By Sarah Stephen and Marina Cameron
On university campuses there have been increasing attacks on the idea of having women's officers and women's rooms. Arguments against women's right and need to organise separately have also been raised. These arguments undermine efforts to rebuild a women's liberation movement at a time when a movement is desperately needed to stop governments' attempts to wind back women's rights.
Women's officers and women's rooms on campuses were not just given to women; they were fought for and won against significant opposition during the 1970s and early '80s, when the second wave of the women's liberation movement was at its height. The same dynamic produced many women's studies departments.
Women's officers are not just important because they "represent" women, and women's rooms are not just important as "safe" places for women on campus. Rather , the real value of these facilities is that they are avenues for women to organise against sexism. Without such organisation, the continued existence of these facilities cannot be assured and real equality for women on campus can never be won.
The argument put forward by the International Socialist Organisation, that men as a whole do not benefit from women's oppression because gender inequality divides the working class, and that women organising separately simply exacerbates this divide, is wrong.
Organising separately is not "separatism". Women need to work together and lead the movement for their own liberation in order to break down, (rather than gloss over), divisions in the working class.
Women-only organising collectives developed in the 1960s and early '70s because male activists in the social movements, consciously or unconsciously, reflected the sexism in society at large and marginalised women from leadership roles by failing to give equal weight to their ideas and contributions.
Women were not encouraged to do more than fill background, supportive roles in the movements; roles that they were used to and that men were most "comfortable" with. This sexual division of labour in the civil rights, anti-war and student movements, as well as most left parties, is captured in the phrase used at the time: "tea-ladies of the revolution".
But through participation in these movements, increasing numbers of women came together, discussed politics and shared experiences. They began to meet in women's consciousness raising groups and the second wave of feminism was borne.
Despite the reforms won by the second wave, the movement did not win women's liberation. Women today are still taught (through schools, the church, the family and the media) what sort of behaviour is "appropriate" and acceptable for their sex. They're still taught that what they look like is more important than what they think. And they're still conditioned to submit to men's leadership.
Women-only organising is a recognition that women must make their own liberation. This does not and should not exclude men from the broader movement, but women-only groups do help women to learn to lead with confidence in the movement. They also assist women to be more active in other social movements in which men predominate.
Men should be encouraged to actively support the aims and demands of the women's movement. After all, a women-only feminist movement is very unlikely to win its demands. But the focus should not just be on men "unlearning" their sexism through personal quests to "cleanse" themselves of nasty socialisation.
It is through actively struggling against sexism in campaigns and movements that both women and men can become more conscious of their common interests in opposing capitalist exploitation. Working-class men can come to realise that joining the fight against gender inequality actually strengthens their class's ability to unite, resist and defeat attacks on their own rights. Women's struggle for justice becomes their struggle — the most meaningful and effective "unlearning" of sexism.