totally, and to leave no structure untouched. I believe that this is the basis of the cultural revolution and of a new society.
"What does it mean to lose the fear of power? To not be afraid of power is to have built up a position of strength where we have not only an alternative proposal for life and
social change, but where we actually put it into practice. We are not going to ask permission: we are simply going to present this new political proposal for the construction of a new society. For me, autonomy is this: a whole proposal for life, a critique of what has been done before, a complete critique of the use of power. We have been talking about a lot of specifics as if feminism touches only menstruation, motherhood, and so on. Feminism touches everything, all relationships which exist in society: production, love, re-production, desire, imagination. In Latin America we tend f to see feminism in a limited way. Yet 'the Revolution' is . something much wider which encompasses all aspects of society."
The ideas which came up in different ways throughout the two afternoons of work coincide at various points: the recognition of the existence of an oppression specific to women; that the situation of women has more acute effect in the working classes; that there is a need for a women's movement as a basic political force for change which must be anti-imperialist. It is important to underscore that these points of agreement signify a notable advance in the traditional debate between "politicos" and "feminists". The problem of autonomy and double militancy was brought up by many women. It was felt that autonomy has to be in relation to something — in this case to the parties and other political organizations.
"Autonomy and feminism are synonymous. Feminism means the recognition of not only a contradiction of class, but the contradiction of sex which crosses all classes, parties, unions, families. This contradiction implies the need for an autonomous movement, because a party or union sometimes can solve the class contradiction, but never the contradiction of sex."
"I would like us to think about this - it seems that basically our thinking on feminism separates us from the social movement for economic change and from the 'new order'
which society is looking for. It seems as if we think of feminism as a struggle for improving our individual situation, to struggle for a few things which don't touch certain fundamental spheres of society. Feminism raises questions that the parties never touch, such as sexuality, women and the family. Political parties look for alternative government, alternative states, economic necessities for building a society. It seems to me that this is a different vision from a feminist one. Why? The parties think they can subvert the social order by weakening the economic structure. They propose a program and a form of government which will be converted into an alternative state.
But new feminist thinking is this: the problem of changing a society goes beyond offering these alternatives. Feminism involves a transformation of day to day relationships and relationships which are more universal, more permanent than those between men and women. Social relations of production change, while those of men and women last and in some way reflect social development. So I think the fundamental problem of feminists is to establish a cultural point of view. And the economic situation? What about economic alternatives? So far this discussion has been dominated by male thinking, producing typical male alternatives. Maybe without knowing it we've come up with a more meaningful alternative, even if it doesn't exist yet — an autonomous women's movement. For changing everyday relationships is going to be so powerful that it has to have an economic effect. Marxism and the Left have denied the importance and the irreplaceable nature of women's work in the accumulation of capital. Also I think it's not possible for us feminists to make a total change. We need to recognize the existence of other groups and movements organised for change.
"I think too that political history demonstrates that it is not the parties which are bringing about change or becoming the vanguard. They are almost killing the actions of
mass movements because the organizational structures of the parties are so narrow and so vertical that the new alternatives are practically the same as those structures being replaced. I think that to say that we women have to join parties means that we think of our lives as being very small and not essential to society. When I speak of participating in a political party, I am simply talking in general terms. You can be an artist or you can participate in a political structure of this kind. However, some women were very clear in saying that these structures are so hierarchical that they imply absolutely vertical relations of authority and contain all the qualities of masculine society: agressivessness, competition, war."
Another position expressed was that feminist organizations ought to have organic autonomy, but should emphasise that their objectives are not autonomous from other historically revolutionary sectors. There are inter-relationships with the working class for an end to class exploitatin and with all people for the defeat of imperialist domination.
"I think we are not aware of problems specific to women because in our country (Dominican Republic) social problems affect both men and women. We think that for the
feminist movement to be able to become a force capable of putting pressure on the system, it has to use the condition of women as a point of departure. At least in our country we think the problem has to be seen from two sides: to study the specific problems of women, and to see how their oppression as a sex relates to class oppression. One affects the other. For example, it is not only men who oppress women, but a series of social institutions which are related to the imperialism dominating all economic, political, cultural, and military structures, and to the predominating capitalist production relations.
"We think that autonomy ought to exist, but in the sense that the objectives of the feminist movement should be totally autonomous from other movements. The objectives of women's liberation are closely related to those of other progressive movements — in particular that of the working class. But we don't think that transformation can occur
i ideologically, economically, or socially while half the population remains oppressed as a sex. But neither can half the population liberate itself as a sex while being oppressed as a class because the majority of women belong to oppressed classes. In countries such as ours we see this relationship with perhaps greater clarity than those countries where there is a much higher standard of living. In a country where there is a large number of people who are struggling to survive, we believe that class oppression and oppression of women are interrelated. We therefore think there should be some agreement among all progressive movements — and we consider feminism to be a progressive movement.
"We thus favor the participation of women in revolutionary parties for two reasons: we are concerned by the class oppression women suffer, and feel that the parties are struggling against general social oppression. But we also think that by working from within we can perhaps contribute to our emancipation. In relation to this we believe that a feminist organization should not exclude women who are working within political parties, nor exclude anyone because of our religion or beliefs. We believe in a wide, progressive organization where all women struggling against their oppression have a place. It is our experience that it is the feminist movement which is stimulating the struggle of women, breaking into political parties, trying to penetrate the press in order to write — to sensitize the public — giving speeches in clubs, neighborhoods, unions. We are the women who fight within the political parties, and by persuading, educating, and defending our position, we can institute changes. We have the personal experience that changes can be produced within political parties."
The difference between organizational autonomy and political autonomy was accepted, recognizing that alliance can be made for a global political scheme of society. It was also pointed out that feminist vision differs qualitatively from other organizations in terms of how to bring about change. There was criticism of hierarchical structures, and the lack of democracy in the parties and political organizations. It was also said that thanks to the autonomy of the women's movement, consciousness and concrete reforms have been achieved in areas never before touched, because they had been considered 'personal'.
It was remarked that it is the feminist struggle which has awakened the interest of the political parties or groups in subjects such as domestic work, sexuality, reproduction, sexual violence, and private life. These issues are neither superficial nor individual since they reflect all the social and political problems and particularly affect women of the working class.
There was also some discussion on autonomy and independence, but it was stated that in Latin America we do not want to speak of the "independence" of the women's movement, since it might be interpreted as independence from the global struggle for social change.
Several positions were stated on the topic of double militancy (being active on two fronts). One maintains the necessity of multiple militancy (in parties, in unions, in feminist groups, etc.) and that feminism should allow and encourage the participation of party women in their organizations.
"I belong to the organization of Dominican women, and we think that feminist organizations ought to be independent, to have their own lines, statutes, and feminist militancy. This organization can and ought to accept women of political parties who respect the philosophy of the women's organization. Why we do in the UMD believe this? If women abandon political parties, the possibility of participating in political power is lost. And we ought to participate in the struggle for change in social and economic structures. If women are not a part of those political parties pushing for these changes, we are going to have structures different from those we want, structures which are still machista. Women ought to be a part of political parties, and if they are feminists they should also belong to feminist organizations. It is for this reason we support double militancy. We do oppose however the political party determining the interests of feminist organizations. We have our own philosophy, our own militancy."
"Feminist organizations ought to establish as one of their points of struggle, the struggle from within political parties through militant sisters. This struggle should not be at the individual level to demonstrate that I can do whatever a man does. It ought to be an ideological struggle. I believe that this is something fundamental and something that
should be stressed by feminist organizations. I have seen women who entered political parties as feminists who were absorbed by it and forgot their struggle as women. We cannot be feminists and nothing more. The liberation of women is impossible without the liberation of society as a whole. We cannot isolate ourselves by forming a feminist organization and creating a superficial world for ourselves, believing that we are happy. We must confront both problems: the class struggle and the struggle as women. One of our slogans is that it is not possible to be a militant socialist without being a clear feminist. We confront men with this slogan every day. I believe that this falls into line with what has been talked about here: the creation of feminism as a vehicle of true socialism. We must develop this feminism in men and women — we cannot think only of men because there are women who are organized within the parties who are the first to oppose the development of feminism — to make them understand that it is part of the struggle for socialism, and that it is not socialism if it does not transform men and women."
The other current of thought maintains that double, triple, or multiple militancy does not exist, but as women conscious of class and sex we can change the society in which we live.
It was also pointed out that there is a confusion between the terms miHtancy and political work. One can do political work in various areas (unions, working class, etc.) without belonging to a political organization. Women in parties can do work traditionally considered feminist without contradiction. The contradiction arises when these women belong to two political organizations: a party and an autonomous group.
"The problem of double militancy for me poses the following question: feminism touches on everything, but does not have a global strategy for everything. I know that my feminist group has not developed a broad political analysis neither for women agricultural workers, nor for working class women. But I choose to work with women and I do so with a feminist group because to work in a feminist group is different from working in a party. It implies a different concept of political struggle. So, I don't work in a political party because it's a matter of questioning daily life, relations of production, etc."
"I ought to say that I defended double militancy for 10 years of feminist militancy until last year. I am now questioning it because I have seen these contradictions come up,
contradictions which are clear and difficult to resolve. If feminism is taken seriously as one of many political options (I don't believe that any group has the truth, nor that any
group alone can make the revolution), the problems of women as women bring me to work on them, because in doing so I help myself. It is not a charitable struggle for the poor or victims of injustice; but as a woman and as a member of the petit-bourgeoisie my life is changed by this practice. I am prepared to make alliances and work with political parties without belonging to them. I feel that there is one thing which has been avoided — we've been talking as if double militants can serve two bosses. But one cannot serve two causes. Parties have one way of making politics and feminists have another, which in comparison may be on a small scale. But by working like ants women will at a given moment have the strength to do many other things. I would like to hear what the double militants have to say about this."
In general terms, there were three tendencies. All recognise the different oppressions by class and by sex, but one tendency put major emphasis on class, another on sex, and the third pointed out that this depends on the situation.
These same three tendencies exist in relation to the role of parties and feminism. One stated that it is the parties which have a global political perspective, the second said that this was the perspective of feminism alone, and the third held that it was both and would also depend on the circumstances. There were participants who defended the idea of the party as a revolutionary vanguard, and those who questioned this position.
"Feminism might perhaps be a global alternative in another era, but in our country today, for example, we do not believe that feminism is capable of responding to North American imperialism. We do not think that feminism can respond to the situation in which most people of our country live: hunger, misery, malnutrition, illiteracy, infant mortality, etc. I think we ought to place ourselves a little in time and space. We cannot fail to recognize that women suffer a specific oppression, and that all general societal ills fall especially heavily on women. It's not by chance that women make up the majority of illiterates, the unemployed, the malnourished. We have to recognize both dimensions. Let's examine the parties for a moment and look at their historical function, especially when we question such things as their hierarchical structure. We should examine what it is that these parties are working towards. Do you think that a party which has to work in secret can have a structure which is not hierarchical? Can a party which was created by subversion in order to combat a strong military force which has political and economic control, operate in any other way? These are the kinds of questions we have to take into account because we do not live in a Utopia.
"I understand autonomy as a term which implies a struggle where we take the initiative but in the context of, not a party, but a social scheme, a plan of change, a socialist
scheme or that of a new society. I think that in terms of our feminism, autonomy continues to be and ought to be primary. Double militancy is a question which we are not
i going to resolve here. The most important thing is that there are militants talking about feminism here."
The following comment was made in an attempt to bring some order to the discussion:
"As I see it, we've established three basic points: (1) feminism as a political struggle goes beyond the traditional political struggles of the parties and their patriarchal structure because feminism questions daily life and the relationships between women and those between men, not only at the level of production but also at the level of persons who relate emotionally and sexually. (2) Another point is the famous problem of autonomy. When women say autonomy we are not saying 'no parties', we are saying no manipulation on the part of the parties. We understand that in Latin America women have to be involved in the struggle of oppressed sectors. This does not mean that in participating in these struggles we have to be manipulated by the parties. (3) A final point is the relationship between the struggles of women in Latin America and women in developed countries. To my way of thinking, women of developed countries cannot participate in a struggle as radical as ours as long as there exists a relationship of domination between developed and undeveloped countries. But there are problems which affect women in developed countries as much as they do women in dependent countries. Regardless of form, the struggle is against a patriarchal power, although this power may be represented in a social and political system which differs from country to country. This is one of the tasks of feminists — to define the struggles and strategies in each country with different economic conditions. The other thing I think controversial is that feminism poses itself as a distinct alternative, but alternative to what? To established forms of power. All struggles set a Utopia for themselves. The problem is to know what strategies to develop within our concrete and historical realities to get to this Utopia."
There were many women who attempted to elaborate on this concept of party struggle. And there were several contributions criticizing this model, especially its vertical structure and patriarchal attitudes.
"Something which bothers me a lot is that it has been said that the party has a global solution for the transformation of society. The contribution that we have made to the women's liberation movement is part of this global transformation of society. This is not to say that we have the last word, nor that we have resolved all the problems of change, or revolution or the problems of armed conflict. But today in Latin America the guerrilla organizations are not only composed of men but also of women who have established their own role and are struggling as women within the organizations. So, there is a justification for saying that there are distinct levels at which we can work. It would seem that there are moments in this Latin American process when we cannot talk of the woman question because it does not have priority. On the other hand, there is a concern on the part of militants (or those who have been traditionally called politicos), for how to raise the question of women among the mass of women. I'm going to tell you of our experience in Mexico: when we came to the slums, it was the women who were aware of their situation and had experience of struggle as women. It was not we, who had had the opportunity to read more or do more, who led the meetings. These women had the experiences of real struggle. Our experience in the slums, in the countryside, and in factories showed that these women express the same problems that we do. On the other hand, it seems to me that this idea that the party has the last word isn't valid if there is no development of the masses, whether women, the young, homosexuals, or whatever. It seems to me that this is granting a privileged role to the party which in reality it hasn't earned. It's clear that the party fulfills a very important function, but this does not hide the fact that there is a women's liberation movement developing in every Latin American country - a movement which has a distinct rhythm and distinct methods.
"We women are saying that the personal is political and it would appear that we have meant that the personal is private life. I want to clarify that for us 'the personal' refers to society and not just inside our own homes. It is part of the revolution and the new society that we want to build."
Imperialism was also discussed, and the point made that the historical, socioeconomic and political conditions of Latin America make feminism in our countries part of the anti-imperialism struggle.