元始，女性是太陽——讀《女性、反抗與革命》In the Beginning, Woman Was the Sun— Reading Sheila Rowbotham’s Women, Resistance, and Revolution

 文: 青空 （Scroll down for English version）

「女性主義無所謂『起點』，因為女性的反抗從未停止過。」英國社會主義女性主義者和歷史學家希拉亞·羅布瑟姆（Sheila Rowbotham）在她第一本專著《女性、反抗與革命》（Women, Resistance and Revolution）的開頭如此寫道。問題並不在於女性於何時獲得獨立的權利，而是於何時能停止對各種壓迫的反抗。

據說，現代社會的女性已獲得自由：獲得選擇就業和婚姻的自由，獲得財產所有權，在法律的保護下她們免受性別的歧視與暴力。按照一種客觀的、非人性的標準來量度，女性的處境已經和男性的一樣好了；女性是等號，她不代表她自己，而是任何對等的事物。而人性，對女性而言卻是太過人性，因為她面對著這樣的一種矛盾：她被告知當今對女性所施加的壓迫是出於個別人的偏見、信仰的問題和落後的思想，但當她反抗這些壓迫並提出異議時，她又會被人告誡，說她想得太多了，或是想得太少了。

女性總是被批評是過於神經敏感和多疑的，因此，女性的問題是心理的，也是生理的——不！有一種聲音抗議道：這些問題都是社會建構的，是由父權主義製造出來的以維持統治的神話——但男女之別不是確實存在嗎？母性與愛怎能是靠後天灌輸製造出來呢？另一種聲音質疑道。女性並非單單透過一面明鏡認識自我，希拉亞在回憶她的女性覺醒之旅時，驚覺這些鏡像往往是扭曲的、虛幻的，甚至反射著他者的影像：人類學中的原始母親、心理學中的女神與妓女、哲學中的被掩蓋的人本質、文學中和酒、安全套一起帶來性解放的繆思——這些鏡象在有關先天與後天的爭論中拉扯著、碎裂著。

「我從我面前看到的臉定義了自己的可能性。但是，出於對鏡像無法獨立行動的無奈，我曾經想要穿過鏡子。我有一個惱人且無法調和的想法，如果我能穿過鏡子，就會出現一個單獨的自我，通過認識它我能首次確認自我的存在。若沒有這種認識，儘管我的外表在鏡子裡清晰可見，但我的內在仍是空空如也。」 (p.46)

鏡子迷宮透過無限反射自我的鏡像使人迷失於其中，無法行動。這個鏡宮是座統治權力盤根錯綜的堡壘，而革命和反抗運動在它身上留下了缺口：現在人要透過自身突破的行動來認識自我。這個自我不再是孤立而超脫世界的自我——如一個初生嬰孩，我重新認識到在世界伸展手腳、感知事物、聯結他人的方式，我勇敢地如太陽般坦露自我；在組織行動、構建思想的過程中，我們創造了新的自我、新的觀看世界的方式、新的現實，我們是在歷史中行動的主體，我們創造歷史。

那麼，若如希拉亞所說，女性主義無所謂的起點，女性的反抗從未停止，那我們該如何叙述女性主義的歷史？

這或許要從第一道缺口說起。

生而為（女）人

女人，不單止意味著從屬於男人的性別，更意味著喪失了「人」的地位的群體，如羅馬人稱呼奴隸為「會說話的工具」，女人只是父上帝生育「人」的工具。人不再是母親的孩子，彼此之間不再是兄弟姐妹，而是父上帝的創造物、所有品，在偉大的存在之鏈（Great chain of Being）中被上帝、君主、領主統治著，並透過贖罪消除自己的人性，即罪性，以接近上帝。若說這樣的「人」是一種形而上的概念，那麼這種概念掩飾著的是人的自我否定與異化：人透過臣服他人來確立自我。這種矛盾不能由神秘的命定論來解釋，神學的迷霧背後是牢固的封建領主制，農民透過人身依附關係，臣服於領主和貴族，以獲得生產工具和土地生產自己所需，並供養他的主人；城市中的手工業者參與行會以維護自己的生產工具的同時，也受著行會和城市權貴的剝削。女人是勞動者的好幫手，她提供輔助的勞動力，又能透過生育增加勞動力；在無需勞動的統治階級中，女人是聯姻的棋子，她維持和管理、甚至繼承財產，但這並不意味著她獲得獨立的權利，她終將孤獨地死去，因為她所擁有的和孕育的，都不屬於她，她只是暫時的篡位者，永遠的後補者。由於這樣的角色身份，女人總是被當作陰險的僭越者，但事實上，提出異見的女性不過是如《國王的新衣》中的小孩，揭露掩藏的不合理之處。希拉亞所追溯的女性主義「始祖」：十三世紀的波希米亞的古格莉爾瑪（Guillemine of Bohemia）相信基督的救贖尚未完成，因為女性尚未被承認能與上帝進行直接的交流，獲得先知的能力，並有權力詮譯經文。

意識形態的大廈開始出現裂縫，但其經濟基礎——即奉獻、實物租稅和農奴制仍然是社會制度堅實的基石。數百年後，隨著城市中的商品生產擴展，手工業轉化為工場手工業並開始資本化，貴族對消費品的需求和戰爭債務的增加，促使了實物稅向貨幣稅轉化，以及人口的流動，萌芽中的資本主義和自由市場的無政府的特性披上了爭取個人權利的旗幟。從馬丁·路德在希臘文聖經中發現「因信稱義」的一刻開始，來自古格莉爾瑪的質疑就開始蠢蠢欲動：「如果（信仰）唯一的判斷標準是個人良心，為什麼女性不能挑戰她們的丈夫和父親指示她們該相信什麼和控制她們行為的權力呢？」（p.21）。這些初代女性主義者急於打破整條存在之鏈，讓神性回歸人性，但那批宗教改革家告訴她們，這場運動並非她們該來摻和的，這場是屬於他們和另一批男人的鬥爭；戰果是：羅馬教廷權力被削弱，這是君主、國會和民族精神的時代。宗教改革後，女性處境的改善只表現於家庭與婚姻之內：家暴和視女人為不潔的宗教儀式被譴責和禁止，但管控女人的鞭子仍被牢牢掌於男人手中，只不過這個男人看起來比較有道德修養罷了。同一時間，女人勞動的身影開始漸激消失，晉升為農場主、工場主和商人的自耕農和工匠師傅脫離了家庭生產模式，要他們的妻子學起當相夫教子的好太太。另一邊廂，這些中產階級從中盈利的工業生產，成為了被剝奪生產工具的女性的歸宿，這些女性曾是自足的農民、商人或手工匠，現在卻成為廉價的勞動力，而被排斥於所有生產行業之外的女性，只能靠出賣身體維生。資本主義將家庭限制於再生產與消費的功能，女性在家庭中失去了卑微的輔助勞動力和財產管理者的地位，她的毫無價值彰顯了她的價值，以便丈夫合法佔有、資本家無情剝削、嫖客盡洩慾望。在毫不參與生產的資產階級女性之中，她們所承受的異化最為極端，而她們對自我的批判也最為極烈，如十七世紀的英國哲學家瑪麗·阿斯特（Mary Astell）質問她的姐妹們：「你怎麼能滿足於像花園裡的鬱金香一樣存在於這個世界，只為了華麗的外表卻毫無用處呢？」。（p.26）她們放棄了她們的前輩們在神性中追求共同人性的道路，以透過教育、甚至不婚成為有用之身，投身於世俗的資本主義中與男性競爭。然而，資產階級女性主義作為其時代的先鋒很快迎來了其末路，正如希拉亞對這一時期的總結：「唯一實際改進的方法是尋求進入男人的世界。女性能夠獲得尊重和尊嚴的唯一途徑是不當女性，否認自己的女性特徵。」（p.35）。這一批女性主義者衝破了頭，從缺口中看到的卻是資產階級男性的世界，而留下給她們階級後代的後遺症是男性化與女性化之間的矛盾，性別認同成為了個體意識，而非關係實踐的一部份，但與此同時，她們對自身價值的確立，為另一批女性主義先鋒走進革命的年代鋪平了道路。

在斷頭台和共和改革降臨前，浪漫主義的狂潮席捲歐洲大陸。針對封建殘餘和冒現的資產階級功利主義，浪漫主義提出了它時代性訴求：「將人類從壓迫的制度中解放出來，實現真正的自我。」在這些浪漫主義者眼中，女性是綁在火刑柱上的貞德，是《自由引導人民》中坦胸露背，高舉共和旗幟的自由女神，或是盧梭教育學中培養男性的自然情操的理想女性，是歌德筆下引領男性達到真理的「永恆之女性」；女性不是1789年凡爾賽遊行中抗議物價高脹的市場婦女，不是革命俱樂部中提倡女性政治參與的女公民，也不是巴黎公社中於前線對抗凡爾賽軍隊的「悍婦」。勞動中的女性、行動中的女性、組織中的女性，在推翻舊制度，建立新社會的大革命中嶄露頭角，但沒有人認真看待她們的訴求，在街壘上並肩作戰的男人不一定站在她們這邊，於是她們必須先正視自身的力量。由於被排斥於政治組織外，她們自行建立俱樂部進行政治討論和教育；由於被拒絕於權力之外，她們發展自身的理論和實踐並不斷衝擊和質疑權力。瑪麗·沃斯通克拉夫特（Mary Wollstonecraft）在著名的《女權辯護》中打響了性別平權的發令槍，希拉亞這樣概括瑪麗對革命成果質疑：「認為被統治者必須有獨立的判斷能力的假設伴隨著這樣的斷言：對於他們無法勝任這項任務的爭論僅僅是新統治者自我辯解的藉口。」（p.47）。女性，開始作為政治主體而出現，而女性不能單靠教育以得到與男性同樣的個人成就來達成解放，瑪麗隱約看到全面社會和經濟改造的必要性和可能性；財產和選舉權仍是女性不可侵犯的領域，但瑪麗只能透過對「進步」和「好心」的先生說之以理，訴諸於他們的理性，而不是反抗運動的社會基礎。然而，當思想觸礁，下一波的解放思潮開始湧現。避孕措施的改進和普及對女性而言是把雙刃劍：一方面，女性進行性行為的風險得以減少，有關性愉悅與情慾問題開始得到關注，隨之而來的是對婚姻壓迫的抨擊以及對自由戀愛的追求；另一方面，性在市場競爭制度下的解來意味著性的商品化，英國社會改革家威廉·湯普遜（William Thompson）如此評論這種現象：「自然的感受很少能夠表現出來.…..性愉悅中僅有的獸性部分被佔統治地位的性別中的富有者以最低的競爭價格購買。」（p.52）。這一代的改革家，後來被稱為空想社會主義者，對工業革命時代遭受剝削的工人和婦女提出了他們的烏托邦藍圖。繼承著浪漫主義者的血統，他們相信人類自由表達自我和全面發展的可能性；受美國廢奴運動和法國大革命影響，他們相信受壓迫群體建立互愛與平等的社會的力量。針對女性的處境，這批空想社會主義者相比初代的資產階級女性主義者更為激進地抨擊男權，因為他們並沒有對那些身居高位，為私有產權、精英競爭與出賣勞動力的自由辯護的先生抱有任何寄望。相反，他們提倡一個與這些統治男性利益相衝的世界：孩子被共同撫養，原本由女性負擔的家務由公共飯堂、洗衣房、托兒所和醫院等社會組織分擔，女性的生育權利與經濟獨立得到保障，教育不再是基於性別分工，而是致力消除腦力與勞力之間的分別，並鼓勵文化創造；而這樣的世界，必然要求勞動財富的共同支配。

性別平等不是一條如數學公式般抽象的法律概念，而是受壓迫群體在歷史集體行動中提出的思想與訴求。女性被男性統治的歷史也是一個階級統治另一個階級的歷史。男性的優越並非靠統治意志創造出來的神話，而是實際生活的意識形態倒影；女人必須依靠男人，不是她們被告知她們天生劣於男性，而是她們被剝奪了各種權利，成為了財產和勞動力的後備軍和生育工具，這一點為所有時代的統治者所盡情利用——歷史的意識發展至此，女性的覺醒不再如神諭一般劃破天空的剎那存在了，她們不再要求從當權者處贖回自身，也不再是絕對真理的引路女神，她們要求能讓她們實現自身的新社會，她們是女性主義者。

問心無愧地愛的權利

「我的理想是能有這樣一種社會制度，生活在其中的人們可以問心無愧地去愛每個人。」當年輕的德國革命家羅莎．盧森堡寫下這一段期許時，她在十九世紀的黎明瞥見了人類文明未來的可能性。這種可能性不僅止於推翻舊制度，更在於創造一個人類能夠回歸本我的社會。空想社會主義者鉅細無遺地在他們的社會工程圖上描繪出這種可能性，問題就在於如何將紙上的構想搬到現實之中。恩格斯在《社會主義從空想到科學的發展》如此評論這些社會工程師：「對所有這些人來說，社會主義是絕對真理、理性和正義的表現，只要把它發現出來，它就能用自己的力量征服世界；因為絕對真理是不依賴於時間、空間和人類的歷史發展的，所以，它在什麼時候和什麼地方被發現，那純粹是偶然的事情。」（p.5）。從近半世紀的社會主義運動發展出來的馬克思主義，不再從天才的頭腦中尋找社會主義實踐的可能性，而是從演進中的社會關係和物質基礎中找到掌控歷史的鑰匙。在這個被顛倒過來的世界觀中，人是一種辯證活動的產物：人透過勞動改造自然，同時也被自己的勞動產物與方式所改造；人不僅因會用工具捕獵動物和烹煮而異於禽獸，同時也因在集體生活中進行捕獵和烹煮，而成為社會性存在。「人是社會關係的總和」，這不是說，人是為了他人而存在，而他人即地獄——這是不幸仍被困於資本主義異化關係中的我們的慣常思維；而是意味著人只能透過與他人建立的某種社會關係來實踐自我，但這也代表，人也能透過社會關係來疏離自我。兩性的關係的平等程度，對馬克思而言，體現著人異化的程度：「男人對女性的關係是人和人之間最自然的關係。因此，這種關係表明人的自然的行為在何種程度上成為了人的行為，或者，人的本質在何種程度上對人來說成了自然的本質，他的人的本性在何種程度上對他來說成為了自然。」（p.85）。兩性之間辯證的關係，而非近代以性別二元制度為基礎的「性別」概念，是馬克思在這裡所探討的對象，而他所說的「人」，並不帶有西蒙．波娃（Simone de Beauvoir）所批評的「人=男人」的前提，而是揭示男人如何透過奴役、侵犯和物化女人，將人的社會性存在意識形態化為佔有私人財產的個體，並建立「人=男人」的霸權。由此可見，在馬克思的理論中，女性壓迫的根源並非由於女性生來就被社會結構之網形塑成具備女性氣質的客體，而是在於支持勞動財富的累積和佔有的社會制度中的異化關係。這就意味著，女性的處境與經驗不單單反映著文明的墜落，也作為改變這一異化關係的革命性起點，而基於愛的自由結合，成為新關係的想像。一種毫無保留、自我肯定、無愧於心的愛，在馬克思的科學社會主義中，不僅沒有被視為一種非理性的情感，還被視為是一切客觀的探索與批判的起源：「愛，首先教人相信自己外面的客觀世界，它不僅使人成為客觀對象，甚至使客觀對象成為人本身！」（p.31）。愛無法為唯我論者與不可知論者所領會，因為它使人有勇氣踏出一步，感受空氣和水的靈動，鳥鳴與風聲的韻律， 在與世界的相處之中得到了一種共鳴的感覺；它也使人有勇氣成為這樣的人：「他們將不會在乎今天任何人認為他們應該做什麼；他們將作出自己的實踐和每個人的實踐相應的意見——僅此而已。」（p.89）。

在商品生產與私有財產制度下，愛不曾以完整的面貌示人，人們總是以逃避自由、羞於正視自身的方式，投入一段段圍繞著依賴與掌控、痴迷與自戀、受虐與施虐的關係之中；放蕩與貞潔、出賣與佔有，以兩極雙依雙生的方式維持著這一社會共同體，人們無時無刻不處於兩極的矛盾之中，只有不斷於其中轉換著客體與主體的角色，社會關係才得以運作下去。人類社會是抱團取暖的刺蝟，是羊群，是失樂的罪人，歷史上哲學家與神學家們竭力詮釋這種社會矛盾狀態，並陷於「永遠在批判自己無法所批判的」（p.70）這一失語狀態。對於人類何時開始「墜落」的一問題，這些思想家總是在超歷史的道德層面尋找答案，而這些答案帶有超越人的經驗的客觀，因此也是男性中心的。女性主義所主張的「客觀」要求人在發掘自身經驗與社會發展史中獲得能動性，因此，人理解自身於社會關係中的位置與處境，既非意味著多數人對命運的屈服，也非代表少數人不屈服的覺醒，而是每一個人——借用華特．本雅明的語言——自我救贖的可能性。社會解放絕不是個人意志所能左右的，但受壓迫者能作出自身的選擇：透過理論了解維持剝削的制度與關係，以及致力透過集體實踐消除剝削，並共同管理與運用自身所創造的財富；抑或坐以待斃，等待自身與社會被各種危機所吞噬。女性主義並非單純有關女性對自身壓迫的反抗，它也不是任何先驗的概念，而是來自於受壓迫者的意識和改變世界的渴望；因此，女性主義所處理的，是人類在特定歷史的社會和性別關係中所經歷和意識到的衝突，而這些矛盾需要不斷發展的理論與行動來解決。

在第一與第二國際時期，國際工人運動與婦女運動之間的張力是大革命時期的女性主義者未曾預見的：女性與兒童佔勞動力比例上升，社會保障及不上剝削程度之高，工業發展急促，階級鬥爭亦越趨激烈。在這種情況下，社會生產與再生產之間的矛盾、男女工人之間的競爭、女性在工會與革命組織內的地位、工人與婦女所面對的剝削，成為了國際社會主義者政治議程上迫在眉睫的問題。恩格斯和德國社會民主黨領袖奧古斯特·倍倍爾（August Bebel）為社會主義革命與婦女解放問題上作出了重要的貢獻。在《家庭、私有制和國家的起源》中，恩格斯將人類文明起源追溯至以共有經濟為基礎的母系氏族社會。當時生產模式為對自然的攫取與捕獲，私有財產制度尚未發展起來，生產、分配與消費過程只由氏族公社作調節。在群婚制之下，兩性關係較為自由與開放，孩子被共同撫養，而由於生育被視為增加社會財富的重要手段之一，女性享有較高的地位。當人類透過馴養家畜與種植農作物開發生產力時，勞動力分工與私有財產概念開始出現。由於越來越多男性參與畜牧、農業與手工業之中，他們要求自己的生產工具與財富由他的子女，而非他母系氏族內的兄弟姐妹，或姐妹的後代繼承，固定的對偶婚姻開始出現。家長制家庭的出現意味著氏族社會的瓦解，以及階級的形成。女性儘管在建基於氏族紐帶的祭祀和文化領域仍擁有一定地位，但她們被剝奪財產與子女擁有權，父權家庭成為兩者之間的唯一中介。隨著財富於家庭內累積，世襲的貴族和王室開始出現，部落之間的戰爭由解決紛爭的方法，變成掠奪勞動力、女性與財富的手段，昔日的全體武裝與由選舉產生的部落議會，由維護私有財產、有產者的統治與常備軍的國家機器所代替。女性受父權家庭統治的歷史和勞動者受國家權貴統治的歷史一樣長。直到資本主義的誕生，女性和兒童不再為父權家庭所佔有，而為新生的工業資本所剝削，社會化的生產領域亦同時成為這些受壓迫群體的鬥爭場所。恩格斯此一著作的重要性並不在於它的考古研究，關於恩格斯的論點缺乏考據的批評，希拉亞認為，是基於「反對嘗試發現歷史模式和帶來改變因素的論據」，因為這些批評者，甚至後來的馬克思主義者，都沒有關注到恩格斯的研究問題：「再生產與生產模式之間的互動；以及這與婦女地位和社會組織變革的關係。」（p.78）。倍倍爾的《婦女與社會主義》進一步將恩格斯的研究問題擴展到女性解放與社會主義建設的層面上。倍倍爾既將女性的處境作為人類文明發展的指標，也將女性的解放視為人類的普遍解放，因為其將帶來「工作和遊戲、遊戲和教育、教育和工作、工作和愛、愛和工作之間的分野的消失」（p.97）。資本主義不斷產生著自身無法調和的危機：生產過剩、物價上脹、貨幣貶值、投資泡沫等這些危機，不但無法實現實現真正的社會解放，還需要長期犧牲大部份人的利益來解決危機。倍倍爾認為，當代婦女作為勞動者與家庭內的直接生產者，在以「各盡所能、各取所需」為原則的社會主義制度下擔任生產與再生產領域中重要的組織者，婦女不再需要透過出賣較男性廉價的勞動力，或契約婚姻和父權家庭來維持生計，她們與男性平等地參與計劃經濟之中，生產著需求對象和使用價值，而非用作資本累積的商品，以往由家庭所照顧的需要也將通過不同的社會建設來滿足。如空想社會主義筆下的未來城市般，社會主義的建設者所規劃的，是一座人性並有著豐盛文化的城市，其中公共與私人領域的界線不再重要，住房不再是密集式的建築群，而是散佈於社區劇場、圖書館、博物館、公園、遊樂場、托兒所、醫護站和食堂之中。這個未來，在無產者所潛在掌控的生產力和更進步的社會組織中可以瞥見。

在十九世紀末，各種政治與文化團體圍繞著這一美好未來組織起來，並孕育著不乏浪漫主義與神秘主義色彩的社會關係想象。對於這些知識份子而言，個人的精神追求與政治改革是一體的，因為資本主義本質上，除了是一個社會制度外，也是人的體驗，人在這制度下異化、墜落，變得醜陋與愚昧，而資產階級虛偽的性道德和婚姻制度，更使人喪失愛和創造的能力。這股社會主義思潮從「內部」審視女性的處境，主張精神的覺醒和主體性的確立是女性解放重要的一部份。英國哲學家愛德華．加本特（Edward Carpenter）在他的《愛的成熟》中在提倡婦女和社會主義運動發展和接受新的女性意識：「讓她接受這個概念所帶來的嘲弄；讓她堅持她的言論自由、著裝自由、思想自由、行為自由，最重要的是，讓她自由地定義她的性別；讓她面對嘲笑和鄙視；讓她自由選擇，即便意味著她要失去自己的生命；只有這樣，解放才會到來；只有當自由的女性得到尊重，作為淫褻對象的女人才會消失。」（p.105）。政治行動和個人經驗之間的關係被女性主義者首次帶進革命的討論之中。女性所經歷的異化更多與自身的身體、情感與親密關係，而非壓迫性的社會制度和國家機器直接有關。女性總是某段關係中的存在：她是一個女兒、一個妻子、一個母親，她是一個性商品、男人的附屬品。相比起個體性，她或許更能理解馬克思所說的人的本質——人的社會性存在；相比起平等的權利，她或許更能理解無政府主義者愛瑪．高德曼（Emma Goldman）提出的「愛與被愛的權利」。然而，這也是最大的矛盾所在，女性的經驗塑造了她如商品、物件、他者般的存在，作為這樣的存在，她又何以言愛呢？南非作家奧莉弗·施萊納（Olive Schreiner）察覺到了此一痛苦之處：「邪惡的真正根源遠不止於對男性的指控訴所能解釋的，或者僅僅通過選舉權的改革所能修復的。」（p.108）。奧莉弗對於「身為女性」的這一叩問，令她否定了自己的女性身份，但這對她而言並不意味著自由；她不齒於與其他仍扮演著傳統角色的女性為伍，甚至開始疏遠女性主義運動，最後陷於深深的孤獨之中，痛苦與一種受虐的心理卻又成為她與其他女性連結的暗號。女性的自我超越與跨越時代的社會革命一樣艱難而重大，如加本特的一位讀者告訴他：「啊，若女性能對自己與彼此真誠，那我相信她們定必能移山！」（p. 106）。自我的問題被女性主義者提出來後，便成為了革命中揮之不去的幽靈。

不斷的革命

女性的集體抗爭源自於她們的社會位置：家庭內的直接生產者，亦即是家庭主婦。希拉亞注意到，歷史上由女性引發的「麵包騷亂」（bread riot）帶來了滿足照顧需要的訴求、糧食與必需品的民主分配制度，以及由下而上的社區組織。然而，這些女性的集體行動方式仍然停留於女性的領域，因此，當女性參與軍隊和政治組織的要求被男性領袖拒絕時，她們意識到她們並沒有得到所謂的「人人平等」。女性主義於每一場針對國家政權發起的革命運動中總是受盡冷嘲熱諷，因為她們性別平等的主張並不是主要針對作為共同敵人的國家政權，而是作為革命主力軍的男性。在 1871年為對抗普魯士軍隊入侵及與其勾結的共和政府而組成的巴黎公社中，女性成員自組軍隊的要求被拒，只能參與於照顧傷兵與後勤補給之中，儘管如此，在凡爾賽軍隊發起進攻屠殺的「血腥週」中，女性也毫不猶豫地奮戰。起義失敗後，女性遭受了更為可怕的侮辱與侵犯，在統治階級男性的眼中，她們背叛了他們，而轉向了階級敵人的懷抱；而在和她們站在前線作戰的公社成員眼中，他們不希望她們被封建父權所奴役，但同時對於她們要求自由與獨立的權利感到不滿。在革命運動中，這種兩性之間的張力導致了女性主義運動中孤立自身的趨勢。美國的廢奴運動對女性解放主張的排斥，使女性普選權的支持者從中分裂自成一派。這種針對內部矛盾的分裂，即使有助女性主義運動發展出獨立的組織和訴求，但其實踐的軌跡——如希拉亞所批評——是線性的：「進步被視為朝著一個目標的單一線性進展」（p.128）；只要順著這個進展，我們就能抵達性別平等的彼岸。在女性主義舉起鮮明的旗幟之際，它「沒有意識運動在歷史上的意義，沒有意識學習與客觀條件的辯證互動。它忘記了被壓迫群體中特定群體的意識只是部分的。雖然這種意識必須在自己的運動中得到實現和表達，但如果沒有不斷嘗試擴展和聯繫這種部分意識到其他被壓迫群體的經驗，它就無法在革命意義上實現政治化。」（p.128）。

無論是自成一派的女性主義者，抑或是革命和工人組織中的女性，都沒有為聯繫各種壓迫群體的經驗，以及從總體剝削制度對女性所造成的壓迫中建構出指引組織和行動的理論。女性進入勞動市場不但意味著父權家庭控制的削弱，更代表著女性進入到一向以男性為主的階級鬥爭之中。女性在這場鬥爭中摸索前行，遇上一個個聲稱是為了保護她們的陷阱：男性工人要求她們回家作主婦，資本家說給予她們工資和經濟獨立，議會和工會中的好先生提議縮減女性的工時，以免女性過於操勞。沒有人說，當男性工人失業時，往往需由家中的婦女和孩子打工補貼，而這些一向被視為次要的、低技術的勞動力有助資本家壓低生產成本；也沒有人說，女性之所以如此操勞，是因為她們負擔著工資和家務的雙重勞動，是因為社會的生產並非為了滿足人的生活需求，而是無止境的資本累積——這些問題都需待女性的革命運動來一一揭露，並實現另一個可能的世界。1848 年被稱為「民族之春」的革命中，女性工人支持在國家工場（national workshop）中實行工人聯合管理生產，並爭取工資平等，除了生產領域，她們也提倡醫療、教育、托兒和起居飲食的社會化。她們對於教育的關心與資產女性主義者的精英教育的主張不同，她們並沒有將教育視為階級晉升的途徑，而是每一個人發展自身潛能的啟蒙過程。她們將屬於私人的、家庭的「女性領域」帶入政治討論之中；如何讓無家可歸的孩子得到照顧、如何設計托兒所和學校、如何保障生育與墜胎的安全、如何組織婦女政治俱樂部等等，這些在男性的偏見中表現為婦孺之事，卻在現實中漸漸建立起新的社會關係。然而，這些組織與行動隨著革命浪潮而起，卻難以在退潮後留下堅實的基礎。希拉亞觀察到了女性集體抗爭的困境：「女性運動常以強調自主行動、平等參與和對領袖的懷疑為特徵。」（p.160）。這種無政府主義傾向是來自女性所受長期的壓迫和她們抗爭經驗的缺乏，但這導致了女性運動的困境：「一旦在女性之中出現任何權威的表現，她們就會產生強烈的懷疑，但同時也存在一種被動的依賴。相反，那些獨自奮鬥、獲得了一定獨立性的女性極力維護她們的地位，不願與其他女性平等地合作。 」（p.160）。因此，在任何試圖聯合各壓迫群體，及打碎國家機器的政治組織發展歷史之中，女性集體而言處於被動的地位；她們是被組織、煽動起來的行動者，她們是其中一個運動分支，或是一個工作部門，她們是被各黨派或委員會吸納的「幹部」——她們致力於推翻資本主義及資產階級，卻沒有推動將她們和孩子視為私有物，並強迫她們從事雙重勞動的父權家庭的消亡，以及基於愛的自由結合和社會共同體的建立。「個人即政治」，這個女性主義口號所帶來的自我賦權並不是當刻的，而是在革命運動中不斷發揮能動性的過程中實現，這要求對社會辯證發展的掌握、對人類解放的希望、可能性的想象、實踐上的堅定、組織策略的能力以及對權威崇拜的質疑——這要求人成為一個人。

社會主義女性主義變得狹隘，被壓抑，甚至失去了人性的臉孔，是與二十世紀的社會主義國家官僚化趨勢共同出現的。蘇聯的建立提供了社會主義運動中對解除家庭束縛和社會化再生產活動的想象的實現機會。1917 年十月革命後，蘇聯政府隨即宣佈保障母嬰的社會福利措施，不再區分非婚生與婚生子女，女性共同擁有家庭財產一系列針對婦女於職場、婚姻和家庭中的權利的改革。中央委員會婦女部（Genotdel）成立，鼓動城市與農村的婦女於內戰的前線協助，並參與政治和社會活動。至於家務勞動社會化的願望，由於內戰後經濟發展的落後而受到阻礙，托洛茨基提議通過當地的工農委員會和工會集體負責家務，而婦女部部長亞歷山德拉·柯倫泰（Alexandra Kollantai）在她的小說《紅色的愛》中，就強調住房公社（housing-commune）對消除資本主義下的競爭和私利心態的重要性，並重劃了教育與家庭之間的界線。柯倫泰的理想重新帶出了共產主義與個體性建立之間的聯繫。壓迫女性的社會制度的消亡意味著另一種新關係的誕生，柯倫泰提出了一種沒有規範性的新道德：「共產主義是關於釋放主體潛力的；它意味著擴大群眾實踐自我活動的範圍。」（p. 189）。然而，由於國際革命的拖延、共產主義陣營的孤立、黨派和言論自由繼續受限、選舉出來的工農代表轉化為受任命的官僚、工人集體生產管理權被削弱剝奪等，製造了史太林主義這頭怪物。1929年婦女部被廢除，接踵而來的是在性別解放問題上倒退；墜胎被禁止，同性戀刑事化，未婚母親無法從生父得到經濟資助，離婚的手續變得更為繁複。由國家控制的生產與父權家庭控制的婦女再生產勞動成為了「社會主義」的支柱。女性就這樣被解散了，她們被趕回傳統的領域，她們被告知，在「社會主義」下，她們的工作權受到保障，但家務和照顧勞動負擔仍然落在她們身上；她們享受社會福利，前提是她是有合法的婚姻和家庭。面對蘇聯官僚與保守主義的反撲，希拉亞問道：「那些誠實的列寧主義者都去哪了？」，更應進一步問的是：「那些誠實的女性主義者都去哪了？」。

女性的集體力量既具爆發性，又不堪一擊。她們的組織被視為取代家庭，或與家庭抗衡，因為她們要求參與生產分配與管理社區的建設，擴大家庭的關係，新社會的胚胎應從中發展，而非國家計劃的生產中誕生。然而，父權家庭的復辟重新以人身依附關係束縛了女性，並臣服於國家政權之下，以防止女性作為家庭中的直接生產者彼此連結，並由下而上地發展出民主控制生產和分配的要求。這個要求並不只有經濟面向，它意味著消除勞動的異化，使人意識到勞動自己的生命活動，而非為出賣或剝削對象；它意味著性別關係中依賴與控制的消除，證明愛並非要求任何一方無私付出去成就對方，而是使各自成為獨立而完全的人。無論是封建時代的王權，資本主義的資產階級，抑或是史太林主義的國家，皆憑仗父權殖民女性，並再生產服從權威的個體。希拉亞反思殖民地解放運動時，批評男性革命家的父權思維；他們視自己為輸家多於受壓迫者，他們渴望從殖民者手中奪回女性，而非解放女性；對他們來說，女性主義是西方殖民者企圖教唆他們的女人背離自己的思想。另一方面， 即使殖民地獨立成功，所帶來的性別改革仍未能深入並改變女性的意識，女性的被動、依賴、無私付出，仍是她們所接受的身教。女性主義運動並非那些暴政被推翻，人民從此獲得自由的民族革命神話，它總是不斷地發問與質疑現狀，總要為人類的社會制度、關係，以至人的內在帶來翻天覆地的改變，如希拉亞所言，它是一場革命中的革命，「意味著透過自己的眼睛看事物，學會用自己的手觸摸外部世界，將經驗翻譯成自己的思維方式，塑造聲音，創造自己的詞彙，並消解面具，這面具不僅是被強加的，而是在被他人指導的幾個世紀裡深嵌於肌膚之中。」 (p.281)

In the Beginning, Woman Was the Sun— Reading Sheila Rowbotham’s Women, Resistance, and Revolution 

by Aozora

"There is no beginning of feminism in the sense that there is no beginning to defiance in women" wrote British socialist feminist and historian Sheila Rowbotham at the beginning of her well-known book, Women, Resistance and Revolution. The point is not when women gained independent rights, but when they can stop resisting various forms of oppression.

Modern society's women are said to have gained freedom: the freedom to choose employment and marriage, ownership of property, and protection from gender discrimination and violence under the law. By a social, objective standard, women's situation has become as good as men's. However, in the realm of humanity, women face a contradiction: they are told that today's oppression of women is due to the prejudices, beliefs, and backward thinking of individual people, but when they resist and dissent against these oppressions, they are told that they are thinking too much or too little.

Women are often stereotyped as too sensitive, self-centered, and suspicious, so their problems are assumed to be psychological and physiological. But there is a voice protesting that these problems are socially constructed and created by patriarchy to maintain control. While some argue that there is a fundamental difference between men and women, others question how motherhood and love can be created by nurture after birth. Women do not simply recognize themselves through a mirror, but through a journey of female awakening, like the one experienced by Sheila, they realize that the mirrors they have been presented with are often distorted, unreal, and reflect the images of others.

“I had a nagging and irreconcilable notion that if I could only get through the mirror a separate self would emerge who would confirm the existence of the first self by recognizing it. Without this recognition I felt invisible inside myself although my appearance was clearly visible in the glass” (p. 46)

The mirror maze aims to immobilize individuals through infinite reflections of themselves. It is a fortress of entrenched power, marked by the cracks left by revolution and resistance movements: now, people must come to know themselves through their own actions of breaking through. This self is no longer an isolated and detached self from the world — like a newborn baby, I rediscover ways of reaching out, perceiving things, and connecting with others in the world. I boldly expose myself like the sun. In the process of organizing action and constructing ideas, we create new selves, new ways of seeing the world, and new realities. We are the subjects of action in history, and we create history.

Therefore, if feminism has no starting point and women's resistance has never stopped, how can we narrate the history of feminism? It probably starts with the first crack.

Being Born (Wo)men

Being born women not only entails being a gender that is subordinate to men, but also entails being a group that has lost the status of "human". Women were simply seen as reproductive tools for God to create "humans", similar to how ancient Romans referred to slaves as "speaking tools". People were no longer considered children of their mothers or siblings to each other, but rather creations of God, the monarch, and the lords. People were ruled by them in the Great Chain of Being and absolved of their human nature or sin through redemption to approach God. If this kind of "human" is a metaphysical concept, then the concept conceals self-denial and alienation of humans: people affirm themselves by submitting to others. This contradiction cannot be explained by mystical determinism. Behind the theology is the feudal lordship. Peasants were attached to lords and nobles through personal dependence and served them to obtain production tools and land to produce what they needed and to support their masters. Artisans in the city participated in the guild to maintain their production tools while also being exploited by the guild and the urban nobility. Women were good helpers for laborers, providing assistance and labor, as well as adding labor amount through childbirth. In the ruling class that did not need to labor, women were pawns in marriage, maintaining and managing, and even inheriting property, but this did not mean that they had independent rights. They would eventually die alone because what they owned and birthed did not belong to them. They were only temporary usurpers and permanent substitutes.

Due to this role identity, women are always regarded as cunning usurpers, but in fact, women who express different opinions are like the little boy in "The Emperor's New Clothes," exposing the irrational aspects of society. Guillemine of Bohemia in the 13th century, the "forebear" of feminism traced by Sheila, believed that Christ's redemption was incomplete because women were not recognized as having the ability to communicate with God directly, to be prophets, and the power to interpret scripture.

Cracks began to appear in the ideological edifice, but donations, taxes in kind, and serfdom remained solid foundations. Hundreds of years later, as commodity production expanded in cities, handicrafts transformed into industrial handicrafts and began to be capitalized. The nobility's increasing demand for consumer goods and war debts led to the transformation of taxes in kind into monetary taxes, as well as population mobility. The budding capitalism and its anarchic characteristics were draped in the banner of fighting for individual rights. 

From the moment Martin Luther discovered “Sola fide" in the Greek Bible, the questioning from Guillemine's followers began to stir: "if the only criterion was individual conscience why couldn’t women challenge their husbands’ and fathers’ right to instruct them in what to believe and their power to control how they behaved" (p.21). These proto-feminists were eager to break the entire chain of existence and bring divinity back to humanity, but those religious reformers told them that this movement was not for them to be involved in. Instead, it was a struggle between them and another group of men. The result was that the power of the Roman church was weakened, and this became the era of monarchs, parliaments, and national spirit. After the religious reform, the improvement in women's situation was only manifested within the family and marriage: domestic violence and religious rituals that viewed women as unclean were condemned and prohibited. However, the whip that controls women was still firmly in the hands of men, only this man looked more morally cultured.

At the same time, the image of female laborers began to gradually disappear. The self-sufficient farmers, craftsmen, and merchants who were promoted to become farm owners, factory owners, and businessmen separated from the family production model, and their wives were expected to become good wives who teach their children. On the other hand, these middle-class women who benefited from industrial production became the destination of the women who were deprived of their means of production. These women who were once self-sufficient farmers, craftsmen, or merchants, now became cheap labor, while women who were excluded from all production industries could only survive by selling their bodies.

Capitalism limited the family's function to reproduction and consumption, and women lost their status as humble labor and property managers in the family. Their worthlessness highlighted their value, so that husbands could legally possess them, capitalists could mercilessly exploit them, and customers could indulge in their desires. Among the asset-class women who did not participate in production, they suffered the most extreme alienation, and their criticism of themselves was the most intense.

For example, Mary Astell, the 17th-century British philosopher, questioned her sisters: "How can you be content to be in the world like Tulips in a garden, to make a fine show and be good for nothing?" (p.26). They gave up the path of pursuing common humanity in divinity that their predecessors had taken and instead, through education, even by not getting married, they became useful individuals and entered into secular capitalism to compete with men.

However, bourgeois feminism as the vanguard of its era soon came to its end. As Sheila summarized this period, "the only way of seeing practical improvements was to seek entrance into the barred world of men The only way women could achieve respect and dignity was by not being women, by denying their femaleness ." (p.35). These feminists broke their heads and saw the world of bourgeoisie men through the gap, leaving the legacy of struggle between gender identities to their descendants of the same class. At the same time, they established their own value, paving the way for another group of feminist pioneers to enter the revolutionary era.

Before the guillotine and the arrival of republican reforms, the Romanticism movement swept across the European continent. Responding to feudal remnants and emerging bourgeois utilitarianism, Romanticism put forward its contemporary appeal: "liberate humanity from oppressive systems and achieve true self." In the eyes of these Romantics, women were Joan of Arc bound to the stake, the Goddess of Liberty in Delacroix's "Liberty Guiding the People," or the eternal feminine leading men to the truth; Women are not the market women who protested against high prices during the 1789 Versailles march, nor the female citizens advocating for women's political participation in the political clubs, nor the "fierce women" fighting against the Versailles army on the front lines in the Paris Commune. Women in labor, women in action, and women in organizations emerged in the great revolution that overthrew the old system and built a new society, but nobody took their demands seriously. Men who fought side by side with women on the streets did not necessarily stand by their side. Therefore, women had to first recognize their own strength. Excluded from political organizations, they established their own clubs for political discussion and education. Rejected from power, they developed their own theories and practices, constantly challenging and questioning authority.

Mary Wollstonecraft fired the first shot for gender equality in her famous A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. She vaguely saw the necessity and possibility of comprehensive social and economic transformation. Property and suffrage rights were still inviolable for women, but Mary could only appeal to the "progress" and "good intentions" of gentlemen with reason, rather than the social foundation of a rebellion. However, when the ideas foundered, the next wave of liberation movements emerged.

The improvement and popularization of contraception was a double-edged sword for women. On one hand, the risk of sexual activity was reduced, and issues of sexual pleasure and desire began to receive attention, leading to criticism of oppressive marriage and pursuit of free love. On the other hand, the commodification of sex under the market competition system meant that only the animalistic part of sexual pleasure was purchased at the lowest competitive price by the dominant gender.

These reformers, later known as utopian socialists, proposed their blueprints for workers and women who suffered exploitation in the industrial revolution era. Inheriting the legacy of the Romantics, they believed in the possibility of human freedom to express oneself and for comprehensive development. Influenced by the US abolitionist movement and the French Revolution, they believed in the power of oppressed groups to establish a society of mutual love and equality.

Regarding the situation of women, these utopian socialists were more radical in attacking patriarchy than the first generation of bourgeois feminists, because they did not hold any hope for gentlemen in high positions who defended private property, elite competition, and labor exploitation. Instead, they advocated for a world that clashed with the interests of these ruling men: children were raised together, household chores that were previously borne by women were shared by social organizations such as public canteens, laundry rooms, nurseries, and hospitals, women's reproductive rights and economic independence were guaranteed, education no longer based on gender division but aimed at eliminating the distinction between mental and physical labor, and encouraging cultural creation. Such a world necessarily required the joint control of labor and wealth.

Gender equality is not an abstract legal concept, like a mathematical formula. Instead, it is an idea and demand put forward by an oppressed group through collective historical action. The history of women being dominated by men is also a history of one class ruling over another. Male superiority is not a myth created by the will to rule, but rather a reflection of the ideology of actual life. Women are not told that they are naturally inferior to men. Instead, they are deprived of various rights and become reserves of property, labor, and reproductive tools, all of which have been fully utilized by rulers throughout history.

As historical consciousness has developed, women's awakening is no longer a moment that breaks through the sky like a prophecy. They no longer demand redemption from authorities, nor are they the guiding goddesses of absolute truth. They demand the ability to realize their own new society, and they are feminists.

Clear Conscience in Love

When young German revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg wrote down this line, “My ideal is a society where people can love each other with clear conscience,” she glimpsed the possibility of human civilization in the future. This possibility not only lies in overthrowing the old system but also in creating a society in which humans can return to their true selves. Utopian socialists meticulously depicted this possibility in their social engineering blueprints, but the problem is how to bring these ideas from the paper to reality. Engels commented on these social engineers in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific: "To all these, Socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as an absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of the historical development of man, it is a mere accident when and where it is discovered." (p.5).

Marxism has evolved from the socialist movement of the past half-century. It no longer seeks the possibility of socialist practice from the genius's mind but finds the key to controlling history in the evolution of social relations and material foundations. In this reversed worldview, humans are a product of dialectical activity. Humans transform nature through labor and are also transformed by their own products and methods of labor. Humans are different from animals not only because they can hunt and cook with tools, but also because they become social beings through collective life. "Man is the ensemble of the social relations" This does not mean that humans exist for others and other people are hell. Such thinking is still unfortunately trapped in the alienation relationship of capitalism. Rather, it means that humans can only realize themselves through certain social relations with others, but this also means that humans can alienate themselves through social relations.

Marx believed that the level of equality between the sexes reflects the degree of human alienation. He argued that "The relationship between men and women is the most natural relationship between people. Therefore, this relationship indicates the extent to which natural behavior has become human behavior, or the extent to which human nature has become natural for humans. To what extent has his human nature become natural." (p.85). Marx explores the dialectical relationship between the sexes, rather than the modern gender binary system. When he says "man", he does not mean "man = male" in the sense of Simone de Beauvoir's premise. Instead, he reveals how men enslave, violate, and objectify women, establishing the hegemony of "man = male" through an ideological social existence as an individual who possesses private property.

According to Marx's theory, the root of female oppression does not lie in the fact that women are socialized into objects with feminine traits from birth, but in the alienation relationship within the social system that supports the accumulation and occupation of labor wealth. This means that women's situations and experiences not only reflect the decline of civilization, but also provide the revolutionary starting point for changing this alienation relationship based on the freedom of love, and imaginations of new relationships. In Marx's scientific socialism, love that is unrestricted, self-affirming, and of clear conscience is not considered an irrational emotion, but is regarded as the origin of all objective exploration and criticism. As Marx wrote, Love “first really teaches men to believe in the objective world outside himself" (p.85). Love cannot be understood by solipsists or agnostics because it gives people the courage to take a step forward, feel the flow of air and water, the rhythm of bird song and wind, and resonate with the world. It also gives people the courage to become themselves and “make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual's practice - that will be the end of it” (p.89).

Under the system of commodity production and private property, love has never appeared in its complete form. People often find themselves in relationships that revolve around dependence, control, obsession, narcissism, and sadomasochism. Society is maintained through opposing forces of debauchery and chastity, betrayal and possession, and people are caught in between these forces, switching between object and subject roles to maintain social relationships.

Philosophers and theologians throughout history have struggled to interpret this social contradiction and have fallen into a state of "forever commenting on its own inability to comment" (p.70). When it comes to the question of when humanity began to "fall," these thinkers always seek answers on a supra-historical moral level, which are also male-centered and objective beyond human experience. Feminism advocates for an "objective" understanding that enables individuals to discover their own experiences and gain agency in social development history. Understanding one's position and situation in social relationships does not mean succumbing to fate for the majority or awakening for a minority who refuse to succumb. It means the possibility of salvation for every individual, to use Walter Benjamin's words.

Social liberation cannot be controlled by individual will, but oppressed individuals can make choices: to understand the systems and relationships that maintain exploitation through theory and to eliminate exploitation through collective practice and management of the wealth they create; or to wait and be consumed by various crises.

Feminism is not simply about women's resistance to their own oppression, nor is it any preconceived concept. It comes from the consciousness and desire of the oppressed to change the world. Therefore, feminism deals with the conflicts that human beings experience and realize in specific historical, social, and gender relationships, and these contradictions require theories and actions that must be continuously developed to resolve them.

During the first and second international periods, the tension between the labor movement and the women's movement was unexpected by feminist revolutionaries of the Great Revolution. As the proportion of women and children among the labor force increased, social security and exploitation levels rose, industrial development accelerated, and class struggle intensified. In this context, socialists began to address pressing political issues such as the contradictions between social production and reproduction, competition between male and female workers, the position of women in trade unions and revolutionary organizations, and the exploitation faced by workers and women. Engels and August Bebel, the leader of the German Social Democratic Party, made important contributions to the socialist revolution and women's liberation.

In The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels traces the origin of human civilization back to the matrilineal clan society based on a communal economy. At that time, the mode of production was based on gathering and hunting nature, the private property system had not yet developed, and production, distribution, and consumption processes were regulated only by the clan community. Under the group marriage system, gender relations were more free and open, children were collectively nurtured, and women enjoyed a higher status due to reproduction being considered an important means of increasing social wealth.

As human beings developed the productive forces through domesticating animals and growing crops, the division of labor and the concept of private property began to emerge. As more men participated in animal husbandry, agriculture, and handicrafts, they demanded that their production tools and wealth be inherited by their own children, rather than by their siblings or sisters' descendants within the matrilineal clan, and pairing family to emerge. The emergence of the patriarchal family meant the disintegration of the clan society and the formation of classes. Although women still had a certain status in the fields of sacrifice and culture based on the clan bond, they were deprived of property and the right to own children, and the patriarchal family became the only intermediary between them.

As wealth accumulated within families, hereditary aristocrats and royals began to emerge, and wars between tribes shifted from a means of resolving disputes to a means of plundering labor, women, and wealth. The former armed forces and tribal councils elected by elections were replaced by the state machine that maintained the rule of private property and the wealthy and standing army. Women's history of subjection to patriarchal family rule is as long as that of laborers to the rule of state and aristocracy. Until the birth of capitalism, women and children were no longer owned by patriarchal families, but were exploited by the new industrial capital, and the socialized production field also became a battlefield for these oppressed groups.

The importance of Engels' work lies not in its archaeological research, but in the questions it addresses about the interaction between reproduction and production modes and their relationship with women's status and organizational change. of society. Bebel's Women and Socialism further expanded Engels' research questions to the level of women's liberation and socialist construction. Bebel saw the situation of women as an indicator of human civilization development, and regarded women's liberation as universal liberation. Capitalism constantly creates crises that cannot be reconciled: overproduction, inflation, investment bubbles, and other crises that not only fail to achieve true social liberation but also require long-term sacrifices of the interests of most people to resolve. Bebel believed that contemporary women, as wage-laborers and direct producers in the family, would play an important role in the production and reproduction fields under the socialist system based on the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Women would no longer need to maintain their livelihoods by selling their labor at a lower price than men or through contractual marriage and patriarchal families. They would participate equally with men in a planned economy, producing for demand and use value, rather than as commodities for capital accumulation. The needs previously provided by the family would also be met through different communal facilities. Like the future city under utopian socialism, the socialist builders planned a humane and culturally rich city, where the boundary between public and private space was no longer important, housing was no longer a dense cluster of buildings, but was scattered among community theaters, libraries, museums, parks, playgrounds, nurseries, clinics, and canteens. This future can be glimpsed in the potential control of the means of production by the proletariat and more advanced social organization.

At the end of the 19th century, various political and cultural groups organized around the idea of a better future. They fostered social imaginaries tinged with romanticism and mysticism. For these intellectuals, personal spiritual pursuit and political reform were inseparable. They believed that capitalism was not only a social system, but also a human experience that alienated and degraded individuals, making them ugly and ignorant. The bourgeois hypocritical sexual morality and marriage system further deprived people of their ability to love and create.

This socialist trend examined the internal aspects of women's situation, advocating that spiritual awakening and subjectivity were important parts of women's liberation. British philosopher Edward Carpenter promoted new female consciousness within the feminist and socialist movements in his book Love's Coming-of-Age. He wrote, "Let her accept the term with all the odium that belongs to it; let her insist on her right to speak, dress, think, act and above all use her sex as she deems best; let her face the scorn, the ridicule; let her ‘lose her own life’ if she likes; assured that only so can come deliverance; and that only when the free woman is honored will the prostitute cease to exist." (p. 105).

The relationship between political action and personal experience was brought into the discussion of revolution by feminists for the first time. Women's alienation had more to do with their own bodies, emotions, and intimate relationships than with oppressive social systems and state machinery. Women were always present in a certain relationship: they were daughters, wives, mothers, and sexual commodities, men's appendices. Compared to individualism, they perhaps better understood Marx's concept of human social existence. Compared to equal rights, they perhaps better understood anarchist Emma Goldman's idea of the "vital right to love and be loved." However, this was also the biggest contradiction. Women's experience shaped their existence as commodities, objects, and others, so how could they speak of love?

South African writer Oliver Schreiner understood this pain: "the real evil lay deeper than any accusation against men could explain, or any mere reform of the suffrage could mend." (p. 108). Oliver's questioning of "being a woman" led her to deny her own female identity, but this did not mean freedom for her. She despised being with other women who still played traditional roles, even beginning to distance herself from the feminist movement, and eventually fell into deep loneliness. Pain and masochistic psychology became a Morse code for her connection with other women.

Women's self and epochal transcendences are as difficult and significant as social revolution. As one of Carpenter's readers told him, "Ah, if women would be true with themselves and to one another, I believe they could move mountains!" (p. 106). After the problem of self was raised by feminists, it became an indelible ghost in the revolution.

 Revolution within Revolution

The collective resistance of women originates from their social position: direct producers within the family, that is, housewives. Sheila notes that historically, the "bread riots" initiated by women have brought demands for meeting care needs, democratic distribution of food and necessities, and grassroots community organizations. However, these collective actions by women still remain within the women’s sphere. Thus, when demands by women to participate in the military and political organizations are rejected by male leaders, they realize that they have not obtained the so-called "equality for all." Feminism in every revolution against state power always faces ridicule and sarcasm because their demands for gender equality are not mainly directed against the state power, the common enemy, but against men who are the main force of the revolution. In the Paris Commune of 1871, formed to resist the invasion of the Prussian army and the republican government colluding with them, the demand of female members to form their own battalion was rejected, and they could only participate in caring for the wounded and logistical support. Nevertheless, during the "Bloody Week" when the Versailles army launched an attack and massacre, women fought without hesitation. After the uprising failed, women suffered even more terrible insults and violations. In the eyes of ruling-class men, they betrayed them and turned to the embrace of their class enemies, while in the eyes of Commune members who fought alongside them, they did not want them to be enslaved by feudal patriarchy but at the same time felt dissatisfied with their demands for freedom and independence. In the revolutionary movement, this tension between the sexes has led to the trend of isolating itself in the feminist movement. The exclusion of the women's liberation movement by the abolitionist movement in the United States led to the formation of a separate faction of supporters of women's suffrage. This division against internal contradictions, even if it helps feminist movements develop independent organizations and demands, its practical trajectory - as criticized by Sheila - is linear: "Progress is seen as some kind of single linear advance towards a goal" (p.128); as long as we follow this progress, we can reach the other side of gender equality. At the moment when feminism raised its distinctive banner, “there is no sense of a movement living and working in history, learning through a dialectical interaction of its own efforts in objective circumstances. It forgets that the consciousness of particular groups amongst the oppressed is only partial. While this consciousness must be realized and expressed in their own movement, if the attempt is not made continually to extend and connect this partial consciousness to the experience of other oppressed groups, it cannot politicize itself in a revolutionary sense" (p.128).Neither self-proclaimed feminists nor women in revolutionary and workers' organizations have constructed a theory that connects the experiences of various oppressed groups and the oppression of women under the overall exploitation system to guide organization and action.

Women's entry into the labor market weakens patriarchal family’s control and represents their entry into the class struggle, traditionally dominated by men. Women are encountering traps in this struggle, such as male workers demanding they return home to be housewives, capitalists offering wages and economic independence, and parliament and unions proposing to shorten their working hours to avoid fatigue. It is not mentioned that when male workers are unemployed, women and children in the home often have to work to supplement their income. These labor forces, considered secondary and low-skilled, help capitalists reduce production costs. Women work hard because they bear the dual labor of wages and housework, and social production is not for meeting human needs, but for endless capital accumulation. The women's revolutionary movement needs to expose these problems one by one and realize a new possible world.

In the 1848 revolution known as the "Springtime of Nations," women workers supported worker co-management of production in national workshops and fought for wage equality. They also advocated socialization of healthcare, education, childcare, and daily necessities. Their concern for education differs from bourgeois feminism, as they view it as an enlightenment process for personal development, not as a means of upward mobility.

They bring the "women's sphere" of the private and family into political discussions, such as how to care for homeless children, design nurseries and schools, ensure the safety of childbirth and abortion, and organize women's political clubs. These are regarded as women's and children's matters in male prejudice, but they establish new social relations. However, these organizations and actions are difficult to establish a solid foundation after the revolutionary tide ebbs. Collective female resistance often emphasizes autonomous action, equal participation, and suspicion of leaders, but it leads to a dilemma where women fight alone for independence and are absorbed by various parties or committees as "cadres."

The feminist slogan "the personal is political" does not bring about self-empowerment immediately, it requires mastery of the dialectical development of society, hope for human liberation, imagination of possibility, firmness in practice, skills for organizational strategy, and questioning of authority worship. This requires becoming a human being.

Socialist feminism became narrow, repressed, and even lost its human face, a trend that emerged in conjunction with the bureaucratization of socialist countries in the 20th century. The establishment of the Soviet Union provided an opportunity for the socialist movement to realize women’s liberation from domestic constraints and reproduction activities. After the October Revolution in 1917, the Soviet government immediately announced social welfare measures to protect mothers and infants, no longer distinguishing between illegitimate and legitimate children, and a series of reforms for women's rights in the workplace, marriage, and family.

The Women's Department of the Central Committee (Genotdel) was established to encourage women in cities and rural areas to assist in the frontlines of the civil war and participate in political and social activities. While there was a desire for the socialization of household labor, it was hindered due to the underdevelopment of economic development after the civil war. Trotsky proposed that local Workers' and Peasants' Committees and trade unions be collectively responsible for household work, and Alexandra Kollantai, the Minister of Women's Department, emphasized in her novel Red Love the importance of housing communes in eliminating competition and self-interest under capitalism and redrawing the boundaries between education and family. Kollantai's ideals re-established the connection between communism and individuality.

However, the delay of the international revolution, the isolation of the communist camp, the continued restriction of party and speech freedoms, the transformation of elected workers and peasants representatives into appointed bureaucrats, and the weakening and deprivation of worker collective production management rights gave rise to the monster of Stalinism. In 1929, the Women's Department was abolished, followed by a regression in gender liberation issues. Abortion was banned, homosexuality was criminalized, unwed mothers could not receive economic support from their biological fathers, and the divorce process became more complicated. State-controlled production and the reproductive labor of women controlled by patriarchal families became the pillar of "socialism". Women were dissolved in this way, they were sent back to the traditional sphere, and were told that under "socialism," their right to work was guaranteed, but the burden of household and care labor still fell on them. They enjoyed social welfare provided that they had a legal marriage and family. Faced with the backlash of Soviet bureaucracy and conservatism, Sheila asked, "Where had all those honest Leninists gone?" and what should be further asked is, "Where had all those honest feminists gone?"

The collective power of women is both explosive and fragile. Their organizations may be perceived as either replacing or resisting the family, as they demand equal participation in production, distribution and community management. This expansion of relationships within families and development of a new society from within, rather than through state-planned production, is crucial. However, the restoration of patriarchal families has once again bound women in personal dependence and subservience to state power. This is done to prevent women, as direct producers in families, from connecting with each other and developing demands for democratic control of means of production and distribution from the bottom up.

This demand is not only economic; it means eliminating the alienation of labor, making people aware of their own life activities, rather than being treated as objects for exploitation. It means eliminating dependence and control in gender relationships, proving that love does not require either selfless mutual devotion, but rather to make each person independent and complete.

Whether it is the monarchy under feudalism, the bourgeoisie in capitalism, or the state in Stalinism, they all rely on patriarchal colonization of women and reproduce individuals who submit to authority. Reflecting upon the anti-colonial independence movement, Sheila criticizes the patriarchal thinking of male revolutionaries and their desire to take back women from the colonizers, rather than liberating women. For them, feminism is a Western colonial attempt to instigate their women to deviate from their own thoughts.

On the other hand, even if the gender reform brought about by colonial independence was successful, it still failed to deeply penetrate and change women's consciousness. Women's passivity, dependence, and selflessness are still the examples they accept. The feminist movement is not the myth of a national revolution where tyranny is overthrown and people gain freedom thereafter; it always questions and challenges the status quo, always brings a revolutionary change to human social systems, relationships, and even human nature. As Sheila said, feminism is a revolution within a revolution, "means seeing through your own eyes, learning to touch the external world with your own hands, translating experience in your own mind, shaping sounds, making your own words and dissolving the mask which is not just imposed but has grown into your own skin through centuries of being directed by someone else." (p.281)

Reference:

Engels, F. (1880). Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Swan Sonnenschein & Co.

Rowbotham, S. (1973). Women, resistance and revolution. Vintage Books.

Rowbotham, S. (1973). Woman's Consciousness, Man's World. Penguin Books.