The Origin Piece

I. Introduction

After the Second World War, Poland underwent a transition into a communist regime governed by Stalin. As a result of the damage brought by this war, much of Poland necessitated rebuilding. Consequently, communist philosophy bestowed the values of universal employment and a producer-focused economy to rebuild the nation. Because much of the population had been lost, and the demand for jobs was high, women became integral to the job market. This shift in gender roles may appear progressive at first glance, and in many ways, it was liberating for women; however, many of the gender expectations that were historically conferred upon women still persisted. Such a dichotomy between the promotion of female activity outside of the workplace and the expectations of women in domestic life presented what is generally referred to as the “double burden.” This concept describes the opposing expectations that were rapidly forced upon women. Additionally, it demonstrates that women faced a heavier burden then men, who were expected to simply work, as women were expected to work, reproduce, and perform domestic activities.

In some ways, many women were grateful for this apparent liberation. For example, “female migration from countryside to the factory” could be seen as a “powerful vehicle of identity transformation.”[1] Women were able to “establish their personal autonomy…free from the confinements of traditional peasant communities.”[2]  In this way, females experienced a new possibility for self-sufficiency, education, and training outside of the home. They were able to garner power through strikes while at work to promote their desire for rights.[3] These developments were profound in the feminist movement. The communist movement towards female activity in the workforce may have been generated out of necessity, but women were able to use it to their advantage to obtain some equality, specifically in the form of trade unions, politics, social freedoms, and simply the psychological benefit of economic contribution.

Nevertheless, the increased participation of women in the workforce was not met without certain challenges. Women were forced to leave jobs as a result of their being deemed “too dangerous and inappropriate for women.”[4] Oftentimes, this relocation led to reduced wages.[5] Likewise, jobs were often gendered, which decreased opportunities for social mobility for women.[6] They were also blamed for lacking in the domestic sphere by their male counterparts, despite that they were expected to work as well as take care of the home.[7] Women also often faced sexualization and harassment from men in the workplace.[8] Such examples only demonstrate a small scope of the oppression women faced in their migration to the workplace.

In essence, this era displays an interesting duality in the name of feminism, and it poses an impossible question to historians, for which definitive answer cannot be determined: was post-war Poland a representation of progressive views of and roles for women, or did it merely appear so due to the necessity of women in the workforce? The communist era provoked a specific double burden for women, during which women were expected to perform both traditional “feminine” roles, such as reproduction and home economics, as well as “masculine” roles, namely working to support themselves and their families. Such a double burden did enhance women’s rights through trade unions, social freedoms, politics, and new legal rights. However, the communist regime ultimately placed unrealistic expectations on women, as they were harshly criticized and undervalued as a result of their being female, while at the same time, they were expected to succeed in their roles as both breadwinners and mothers.

II. Communism for Women: The Positives

One initial feminist perspective of women in the workplace is the de-sexualization of females. As more females entered the workforce, the “new matriarchy” began to appear.[9] A woman would wear “an ‘unsexed’ uniform that diminished her physical differences from men. In contrast to the fancy dresses and stockings promoted by the bourgeois West, the uniform indicated her ‘humanity and subjectivity.’”[10] In this way, women were physically likened to men; one could see this as diminishing the differences between women and putting them “on par” with men in the workforce.

While such measures demonstrate the day-to-day, subtle equality given to women, there were also significant improvements in female rights on the legal scale. Author Malgorzata Fidelis notes that “the new coalition government introduced important legislative measures that further transformed traditional social practices: compulsory civil marriage and legal equality of the sexes.”[11] Further legal rights include “not only access to education and employment but also sexual liberation and reproductive rights.”[12] These changes to Polish law give women explicit rights; such practices are therefore concrete and should not be denied to women under any circumstance.  Certainly, it can be seen through many examples in history that laws do not guarantee certainty of fair treatment; however, these steps are important for women, as recognition by the state is a paramount goal in changing oppression in a country.

Another concrete tool of upward mobility for women was seen through trade unions. At the end of the war, Trade Unions Women’s Sections were created.[13] Such organizations ensured that “political work among women became an important feature in factory life.”[14] Trade unions sparked two developments in women’s rights: the right to work and the right to political participation. Although women already had the right to vote, these unions promoted political activity amongst women; collective discussion allows for education and informed participation. Specifically, the goals of the unions were “’making women politically and socially conscious’ and involving them in the ‘trade unions’ activism.”[15] These aims promote the equality of all women, not just the intelligentsia. All women who work and participate in trade unions could learn about politics and become educated on their nation. Such political knowledge may be seen as a segue to political transformations in the feminist movement. This idea was emphasized by Polish journalists: the depictions of women in the factory “replaced female household production.”[16] Allowing women to contribute to the workforce through socialist means “remade women into politically conscious proletarians.”[17]

Within the factories, women also experienced increased social freedom. Women often lived in dormitories in close proximity on site of their jobs.[18] They were privy to leisure time after work hours, as they did not have domestic tasks on-site.[19] In this way, “young women had the chance to explore the pleasures of being a woman to a greater extent than in a rural setting.”[20] For example, a working woman named Zofia M noted that “we would go to dance parties without men…rather than waiting at home to be invited.”[21] Women thus began to perform social functions independent of men, putting them on par with men. Their identity was not entwined with the male identity socially or professionally.

Furthermore, the “double burden” was seen to be used as a tool for power in certain circumstances. Psychologically, women benefitted from the knowledge that they were performing such difficult tasks, even more than what was expected of men. Malgorzata notes that “women showed strength and resourcefulness in taking care of their families during and after the war; they worked for wages and did not need a man to support them.”[22] For women, this accomplishment is an example of indisputable proof that female weakness is a myth. Such recognition sparked positivity and general contentment amongst females, who felt that their societally deemed perception of inferiority would end once and for all.

III. Communism for Women: The Negatives

Despite the various improvements in gender equality generated by the installment of women in the workforce, there existed persistent sexism that debunked the progressive appearance of socialism. One prominent example of such inequality could be seen within the jobs given to women. One woman identified as Krystyna “learned that she could not go back to her underground job. The work was now deemed too dangerous and inappropriate for women.”[23] Such actions were common, as the ingrained perspectives of women as the weaker sex still persisted despite the changes to the workforce.

Other such examples include the limitation of women in the chemical industry, where “exposure to toxins [were] believed to be harmful to the women’s reproductive system but not that of men.”[24] Many such limitations were centered around reproduction: women needed to be able to reproduce alongside working, so their jobs could not interfere with such abilities. Although, many of these ideas seem to be wildly inaccurate, whether due to a lack of scientific knowledge on reproduction, ingrained sexism, or a combination of both.

However, some restrictions had little to do with reproduction at all. For example, “one law prevented women from performing or witnessing the killing of cattle in butcher shops due to its supposedly harmful effects on the female psyche. Another law forbade women from working nightshifts in places where alcoholic beverages were sold and consumed.”[25] These constraints appear to be displays of advert sexism. Although it cannot be expected for a country to completely reverse its ingrained sexist ideas in a matter of a few years, the depiction of female capabilities in the workforce reinforced sexist ideals through restricting their job opportunities based on sex.

Similarly, certain jobs were “gendered,” thus further limiting women’s workforce opportunities. In the same way that Polish society deemed certain jobs unfit for women, “recruitment of women for new occupations was still grounded in the concepts of rational planning and the ideas of ‘natural’ gender characteristics.”[26] Women’s’ “psychophysical characteristics”[27] rendered certain positions suitable for women and certain positions suitable for men, all in order to best contribute to production. Yet, these ideas were contradicted by the few women who made it into the “male” jobs. Underground miner Anna Zak noted that “I came into the mine as an unskilled worker, but now I am a foreman and I even boss around men.”[28] Zak was famous for her use of strength and force that deterred male harassment present in the mines. She was a clear example of a woman who could even outperform men in a job that was considered reserved for that gender. Small efforts to incorporate women into the mines ensued eventually,[29] but these efforts were not large-scale enough to reverse the gendering of jobs in communist Poland.

Furthermore, certain labor tactics within the jobs that women could perform limited their financial gains. To limit the influence of capitalism, “workers received bonus points when they exceeded the norm and could obtain good or additional cash.”[30] In this way, workers would not have the incentive to work sluggishly due to a lack of upward mobility in communist society. However, “this policy seriously disadvantaged unskilled textile workers, most of whom were women.”[31] Because women were new to the workforce, these policies were automatically positioned against them. So, women oftentimes had to work just as hard as men but would not receive the benefits of bonus points.[32] In this way, women faced unequal benefits to men, despite their equal efforts.

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of all was that women then took the blame for issues in domestic life. Such “emancipated wives” were deemed to exhibit a “crisis of moral values.”[33] Women who were part of the workforce no longer wanted to be “locked” down by domestic life.[34] They were subsequently deemed immoral and blamed for the breakdown of marriages for lacking “feminine touch, nurturing, and attention to detail.”[35] However, “young women did not know how to cook, mend clothes, or other domestic chores” because they were expected to learn trade skills instead.[36] Thus, women trained in labor skills were likewise expected to exhibit the abilities of homemakers when necessary, as if domesticity were a part of their female identity rather than something learned. Consequently, the “large numbers of women in the workforce” was to blame for “hooliganism” amongst children and disgruntled families.[37] Here, the double burden displays itself perfectly: first, women were forced to help rebuild the country by earning wages in the workforce, and then, they were subsequently blamed for a lack of attention to their families. Nowhere were men expected to contribute to such an issue.

IV. Conclusion

In consideration of the aforementioned intricacies of the feminist perspective in communist Poland, it appears that no categorical decision can be formed on whether communism was truly a mechanism that uplifted women. It is certainly true that women gained more explicit rights and job opportunities as a result of the regime, and therefore, female autonomy increased. However, ingrained sexist policies and procedures still remained that threatened the continued upward mobility of women. One could argue that changing gender norms takes time, and the communist system was a start to that transition. However, one could conversely argue that the seemingly feminist policies were simply out of necessity for bodies in the workforce, rather than for liberating women. This idea is complemented by the effects of later “de-stalinization,” where society “no longer ostentatiously promoted unlimited opportunities in production as intrinsic parts of women’s identities.”[38] This step backwards begs a broader question within liberation movements: does it take a societal crisis or instability to shake oppressive norms and begin the road to equality? Or, is the transition to equality something that can be achieved by nature, through recognition of the immorality of oppression? Perhaps, ingrained ideals cannot be broken without a calamity to rupture them inadvertently. 

 

[1] Malgorzata Fidelis, Women, Communism, and Industrialization in Postwar Poland. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 4

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., 2.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 145.

[7] Ibid., 187.

[8] Ibid., 167.

[9] Ibid., 21.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid., 23.

[12] Ibid., 27.

[13] Ibid., 51.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid., 52.

[16] Ibid., 105.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid., 125.

[19] Ibid., 124.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid., 125.

[22] Ibid., 34.

[23] Ibid., 2.

[24] Ibid., 29.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid., 145.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Ibid., 160-1.

[29] Ibid., 161.

[30] Ibid., 71.

[31] Ibid.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Ibid., 179.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid., 213.

[37] Ibid., 213.

[38] Ibid., 237.