Morris and Cassidy on Feminism

Lynne McGimpsey, in last week's Salient, claims that if women were political enough to recognise their main enemy as their boss they would support abortion on demand. This is nonsense as the main concern of working women would surely change from week to week depending on their changing personal situation. The only time working women are concerned with abortion is when they need an abortion, whereas the problems they are faced with everyday is buying the groceries and paying the bills. One woman we know has-to keep herself, her husband and 2 pre-school children on an income of $80 a week. Recently, after paying all their basic costs for a week they were left with $4 to cover extra expenses e.g. dentists, doctor, new clothes etc.

Frankly it is very difficult to understand Lynne's logic. When she says that if working class women were political enough to recognise their boss as their main enemy "then surely working women would be the first to fight for their right to plan their pregnancies, pregnancy being the main argument the 'bosses' use in restricting women from advancement in employment".

Lynne is working within the framework of the bosses and thus adopting their viewpoint that the basic contradiction faring women within capitalist society is biological rather than that based on class. Women should not be fighting against the excuse which bosses give for throwing them out of the work force - pregnancy (an aspect of the biological contradiction). This is not why they are removed from the work force; it is because the economy can no longer absorb them (the class contradiction). Recently it has not been the risk of pregnancy that has been the excuse given for squeezing married women out of their jobs but rather an ideology' which says women should stay at home and look after their children. Surely it would be better to centre the primary attack on the unjust exclusion of married and single women when the economy decides it no longer needs them?

By placing the abortion campaign in a primary rather than a supportive role Lynne is essentially saying that the biological contradiction takes ascendency over the class contradiction.

We agree wholeheartedly with Lynne that working women suffer most from the present abortion laws. This is very true; working people suffer from all repressive legislation to a greater extent than people with money. Lynne says "a distinction mast be made between a movement comprising mainly middle-class women and one which propagates middle-class demands". That was the whole point of our article! Where we disagree is that abortion should not be raised as the primary demand in isolation from the main demand of working-class women i.e. better working conditions and higher pay.

It is debateable that the campaign for safe legal abortions "has involved women throughout the whole community" when the "unite" Against The Gill Bill" meeting in the Town Mall was mainly composed of middle-class women and men.

We're not disputing that abortion is an important issue and that any encroachment on our rights should be strongly fought against. Rather we think abortion should be seen within the total context of the fight for a decent standard of living, day-care, and a woman's right to work.