3 articles
2nd is 'Sex, Class & Womens oppression
3rd is 'Equality for some women'

*************** Why Women are Oppressed ***************
                        from Workers Solidarity No 36

WE ARE NOW eight years from the year 2,000.  
Approximately 14,000 years ago the first 
agricultural communities, and with them human 
civilisation, were founded.  Humanity is 600 
generations old. 

We hold the position of 'most successful species' because 
unlike animals we have been able to modify our 
environment to suit our needs.  To early humans nature 
was a powerful and frightening force, the bringer of 
plagues, storms and droughts.  Nowadays we control our 
environment to such an extent that nature is no longer a 
demon spirit or an instrument of the wrath of god.  In 
much of the world nature is way down on our list of 
worries, it is more likely to fear us.  As the capability to 
control the world around us has increased from the first 
primitive farmers to the high-technology multinationals, 
the way we perceive the world around us has also 
changed.  So has the way we perceive each other.

One thing, however, that has remained constant 
throughout this time is that in the majority of societies 
half our species (women) has been held in an inferior 
position to the other half (men).  Why is this the case?  
The answer to this question should explain two things.  
It should explain why today with all our equal rights 
legislation women are still second class citizens, and 
secondly it should indicate the mechanisms and tactics we 
have to use to achieve womens' liberation.  If we know 
what the problem is, we can find a solution.

CIVILISATION DAWNS

Early humans were hunter/gatherers living in nomadic 
communities, living from hand to mouth.  The discovery of 
agriculture lead to huge changes in the organisation of 
humanity.  Agriculture was the point at which 
civilisation began.  This is because there are a number of 
ways in which an agricultural community is different from 
a hunter/gatherer clan.  Communities remain in the same 
spot.  Agriculture can support more people than 
hunting/gathering so communities get larger.  Farming 
leads to the development of new technology.  New skills 
lead to a greater division of labour.  Individuals specialise 
in certain types of work, be it tool making, leatherwork or 
defence.

However the key difference is that farmed land becomes a 
valuable resource.  Land provides a surplus, that is land 
provides more food than is necessary for day to day 
survival.  More importantly, land will provide this 
resource in the future, for the next generation.  None of 
this is true of the herd of wild animals persued by the 
hunter-gatherer.  The concept of ownership developed. 

So civilisation began when man began to acquire wealth 
in the form of land, food and animals.  If a rich man wants 
to ensure that his offspring alone inherit his wealth, he 
must be sure that his wife is only mating with him.  Thus, 
he has to be in a position of control over her.  He needs 
to portray this as part of the 'natural order'.  To 
accommodate this need society, through the use of 
religion, developed a rationale to justify the inferior 
position of woman.  

GOD"S CHOSEN RULERS

Rulers have always been good at rationalising unfair 
practices, take for example the idea of the 'divine right of 
kings'.  Popular for centuries, the church and state 
argued that kings and queens were appointed by God.  
The status quo was natural and good, any opposition to it 
was evil and doomed to eternal hell.  These days kings 
don't have much power, which is why not many people 
rush to describe Charles and Di as God's chosen rulers.  

In much the same way, it was necessary to have women 
inferior to men to ensure inheritance rights.  In order to 
keep women in this position a whole mythology of women 
as second class humans was developed.  It was the 
accumulation of a surplus and the desire of a minority to 
monopolise it that lead to the class division of society and 
to the oppression of women.

Now we've established the motive and the cover story, 
but of what relevance is the status of women in early 
history to their status today.   As capitalism evolved it 
built on the existing model of the family, adapting it to 
suit it's own interests.  Assurance of inheritance rights 
isn't as necessary today, however the family provides 
other services which capitalism does require.  Initially, 
when the industrial revolution first began men, women 
and children were drafted wholesale into the factories.  

DEATH IS NOT ALWAYS ECONOMIC

Quickly, however, the bosses realised that this was not 
the most economic way to run the system.  The labour 
force was weak and the children who were to be next 
generation of workers were dying in the mills and mines.  
The solution was was to be found in the family. 

Before the rise of capitalism society was based around a 
system of slaves/serfs and kings or lords.  The problem 
with slaves or serfs is that the owner must provide food, 
basic health care and subsistence in old age, i.e. maintain 
the slave at a cost for those times when he or she is not 
productive.  A much more cost efficient way to keep a 
workforce is through the nuclear family.  In this scenario, 
it is up to the family to provide itself with food, shelter, 
healthcare, look after the elderly and young (who will 
provide the next crop of workers).  Within this family unit 
it is normally the woman who fulfils the functions of 
housekeeper, nurse, childminder and cook.  

There are two knock-on effects of women staying at home 
minding the family.  Firstly they are not financially 
independent.  They do not earn any money and are 
dependant on income received from their partners.  
Because nobody gets paid for rearing a family it's status 
as an occupation is at the bottom of the ladder and 
because women are financially dependant on their 
husbands it means they, in the past, have had little input 
into the major decisions affecting the family.  

ISOLATION

This led to women having no input into the decisions 
affecting society.  A woman's place was in the home.  A 
second effect of women's position in the family is that 
they are often isolated from each other and from society 
in general.  Unlike a paid worker they have little 
opportunity of meeting and sharing experiences with 
others in the same situation on a daily basis, and do 
something about it.  They, on their own, have little 
power to change the conditions they find themselves in.

Today the family is a trap for women as much as it was for 
women at the beginning of the industrial revolution.  
Women are paid on average 2/3 of the wage that men are 
paid, so within any partnership it obviously makes more 
sense for the woman to undertake responsibility for the 
care of children.  It is for this reason, common sense 
rather than sexism, that that the vast majority of part-
time workers are women, juggling two jobs at the same 
time.  

Having said that, why is it that women are among the 
lower paid in society?  Is it necessary for capitalism to 
exploit women workers to this degree?  The simple answer 
to that is sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.  The only 
important difference between a male and female worker is 
that the female has the potential to get pregnant, that is 
the potential to want maternity leave and need creche 
facilities.  In other words they are slightly more 
expensive to employ than men.  So when women are 
asked (illegally!)  at job interviews if they intend to 
marry, such discrimination has a material basis.   An 
employer isn't interested on the good of society at large 
but in obtaining the cheapest most reliable workforce 
possible.  

DISPOSABLE WORKERS

Historically women have been encouraged to work and 
have been accommodated when it suited capitalism.  
When there was either a shortage of male labour due to 
war as during the 1st and 2nd World Wars or an 
expansion of industry as in the dawn of the industrial 
revolution or the 1960s.  When times are tough, when 
recession sets in, women are encouraged back into the 
family.

The conclusion for most socialists is that women's' 
liberation can only be lastingly obtained with the 
overthrow of capitalism.  This is not to say that reforms 
should not be fought for at the moment, but to recognise 
that some of the gains may be short-term ones which can 
be withdrawn.  

This conclusion isn't accepted by everyone concerned with 
womens' liberation, and certainly is rejected by large 
sections of the feminist movement.  A good example of the 
alternative analysis can be seen in the following extract 
from the British Survey of Social Attitudes (a survey 
carried out regularly by an independent body).

WHO MINDS THE CHILDREN

It found that the provision of childcare was one of the 
impediments preventing women from working.  Their 
conclusion was that "in the absence of changes in 
mens' attitudes, or working hours outside the home 
or in their contribution within the family it seems 
unlikely that even a greater availability of childcare 
outside the home would alter domestic arrangements 
greatly.  Without these changes, it is conceivable that 
many useful forms of work flexibility - that might be 
offered to women such as job sharing, career breaks, 
special sick leave or term-time working - might 
reinforce rather than mitigate the formidable level 
of occupational segregation based on gender, to 
women's longer-term disadvantage."

The authors of the survey note that as long as 
responsibility for childcare rests with the women they will 
remain trapped in the family.  They also point out that 
concessions to women in the world of work often result in 
women being pidgeon-holed into less well paid job.  This 
already happens in regard to part-time workers who are 
paid a lower hourly wage than full-time workers.  They 
point out that men have to square up to their 
responsibility as fathers.  The key they emphasise is a 
change in mens' attitudes.  

However what was not mentioned is that no matter how 
attitudes change, men are as powerless as individuals in 
regard to their working conditions as women are.  With 
all the good will in the world they cannot change their 
employer/employee relationship, they cannot adjust their 
working hours to suit childcare just as women cannot.  A 
more fundamental conclusion would be that society at the 
moment, capitalism, does not want to accommodate any of 
the problems of childcare preferring to leave it up to the 
individual to make their own arrangements as best as 
they can.

CONTROL OF OUR BODIES

It is for this reason that the issue of womens' ability to 
control their own fertility is key in obtaining womens' 
liberation.  That is the fight for abortion rights, for freely 
available contraceptives, for 24 hour quality childcare.

Women will remain as second class citizens as long as they 
are relegated to an inferior position in the work force.  
They are now in that position because to the bosses they 
are an unstable workforce, likely to want pregnancy 
leave, likely to come in late if a child is sick, likely to 
require a creche or want to work part time.  It is because 
men in society are seen as the breadwinners that they 
have slightly more secure, slightly more dependable jobs.  

It's a vicious circle, because men are in reality better 
paid, it makes more sense within the family to assign the 
role of main earner to the male and the role of carer to 
the female.  The only way to permanently get out out of 
this circle is to change the system.  In a society organised 
to make profits for a few, women loose out.  In a society 
organised to satisfy needs, womens' fertility would no 
longer be a limiting factor.

INTO THE MAINSTREAM

Women can of course win gains at the moment.  In 
Ireland women are no longer forced to stop working upon 
marriage (though lack of childcare can make it impossible 
to continue).  Attitudes have changed considerably in the 
last thirty years.  Most importantly, the position of 
women is now an issue.  Whereas before it was only 
addressed by the few socialist or womens' groups, now it's 
taken up in the mainstream media, in chat shows and 
newspaper articles.  However, any of our new freedoms 
are very much dependant on the economic conditions of 
the day.  So, while in the booming sixties American 
women won limited access to abortion, now in recession 
those rights are being pushed back inch by inch.  

When the reality is weighed up equal education & job 
opportunities and equal pay are limited without free 24 
hour nurseries and free contraception & abortion on 
demand.  While a small minority of women can buy control 
of their own fertility, for the majority family and childcare 
is still - as it has always been - the largest problem faced 
by women workers.  In this argument capitalism won't 
concede, it must be defeated.

Aileen O'Carroll

   ********** Sex, class & Womens oppression **********
                        from Workers Solidarity No 36

Lavinia Kerwick showed great bravery when 
she spoke out about being raped, thousands 
took to the streets in support of "X" last 
February.  Violence and discrimination 
against women are still very real.  But for the 
first time since the early 1980s large numbers 
of women want to fight back.  Aileen O'Carroll 
looks at some of the issues that have arisen.  
Can women of all classes share a common 
goal?  Should women organise separately? Is 
there a connection between fighting sexism and 
fighting capitalism?

IT WAS NOT until the French Revolution in 1798, that 
it began to be accepted that all men are equal.  Until 
then the concept was dismissed as irreligious and and 
against the 'natural order'.   Many of the morals, rules 
and rights that society assumes as constant are 
actually quite fluid.  It is only in the last few decades 
that the idea of equality has been extended to include 
women.  

Although women still hold a secondary status, the idea of 
women as second class citizens is beginning to lose ground.  
Changing attitudes in itself are not going to lead to womens' 
liberation (all men aren't in fact equal in today's society, though 
there is no longer strong ideological opposition to the idea of 
equality).  However, the freeing of women from the chains of 
sexism empowers us to fight for womens' liberation.

However having said all this, why is it that women aren't more 
active in politics, in community groups, in campaigning?  What is 
it that is holding them back?  Anarchists believe that the core 
problem facing women is class society.  However overlying that 
core is a layer of sexist ideas.   This ideology serves to reinforce 
and justify womens' inferior status.  How does this operate?  
How does it manage to do this?

It's easy today to underestimate the effects of the conditioning 
that takes place.   Conditioning that tells us, that in the very 
first place we doesn't have any right to compete on an equal 
basis.  There is ample proof that this occurs, for example the 
findings of a recent survey on secondary school children 
indicated that girls had a much lower self-image than boys of a 
comparable age.  Recent studies in American classrooms showed 
that when girls answered out of turn they were more likely to 
be told off, while boys were likely to be praised for showing 
intelligence or initiative.  Given this it was not surprising that 
in later classes girls rarely spoke unless specifically asked a 
question while boys often spoke out or chatted with the teacher. 

RAPE AND 'GUILT'

Researchers into the area of sexual harassment have found that 
people have difficulty in knowing what type of behaviour 
amounts to harassment.  Women feel unsure as to what are 
their rights are, unsure as to how much hassle they are 
expected by society to put up with.  In a recent interview a 
representative of Dublin Rape Crisis Centre indicated that in 
her experiences all the women she saw felt guilt in some way, 
right down to an old age pensioner raped in her own home.  
Indeed, this is hardly surprising given the type of reporting of 
trials such as the Kennedy rape trial this year.  

One in three of crimes against women arise from domestic 
violence.  Yet these problems are given low priority.  Rape Crisis 
Centres are constantly under threat of closure due to lack of 
funding.  In the first four months of 1990, the Gardai received 
1,568 calls for help in domestic violence situations (and all the 
experts accept that only a small number of such crimes are ever 
reported).  The Womens' Aid refuges, run by volunteers, have 
only 16% of the space that is needed.  

Workers in a Dublin refuge reported that between four and 
seven families are turned away on average, while approximately 
another 60 women phone seeking advice each week.  Our low 
status in society is reflected not only by the level of violence 
against us, but by the complete disregard that is shown for the 
problem by the government and society at large.

A CURFEW ON WOMEN

Though most rapes are committed by somebody known by the 
woman (92% of Irish rape victims knew their attackers), police 
propaganda is still aimed at frightening women into maintaining 
a self-imposed curfew at night.  Even though the statistics 
indicate she is probably in more danger at home!  We are forced 
to leave limited lives.  We don't have freedom of movement even 
within our own communities.  We are denied control over our 
own bodies.  Worse of all, we are told how to look and how to 
behave.

Women are constantly given cues that they are in some way 
inferior.  This conditioning is a symptom of the position of 
women in society, not the cause but a symptom with far reaching 
affects.  We learn what is the norm through what is seen as 
acceptable behaviour in the world around us.  The media, be it 
TV, film industry or pop music occupy a very vocal and dominant 
position.  Next time you watch MTV or go to the cinema try and 
count how many times you see women portrayed as individuals 
in their own right, rather than as appendages.  You won't need 
more fingers to count on than you have on your own two hands.
 
Most womens' magazines are still concerned with beauty, fashion 
and home making.  Articles about working women are almost 
exclusively aimed at professionals and executives.  They don't 
reflect the the reality that most women experience.  Company 
magazine (June 1991) asks  "Are you scared of success?  Career 
success can be dazzling and very exciting, yet it can go hand in 
hand with tremendous fear".  The article argues that if we just 
didn't keep holding ourselves back, we could make it in the 
career world.   The truth for most of us is that it is lack of 
childcare and job opportunities determines our position as low 
paid workers, not our lack of confidence. 

GLOBAL FORUM OF EGOISTS AND BOSSES

Unfortunately much of the womens' movement does exactly the 
same thing.  Dublin recently hosted the 1992 Global Forum of 
Women.  At £180 a head the forum was dedicated to "visions of 
leadership".  Those attending were all "political, artistic & 
scientific leaders or prominent in the international leadership of 
the womens' movement".  The brochure advertising the 
conference proclaimed "the president of Nicaragua is a women".  

So what!  So is the Queen of England and Margaret Thatcher.  I 
don't see things being much better for our 'sisters' over the 
water or for those in Nicaragua.  The election of Mary Robinson 
didn't make any noticeable difference for the 'sisters' at home 
either.    

The conclusion of the conference, the message they are sending 
to the low paid, the part-time workers and the unemployed is 
that what is needed is 40% representation of women at all 
levels.  Overwhelmingly, the message to us was to get up on our 
bikes, to seize the opportunities, that the only thing stopping us 
was ourselves.  Class didn't come into it. 

A gap exists between what women are meant to be like and what 
we are, between what we are supposed to achieve and what it is 
possible for us to achieve.  Failure on our part to live up to an 
ideal is attributed to some fault within us, rather than to the 
type of society we live in.  It is for these reasons that women 
often find it more difficult to speak in public.  We are often are 
less confident because by standing up we are reacting against a 
conditioning that tells us we should sit down.

ORGANISING SEPARATELY?

Women are constantly conditioned to believe that we do not 
have a right to an opinion, to be politically active, to speak out.  
Sometimes the first step against this conditioning is to organise 
separately from men.  Partly this is because it is felt that men 
being more confident and more self-assured tend to dominate 
discussions.  Or even more simply some women feel that when 
men are present they are more likely to take a silent role and 
leave the arguing up to them.   

Under these conditions women organising together is an 
exercise in empowerment.  It's a positive response to the 
conditioning of society.  It's role should be to make it possible for 
women to participate as equals with men.  It should be seen as  
a temporary but necesary step,  not as an end in itself.

However problems arise when this is taken further and when 
women begin to campaign separately.  This identifies men as the 
root of the problem, which they aren't.  It also isolates men from 
the struggle, when it is obvious that in order to change society 
we must work alongside them.  

Within many Unions and the British Labour Party there exist 
women only conferences.  A problem with this is that womens' 
issues are often referred to these conferences as a as a way of 
avoiding the issues and forgetting about them.  Rape is a 
womens' issue  - refer it to the womens' conference, 
contraception is a womens' issue - refer it to the womens' 
conference, etc. 

In these instances men are rarely confronted with these issues, 
rarely have to deal with them and are let off the hook.  
Therefore while we defend the right of women to meet 
separately we also think it vital in any organisation, in any 
campaign, that women present their arguments to the entire 
body of people and win those arguments and fight as a whole.  
Tactically, this is the only way to widen and then win the fight 
for womens' liberation.

Things are better for us today.  A lot of the institutionalised 
oppression, such as marriage bars and property laws has been 
removed.  Often equal pay legislation and quota systems have 
been put in their place.   Yet while things may have changed on 
paper, we are still left with   class society.  As long as this 
remains, the majority of us will not have equal access to the 
workplace or much else.  As long as we are denyed economic 
equality, society will continue making up morals and invent so 
called 'natural laws', as a way of justifying it's treatment of us.  
By tackling the symptom, sexism in society, we will be in a 
better position to tackle the root cause.   By tackling capitalism 
we will be fighting for womens' liberation. 

Aileen O'Carroll

  ************* Equality for some Women ***************
                           from Workers Solidarity No35


LAST SEPTEMBER the Bank of Ireland was, according 
to the 'Irish Times', 'basking in an unadulterated glow 
of approval' from the Employment Equality Agency, the 
Council of Status for Women and the Joint Oireachteas 
Committee on Womens Rights among others. What the 
Bank of Ireland had so progressively managed to do was 
to provide one creche which will cater for up to 45 
children.  

The Bank of Ireland employs 11,600 people.  However, at £55 
a week the centre is obviously aimed at helping only a very 
small section of the workforce.  As Bertie Ahern said, it did 
not make sense having highly and expensively qualified 
women leaving the workforce because of lack of childcare 
facilities.  However, it does make sense, to industry, to 
employ over 50% of the entire workforce having either low 
pay or no security of employment (or both). 

 It isn't sexism that holds us in the worse paid jobs but rather 
the economic reality of the capitalism system.  To survive in 
the market place any company has to be competitive, to 
maximise profits. With wages accounting for 80% of the 
outgoings in most business, employing the cheapest labour 
makes good sense.  In todays society, creches and child-care 
are a luxury that the profit motive can rarely afford.  To 
women who accept this system, the provision of expensive 
inadequate child care is a victory, while the plight of ordinary 
women workers isn't worth mentioning.  

But there is a general feeling that we are now living in a 
post-feminist world.  Women may not be quite equal to men, 
but the principle of equality has been widely accepted and 
liberation is only a matter of waiting. We are allowed to vote, 
to drink in pubs and to work outside marriage.  Our right to 
an equal education system and an equal workplace is 
enshrined in law.  We have a women president.  

In Ireland there is now a wide acceptance that women have 
the right to participate in society on an equal basis with men.  
However, despite this change in hearts and minds, life on the 
ground for most women today, is quite similar to those of forty 
years ago.  Though we may not, in general, have the same 
sexist morality to put up with; economically we are still 
second class citizens.   

For the majority of us, our right to choose the way of life we 
wish to lead is as limited as it has always been.  Rather than 
being liberated, we are still tied, by virtue of our poor wage 
earning abilities, to the home and family.  A study recently 
published in Fortune magazine indicated that the leading 
occupations for women in 1990 weren't so different from the 
top jobs for 1940 (see table).  The average hourly earnings of 
woman are still 68% of those of men.  In hard cash terms, men 
earn on average, £1.83 more per hour than women do. 

Fortune Magazine Table
   1990                 1940
  1. Secretary     1. Servant
  2. Cashier       2. Secretary
  3. Bookkeeper    3. Teacher
  4. Nurse         4. Clerical worker
  5. Nursing aide  5. Sales worker
  6. Teacher       6. Factory worker
  7. Waitress      7. Bookkeeper
  8. Sales Worker  8. Waitress
  9. Child care    9. Housekeeper
  10. Cook         10. Nurse


So, what are the problems facing women in the workforce?  
The answer you'll get to that question, will depend very much 
on who you are talking to.  For the last six years, Social and 
Community Planing Research, a non-profit making institute, 
has been surveying British social attitudes to everything from 
should revolutionaries  be allowed to have public meetings 
(only 48% said yes) to should the tax system be changed.   
Looking at the recently published 1991 survey, it becomes 
obvious that the key factor preventing women from working is 
children; i.e. lack of nursery places, lack of creches at work 
and "guilt at leaving the care of children to others".  

It noted that while 51% of those surveyed would have 
thought a work-place nursery suitable for the care of their 
children, none of the sample surveyed had access to such a 
service.  Overwhelmingly,  children were cared for by a close 
relative.  

On the other hand, the Financial Times, in a major article 
on women managers cited the main problems for women going 
into business as confidence, training and expertise, credibility 
and networks.  For women at these higher levels, childcare 
provision is not a key problem, as they can afford to hire 
other women to stay at home so they are freed to go out and  
work.   So when women managers seek to overcome sexism, 
provision of free 24 hour childcare is not a priority.  Women 
may not be equal to men in today's society, but undoubtedly 
some women are more equal than others.  

It is certainly true that there are very few women managers, 
however this is just a symptom of the general situation of 
women as a whole, not a cause. The installation of women at 
the top of a profession won't change the basic ground rules by 
which society is run.  Those women at the top may suffer 
sexism from their colleagues.  They may be ostracised from the 
old boys network and may find it more difficult to succeed. 

However, they also have an interest in seeing the system 
continue.  Their high incomes, standard of living and position 
in society is dependant on them being on the top of the pile.   
So while they may lobby on 'safe' issues that affect most 
women, such as rape and domestic violence, when it comes to 
issues that question the way society is run and thus threaten 
their position, sisterhood quickly breaks down.  

How many of the Irish women TD's, who support abortion 
information are willing to publicly say so?  On the one hand 
they may be members of the womens movement while on the 
other protecting their seat is more important.  Mary Robinson 
may be a women, but she didn't show much sisterhood or 
solidarity when she signed into law the new social welfare 
regulations on cohabiting couples.  This provision limits 
couples to 80% of the benefit that two single people receive  
Normally the women is the partner who receives the lower 
income. 
 
Women will remain as second class citizens as long as they are 
relegated to an inferior position in the work force.  They are 
now in that position because to the bosses they are an 
unstable workforce, likely to want pregnancy leave, likely to 
come in late if a child is sick, likely to require a creche or 
want to work part time.  It is because men in society are seen 
as the breadwinner that they have more secure, more 
dependable jobs.  

It's a vicious circle, because men are in reality better paid, it 
makes more sense within the family to assign the role of main 
earner to the male and housework to the female.  The only 
way to permanently get out out of the circle is to change the 
system.  In a society run for profit women loose out, in a 
society run for need,  womens fertility is no longer a limiting 
factor.

Women can of course win gains at the moment. In Ireland 
women are no longer forced to stop working on marriage, 
though lack of child care can make it impossible to continue.  
Attitudes have changed considerably in the last thirty years.  
Most importantly, the position of women is now an issue. 

Where as before it was only addressed by the few socialist or 
womens groups, now it's taken up by the mainstream media, 
by chat shows and newspaper articles.  However, any of our 
new freedoms are very much dependant on the economic 
conditions of the day.  So, while in the affluent 1960's British 
women won limited access to abortion (used by thousands of 
Irish women), now in recession those rights are being pushed 
back inch by inch.  

When you come down to basics equal education and job 
opportunities and equal pay amount to little without free 24 
hour nurseries and free contraception and abortion on 
demand.  While a small minority of women can buy control of 
their own fertility, for the majority, family and child care is 
still as it has always been the largest problem faced by women 
workers.

And as a small finishing thought, under capitalism most 
managers are paid a hell of a lot more than most workers.  
That's a situation women mangers won't want to change.  
After all, Margaret Thatcher was the ultimate woman 
manager, wasn't she? 

Aileen O'Carroll

