Family life, women and children and men

From the Old Family to the New is another essay in the Problems Of Everyday Life. This one was originaly published July 13, 1923 in Pravda. Eighty-three years on, we still wrestle with these issues.

Isolated excerpts- in order of appearance:
-Domestic life is more conservative than economic, and one of the reasons is that it is still less conscious than the latter. In politics and economics the working class acts as a whole and pushes on to the front rank its vanguard, the Communist Party, accomplishing through its medium the historic aims of the proletariat. In domestic life the working class is split into cells constituted by families. The change of political regime, the change even of the economic order of the state--the passing of the factories and mills into the hands of the workers--all this has certainly had some influence on family conditions, but only indirectly and externally, and without touching on the forms of domestic traditions inherited from the past.

A radical reform of the family and, more generally, of the whole order of domestic life requires a great conscious effort on the part of the whole mass of the working class, and presumes the existence in the class itself of a powerful molecular force of inner desire for culture and progress. A deep-going plough is needed to turn up heavy clods of soil. To institute the political equality of men and women in the Soviet state was one problem and the simplest. A much more difficult one was the next--that of instituting the industrial equality of men and women workers in the factories, the mills, and the trade unions, and of doing it in such a way that the men should not put the women to disadvantage. But to achieve the actual equality of man and woman within the family is an infinitely more arduous problem. All our domestic habits must be revolutionized before that can happen. And yet it is quite obvious that unless there is actual equality of husband and wife in the family, in a normal sense as well as in the conditions of life, we cannot speak seriously of their equality in social work or even in politics. As long as woman is chained to her housework, the care of the family, the cooking and sewing, all her chances of participation in social and political life are cut down in the extreme.--

-In regard to family relations and forms of individual life in general, there must also be an inevitable period of disintegration of things as they were, of the traditions, inherited from the past, which had not passed under the control of thought. But in this domain of domestic life the period of criticism and destruction begins later, lasts very long, and assumes morbid and painful forms, which, however, are complex and not always perceptible to superficial observation. These progressive landmarks of critical change in state conditions, in economics and life in general, ought to be very clearly defined to prevent our getting alarmed by the phenomena we observed. We must learn to judge them in their right light, to understand their proper place in the development of the working class, and consciously to direct the new conditions towards socialist forms of life.

The warning is a necessary one, as we already hear voices expressing alarm. At the conference of the Moscow party propagandists some comrades spoke with great and natural anxiety of the ease with which old family ties are broken for the sake of new ones as fleeting as the old. The victims in all cases are the mother and children. On the other hand, who in our midst has not heard in private conversations complaints, not to say lamentations, about the "collapse" of morality among Soviet youth, in particular among Young Communists? Not everything in these complaints is exaggeration--there is also truth in them. We certainly must and will fight the dark sides of this truth--this being a fight for higher culture and the ascent of human personality. But in order to begin our work, to tackle the ABC of the problem without reactionary moralizing or sentimental downheartedness, we must first make sure of the facts and begin to see clearly what is actually happening.--

It is unfortunate that we are not living in a state of communism- ie, shared working in the domestic sphere. Too often, the majority- still- of the housework and child-rearing does fall to the woman. I am not saying that this is unimportant work- but it is work which must be shouldered by all parties involved. If a household breaks up, it is the "mother and children" which are most at risk of sinking into poverty.

Too often, due to cruel economic realities, Beth Shulman's statement in "The Betrayal of Work" that the worst thing which can happen to a woman is to get pregnant is proven. She notes that this is the quickest way into poverty. I know from personal experience that this is so.

Much is at stake when we speak of the relations between men and women. (Husband and Wife aside, down to brass tacks here.) Women still find themselves subject to the whims of biology- but this need not be so; beyond the obvious bearing of children, the abilities of men and women are equal in potential. It is in the social structure of home and worklife where we encounter the makings of inequality.

To reconstruct family life- in whatever configuration you choose- it is imperative that responsibility for houseworkk and the care of children be fully shared. The division of labour is one thing- yes, shared chores make for a lighter load on the women, they also make for a better view of what is involved in domestic life. So much work goes un-noticed, let alone misunderstood. It is a matter of personal responsibility and respect- how banal to have to say "Those shirts don't fold themselves". But it is just such mundane things which make up every day life. It is the preocupation with such things which leaves little time for revolutionary activity or education. It also leads to the consideration of the housewife as just that and nothing more. The mind of the woman is discounted, as "what would someone who only keeps house or cares for kids know"?

Quite a bit about inequality, as it turns out. Especially if both parties also work outside the home.

As for children and the care thereof, we see today vast numbers of single-parent homes. These homes are much more likely to experience poverty and hunger. The children are often left in situations where inadaquite care is taken of them or they are completely unattended. They are left, at too young an age, to fend for themselves. Add to this issues of abuse and the picture becomes grim indeed. The lack of willingness on the part of the (most often) fathers to properly care for their children is appalling.

It does not lead to revolutionary thought- it does lead to anger in many cases, and often enough to individual acts of reactionary violence or association with questionable groups (Republicans, Nation of Islam), which pretend to offer what is missing.

"The easiest problem was that of assuming power." Writes Trotsky in this same essay. These are surprising words, I think, to many people. It seems to be the view of many to whom I speak that there is a sort of magical formula- get power away from the bad guys and we live happily ever after. I have heard this in many forms- from Democrats, from Anarchists, even from some Socialists.

This is only the begining, though! Changing the manner of governance will only solve some of the problems- one must change the very basic structures of everyday life on the way to true equality.

So, what to do? It is not exciting to think about- but it must be accepted that after the initial revolution, there is the daily life. How should it be lived? Obviously, equality must be integrated into the most mundane of things even down to the level of the very basic- One person washes, another person dries the dishes. The dishes get done.