Women's oppression: where it

comes from and how to fight

it
What are the origins of women's oppression? And how
do we fight it? These are vital questions to ask in a
society where working class women are twice
oppressed - both as workers and as women.
How liberated are women
today?
It is often said that sexism is a phenomenon of the past – there are more women in work
than ever before and they are increasingly sexually liberated. But it is also clear to most
people that this is not true at all – in the UK the pay gap between men and women
remains at 20%, and women are still expected to carry out the majority of domestic
activities such as cleaning and looking after children.
Obviously the past century has seen many strides forward for women as many more have
entered into higher education, pursued careers, and rights to abortion and divorce have
been gained. However we must also recognise that women remain an exploited group and
that the form of this exploitation has changed in tandem with changes in the capitalist
system.
If we consider firstly the issue of women at work, from 1881 to 1951 the percentage of
women in work in Britain hovered around the 25% mark; by 1965, 54% of women were
classed as “economically active”. This can be seen as the result of the changing scope of
British capitalism with the opening of new industries and their expansion as a result of the
post-war boom.
However, it is also important to note that despite there being a greater number of women in work, a significant pay
gap remained – 27-30% – and the majority (70%) were employed in the precarious service sector.
Moving from the 1960s to the 1990s/2000s: throughout the past two decades the percentage of women in work has
remained at around 65%. However, it is clear, that despite more women being in work – a positive sign for
emancipation – that women’s work continues to be lower paid and in more casual sectors. The continuing pay gap has
been referred to above and it is also notable that 92% of women work in services, one of the most precarious sectors
of employment, compared to 71% of men.
One must also consider the reasons behind more women being in work: government statistics show that in 2011 only
9% of the British workforce worked in the manufacturing sector. This can be seen as a result of de-industrialisation,
which led to the closure of industries such as mining, steel and shipbuilding across the country. The loss of these
industries led to the loss of many well paid jobs in working class communities and made two wage packets a necessity
for many families.
Here we can see that more women entering into the labour market has been as a result of the changing nature of
capitalism and has also allowed for wages to be pushed down as two wages has become the norm. For many women
this has been far from an emancipating experience as they have been forced into casual sectors, being paid less than
their male counterparts.
It is clear that despite more women entering into the workforce that they continue to be exploited in work and that
their working is used to further exploit the working class as a whole. It should also be noted that despite the majority
of women now working, they are still expected to carry out the majority of domestic activities – they are effectively
working two jobs. This is just one of many examples of oppression of women outside of the workplace.
Sexual liberation over the past century has won many gains for women, such as rights to abortion and
divorce. But the modernisation of relationships and attitudes to sex has far from ended oppression of
women in this realm; it has simply changed. New expectations have meant that instead of women being
pigeon holed as wife and mother, they are now expected to exhibit sexual behaviour or else be labelled a
“prude”; but not too much or else be labelled a “slut”. Increasingly strong sexual imagery and sexual
expectation have also led to create a culture, as shown in forums such as “Uni Lad”, of women being
sexual objects, and sexual violence, including rape, being seen as a joke.
Modernisation under capitalism has far from ended oppression of women, only the nature of this
oppression has changed. Ending this oppression will only be possible under socialism where domestic work
will be socialised, with a planned economy that dramatically reducing working hours and increases leisure
time, and the removal of economic pressures and divide and rule tactics, in order to bring an end to
negative attitudes towards women.
 What could socialism offer?
With socialism will come the end of all of the many forms of oppression used by the capitalist system,
including that faced by women. While capitalism relied upon strict gender roles, socialism would do away with
this repressive pigeonholing of individuals. Relationships and families that do not conform to monogamous
ideals (required by capitalism for tracking inheritance, reliant more on female monogamy than male
monogamy of course) will be as accepted socially as those that do. A socialist society would have no need for
the nuclear family, often at the forefront of the exploitation of women, necessary for the passing on of private
property and the raising of the next generation of workers for the capitalist.

This will all be achieved through the guarantee of work for all, alongside a general reduction in working hours,
giving each worker more free time to spend as they choose, including to care for their family. Employers - i.e.
the bosses - would be done away with as part of the end of capitalism, and with this would go any bias in the
workplace on the basis of sex. With the guarantee of a job and the socialisation of childcare, women would not
have to choose between having children and working. No worker would have to face any form of discrimination or
oppression. This, along with equal maternity and paternity leave and an education system emphasising equality
(including gender equality), would aid in fighting sexist attitudes on society, such as the expectation of women to
be the maternal and caring child raisers and homemakers.
Universal free childcare is a simple solution to alleviating these expectations, allowing parents of all genders to
be free to work while their children are safely looked after. In the current economic system, it is women who are
saddled with the double burden of shorter working hours and lower wages than their male counterparts, leading
to the “logical” conclusion that it is only fair for them to therefore make up this shortfall at home, cleaning,
cooking, raising children to name just a few of the societal expectations. Women are also considered to be the
natural caregivers, thus relatively expendable in the workplace, at the mercy of the capitalist.
There would also be complete transformation of the many institutions, which currently exist under capitalism to
promote and reproduce all forms of oppression - including the discrimination against women. The legal system,
with its infamous culture of victim blaming, harsher criminal sentences and such like against women, would
become radicalised transformed, operating in the interests of the working class and not the interests of the bosses
and those in power. The healthcare system would provide accurate, reliable and respectful care to women,
informing them of all their reproductive choices without judgement or misinformation.
We cannot simply wash away the acutely institutionalised oppressive beliefs within society through gender quotas
in boardrooms and “real beauty” campaigns from makeup giants. We must refuse to be pandered to by capitalist
powers; it is only through a socialist economic system and the reforming of oppressive social views that we can
achieve full equality.
The origins of women's oppression
Despite being one of the most obvious questions to ask of any societal phenomenon, the question of the origin of
women’s oppression is one which is rarely tackled seriously. It is of the utmost importance that we understand
where this oppression comes from, as on this basis the link between class society and oppression of women becomes
clear.
Women’s oppression is one of many forms of oppression – including racism, homophobia, and sexism – that is created
out of a society based upon the class exploitation of the many for the profits of the few. With this understanding we
can also develop ideas of how to fight women’s oppression. Clearly this involves fighting for every reform and
raising the question of women’s rights; but the basis of women’s oppression also points to its place in the class
struggle for socialism.
As documented in Engels’ Origin of the Family, the oppression and degradation of women is not ever present
throughout the history of human beings. It is true that even in the first beginnings of humanity – a period referred to
as ‘primitive communism’, as undeveloped conditions meant that tribes had to work together in order to just meet
their basic needs, as there was no surplus to profit from – the work of men and women was split according to sex.
For biological reasons women were required to look after children and hence their role in food production was
based around gathering close to the home while men hunted further afield. However, despite the split in work,
women were not viewed as inferior to men and their status was aided by the fact that families were traced through
the mother line, since without marriage and fidelity as a social norm it was impossible to be certain of a child’s
father.
The Neolithic revolution brought tools and the domesticity of animals which, for the first time in human history,
allowed for not just basic needs to be met, but also for the creation of a surplus. The creation of surplus saw the
beginnings of class society, as it was now possible for some men to sell their surplus for profit, creating distinctions
between rich and poor. As some began to amass wealth they also bought slaves and paid other men to work on their
land; here we see the first example of worker/landowner.
This process led to women being seen as inferior to men in society, as it was within the work of men that profit was
to be found. The creation of surplus also led to the creation of inheritance. The greater status of men meant that
families were now traced through the male line, which necessitated the enforcement of female fidelity. Here we
see the origins of marriage.
Female oppression began in the embryo of class society and as it has grown into the system of capitalism so too has
the oppression of women become more complex and ingrained. To emancipate women we must overthrow the
system that created and exploits our oppression.
Fight for women's liberation! Fight for
socialism!
As shown above, capitalism and oppression are intricately linked. Sexism, as well as racism,
ableism, homophobia and all other oppressions, derives from class oppression; therefore, in order to
tackle any one of these oppressions we must also fight capitalism. This pattern can be traced to its
development during the Neolithic revolution, and followed through to its continued existence as we
see it in modern society.
Sexism, racism, etc. - all of these are used by the capitalists to divide the workforce in an attempt
to prevent them from uniting against their true common enemy: the bosses and the capitalists.
Capitalism relies on the oppression of the majority to maintain the power of the minority, and
oppression thrives in the economic and social inequalities created in a capitalist system.
We need socialism and a fight for every reform possible; measures that are vital for the immediate
protection and emancipation of women. Violence against women, harmful societal attitudes, denial
of education and many other forms of brutal gender discrimination must be fought against as rapidly
and strongly as possible. However, there is only so much that social reforms can achieve.
Whilst we champion women’s liberation and join in with the struggle to end gender based oppression,
the solution does not lie with bourgeois feminism, which simply advocates equality between the sexes at
the top of society. Such an ideology does not help the majority of women, primarily through its
ignorance of all other forms of oppression, allowing only a select few women to reach the higher
echelons of society. Here, as bosses or bourgeois politicians, etc., they in turn can exert their own
subjugation of both female and male workers, often without realising it. This is all capitalism can
promise in terms of equality: the occasional chance for the oppressed to become the oppressor.
Full equality can only be reached with destruction of the source of oppression: capitalism. Socialism
demands the equal treatment of all, whatever their sex, race, nationality, or sexuality. Social reforms
must be matched with a planned economy to guarantee a society free of discrimination and subjugation
for all, in the workplace, healthcare and the legal system, as well as online, on the streets and at home.
Socialism has no need for oppression; if anything it would hinder a socialist economy, which would
depend on and ensure the upholding of equal and fair treatment of all citizens.

As an organisation we stand for equality for all and aim to fight every form of oppression as well as its
roots in capitalism. We aim to provide a safe place for discussion and are committed to giving accurate
Marxist analysis of current issues and offer a socialist solution.
Places and Methods of God and
Goddess Worship in the Graeco-
Roman World

Parthenon at Night
Diomedes (left) and Odysseus steal the horses of Rhesos.
Lycurgus Painter, Wikimedia Commons.
Places of worship must have been numerous, and sacred landscapes can be partially reconstructed on
the basis of early Christian churches, often built as a substitute for pagan sacred sites. Many centuries
after its triumph, the Church had to issue edicts against pagans who used to pray to the trees, rivers,
and stone idols. The Romans, however, liked to adopt foreign divinities that had been venerated for
many generations, their origins lost in the mythic past. An already existent prehistoric shrine, a wooden
precinct or a sanctuary was likely often ‘translated’ and adapted by the Romans.
On the way from Aquileia to Emona, at Fons Timavi, where the Timavo/Timava River re-emerges from
the earth and flows into the Adriatic, an ancient female divinity (‘the mother of the sea’) may have
originally been worshiped. Later, the cults of the river god Timavus and the Greek hero Diomedes, the
protector of sailors, were introduced at this spectacular site. Strabo (the Greek historian and geographer
of the Augustan Age) reported that the Veneti used to sacrifice a white horse to Diomedes.
A dedication to Hercules.
Diomedes’ sanctuary was situated near two prominent cult places
with sacred groves, in which tame and wild animals were living
together, deer with wolves, all behaving docilely, and any animal
pursued by dogs could find safety by taking refuge in these
groves. Strabo stated that these groves were dedicated to Hera
from Argos and Aetolian Artemis, the mistress of wild animals and
the patroness of hunting. Strabo explained the local goddesses in
the Greek tradition; the Romans called them Iuno and Diana, but
their Venetic names are not known. Linked to the two sacred
groves is the story of a wolf that had been saved from the nets of
hunters by a well-to-do man who was prepared to pay for the
damage the wolf might do if set free. As an act of gratitude, the
wolf (a prototype of the Master of the Wolves) drove off a herd of
unbranded horses and brought them to the stable of his
benefactor; these horses proved to be a superior breed and
winners at races.
An inscription to Diana.
Diana was also worshiped at Emona (by a priest attending to the cult of the emperor),
which suggests that the townspeople had close connections to the surrounding forests
and wilderness. Many other gods were venerated in the city, particularly Jupiter and
the local Aecorna, the patroness of the Ljubljana Marshes. However, one of the earliest
cults was that of Hercules. Although his worship had many aspects (he was popular with
soldiers, travelers, merchants, stone-cutters), he was also associated with the breeding
of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, transhumance and livestock trade. Aesculapius was
honoured by a physician Lucius Peticius Technicus, perhaps a descendant from a central
Italian surgeon family.
 Altar for the River God Savus.
Diomedes was so popular because he protected sailors, but traffic along the
rivers also demanded protection. Along with the water deities, Neptune and
the Nymphs, the local river god Savus was worshiped in the Emona region.
One of his altars was found in the Sava River near Vernek, not far from
Ljubljana. Boatmen encountered difficulty crossing the river rapids and
many perished in whirlpools and waterfalls; they needed his help. By some,
however, Savus was asked to do an evil act. In a curse-tablet found in Siscia
(Sisak in Croatia), he was invoked by a group of people to drown their
opponents in order to prevent them testifying against them at court. We
shall never know what happened to those people, but many a traveler
perished in the river even without the help of magic
In antiquity people believed that divinities were omnipresent. Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, as
well as local and pre-Roman divinities were invoked on many altars and in various dedications. The fact
that dedications to them were inscribed on stone altars, points to their ‘Romanization’, as this was a
typically Roman way of worshiping deities. Some pre-Roman sites of cult activity have been discovered
in the northern Adriatic and eastern Alpine regions, where various votive objects were ritually
deposited, and such places are also known to exist in the Emona (Ljubljana) area, along the river
Ljubljanica.
ADAM & EVE WEREN’T THE FIRST HUMANS,
ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.
1. Genesis in a nutshell.
It is important to realize that although the book of Genesis does read as history it also implements elements of
allegory, metaphor, and symbolism. A reading of Genesis might suggest that Adam and Eve were historical people,
that the Garden of Eden was a location, and that God really created the universe via physical forces, and that Cain,
should we assume the trustworthiness of the tradition, really mercilessly murdered his brother Abel in the farm
fields. But because of this meshing of history, symbolism, and myth there was always bound to be much debate and
disagreement concerning the details. Many scholars, for instance, doubt that Adam & Eve were actual historical
people, or that there ever really was an Eden. Most scholars don’t actually believe Moses penned the book of
Genesis. Again, it is difficult to box scholars as the boundaries are never so clearly cut.
However, we can agree that the author of Genesis clearly used symbolism. We see within the Garden of Eden where
Satan is represented as as a snake (Gen. 3:1-2) which probably symbolizes the seductive and narcissistic behavior of
sin as well as Satan’s cunning prowess. The tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17) was probably not a literal
tree as a tree cannot be good and evil. Eve being created from the rib of Adam (Gen. 2:22) is probably symbolic of
woman being made for man and man being made for woman, and perhaps a message telling us that man and woman
are complimentary in nature. In Genesis 2:7 we read of God forming man from the dust, obviously this is not
intended to be literal. We are not told how God actually formed man or beast. Even the name Eve means “The
source of life” or “Mother of All Living”, and Adam simply means “man”.
The point being that the early Genesis creation narrative is rife with symbolism. To this end it is not always so easy
to determine what constitutes history and what doesn’t. This is why so much debate exists in the first place.
2. Where some probably get it wrong.
The Young Earth Creationist (those who view the Earth as roughly 6000 – 10 000 years old) argues that Adam and
Eve’s descendants married their brothers and sisters since this was their only choice. No-one else existed for them
to choose from. In other words incest was committed. The general response is that Adam and Eve, and their early
descendants, were genetically pure as God made them that way. Therefore, any imperfections or harmful genetic
mutations manifested only later. Is this possible? Could God have somehow made the first humans genetically pure
even though they would go on to interbreed? Sure, I don’t suppose that it would be impossible for God, but here lies
the problem: nowhere does the biblical record actually suggest, or imply that this is what actually occurred.
Nowhere does it mention that Adam’s descendants intermarried. It is therefore an effort on the part of some
Christians to fit the narrative into a young Earth reading. Later we find out that the Bible condemns incest in
Leviticus 20:17. This Christian will go on to say that only later did God deem incest wrong.
When engaging in exegesis one needs to avoid reading what they already believe into the text. One needs to let the
text speak for itself, and I think Young Earth Creationists are guilty of failing to do this.
3. Cain’s worry.
According to Genesis 4:1-15, Eve give birth to Cain and Abel. This, according to some Christians, implies that there
were only four family members on Earth at that time. Now, after Cain had killed Abel there were only three
people. But after Cain had slain his brother God appears to him and kicks him out of the Garden of Eden as
punishment. Cain then moves to the land of Nod, which is East of Eden, but what Cain then says to God is quite
revealing. He tells God that he was worried of being killed by other people who would find him (Genesis 4:15).
Then God replies, “Therefore whoever kills Cain, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.” (Genesis 4:15) God
and Cain both imply that there are other humans besides Adam and Eve. If there were no other people, God would
not have had to give him a mark in the first place, and Cain would not have had anything to fear.
4. Cain’s wife.
In Genesis 4:16, Cain goes out from God’s presence and finds a wife, and impregnates her: “Cain made love to his
wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his
son Enoch.”
Cain had to find his wife, an act that could only happen if there were people to choose from. Assuming that we can
trust this tradition it is way more likely that Cain came upon a town or some settlement that already existed. We
then read that Cain was himself “building a city,” which would probably be a small settlement of sorts. But then
why would Cain build a settlement if it was only him, his wife, and son? The text itself implies that many people
inhabited the area. Thus Cain’s narrative suggests that Adam and Eve were not the only humans alive at the time.
5. Be Fruitful.
In Genesis 1:28 God tells Adam and Eve to: “Be fruitful and multiply, and Replenish the earth.” The word replenish
means “to fill”, and one cannot replenish something, in this case the Earth (which would indicate a local area
according to an ancient), if it was not plenished (filled) to some degree before God’s command was issued. If Adam
and Eve were the only two humans then this would make God’s instruction fruitless, instead God could have said,
“Be fruitful and multiply, fill the whole (tebel – which indicates global, not local) earth.”
6. Paul on the first man.
Paul writes in Romans 5:12: “Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and
so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned”
Here, one may argue, death refers to spiritual death and not to physical death. So Adam, perhaps being the first
man to be made in the image of God, would be the first human to break God’s trust. There are a variety
interpretations of what it means to be made in the image of God but I take it to be humankind’s separation from
the animal kingdom. This may include the abilities of advanced communication and rationality which are likewise
present in animals on a much more basic level. Many have argued that it is our commission to represent God’s
kingdom on Earth, as well as have a relationship with the one true God. In other words, God endowed man with a
spiritual dimension and a soul.
7. Paul’s literal view of Adam being the first man:
Paul writes: “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was
Adam who was first created, and then Eve.” (2 Timothy 2:11-14) And: “For indeed man was not created for the
woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” (1 Corinthians 11:9)
Paul clearly implies that mankind came from a single pair of humans, Adam and Eve. Christian biblical scholar Peter
Enns argues that Paul assumed that mankind came from Adam and Eve, and that Paul is expressing his own view, as
he does throughout his letters. Enns explains that “Paul certainly assumed that Adam was a person and the
progenitor of the human race, and I would expect nothing less from Paul being a 1st Century man. And again, God
speaks in ways and uses categories that are available to human beings at that time. I don’t expect Paul to have had
a conversation with Francis Collins (a leading geneticist, and biologist) about the Genome Project, and how common
descent is essential. Technically I don’t expect him to understand that.” Enns goes on to say that “How Paul handles
Adam does not determine modern scientific discoveries about the origin of humanity.”
However, Enns’ view is not the only one out there and many Christian scholars would strongly counter his view.
Some Christians would argue that to claim that Paul assumed that Adam and Eve were literal historical people is to
undermine the very basis upon which he argues and constructs his theological views.
8. Conclusion.
The Bible itself implies that God did create other people alongside and before Adam & Eve. By piecing it all
together we find that:
1. Adam & Eve had their first child, Cain (Gen. 4:1).
2. Cain was exiled by God for murdering Abel (Gen 14:6).
3. While exiled Cain worries that he will be killed by strangers; strangers being people other than
Adam & Eve).
3. Soon Cain finds a wife & builds a settlement. This implies people existed to inhabit the
settlement.
4. Other people existed outside of the Garden at this time.
5. Adam & Eve were not the first humans God by created, or the only humans to exist at that time.
A shift of production
In her 1989 book entitled The Second Shift, Arlie Hochschild explains that the
household responsibilities that a wife and mother takes care of, aside from working
her paid job, add up to at least 40 hours each week. The book and the sociological
principle assert that even though Mom and Dad both have careers, it's usually Mom
who also works the second shift at home, too. The second shift includes the work
performed at home, in addition to the work performed in the professional sector
A gendered division of labor is not a new concept. As we take a look back through human
history, we can see long-standing tradition of divvying up work that needs to be done based on
gender. It makes sense in most societies, particularly primitive societies that spend most of
their time trying to survive, that the females (who physically must sit out some hunting trips to
give birth every now and then) should take the bulk of the household chores. On the other
hand, the males, who without exception never have to stay back to nurse a newborn, usually
get on-the-go roles, such as tracking and shooting.

Even today, the traditional gendered division of labor exists around the world. The women of
the Yanomami culture, an indigenous group found in the Amazon Rainforest, are responsible for
all of the domestic duties. Conversely, the men are held responsible for going out on the hunt
for meat.