Romanian women protest against domestic violence. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Sian Norris on Marilyn French: Violence runs like an ugly vein through our society

Marilyn French’s novel The Women's Room is a frank and unflinching portrayal of the violence done to women in a society that doesn’t value them as fully human. Forty years on, that violence still exists.

This piece is part of the New Statesman's "Rereading the Second Wave" series. Read the other essays here.

 

I grew up with Marilyn French’s The Women’s Room on my mum’s bookshelf. As a child, I was intrigued and intimidated by the thick, black spine with its bold yellow text. It seemed to me to be the most “grown up” book on the shelf. I believed that when I read it, I would be granted access to the secrets of what it meant to be a woman.

In my late teens, I went to the bookshelf and held The Women’s Room in my hands. Within its yellowing pages, I hoped to find the answers to the questions that had been building in my mind around my newly pronounced feminism. Why did things still feel so unequal? Why were girls still undervalued? Why were my friends starving and harming themselves, and disclosing horrors of physical and sexual abuse, when everything was supposed to be ok now? When the battles French writes about in The Women’s Room were supposed to have been won?

‘You can read it,’ my mum said, looking a bit nervous at my increasing political zeal, ‘so long as you don’t start hating men.’

I took it to my room, read it and then put it back on the shelf, disappointed. I didn’t understand this book. It didn’t contain the answers I was looking for. It seemed instead to be a dreary litany of awkward dinner parties and household chores. There was nothing here for the seventeen year old me living in 2001. Mira’s struggles weren’t my struggles. Women’s lives, I thought, had clearly moved on.

Fast-forward nine years, to 2010. I still didn’t have the answers, but my understanding of feminism, and my place in it, had developed. On Twitter, all my book-loving feminist friends were talking about The Women’s Room. They were raving about it, amazed by its relevance to our lives today. I shyly admitted to them that I only read it once, and had hated it. Read it again! they cried. It will make sense to you now! And so, a tad reluctantly, I did.

The second reading was a revelation.

If you haven’t read it, The Women’s Room is a novel that tells the story of Mira, a middle-aged divorcee trying to get her PhD at Harvard at the end of the 1960s. She has spent most of her adult life so far as a quintessential 1950s housewife, marrying Norm after surviving an attempted gang rape, and spending her days cleaning, caring for her children, and developing friendships with her neighbours. All of them are cracking under the strains of the ‘feminine mystique’ that their marriages demand they create and sustain.

Halfway through, Norm leaves Mira for another woman. Free and terrified, she decides to try and live the intellectually stimulating life she had dreamed of as a young woman. She goes to Harvard, becomes friends with a group of feminist women, and starts to discover whether it is possible to live in a way that is true to herself.

At first, Mira succeeds. She discovers sex with the gorgeous Ben, and discovers politics with her new friends. But despite their efforts to create a new kind of society, it is impossible for the characters to escape the pressures and dangers of being a woman under patriarchy. Towards the end of the novel, Chris, the daughter of Mira’s friend Val, is raped. Chris’ rape leads Val to declare that all men are rapists, an assessment that Mira rejects (as an aside, Val’s statement is quoted over and over by people trying to dismiss The Women’s Room, whilst Mira’s rejection of it is ignored). Meanwhile, Ben tries to pressure Mira into giving up her aspirations in order to support his ambitions. Mira refuses to capitulate to his demands, instead choosing to live a life that is true and authentic for her.

The devastating power of French’s novel – and the reason Mira’s story resonates so deeply nearly four decades after it was published – is in her frank and unflinching portrayal of the violence done to women in a society that doesn’t value them as fully human. This violence is often physical – for example the rape of Chris and the domestic abuse suffered by Mira’s neighbours. But it is also the very deep psychological violence inflicted upon women as a class by a patriarchal society.

Reading The Women’s Room today is a deeply troubling experience precisely because this violence still exists in 2014. From the burden of unpaid, unvalued labour falling heavily on women’s shoulders, to the fact that two women a week will be murdered by a male partner or ex-partner, the world described in The Women’s Room is not confined to 1950s society. It is our world too.

Mira’s domestic servitude is one example of this psychological violence. French describes the suffocating housework that Mira fills her day with – at the expense of exploring her own ambitions and dreams. Every minute of every day is spent managing the ‘shit and string beans’ of her marriage in order to create an illusion of domestic harmony.

Unlike Mira, women’s lives today are not wholly confined to the domestic sphere, thanks in no small to the gains made in the second wave by heroic women demanding change. Women have taken up their places in the public arena. With this greater visibility has come vital and hard won legislative change. And yet, even today, women still do the vast majority of unpaid housework and are responsible for most of the unpaid labour that keeps our economy ticking over.

When Norm leaves Mira, she presents him with the bill for the hours of service she has brought to their marriage. In it, she itemises the time she has spent cleaning and caring and – controversially – the time spent having sex with her husband. Imagine if women across the UK followed her lead. How much money are we owed for the hours of work we carry out, unrecognised and unvalued? What would happen to our economy if women demanded reimbursement for the work they do? And why, decades on from Mira handing Norm the bill, are we still willing to ignore that most of the ‘shit and string beans’ jobs carried out by women are work, and should be recognised and valued as such?

The period of Mira’s life that is dominated by housework highlights one of the problems with French’s novel. Mira’s struggles are the struggles of a white, middle class housewife. It is important to always remember that throughout this period, women were out in the workplace fighting vital battles to have the value of their paid work recognised, just as Mira wants her unpaid labour to be recognised. A further glaring omission in The Women’s Room is the invisibility of black women in her depiction of the women’s liberation movement. French has been criticised for the fact that there are no black women characters in the novel, as well as her use of black men as a trope to test white women’s liberal beliefs. It is frustrating how the book never really explores how race, class and gender intersect with one another. Reading the novel in 2014, these omissions cannot be ignored or glossed over, and must be critiqued.

Physical and sexual violence runs like an ugly vein throughout the novel. Through the rapes, attempted rapes and domestic abuse experienced by her characters, French forces us to confront how male violence is used to uphold patriarchy and maintain the power structures that oppress women as a class. As Norm congratulates himself on not being a wife beater, we witness the emotional violence inflicted on Mira by his refusal to see her as a full human being. Through the attempted gang rape, we see how male violence forces Mira into recognising that the freedoms given to her male peers are denied to her. And through Chris’ rape, we are forced to confront how patriarchal society colludes with the rapist to deny women their basic human rights.

Since The Women’s Room was written, feminists have done incredible work to tackle male violence against women – from setting up refuges to bringing about legislative change such as criminalising marital rape in 1991. Their efforts have led to an important shift in the way we talk about male violence, and the way the crime is dealt with across our society.

And yet. Reading the section on Chris’s rape in 2014, it is impossible to ignore where things haven’t changed.

First, there is the fact that rape and domestic abuse remains so astoundingly common. Statistics released by the ONS and the Ministry of Justice in 2013 revealed that 1 in 5 women experience sexual assault and that of the 473,000 sexual assault crimes committed in one year, between 60,000 – 95,000 were rapes. Only 15 per cent of those rapes were ever reported, and a scant 1,070 led to a conviction. Meanwhile, two women a week are killed by their partner or former partner, and statistics released in 2013 detailed 1.2 million incidences of domestic abuse over one year. The frequent and sustained violence experienced by French’s characters is not confined to the past. It is the reality for millions of women living in the UK today.

The ugly truth remains that – 36 years on from publication – too much of this book remains relevant. Women are still being raped and murdered because they are women. Women’s unpaid labour is still undervalued. The vision of liberation that Val and Mira and their Harvard friends dream of has yet to become a reality.

Reading The Women’s Room again, I wonder whether French, who died in 2009, hoped that in her lifetime she would see a change that meant her book would no longer be relevant to women’s lives? Perhaps she hoped that by the time she died, the world she depicts in the novel would be completely alien to my generation of women. It saddens me that this is not the case. But reading The Women’s Room in 2014, I feel hope. I read the conversations between Val and Mira, and watch Mira emerge from a life of oppression to find the strength to start living truly, and I find myself believing that a different world is possible. Every time I re-read The Women’s Room, I trust that a new world will be made possible. But that world can only be made possible by building on the gains made during the second wave, and continuing with the feminist revolution that will liberate all women from capitalist patriarchy.

Perhaps when I read the novel in another forty years, Mira’s battles will no longer be relevant. I hope so.

Sian Norris is a writer and feminist activist. She is the founder and director of the Bristol Women's Literature Festival and runs the successful feminist blog sianandcrookedrib.blogspot.com. Her first novel, Greta and Boris: A Daring Rescue was published in 2013 by Our Street Books. 

Sian Norris is a writer. She blogs at sianandcrookedrib.blogspot.com and is the Founder & Director of the Bristol Women's Literature Festival. She is currently writer-in-residence at Spike Island.

Getty
Show Hide image

"Labour are as pro-Brexit as the Tories": what do Sinn Fein's MPs really want from Westminster?

Its seven MPs are much less sympathetic to Corbyn's party than popularly imagined, and won't ever take their seats.

Should the Conservative minority government fall, what is Jeremy Corbyn’s route to power? The counterfactual as popularly understood goes like this: Corbyn would pick up the phone to his old pal Gerry Adams and convince Sinn Fein’s seven MPs to abandon the habit of a century and take their seats.

There are countless reasons why this would never happen, most of them obvious. One is more surprising. Despite Corbyn’s longstanding links with the republican cause, the Labour party is not all that popular among a new intake, which is preoccupied with one thing above all else: Brexit.

No wonder. Sinn Fein’s long game is an all-Ireland one, and the party believe the UK’s departure from the EU will hasten reunification. In the meantime, however, its priority is a Brexit deal that gives Northern Ireland – where 56 per cent of voters backed remain – designated status within the EU.

Pioneered by the moderate nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party as an antidote to Brexit, designated status would allow the six counties in the North to continue to enjoy the EU’s four freedoms. But the idea is anathema to unionists and the UK government, and Sinn Fein sees little evidence that the Westminster establishment will make it work – not even Labour.

“They are as pro-Brexit as the Conservatives are,” says Mid Ulster MP Francie Molloy. “We’re anti-Brexit. We want to see the right of the people in the North who voted to remain in Europe respected.”

Simmering resentment over what the party perceives to have been broken promises on Tony Blair’s part – especially over legal protection for the Irish language, a key stumbling block obstructing the resumption of power-sharing – makes the already implausible deal even less likely.

“The Irish language act was something that Blair agreed to,” says Molloy. “So when people talk about us taking our seats, they don’t realise we would be backing a Labour government that wouldn’t be living up to its commitments either, and would be just as pro-Brexit as the Conservatives are."

That criticism may well surprise a lay audience whose working assumption is that Adams and Corbyn work hand in glove. But it is perhaps the best illustration of Sinn Fein’s parliamentary priorities: its seven MPs will not in any circumstances take their seats but use their Westminster presence to lobby ministers and MPs of all stripes while running constituency offices at home (they are unsalaried, but claim expenses).

Crucially, its MPs believe abstentionism strengthens, rather than weakens their negotiating hand: by their logic other parties need not and do not fear them given the fact they do not have voting power.

They will use their leverage to agitate for special status above all else. “Special status is the biggest issue that we are lobbying for,” says Molloy. “We feel that is the best way of securing and retaining EU membership. But if we get a referendum on Irish unity and the people vote for that, then the North will automatically join the EU.”

But that wasn’t always the received wisdom. That assurance was in fact secured by Mark Durkan, the former deputy first minister and SDLP MP beaten by Sinn Fein last week, after an exchange with Brexit secretary David Davis at the leaving the EU select committee. The defeat of the three SDLP MPs – two of them by Sinn Fein – means there will be no Irish nationalist voice in the commons while Brexit is negotiated.

Surely that’s bad news for Northern Irish voters? “I don’t think it is,” says Molloy. “The fact we took two seats off the SDLP this time proves abstentionism works. It shows they didn’t deliver by attending. We have a mandate for abstentionism. The people have now rejected attendance at Westminster, and rejected Westminster itself. We’ve never been tempted to take our seats at all. It is very important we live by our mandate.”

If they did, however, they would cut the Conservatives’ and Democratic Unionist Party’s working majority from 13 to a much more precarious six. But Molloy believes any alliance will be a fundamentally weak one and that all his party need do is wait. “I think it’ll be short-lived,” he says. “Every past arrangement between the British government and unionist parties has always ended in tears.”

But if the DUP get its way – the party has signed a confidence and supply deal which delivers extra cash for Northern Ireland – then it need not. Arlene Foster has spoken of her party’s desire to secure a good deal for the entire country. Unsurprisingly, however, Sinn Fein does not buy the conciliatory rhetoric.

“They’ve never really tried to get a good deal for everybody,” says Michelle Gildernew, who won the hyper-marginal of Fermanagh and South Tyrone back from the Ulster Unionists last week. “The assembly and executive [which Sinn Fein and the DUP ran together] weren’t working for a lot of groups – whether that was the LGBT community, the Irish language community, or women...they might say they’re going to work for everybody, but we’ll judge them by their actions, not their words.”

Molloy agrees, and expresses concern that local politicians won’t be able to scrutinise new spending. “The executive needs to be up and running to implement that, and to ensure a fair distribution. If there’s new money coming into the North, we welcome that, but it has to be done through the executive.”

On current evidence, the call for local ministers to scrutinise the Conservatives’ deal with the DUP is wishful thinking – Northern Ireland has been without an executive since February, when the late Martin McGuinness resigned as deputy first minister and triggered a snap election.

The talks since have been defined by intransigence and sluggishness. James Brokenshire, the Northern Ireland secretary, has had to postpone the talks deadline on four separate occasions, and has been criticised by nationalists for his perceived closeness to the DUP.

The final deadline for the restoration of an executive is 29 June 2017. Sinn Fein has called for Brokenshire to recuse himself in favour of a neutral chair. “His hands are tied now, completely,” says Molloy. “The Conservative party were always questionable on where they stood – they’ve always been unionists. The issue now is whether they can act neutrally as a guarantor to the Good Friday Agreement.”

He believes that question is already settled. “Legally, they have to act to ensure that nothing happens to damage that agreement – but we’ve already breached it through Brexit. There was no consultation. The people of the North voted to remain and it hasn’t been recognised. It totally undermines the consent principle.”

Just how they and Brokenshire interpret that principle – the part of the Good Friday Agreement that specifies the constitutional status of the North can only change by consent of its people – will be key to whether they can achieve their ultimate goal: Irish unity.

Molloy and Gildernew say the fact that 11 of Northern Ireland’s 18 constituencies voted to remain in the EU is enough for Brokenshire to call one within the next five years (though polling consistently shows that a clear majority of the province’s electorate, including a substantial minority of nationalists, would vote to stay in the UK). They are confident they can win, though, failing that, Molloy envisages it as the first in several referenda on unification.

But beneath the optimism lies the knowledge that the British government are unlikely to heed their calls. And, willingly absent from the Westminster chamber, they say the UK government’s discussions about Brexit are illegitimate. They see their real powerbase as elsewhere: in Dublin’s Dail Eireann, where Sinn Fein is the third largest party, and the chancelleries of Europe.

“That’s where most of the negotiation will actually happen,” says Molloy. “The EU27 will make the decisions. They won’t be made in Westminster, because the British have already set out what they’re doing: they’re leaving.”

But with seven MPs already lobbying ministers and a united Ireland unlikely to happen in the immediate future, Sinn Fein itself won’t be disappearing anytime soon.

Patrick Maguire writes about politics and is the 2016 winner of the Anthony Howard Award.

0800 7318496