{"id":214,"date":"2008-09-08T15:46:30","date_gmt":"2008-09-08T15:46:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/2008\/09\/08\/the-international-federation-of-working-women-1919-1924-geert-van-goethem-2006\/"},"modified":"2008-09-08T15:46:30","modified_gmt":"2008-09-08T15:46:30","slug":"the-international-federation-of-working-women-1919-1924-geert-van-goethem-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/2008\/09\/08\/the-international-federation-of-working-women-1919-1924-geert-van-goethem-2006\/","title":{"rendered":"The International Federation of Working Women, 1919-1924 – Geert Van Goethem (2006)"},"content":{"rendered":"


\nAn International Experiment of Women Workers: The International Federation of
\nWorking Women, 1919-1924, by Geert Van Goethem, Amsab-Institute of Social History, Ghent, Belgium<\/strong><\/em>
\nIn: Magaly Rodriguez Garcia, ed., \u201cLabour Internationalism: Different Times, Different Faces\u201d, in Special issue of Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Filologie en Geschiedenis\/Revue Belge de Philologie et d\u2019Histoire,<\/em> vol. 84, 2006, no. 4, p. 1025-1047. To order the issue, contact: mrodrigu@vub.ac.be.<\/em>
\nGeert Van Goethem is also the author of: The Amsterdam International (sub-title: The World of the International Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU), 1913-1945), Ashgate (www.ashgate.com<\/a>), 2006, 320 p., ISBN-10: 0 7546 5254 8.<\/em>
\nLabour history is mainly about men, and gender history is usually about women. In fact,
\ngender history is generally the province of female scholars, and labour history is
\ndominated by male historians. This contribution, written by a man, draws chiefly on
\ndocuments written or published by women and women\u2019s organisations to study how an
\nexclusively female initiative, an international of women workers, was received in the
\nworld of labour. It is in keeping with the claim made by Kathy Sklar, that \u201cone way to
\nunderstand the history of women as a group is to consider them with respect to two
\nkinds of experience: [1] those shared with other women and [2] those shared with men
\nof their own social group\u201d (1). In this contribution, I would like to put forward a few elements
\nthat can enrich our insights into the relations between women and trade unions. For this
\npurpose, I am using the history of a little-known international experiment, in which an
\ninternational company of women trade unionists tried to develop a structural form of
\ncooperation between 1919 and 1924. The discussions these women held amongst each
\nother, the positions they took, their attitude towards the environment in which they
\noperated and the treatment they received from that environment all shape the context of
\ninteraction between class and gender, as \u201csystems of domination or systems of
\ninequality\u201d (2) that both diverged and converged. Surprisingly, we find that a third element
\nalso comes into play here: nationality, a factor that turns out to be a considerably tough
\none in this internationalist community.
\nAnyone who browses the sources will have no difficulty finding statements by
\nunion representatives that are discriminatory about paid female labour and even about
\nwomen in general (3). It is indeed a remarkable fact that a social movement whose prime
\ngoal was to emancipate the lowest social class, the workers, actually discriminated
\nagainst the weakest segment of that class itself, and even excluded them. Researchers
\nwho engage in the study of the relations between women and the unions consequently
\narrive at almost identical conclusions, which can be summed up in the words of Jennifer
\nCurtin: \u201cIn the past, women have been excluded from membership, denied access to
\ndecision-making positions, and some trade unions have acted to reinforce rather than
\nchallenge women\u2019s inequality in the paid workforce\u201d (4).
\nCorrie van Eijl too stated that trade unions in general, instead of working to
\ndiminish differences in vocational skills and remuneration between men and women,
\nhave, on the contrary, contributed to \u201cthe interests of working women being construed as
\nincompatible with those of working men\u201d (5). In Frader\u2019s view, this reinforcement of the
\nopposition between the sexes has been a deliberate policy of the men: \u201cA travers les
\nsyndicats, les hommes ont ainsi d\u00e9fendu leurs pr\u00e9rogatives, contribuant \u00e0 maintenir les
\nfronti\u00e8res entre identit\u00e9s masculine et f\u00e9minine\u201d (6). Madeleine Reberioux consequently
\nconfirms that \u201coui, la rencontre entre les femmes et le syndicalisme n\u2019a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 facile\u201d (7).
\nThe conclusions are therefore unequivocal and quasi unanimous, and the question as to
\nwhy trade unions excluded and discriminated women often elicits the same answers,
\neven from different perspectives. I will give three, but add that, with most authors, these
\nelements are interrelated.
\nFirst, there is the class perspective. According to historical materialism, class and
\nclass consciousness are the determining factors in starting off the process that leads to
\nthe final historical destination of the classless society. Trade unions, inspired by their
\nMarxist world view, applied class as an inclusive category that left no room for
\ndifferences, neither from the ethnic point of view, nor from the point of view of gender.
\nRegina Becker-Schmidt points out that this concept of class, which appears to be
\ngender-neutral, turns out, on closer analysis, to be identical with \u201cArbeitermannschaft\u201d (8).
\nFor Bert Klandermans, this makes unions \u201cbulwarks of white male workers who have
\ndifficulties with changes in favour of female workers or workers from different ethnic
\nbackgrounds\u201d (9). This monolithic class thinking, according to Leela Fernandez (10) and
\nothers, disregards the social dynamic, which is infinitely more complex. The attempt of
\nthe trade unions to formulate class as a separate, clearly defined and sharply delimited
\ncategory consequently hides an obsession with power and a claim of exclusivity with
\nregard to representation. In other words, the more class becomes an exclusive category,
\nthe more it represses and ignores other categories, such as gender and ethnicity. Or, in
\nother words, apparent gender neutrality often hides gender, race and ethnic ideologies
\nand interests (11).
\nAn explanation can also be sought in the strategy of the trade unions, who did not
\nnecessarily base their actions on the class theory, but whose sole purpose was to
\ndefend the professional interests of their members. For these organisations, a possible
\ninflux of cheap (female) labour was a threat to the wage level and, in times of economic
\ncrisis, even to the jobs of their (male) members. This corporatist trade union model did
\nnot just discriminate against women, but also against minors, foreigners, unskilled
\nlabourers, and in general, anyone who constituted a threat to the standard of pay.
\nMany authors base their analyses on the gender perspective. An example is Thea
\nSinclair, who points to the \u201cimplicit gender ideology\u201d of the world of labour. It is an
\nideology that is activated by \u201cthe practices of management, unions, male workers and
\nwomen themselves\u201d (12). Corrie van Eijl further explores this ideology and points to the
\ntriad underlying it, composed of morality, procreation, and family. They are to be seen as
\ninterrelated concepts that gave meaning to the difference between men and women.
\nThe argument of morality was often found in denominational circles, including the
\nChristian-inspired trade unions. There were two viewpoints from which the negative
\neffects of paid labour on procreation were argued: on the one hand, the risks posed by
\nthe hazards of factory work to the reproductive capacity of female workers, and on the
\nother hand, the danger of paid work leading women away from marriage and
\nprocreation. This justification of a gender difference on the shop floor was a motivation
\nfor differences in employment legislation and differences in the appreciation of female
\nand male labour. The third factor was composed of ideas about the family. The idea that
\nsociety was made up of families and the assumption that there was a more or less
\nnatural division of labour within those families were so general that other opinions were
\nonly sporadically heard.
\nOne of the disadvantages of this kind of general agreement is that there is little
\nroom or attention for stories that challenge this overall view. Although there have of
\ncourse been many authors who went in search of contributions made by women to the
\nsocial struggle, these studies eventually tend to confirm this image of repression and
\nmarginalisation. That is why the period and aftermath of Word War I offer several
\ninteresting possibilities of research. The massive employment of women in the
\nmetalworking industry and in particular the arms industry during the war broke the
\nhegemony of men in industrial labour. And just like the immediate post-war period was a
\ncrucial one in the process of securing workers\u2019 rights in general, this period was also
\nvery important for the women workers and their representatives. Women became actors
\nand took their own initiatives to formulate and defend both their social rights and their
\nright to represent themselves. All this challenged the idea of the uniform working class.
\nMoreover, this was a period when women\u2019s political rights were a major issue, supported
\nby strong national women\u2019s movements, which also started uniting internationally. This
\ngave women unionists a double opportunity to develop themselves, but at the same
\ntime, the choice between class and gender solidarity presented a fundamental problem
\nof loyalty.
\nThe International Congress of Working Women, Washington, October 1919<\/strong><\/em>
\nNational trade union federations, most of which were founded in the last decades of the
\nnineteenth century, started collaborating internationally in 1901. The International
\nSecretariat of National Trade Union Federations was a contact and consultation body for
\nleading union officials, mostly from European workers\u2019 movements. The secretariat was
\ndominated by German unionists, but was weakened by virulent ideological oppositions
\nbetween radical and anarchist unions and the more moderate reformists (13). In the course
\nof the First World War, however, the situation changed completely. The trade union
\ninternational split into three camps, depending on the political and military positions of
\nthe countries involved; the German dominance naturally came to an end; and the largest
\nsyndicalist organisation in Europe, the French Conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration G\u00e9n\u00e9rale du Travail (CGT),
\ntook a much more moderate position and gradually joined the reformist camp. It was
\nprecisely the French union leader Leon Jouhaux (14) who, at a conference of trade unions
\nof the Allied countries in Leeds in 1916, advocated a peace treaty that would also
\ninclude \u201clabour clauses\u201d. During the war, trade unions and leaders of the reformist
\nworkers\u2019 movement in the chief belligerent countries had gained access to power and
\nwere determined to create a role for themselves in the framework of the impending
\npeace negotiations (15). Eventually, this led to the Labour Charter in the 1919 Peace
\nTreaty. This charter, in which the main points were the introduction of the eight-hour
\nworking day and the legal protection of female and child labour, also led to the
\nfoundation of the International Labour Organization (ILO) as part of the League of
\nNations.
\nAlthough female labour featured prominently on the agenda, the world of
\ninternational diplomacy in which these negotiations were held was even more of an
\nexclusive all-male affair than that of the labour movement. Women had been \u201chidden
\nactors\u201d (16) on the international stage, but immediately after World War I they emerged as
\nactive participants in the as yet undeveloped domain of international labour law. They
\nlargely owed this new role to a few strong national organisations of working women in
\nthe main Allied Powers, the United States and Britain. The American National Women\u2019s
\nTrade Union League (NWTUL) (17) was an autonomous organisation that operated under
\nthe umbrella of the American Federation of Labor (AFL). In Britain, there were strong
\nwomen\u2019s organisations in several large trade unions as well as women\u2019s groups in the
\ncooperative movement and in the Labour Party. All these organisations worked together
\non the Standing Joint Committee of Working Women (SJC) (18), which coordinated
\ninternational contacts and reported on them to their respective national structures.
\nCharacteristic of both the American and the British women\u2019s movements was their mixed
\nsocial make-up, which placed them in an intermediate position between the maledominated
\nlabour movement and the feminist movement which was dominated by
\nmiddle-class women. They could be described as organisations with a double identity,
\nwomen\u2019s and workers\u2019 movement in one. However, they had a degree of autonomy vis-
\n\u00e0-vis there male dominated national labour movements, and during the war, they were
\nclosely involved in the discussion on the future of working women.
\nThey had a particular interest in the Labour Charter, in which particular clauses
\nwould govern women\u2019s labour, and so various national organisations of trade union
\nwomen started an intensive lobbying campaign. Their major demand was the inclusion
\nof women in the national government delegations that were to negotiate the Labour
\nCharter. On this point, the strong organisations from the US and Britain had the support
\nof French women and various women\u2019s organisations from Scandinavia. The main
\nleaders of the national women\u2019s organisations knew each other personally. Women who
\nwere active in the labour movement already developed a network during the war. Of
\nparticular importance in this regard was the initiative of the American women to send a
\nsmall delegation, composed of Mary Anderson (19) and Marie Rose Schneiderman (20), to
\nParis in March 1919. They succeeded in being personally received by US President
\nWilson, who described their demand to include women in the government delegations to
\nthe International Labour Organization as \u201ca quite reasonable request\u201d (21). After their visit
\nto Paris, the delegation went to report to their British colleagues, who reciprocated by
\nsending a delegation to the national convention of the NWTUL in Philadelphia, where
\nAnderson and Schneiderman, in the conclusion of their report, launched the proposal
\n\u201cthat the league hold an international labor conference for women\u201d. On the basis of their
\nexperiences in Europe, they had become convinced \u201cthat a new era was ahead of us
\nand that this was the time to start women thinking and acting on international matters\u201d (22).
\nIt was no accident that this International Congress of Working Women met in October
\n1919 in Washington DC, concurrent with the first International Labour Conference. The
\ndate was chosen for strategic reasons and inspired by the concern that women were not
\nsufficiently represented at the official congress: \u201cwe wanted to inaugurate an
\ninternational program for women and get it accepted by the conference\u201d (23). On the
\ninitiative of the American NWTUL, invitations were sent to thirty-three national
\norganisations. The invitation referred to the upcoming international labour congress,
\nwhere \u201citems on the agenda intimately concern working women\u201d. \u201cWomen must now
\nassume responsibilities in the affairs of the world\u201d, the organisers stated, and that was
\nwhy the established national trade union organisations were asked to send delegates.
\nEventually, nineteen countries were represented (24). The agenda covered all the major
\nissues that were also being addressed by the International Labour Conference, and
\nmany delegates were also technical advisers to the labour conference. Making
\nrecommendations to the labour conference was of course one of the main objectives of
\nthis international women\u2019s congress. Among the other matters addressed were the
\ndevelopment of a network and the question of whether there was a sufficiently solid
\nbasis for establishing a permanent international organisation of working women.
\nAfter the congress, a propaganda brochure was published, that proudly
\nannounced that in Washington \u201ca meeting of historical importance has taken place
\n\u2026composed of women \u2026 from different nations moved by the same spirit of kinship\u201d (25).
\nAccording to the American organisers, the development and promotion of sistership
\namong women of different backgrounds and origins was one of the major objectives of
\nthis collaboration. In this respect, the working women distinguished themselves from
\ntheir male counterparts, at least as regards their discourse and culture.
\nEquality versus protection<\/strong><\/em>
\nThe question of whether women should seek protection or strive for equality was a bone
\nof contention. In February 1919, at a conference in Berne, the international labour
\nmovement (26) unambiguously went for protection. The demand from \u201ccertain feminist
\ntendencies\u201d that women in the labour market be treated in the same way as men was
\ndismissed as \u201ca claim of unlimited protection for the exploitation of women\u201d. To the trade
\nunionists who met in Berne, woman\u2019s protection was imperative: \u201cShe must be
\nemployed differently, being weaker than man and moreover being exposed to certain
\ndisturbances in her labour in consequence of her nature. For the sake of the future
\ndevelopment of mankind it is of vital importance that women shall be protected after
\nconfinement\u201d (27). However, the Berne programme also included one demand that was
\nalso made by feminism: \u201cUnder all circumstances, equal wages for equal work should be
\nwarranted\u201d. In Berne, the vision was developed that would remain unchanged for the
\nnext few decades: the protection of working women as mothers and the equality of
\nwomen as workers. It was a standpoint that could easily lead to ambiguity, and it could
\nnot count on general support in women workers\u2019 circles. But a woman\u2019s right to work,
\neven if she was married, was not questioned.
\nThrough Margaret Bondfield (28), the only woman who attended the Berne
\nconference, the British women voiced a different view. She did not like the clause
\nprohibiting female labour in unhealthy and dangerous industries, because, she argued,
\nmerely banning women would not make the work any safer or healthier for men either.
\nConsequently, Bondfield asked to restrict the ban on women\u2019s labour to those
\ncompanies \u201cwhere it is impossible to provide for sufficiently healthy conditions\u201d (29).
\nThe documents that were discussed a few months later in Washington at the first
\nInternational Congress of Working Women (ICWW) were similarly devoid of fundamental
\ncriticism of the principle that women needed special legal protection in the workplace.
\nThe great majority of the delegates agreed that women were in need of protection as
\nregards both night work and work in dangerous and unhealthy jobs. The American Rose
\nSchneiderman rejected the demand for full equality with roughly the same argument that
\nhad been used in Berne: \u201cequality of women to kill themselves by night work is no
\nequality to us\u201d (30).
\nThe dissident voice came from Scandinavia, where the Swedish socialist women
\nin particular took a stand against separate labour legislation for women, \u201cexcept when
\nwomen are actually engaged in child-bearing\u201d. They clearly stated their reason: \u201csuch
\nprotection tends to limit women\u2019s scope of activity and to cut women off from many
\nsuitable and remunerative occupations\u201d (31). Eventually, the resolutions took both views
\ninto account as much as possible. As regards work in unhealthy and dangerous
\nindustries, they adopted the formula that had formerly been devised by Margeret
\nBondfield, while the ban on night work was generalised as a principle, with certain
\nexceptions on account of the nature and the need for continuity of specific industries and
\nfor ensuring essential public services.
\nAnother subject on which the Washington congress delegates were divided was
\nthe question of maternity benefit. There was quite general agreement on the principle of
\ncreating an insurance system for mothers, but that was were agreement ended.
\nOpinions were greatly divided when it came to the nature of this insurance. Would it
\ncover only medical aid or include a financial benefit? Would it have to be financed by the
\ngeneral state funds or would it have to be part of a general health insurance system?
\nWas it to be restricted to women doing paid labour or extended to all women? In the
\nend, no agreement could be reached and the congress issued both a majority and a
\nminority resolution. The majority resolution went for the maximum scenario, while the
\nsupporters of the minority resolution wanted to restrict the system to working women.
\nThis discussion too was quite illustrative of the different social backgrounds of the
\nconference participants.
\nIt is difficult to say whether the resolutions of the International Congress of
\nWorking Women had a determining influence on the results of the International Labour
\nConference and on the working of the first conventions. What we do know is that many
\nwomen who attended the congress held strong positions in various national workers\u2019
\ndelegations, such as the French Jeanne Bouvier (32), the British Margaret Bondfield and
\nMary MacArthur (33) and the Belgian H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Burniaux (34); the Norwegian Betzy Kjelsberg (35)
\nwas a technical adviser to the Norwegian government delegation. It was mainly in their
\ncommittee work that these women exercised their influence, and it was precisely there
\nthat the recommendations of the ICWW proved useful. It should come as no surprise
\nthen that the final conventions on the eight-hour working week and the protection of
\nfemale and child labour differed only slightly from the resolution adopted by the ICWW,
\nalthough this in itself cannot be taken as a measure of the authority of women workers.
\nFeminism versus class struggle<\/strong><\/em>
\nFor the two major national organisations of women workers, the American and the
\nBritish, international collaboration was a logical step to take. Their goals were identical
\nand they fitted in with their national ambitions. Their actions centred on three key
\nconcepts: organisation, education and legislation. Their primary goal was organisation:
\nto get women to join the union, if necessary through separate organisations for women.
\nThere are few if any examples of all-women trade unions that were successful in the
\nlonger term, though some enjoyed short-lived success. As a result, the organisations of
\nworking women often fell back on their second goal, education. Because women\u2019s lack
\nof education and knowledge was generally considered one of the main reasons why
\nwomen were indifferent to trade unionism, also by the male union leaders, it was usually
\neasy to find partners for this enterprise. Consequently, this became the area in which
\nseparate initiatives for and by women were not only tolerated, but even acknowledged
\nand supported, even though the funds that were made available for education were
\noften inadequate. For many female union leaders, therefore, the third pillar became the
\nmost important one: legislation. At the time of the ICWW, the most powerful national
\norganisation of working women, the American NWTUL, gradually turned towards labour
\nlaw as an instrument for securing the rights of women workers. Mary Anderson, one of
\nthe leading figures of the NWTUL, became one of the first Women officers of the
\ninfluential Women\u2019s Bureau of the US Department of Labor. It was no coincidence that
\nthe possibilities offered by international labour legislation strongly motivated precisely
\nthe American women to collaborate across national borders. The representation of
\nwomen workers on the new international body was essential, and called for the creation
\nof a new structure. The international congress needed to acquire permanent status and
\nproceed to establish the International Federation of Working Women (IFWW), which was
\nto become the international voice of the national organisations of women workers. In the
\neyes of the American initiators, a separate women\u2019s organisation, that could operate
\nindependently from the male-dominated national trade union federations, was the only
\nguarantee of both the representation of women and the consistent defence of women
\nworkers\u2019 rights. Margaret Dreier Robbins (36) personally and financially committed to this
\ninitiative, for which she received the support of the NWTUL.
\nSeeing that it was the Americans who took the initiative and footed the bill, they
\nwere also the ones who could decide on who would be admitted to the congress. This
\nimmediately posed a problem. Would the congress be reserved for trade unions or
\nwould it also admit women\u2019s groups from other sections of the organised working class?
\nThe answer to this question would naturally largely determine the nature of the
\norganisation. The British women were in favour of a broad organisation of working-class
\nwomen, much like their own Standing Joint Committee of Industrial Women\u2019s
\nOrganizations. The British thought it would be wrong to establish an organisation
\ncomposed exclusively of union women, because there already was an international
\ntrade union movement. They advocated a broader organisation that would also include
\nworking-class women without paid jobs, since they too were affected by problems such
\nas maternity leave, health insurance and child labour. This unique combination of
\nfeminism and class struggle proposed by the British women met with heavy opposition
\nfrom the American women. Within the NWTUL, it was feared that following the British
\nexample would lead to political questions dominating the organisation. Just like the AFL,
\nthe NWTUL was fearful of the influence of radical left-wing and socialist political
\nprogrammes on what they perceived as \u2018purely\u2019 industrial matters. Moreover, the British
\nsituation, with a strongly developed women\u2019s movement in all branches of the labour
\nmovement, was quite unique, even in the European context.
\nThe result of this difference of opinion was that the Washington congress was
\nunable to establish a permanent organisation and that the discussion was postponed
\nuntil the next meeting, which was scheduled for 1921. In the meantime, it did elect an
\nexecutive body, with the American Margaret Dreier Robins as president and Mary
\nMacArthur (Great Britain), Jeanne Bouvier (France), Betzy Kjelsberg (Norway) and
\nLouisa Landova-Stychova (37) (Czechoslovakia) as vice-presidents. The secretariat
\nremained in charge of the American NWTUL with Maud Swartz.
\nImmediately after the congress, the American presidency was very keen to
\npublicise the existence of the new initiative and solve the fundamental problem of
\naffiliation. Thanks to the publication of a trilingual newsletter, of which the first issue
\ncame out in May 1920 and which was sent to more than 1,000 contacts, the initiative
\nmaintained a certain momentum. The ICWW also started to carve out a niche for itself
\nwithin the international women\u2019s movement. Jeanne Bouvier and Duchene represented
\nthe congress at the meeting of the Women\u2019s Suffrage Alliance, in spite of the problem of
\nincompatible principles, as this alliance was opposed to the legal protection of female
\nlabour. Betzy Kjelsberg also represented the ICWW at the International Council of
\nWomen in September 1920 in Norway, and Maud Swartz was sent to the Women\u2019s
\nInternational League for Peace and Freedom in July 1921 (38).
\nMeanwhile, a lively correspondence was conducted on the constitution of the
\npermanent organisation. However, the British and the Americans were unable to
\novercome their differences, so that two drafts were in circulation. This in itself was
\nalready a serious impediment to further development, but there was more. In almost all
\nnational trade unions, the number of female members dropped sharply after 1920.
\nWomen seemed to be the first victims of the severe economic crisis that had set in. The
\ninternational climate changed and the workers\u2019 movement was forced onto the
\ndefensive. The hope for a fast implementation of the conventions concluded in
\nWashington turned out to be unrealistic and even the ILO itself was struggling to survive.
\nTo make things worse, there were the internal problems within the international trade
\nunion movement, where the American AFL was unable to achieve its initial ambitions of
\nleadership and turned its back to the old continent in disappointment. The dispute
\nbetween their national federations in the context of the international trade union
\nmovement weighed on the relations between the American and European women trade
\nunionists. For the time being, however, the American NWTUL remained motivated to
\ncarry on, even though complaints about the financial burden that the international work
\nentailed and was borne exclusively by the Americans were now aired openly (39).
\nIn the autumn of 1920, when the ILO announced a new conference in Geneva in
\nApril 1921, the executive body of the ICWW decided to convene a new congress of the
\nwomen\u2019s international at the same time. However, the ILO conference was deferred to
\nautumn, and so the second ICWW had to be moved to October 1921 as well. The
\nAmerican secretariat invited forty-nine national organisations, including all members of
\nthe International Federation of Trade Unions and of the Pan-American Federation of
\nTrade Unions (40). Eventually, however, only twelve delegations took part in the congress.
\nThe International Federation of Working Women, Geneva, 1921<\/strong><\/em>
\nFeelings ran high during the preparations for this congress. Especially the British were
\nadamant that the new federation had to be open to all working-class women: \u201cwe must
\nrepresent not only the women wage-earners but the women in the homes. We want the
\nmothers\u2019 point of view represented in considering all industrial matters and especially
\nsuch questions as Maternity, Employment of children, and the educational opportunities
\nof young persons\u201d (41). The proposal to restrict admission to women trade unionists was
\nnot acceptable to the British women and they insisted that their view be taken into
\naccount, so that they would not be forced to sever their relations with the ICWW. Other
\nwomen also threatened with resignation. The French Jeanne Bouvier refused to accept
\norganisations with a Christian inspiration, such as the Belgian ACV, that had sent
\ndelegates to Washington. For the French CGT, cooperation with a Christian-inspired
\ntrade union was out of the question, not just in France but on the international level too.
\nHence Bouvier\u2019s proposal to restrict affiliation with the women\u2019s international to those
\norganisations whose national federation was also affiliated with the International
\nFederation of Trade Unions (IFTU). This added a new and important element to the
\ndiscussion. How would the women\u2019s international relate to the trade union international?
\nThe IFTU, better known by its nickname the Amsterdam International (42), had
\nshown little interest in the women\u2019s initiative so far. After its reconstitution in July 1919 in
\nAmsterdam, this international had immediately become embroiled in several serious
\nconflicts. The emergence of communist trade unions and the formation of a communist
\ninternational, the Profintern, that had set itself the aim of destroying the Amsterdam
\nInternational, led to bitter battles and even splits in several European countries. One of
\nthe consequences was that the IFTU became extremely suspicious and started to close
\nitself off from the outside world. But there were political consequences too. Under
\npressure from the militant left, the Amsterdam International became more radical, to the
\nextent that it organised a congress in London in 1920 where it voted a resolution that
\ncalled for the socialisation of the means of production. Thereby, the IFTU provoked, as it
\nwere, the departure of some of the more moderate national federations, such as the
\nBritish General Federation of Trade Unions and the American AFL.
\nThe presence of Jan Oudegeest (43), the general secretary of the IFTU, at the
\nmeeting of the ICWW\u2019s executive body on 25 October 1921 was therefore not a neutral
\nact. At the very least, it was a sign that the IFTU leadership was starting to interfere in
\nthe women\u2019s international.
\nThe 1921 congress in Geneva was conducted in the same positive and optimist
\natmosphere as the meeting in Washington. The participants soon reached an agreement
\non both fundamental questions and practical matters. The International Congress of
\nWorking Women renamed itself the International Federation of Working Women, and
\nstated as its purpose \u201cto unite organised women in order that they may resolve upon the
\nmeans by which the standard of life of the workers throughout the world may best be
\nraised\u201d. On the matter of affiliation, differences were settled by compromise. The British
\nwere granted an exception to the rule. In principle, affiliation was reserved for national
\ntrade union federations who had women among their members and who were affiliated
\nwith the IFTU, but the constitution also allowed organisations of working-class women to
\njoin if they declared themselves in agreement \u201cto work in the spirit and to follow the
\nprinciples of the International Federation of Trade Unions\u201d (44), which also left the door
\nopen for the American women. The constitution further specified that only one
\norganisation per country could be admitted, which closed the door to Christian unions. In
\nview of what happened a few years later on, it is difficult to understand why the
\nAmerican women did not oppose this. The federation may have been at this point, but its
\nindependence was instantly mortgaged by this exclusive link with the IFTU.
\nPresumably, the close ties that were forged here with the IFTU were interesting
\nfor tactical and organisational reasons. The goals of the IFWW were to promote the
\ntrade union movement among women, to support the development of \u201can international
\npolicy giving special consideration to the needs of women and children\u201d, to follow up the
\ndevelopment of international labour legislation within the framework of the ILO and to
\npromote the appointment of women \u201con all organizations and committees dealing with
\nquestions affecting the welfare of the workers\u201d (45). It was unthinkable that the IFWW could
\nrealise these goals without a structural connection with the IFTU, because, in practice,
\nthe IFTU monopolised the Workers\u2019 Group within the ILO and all contacts with the
\nnational federations concerning the ILO surveys went through the IFTU.
\nOf course, all this made it difficult for the IFWW to develop a clear identity. But the
\ncongress participants had good hopes of success. The American Margaret Dreier
\nRobins remained the president and the NWTUL promised to pay $1,000 over the next
\ntwo years to cover the cost of running the secretariat, which was moved from
\nWashington to London. The British Marion Philips (46) became the secretary and each
\nmember country was free to appoint a vice-president (47). From this point onwards, the
\ndaily management of the IFWW was in the hands of three British women: Margaret
\nBondfield, Marion Philips and Harrison Bell.
\nBut there was one more shadow. Compared to Washington, the Geneva
\ncongress was considerably less of an international event. The European countries most
\nconspicuous by their absence were Germany and Austria, and that had its reasons. Only
\na few years after the war, the German labour movement had not yet re-established its
\nformer leading international position, which it should rightly still have held on account of
\nits massive membership. It had been absent at the establishment of the ILO and there
\nhad been a serious incident at the constituent congress of the IFTU with the American
\nunion leader Samuel Gompers (48). The absence of Germans in this initiative that was
\ndominated by Americans and British meant that the IFWW was unable to cross the
\ndividing lines drawn by the war.
\nOne of the first missions undertaken by Marion Philips as the new secretary of the
\nIFWW was a trip to Amsterdam with a view to finalising agreements with the leaders of
\nthe IFTU. The IFTU\u2019s management committee showed a great interest in the IFWW and
\nproposed the collective affiliation of all the national federations that were members of the
\nAmsterdam International and that had female members. Moreover, the IFTU was willing
\nto pay an affiliation fee of \u00a35 for every 50,000 members. Seeing that the total number of
\nfemale members in 1922 was 3,524,291 (49), that represented a considerable sum, which
\nwould be sufficient to finance the operation of the IFWW. This proposal was submitted to
\nthe president and vice-presidents of the IFWW, who, according to Marion Philips,
\naccepted it by majority (50). The British Trades Union Congress (TUC) could agree with
\nthis proposal, especially because it entailed that there would be no extra financial
\nconsequences, since Amsterdam would pay the fees with the money it received from the
\nnational federations. She reported this to Edo Fimmen (51), who led the IFTU jointly with
\nJan Oudegeest, and arranged with them that the IFTU would address this matter at its
\nnext congress in Rome. However, the American president of the IFWW, Margaret Dreier
\nRobins, was none too pleased with this development. \u201cDo you suppose that I have
\nfought and bled and nearly died for the cause to give the Congress of Working Women
\ninto the keeping of Messrs. Oudegeest, Fimmen and Jouhaux?\u201d (52), she wrote to
\nElisabeth Christman, the secretary of the American NWTUL.
\nOn the other hand, the British tried to put their own ideas into practice and \u201cto link
\nup as far as possible the political, industrial and co-operative sides of the women\u2019s
\nlabour movement\u201d. However, they soon found that the situation on the continent was
\nquite different from their own, so that the project was quickly abandoned as \u201cnot
\npracticable\u201d. The British women concluded that it was unfeasible to work for \u201cthe
\ninclusion of any but trade union women within the Federation\u201d (53). For Marion Philips, this
\nwas a sore disillusionment, which made her lose much of her interest in the IFWW and
\ndevote herself increasingly to the political organisation of women, again on the
\ninternational level. A few years later, when the Labour and Socialist International was
\nfounded in 1923 in Hamburg, she relaunched the idea of establishing a mixed working
\ngroup of women from the worlds of politics, cooperatives and trade unions. Her proposal
\nwas immediately torpedoed by several countries, led by the Germans (54).
\nRome, 1922<\/strong><\/em>
\nThe early years of the Amsterdam International were tumultuous. In spite of relatively
\ngood financial circumstances, there was no internal stability. Old wartime feuds lived on
\nand political questions dominated the agenda. In 1922, when the first regular congress
\nwas organised in Rome, the air seemed to clear up a little. The Germans were
\nappeased with an extra secretary (Johannes Sassenbach) and the election of Carl
\nLegien (55) as vice-president. The heaviest discussion concerned the actions the
\nInternational would take in case a new war broke out. Secretary Edo Fimmen, to the
\ngreat displeasure of the British president, J. H. Thomas (56), succeeded in finding a
\nmajority in favour of the principle of a general strike. Seeing that the discussion on the
\norganisation of women was on the Rome agenda, the national federations had sent
\nmore women to this congress than to earlier ones. The French CGT sent two female
\nrepresentatives (Jeanne Bouvier and Jeanne Chevenard (57)). There was one woman
\ndelegate each from the Allgemeiner Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (ADGB, Gertrud
\nHanna (58)), the TUC (Julia Varley (59)), the Italian Confederazione General del Lavoro (CGL,
\nLaura Casartelli Cabrini (60)) and the International Trade Secretariat of the agricultural
\nlabourers (Argentina Altobelli (61)). Marion Philips attended the congress in her capacity of
\nsecretary of the International Federation of Working Women. The discussion on whether
\nwomen were to organise separately caused great disunity among the female delegates.
\nGertrud Hanna objected to a \u201cspecial Women\u2019s International\u201d (62). She held up the
\nexample of Germany, where women were members of their trade union \u201cwith the same
\nrights, and, of course, the same obligations as men\u201d. For that reason, the ADGB could
\nnot agree to a situation in which \u201ceach sex would adopt resolutions separately\u201d. Hanna
\nopposed the International Federation of Working Women because, in her opinion, it had
\nthe intention \u201cof taking action solely from the woman\u2019s standpoint. This view is extremely
\nnaive and will speedily show itself to be impracticable\u201d. At the congress, she got the
\nsupport of the Italian federation and of the International Federation of Textile Workers,
\namongst others. Tom Shaw (63), the secretary of the textile international, even called
\nmaintaining a separate international for women reactionary \u201cbecause it would tend to
\nmake for a sex division by which workers in the same industry would be parting from
\neach other and forming separate sections\u201d. In his reaction, IFTU secretary Jan
\nOudegeest called that a fine theory, but remarked that \u201cif we want to educate women as
\ntrade unionists the work must be done by women\u201d. On this point, he was supported by
\nthe Frenchwoman Jeanne Chevenard, who tried to counter the German objection by
\npointing to the structural relations between the IFTU and the IFWW. She wanted those
\nrelations to be further strengthened by the cooptation of a female member on the IFTU\u2019s
\nmanagement committee, \u201cwho shall be specially appointed to deal with questions
\nconcerning women and children\u201d. The raison d\u2019\u00eatre of the IFWW was also defended by
\nits secretary, Marion Philips: \u201cwe want the International Federation of Working Women to
\nserve the need of the organized workers and not a special sex interest\u201d. She argued that
\npreserving the IFWW was necessary \u201cbecause we believe we can help to bring women
\ninto mixed organizations of men and women\u201d. The women\u2019s international had to be the
\nbridge leading working women to their trade unions. However, as a result of the
\nstubborn resistance of the German trade union, that represented approximately 40% of
\nthe IFTU members, there was no majority in favour of the offer that the secretariat had
\nmade to Marion Philips. In a toned-down resolution, the unions in all countries were
\ncalled to \u201cdevote their whole attention to the organisation of women workers\u201d. It also
\nproclaimed \u201cthe organisation of men and women in one Trade Union to be the most
\nefficient form of Trade Unionism\u201d. Autonomous organisations of women were urged to
\njoin their national federation. The IFTU congress also stated that \u201cthe aims and
\ncomposition of the IFWW\u201d were too unclear and confined itself to calling upon the
\nmanagement committee \u201cto continue the present friendly relations with the IFWW\u201d64. By
\nthe next congress, to be held in 1924 in Vienna, the secretariat would have to work out a
\nnew arrangement.
\nAfter Rome, the IFWW made an effort to justify its existence by better defining its goals.
\nThree tasks were distinguished: the promotion of trade unionism among women, the
\ndevelopment of an international policy favourable to the needs of women and children,
\nand the representation of working women in organisations involved in \u201cthe welfare of the
\nworking class\u201d (65). To avoid all misunderstandings, it also stated in very clear terms that
\n\u201cwhere men and women are employed in the same industry they should be organised
\ninto the same union\u201d (66). Apparently, there were many women in the IFWW who believed
\nthat things had gone wrong in Rome due to uncertainty about both the composition and
\nthe objectives of the federation. Especially the British management committee was
\nconvinced that it would suffice to bring clarity to these matters and the problems would
\nbe solved. In the meantime, they simply continued their collaboration with Amsterdam.
\nMarion Philips drafted a report on women and child labour in the textile industry which
\nthe IFTU published in three languages. The IFWW started supplying a monthly
\nsupplement to the IFTU press reports, called Women\u2019s Work, of which five issues were
\nstill published in 1923. The IFWW also continued the policy of the ICWW with regard to
\nrepresentation. It took part in the International Women\u2019s Suffrage Alliance in Rome in
\nMay 1923, the Pan-American Congress of Women in Baltimore in 1922 and the
\nconstituent congress of the Labour and Socialist International in Hamburg in May
\n1923 (67). But then things started going wrong. The IFTU itself had to contend with a
\nsevere internal crisis and was forced to discontinue a major part of its activities and
\ndismiss many of its staff. Secretary Edo Fimmen resigned following a conflict about
\npossible cooperation with communist organisations. After a short phase of expansion,
\nthe IFTU found itself in deep waters. The organisation itself was in danger of collapse.
\nSeveral growth perspectives, such as the development of a women\u2019s department,
\nsuddenly became much less interesting.
\nBut the IFWW itself had run out of steam too. Many national federations could not
\nbe convinced of the need for a separate women\u2019s international. \u201cPresque toutes les
\nCentrales Nationales se d\u00e9clar\u00e8rent hostiles \u00e0 une Internationale syndicale particuli\u00e8re
\ndes Travailleuses, parce qu\u2019on la tenait soit pour dangereuse, soit pour superflue\u201d (68),
\nstated the annual report of the IFTU in 1923. The dream of the British women to initiate
\na broad international cooperation between women\u2019s groups from the working class
\nturned out to be unrealistic. They had to reconcile themselves to the situation. The
\nIFWW would be made up exclusively of unions affiliated with the IFTU, and so the British
\nsection of the IFWW turned to the TUC. The TUC was a relative newcomer on the
\ninternational scene, but it was highly cost-conscious. Now that affiliation with the IFWW
\nwas going to be restricted to trade unions, the danger of double work, and therefore
\ndouble costs, seemed real. The latter was not an attractive perspective for the British,
\nwho had had very negative experiences with the financial policy of the IFTU. As the
\nIFWW was to be a pure trade union organisation, its British section was forced to resort
\nunder the TUC and submit to its control. The secretariat and the headquarters were
\nmoved to the TUC, which, in view of the acute shortage of funds, donated \u00a360 \u2013 a
\ndonation and not an affiliation fee, because paying double dues was anathema to the
\nTUC.
\nVienna<\/strong><\/em>
\nAlthough the affiliation question was now resolved, the IFWW failed at growing in
\ngeographical terms. In fact, the Norwegian, Swiss and Polish organisations even
\nresigned and the IFWW lost touch with the Czech and South African groups. Germany
\nand Austria remained not only aloof but even outright hostile. This negative attitude of
\nthe national federations of the IFTU was expressed in very clear terms on the occasion
\nof the second IFWW congress in Vienna from 14 to 18 August 1923. Most of the national
\nfederations affiliated with the IFTU rejected the invitation and boycotted the congress.
\nEventually, only six countries (Belgium, France, Great Britain, Italy, Sweden and the
\nUnited States) (69) sent an official delegation. There were also five guest delegations (70).
\nThe great difficulties of the IFWW to develop into an international representative body
\nare tellingly illustrated by the nationality of the participants. Twenty-one of the thirty
\ndelegates were Anglo-Saxon: ten Americans and eleven British.
\nThe agenda of the congress featured the same topics that had dominated the
\nother meetings: the constitution, unions and women, international labour law, women for
\npeace, family allowance. But the discussion on the future of the federation towered
\nabove all the others. In the run-up to the congress, on 20 July, there had been a meeting
\nof the secretariat, at which the American president had clashed with the British
\nmanagement committee. Margaret Robins opposed the proposal of the British women to
\nstructurally subsume the IFWW under the IFTU. In accordance with the logic developed
\nat their national level, the British women had arrived at the conclusion that, if the IFTU
\nwould actually establish a women\u2019s department, \u201cthe Federation\u2019s identity might be
\nabsorbed in that larger organisation\u201d (71). But Margaret Robins made fundamental
\nobjections to this and \u201cthe meeting terminated without any agreement as to future
\npolicy\u201d (72).
\nIt had been the intention to devote one day of the Vienna congress to discussing
\nthe future organisation of the union women. In the hope that some unions unwilling to
\naffiliate with the IFWW would nevertheless participate in the discussion, the congress
\nwas even going to be suspended for a day (73), but this was prevented by a boycott of the
\nGerman and other national federations and so the discussion was postponed until the
\nnext IFTU congress in Vienna, scheduled for the following year.
\nEventually, after more heavy opposition from the American delegation, the
\nworking women congress decided to go along with the suggestions of the British section,
\nalthough the proposal to turn the IFWW into the women\u2019s department of the IFTU was
\ntoned down a little. The management committee was charged with negotiating with the
\nIFTU about closer collaboration, and the congress immediately formulated a framework
\nfor this. The IFTU would be asked to establish a women\u2019s department and appoint a
\nfemale secretary. They had to set up a women\u2019s committee, that would meet at least
\nonce a year, and every two years it would have to organise a congress of working
\nwomen, preceding the IFTU congress proper. If all these conditions were met, the IFWW
\nwould allow itself to be subsumed under the IFTU. The women of the American NWTUL
\nwere the only dissenters, but they wanted to leave a window of opportunity open and
\nabstained from voting. Although they had mainly emphasised the necessity for women to
\nmaintain their independence during the discussions, their formal argument was limited to
\nreferring to the AFL, which was not affiliated with Amsterdam, which meant the NWTUL
\nwould be in an awkward position with regard to its national federation. Margaret Dreier
\nRobins\u2019s dream to create a worldwide, autonomous organisation of working women was
\nshattered, and she resigned from her position of president. Marion Philips stepped down
\nas the secretary. Her work as chief women\u2019s officer of the Labour Party was mainly
\nsituated in the political sphere. Now that the IFWW had become a purely trade union
\norganisation operating under the wings of the TUC, Margaret Bondfield, who had been
\nelected the first female president of the TUC in 1923, took over the leadership of the
\nBritish section. Robins\u2019s successor as president of the IFWW was the Belgian Hel\u00e8ne
\nBurniaux and Edith MacDonald was promoted from assistant secretary to secretary,
\nwhile Marion Philips remained on the management committee in the capacity of adviser.
\nAlthough the discussion between the European and the American women had been
\npainful and disruptive, the Americans did not want to sever their ties with the IFWW just
\nyet. Apparently, opinions were still divided in the US and the British hoped that they
\nmight still \u201cretain the affiliation of the American Women Trade Unionists, which we have
\nreason to think it may be possible to do\u201d (74).
\nAfter the Vienna congress, the management committee of the IFWW issued an almost
\ndesperate memorandum to try and persuade the IFTU of the need to focus more
\nstrongly on women and women\u2019s issues. Now that the collective affiliation of the national
\nfederations with the IFWW had failed in Rome and the IFTU secretariat had been
\ncharged with setting up a women\u2019s department and to report on it at the next congress,
\nto be held in 1924 in Vienna, it was feared that the IFWW would fall between two stools.
\nThe IFWW therefore had to prove its worth to the IFTU and tried to do so in a lengthy
\nmemorandum. They referred to the threat posed by underpaid and unorganised workers
\nin countries such as China and India and pointed out that, there too, it was women
\nwhose labour was cheapest and who therefore were the biggest danger. The leaders of
\nthe IFWW stressed that they were in touch with women in these countries and
\nemphasised the importance of maintaining and strengthening these relations. \u201cWe are
\nconvinced that the Trade Union Movement must give more attention to these lower
\nranks and build from the bottom rather than from the top\u201d. Naturally, they made out a
\ncase for maintaining their initiative: \u201cOur work and experience as a Federation have
\ntaught us some valuable methods of organisation and given us a knowledge of the
\nneeds of the women\u2019s side of the trade union movement\u201d (75). However, they did not argue
\nin favour of organising women in separate trade unions. Instead, they proposed intense
\ncampaigns aimed at women, with the goal of involving them in the labour movement. As
\norganisations affiliated with the IFWW, they expressed their faith in these methods, and
\nstated \u201cwe are anxious to see them continued and developed\u201d.
\nThe IFWW memorandum was discussed by the IFTU\u2019s management committee
\non 8 November 1923. At that moment, the Amsterdam International was in the middle of
\na political, structural and financial crisis. There was exceptionally great dissension about
\nwhether or not Amsterdam should engage in negotiations with the Soviet Union\u2019s trade
\nunion federation. The British TUC, the financial mainstay of the International, demanded
\nthat the IFTU start negotiating the affiliation of the Soviet federation. The continental
\nunions and the secretariat (Fimmen had announced his resignation one week earlier)
\nstrongly opposed this. This question, which coincided with a severe financial crisis,
\nlargely paralysed the trade union international and would lead to the resignation of both
\nBritish president A.A. Purcell and secretary Jan Oudegeest in 1926. The question of the
\nIFWW came up on the agenda in the middle of these stormy debates at the
\nmanagement committee meeting of 8 November 1923. The discussion was very brief,
\nbecause the proposal to finance a special fund from the IFTU\u2019s general funds was no
\nlonger realistic, given the financial situation, and virtually all the national federations
\n(with the exception of Denmark and Sweden) refused to make a special financial effort
\nfor the preservation of the IFWW (76). Johannes Sassenbach (77) encountered no opposition
\ntherefore when he proposed \u201cto induce the present existing Working Women\u2019s
\nInternational to dissolve itself and to transfer its function to the International Federation
\nof Trade Unions\u201d (78). This would be submitted at the following IFTU congress in Vienna in
\n1924.
\nThe fate of the IFWW was finally sealed at the first conference of women workers,
\npreceding the IFTU congress of May-June 1924 in Vienna. Delegates from seven
\ncountries took part in this conference, including Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia.
\nHowever, not a single non-European country was represented. At this conference, the
\nmisunderstandings between the women from the various European federations were
\ncleared up and a joint proposal was drawn up with regard to the IFTU, in keeping with
\nthe majority view that had been formulated at the last IFWW congress. The IFTU
\ncongress largely took this up and put together a women\u2019s committee, which immediately
\nconvened a conference in Paris in 1927, after which the leadership of the IFWW
\nproposed to its affiliates that the IFWW \u201cwould cease to exist and its functions pass to
\nthe Women\u2019s Department of the International Federation of Trade Unions\u201d (79). This led to
\nprotest at the convention from the American NWTUL, which promptly severed its ties
\nwith the IFWW in June 1924. In December 1924, the management committee of the
\nIFWW decided to dissolve the federation as soon as the IFTU\u2019s women\u2019s committee
\nstarted its activities and \u201cto transfer to the Committee the task of stimulating trade unions
\norganisation among women workers, and of keeping a vigilant eye on their industrial
\nconditions and welfare\u201d (80).
\nThe women\u2019s committee of the IFTU was to remain active until 1938 and
\norganised three conferences (Paris 1927, Brussels 1933 and London 1936). Together
\nwith the IFTU, a number of attacks on the extension of night work for women (1930) and
\nthe right of married women to paid labour (1934) were successfully withstood at the level
\nof the ILO. However, the IFTU never complied with the demands of the IFWW. It never
\nset up a fully-fledged women\u2019s department, nor did it appoint a female secretary or
\ninclude a woman in its Bureau. The women\u2019s committee itself, which had no autonomy
\nand no funds of its own, was unable to take any initiatives. Even the representation of
\nwomen unionists within the international women\u2019s movement was made impossible for
\nthem, because the IFTU did not wish to have any links with organisations that were not
\nsocial democrat. In 1936, the last pre-war conference of women unionists took place in
\nLondon. After that, the IFTU considered these meetings superfluous, because, as they
\nphrased it, they were getting to be about \u201cseeking for problems to be discussed in order
\nto justify the holdings of such conferences\u201d (81). Consequently, the management
\ncommittee decided, in January 1938, that the Women\u2019s Committee would henceforth
\nwork exclusively via correspondence and that meetings or congresses would only be
\nheld when there were specific problems to be addressed. Apparently, none came up.
\nConclusion<\/strong><\/em>
\nIn the sparse literature on the subject, the failure of the IFWW is explained as an
\nexample of the class concept impeding the development of gender solidarity. It is true, of
\ncourse, that the differences in ideology and organisational culture of the various
\nwomen\u2019s groups involved played an important part. Moreover, the male-dominated
\ninternational trade union movement had little thought for the discrimination of women as
\npaid workers, and the predominance of the class concept did nothing to encourage
\nconsciousness of these issues. Organisationally, this was translated into a severe lack
\nof funds and very few opportunities for organisations of working women. This too fits in
\nwith the conclusions of research into the relations between women and trade unions.
\nAnd yet this is not sufficient as an explanation for the failure of the IFWW.
\nNationalism (82) should at the very least be added to the gender-class conflict. In my
\nopinion, it was the decisive factor. The national organisations that took the initiative
\nwanted to shape a women\u2019s international in their own image. The Americans wanted an
\nautonomous organisation of women unionists with a mixed social and ideological
\nmembership, the British wanted an organisation of working-class women irrespective of
\ntheir economic status, the French refused to collaborate with Christian women, and in
\nthe German model there was no place for an autonomous women\u2019s group. It was an
\nimpossible puzzle of incompatible principles. On top of that, the circumstances were
\nagainst the women\u2019s international. Wartime oppositions were unspoken but latent. The
\ninternational of working women was a project of the Allied countries, and was unable to
\ngo beyond that. There were attacks by the communists on socialist organisations,
\ncausing these organisations to start behaving like fortified strongholds and leave no
\nroom for a more open and pluralist enterprise. And, from 1923 onwards, the internal
\nfinancial chaos within the international trade union movement precluded any new
\ninitiative.
\nThe fact that national elements weighed more strongly than transnational thought
\nand action \u2013 even in an international context of national workers\u2019 organisations, confirms
\nthe conclusions of recent research into the history and nature of this internationalism (83).
\nThe women\u2019s international was no different in this respect from the male-dominated
\ninternational organisations within the workers\u2019 movement, where the national framework
\nprevailed in language, culture and action. Leila J. Rupp\u2019s conclusion that \u201cwomen
\ncommitted to internationalism put a stronger and deeper loyalty to the land of their birth
\nfirst\u201d (84) can be confirmed, but it does not explain why the women\u2019s international
\nexperiment (IFWW) failed while the men\u2019s (IFTU) survived. One possible explanation is
\nthat within the IFTU there was enough convergence in methods, ideology and
\norganisational culture between the most important national trade union centres to
\nfacilitate transnational cooperation, whereas the national organisations of women
\nworkers differed in all these aspects. The idea, though, that trade unions ought to take
\nspecific initiatives towards working women prevailed and led to the establishment of an
\ninternational women\u2019s committee, not as an independent organisation, but as an integral
\npart of a global trade union movement.
\nNotes<\/strong><\/em>
\n(1) Quoted in Norbert C. SOLDON, The World of Women\u2019s Trade Unionism, Comparative Historical Essays, Westport, Greenwood Press, 1985, p. 4 (Contributions in Women\u2019s Studies, Number 52).
\n(2) Eileen BORIS & Ang\u00e9lique JANSSENS, \u201cComplicating Categories: Gender, Class, Race and Ethnicity\u201d, in International Review of Social History, 1999, Supplement 7, p. 6.
\n(3) \u201cWe think a woman\u2019s place is at home, looking after the home, husband and family\u201d (John Wadsworth, general secretary of the Mine Workers\u2019 Union of Yorkshire. \u201cLa place de la femme est au foyer et non \u00e0 l\u2019atelier\u201d (French syndicalists, Calais Congress, 1890).
\n(4) Jennifer CURTIN, Women and Trade Unions. A Comparative Perspective, Brookfield, Ashgate, 1999, p. 1.
\n(5) Corrie VAN EIJL, Het werkzame verschil, vrouwen in de slag om de arbeid, 1898-1940, Hilversum, Verloren,1994, p. 355.
\n(6) Quoted in Fran\u00e7oise BATTAGLIOLA, Histoire du travail des femmes, Paris, Editions D\u00e9couverte, 2000, p. 43.
\n(7) Madeleine REBERIOUX, Le mouvement syndical et les femmes jusqu\u2019au Front Populaire, Paris, FEN, 1988, p. 74.
\n(8) Regina BECKER-SCHMIDT, \u201cFrauen und Deklassierung. Geschlecht und Klasse\u201d, in Ursula BEER, Klasse, Geschlecht. Feministische Gesellschaftsanalyse und Wissenschaftskritik, Bielefeld, AJZ-Verlag, 1987, p. 228.
\n(9) Bert KLANDERMANS, \u201cDoes Class Still Unite? Concluding Remarks\u201d, in Guy VAN GYES, Hans DE WITTE & Patrick PASTURE, eds., Can Class Still Unite? The differentiated work force, class solidarity and trade unions, Burlington, Ashgate, 2001, p. 326.
\n(10) Leela FERNANDEZ, Producing Workers. The Politics of Gender, Class and Culture in the Calcutta Jute Mills, University Park, Penn State University, 1997, p. 160.
\n(11) Elizabeth FAUE, \u201cGender and the Reconstruction of Labor History: An Introduction\u201d, in Labor History, vol. 34, 1993, nr. 2-3, p. 172.
\n(12) Thea SINCLAIR, \u201cWomen, work and skill. Economic theories and feminist perspectives\u201d, in N. REDCLIFT & M.T. SINCLAIR, eds., Working Women. International Perspectives on Labour and Gender Ideology, London, Routledge, 1991.
\n(13) Susan MILNER, The Dilemmas of Internationalism: French Syndicalism and the International Labour Movement, 1900-1914, Oxford, Berg, 1990, 260 p.
\n(14) L\u00e9on Jouhaux (1879-1959): secretary general of the CGT (1909-1947), president of CGT-Force Ouvri\u00e8re (1947-1954), vice-president of the International Federation of Trade Unions (1919-1945).
\n(15) Gary BUSH, The Political Role of International of International Trade Unions, New York, St Martin\u2019s Press, 1983, 279 p.
\n(16) Rebecca GRANT, \u201cThe Sources of Gender Bias in International Relations Theory\u201d, in R. GRANT & K. NEWLAND, eds., Gender and International Relations, Buckingham, Open University Press, 1991, p. 8-26.
\n(17) Robin Miller JACOBY, The British and American Women\u2019s Trade Union Leagues, 1890-1925, Carlson, Brooklyn, 1994., 238 p.
\n(18) Founded in 1916 as the Standing Joint Committee of Industrial Women\u2019s Organizations, with the following participant organizations: Women\u2019s Trade Union League, Women\u2019s Co-operative Guild, National Federation of Women Workers, Labour Party, Workers\u2019 Union, Postal and Telegraph Clerks\u2019 Association, National Union of General Workers, Railway Clerks\u2019 Association
\n(19) Mary Anderson (1872-1964): American Trade unionist and Labour expert. Organiser for the National Boot and Shoe Workers\u2019 Union and one of the founders of the National Women\u2019s Trade Union League. She became chief of the Women\u2019s Bureau of the US Department of Labor in 1919.
\n(20) Mary Rose Schneiderman (1884-1972): American women trade unionist. Vice-president (1907) and president (1918) of the New York branch of the Women\u2019s Trade Union League. National president of the NWTUL (1928) and secretary of the New York state department of labor (1937-1944). She was an official of the National Recovery Administration in the 1930s and a member of President F.D. Roosevelt brain trust.
\n(21) Mary WINSLOW, Women at Work. The Autobiography of Mary Anderson, Minneapolis, 1951, p. 122.
\n(22) Ibid, p. 124.
\n(23) Ibid, p. 126.
\n(24) There were official delegates from Argentina, Belgium, Canada, France, Great Britain, India, Italy, Norway, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the United States and Sweden and guests from Cuba, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands, Serbia, Spain and Switzerland.
\n(25) London, Metropolitan University, Margaret Bondfield Papers, Working Women and the World, s.d.
\n(26) In February 1919, national trade union federations from seventeen countries met in Berne to draw up a joint list of demands that was to serve as a guideline for their representatives at the peace talks. Although this conference was not an official congress of the International Federation of Trade Unions, the programme was subsequently adopted, with almost no changes, when the IFTU was reconstituted in July 1919 in Amsterdam.
\n(27) Report, Bern conference, ITFU, 1919, p. 10.
\n(28) Margaret Bondfield (1873-1953): British Women Trade Union leader and Labour politician. Secretary of the Women\u2019s Trade Union League (1908), Member of Parliament (1923), first woman to serve as president of the Trades Unions Congress (1923). In 1929 she was appointed as Minister of Labour by Ramsay McDonald. She was the first woman to gain a place in the British Cabinet. In the financial crisis of 1931, she upset many members of the Labour
\nParty when she supported the government policy of depriving some married women of their unemployment benefit. She lost her seat in 1931.
\n(29) The Labour Women, May 1919, p. 51.
\n(30) Quoted in Leila J. RUPP, The making of an International Women\u2019s Movement, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1997, p. 141.
\n(31) The Labour Women, A Monthly Journal for Working Women, March 1919, p. 28.
\n(32) Jeanne Bouvier (1865-1964): French trade unionist. Shirt-maker, active member of the Clothing Union from 1919 onwards. Secretary of the Paris Bourse du Travail from 1921 to 1922.
\n(33) Mary MacArthur ( 1880 -1921): British Trade Union Activist. Secretary of the Women\u2019s Trade Union League (1903).
\n(34) H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Burniaux (1889-1950): Belgian women trade unionist. Combined her trade union work with a full time occupation as a school inspector. Member of the Belgian Comit\u00e9 National d\u2019Action F\u00e9minine, president of the International Federation of Working Women (1923-1924).
\n(35) Betzy Kjelsberg (1886-1950): Norwegian politician and trade union activist. Vice-president of the International Council of Women (1926). Factory Inspector and member of the Norwegian Parliament.
\n(36) Margaret Dreier Robbins (1868-1945): American women trade union leader. Daughter of an upper-class industrial, joined the Women\u2019s Municipal League in Brooklyn in 1902 and the Women\u2019s Trade Union League in 1904. President of the National Women\u2019s Trade Union League (1907-1922); president of the International Federation of Working Women (1921-1923). She moved to Florida in 1925 and remained active in progressive politics until her death.
\n(37) Louisa Landova-Stychova: member of the Czechoslovak Anarchist party.
\n(38) Paris, Biblioth\u00e8que Historique de la Ville de Paris, Fonds Jeanne Bouvier Papers, box 23, file 2, ICWW, Report 1920-1921.
\n(39) According to the first ICWW report, the cost was $700.
\n(40) The Pan-American Federation of Trade Unions was founded on 7 July 1919 on the initiative of the American Federation of Labor and had members in Argentine, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Peru and the USA.
\n(41) Paris, Biblioth\u00e8que Historique de la Ville de Paris, Fonds Jeanne Bouvier Papers, box 23, file 2, ICWW, Report 1920-1921.
\n(42) On the history of the IFTU, see Geert VAN GOETHEM, The Amsterdam International, Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006, 320 p.
\n(43) Jan Oudegeest ( 1870-1950): Dutch trade unionist and politician. President of the Dutch Nederlandsch Verbond van Vakvereenigingen (1908-1919), secretary general of the International Federation of Trade Unions (1919-1926), president of the Dutch socialist party SDAP (1927-1934).
\n(44) London, Metropolitan University, Margaret Bondfield Papers, The International Federation of Working Women, Constitution.
\n(45) Ibid.
\n(46) Marion Philips (1881-1932): British feminist and labour activist. Secretary (1912) of the Women\u2019s Trade Union League, editor of Labour Women. One of the founders (1916) and secretary (1917-1932) of the Standing Joint Committee of Industrial Women\u2019s Organisations. Chief Woman Officer of the Labour Party (1917-1932), secretary of the International Federation of Working Women (1921-1923), Member of Parliament for Labour (1929-1931).
\n(47) There were vice-presidents from twelve countries: Helene Burniaux (Belgium), Derry (Canada), Laura De Zayas Bazan (Cuba), Bozena Kubichova (Czechoslovakia), Jeanne Bouvier (France), Margaret Bondfield (Great Britain), Laura Casartelli (Italy), Betzy Kjelsberg (Norway), Sophie Dobrzanska (Poland), Mary Fitzgerald (South Africa), Angele Monnier (Switzerland) and Maud Swartz (USA).
\n(48) Samuel Gompers (1850-1924): American trade union leader. President of the American Federation of Labor (1886-1924).
\n(49) First Yearbook of the International Federation of Trade Unions, The International Trade Union Movement, Supplement VII, 1922, p. 168.
\n(50) Paris, Biblioth\u00e8que Historique de la Ville de Paris, Fonds Jeanne Bouvier, box 23, file 2, Marion Philips to Jeanne Bouvier, 10 January 1922.
\n(51) Edo Fimmen (1881-1942): Dutch trade union leader, secretary general of the International Federation of Trade Unions (1919-1924) and of the International Transportworkers\u2019 Unions (1919-1942).
\n(52) R. M. JACOBY, The British and American Women\u2019s Trade Union Leagues, op. cit., p. 171.
\n(53) London, Metropolitan University, Margaret Bondfield Papers, Memorandum from the IFWW to the IFTU, s.d.
\n(54) The Labour Woman, June 1923.
\n(55) Carl Legien (1861-1920): German trade union leader. President of the Generalkommission der Gewerkschaften (1890). First president of the Allgemeiner Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund, ADGB (1919).
\n(56) J. H. Thomas (1874-1949): British trade union leader and politician. Secretary general of the National Union of Railwaymen (1918-1924), president of the Trades Union Congress (1920), president of the International Federation of Trade Unions (1920-1924).
\n(57) Jeanne Chevenard (1876-1944): French union leader. An embroideress by profession, she became active in the CGT in 1913. Originally a syndicalist, she switched to the reformist movement of L\u00e9on Jouhaux in 1921. She became one of the major representatives of the Clothing Union and was generally acknowledged within the CGT as the specialist in \u2018women\u2019s issues\u2019. Chevenard was a confirmed anti-communist and a faithful supporter of Jouhaux.
\nHowever, under the Vichy regime, she was appointed a member of the Lyon town council and became involved in the collaboration. On 29 June 1944, she was executed by the resistance.
\n(58) Gertrud Hanna (1876-1944): German feminist, politician and union leader. Started working at the age of 14 as a printer\u2019s aide and became involved in the socialist movement at an early age. In 1907, she became active in the German women\u2019s movement and started campaigning for the protection of pregnant women in companies. She represented the ADGB at the IFTU congresses and played an important role during the Women Workers\u2019 Congress of 1927 in Paris. Under the Weimar Republic, she was an MP for the SPD. When the Nazis came to power, she had to give up her political and union activities. She tried to survive by taking in mending, but came under increasing pressure from the Gestapo towards the end of the war. She committed suicide, together her sister, on 26 February 1944.
\n(59) Julia Varley (1871-1952): British feminist and union leader. Varley joined the labour movement as an activist in the suffragette movement. In 1909, she was asked to take charge of organising the women in the trade union in Birmingham. In 1912, she became an official of the Workers\u2019 Union, which wanted to organise the great mass of unskilled labourers. During Word War I, there was an acute labour shortage, forcing the munitions factories to employ large numbers of unskilled women. Membership of the Workers\u2019 Union grew spectacularly and the
\norganisation became a major power factor within the TUC. In 1921, Varley became a member of the TUC\u2019s General Council and chairwoman of the TUC Women\u2019s Group. In this capacity, she attended several international meetings of both the IFTU and the IAO. When the Workers\u2019 Union merged with the TGWU, Varley became the chief women\u2019s officer of the new powerful union. She retired in March 1936.
\n(60) Laura Casartelli-Cabrini (1883-1932): Italian feminist and journalist. Member of the central committee of the Unione Agricole Femminile from 1919 onwards and editor-in-chief of the Almanacco della donna italiana (1920-1925).
\n(61) Argentina Altobelli (1866 – 1942): Italian trade unionist. Around the turn of the century, she was active in the area of Bologna as an organiser of female farm workers and women. In 1906, she became the secretary of the farm workers\u2019 union, a position she was to keep for almost 20 years. Within the Italian socialist movement, she was also active in the National Women\u2019s Committee. She belonged to the reformist trend of Italian socialism. She dropped out
\nof the public picture during the Fascist dictatorship and made her living as a library assistant.
\n(62) This and next quotes : Report of the International Trade Union Conference, held at Rome, 1922, London, Foulger, s.d., p. 45
\n(63) Tom Shaw ( 1872-1938): British trade union Leader and politician. Secretary of the International Textileworkers\u2019 Federation (1911-1924). Minister of Labour (1924); minister of War (1929-1931).
\n(64) London, Metropolitan University, Margaret Bondfield Papers, Note on the Federation of Working Women, s.d.
\n(65) Report on the Activities of the International Federation of Trade Unions, 1922 and 1924, op. cit., p. 115.
\n(66) International Federation of Working Women, Working Women in Many Countries. Report of Congress held at Vienna, August 1923, Amsterdam, IFTU, 1924, p. 7.
\n(67) Ibid, p. 6.
\n(68) F\u00e9d\u00e9ration Syndicale Internationale, Rapport sur l\u2019Activit\u00e9 en 1922 et 1923, FSI, Amsterdam, 1924, p. 111.
\n(69) There was also a Romanian delegate, but she was not mentioned in the official reports and her speech was omitted from the congress report.
\n(70) Argentine, Chile, Hungary, Japan and Romania.
\n(71) Manchester, PHM, Labour Party Archives, Standing Joint Committee of Working Women\u2019s Organisations, Report, 1923.
\n(72) London, Metropolitan University, Margaret Bondfield Papers, Meeting of the Secretariat, minutes, 20 July 1923.
\n(73) Coventry, Modern Records Centre, TUC Archives, Letter from Johannes Sassenbach to the members of the IFTU, 8 May 1923.
\n(74) Coventry, Modern Records Centre, TUC Archives, Edith McDonald to Fred Bramley, 21 April 1924.
\n(75) London, Metropolitan University, Margaret Bondfield Papers, Memorandum from the IFWW to the IFTU, s.d.
\n(76) Report on the Activities of the International Federation of Trade Unions, 1922 and 1924, op. cit., p. 262.
\n(77) Johannes Sassenbach (1866-1944): German trade union leader. Secretary (1922-1927) and secretary general (1927-1931) of the International Federation of Trade Unions.
\n(78) Coventry, Modern Records Centre, TUC Archives, IFTU, Management Committee, Minutes, 8 November 1923.
\n(79) London, Metropolitan University, Margaret Bondfield Papers, IFWW, Final Report, August 1923 \u2013 December 1925.
\n(80) Ibid, p. 7
\n(81) The Activities of the International Federation of Trade Unions 1936-1938, Paris, IFTU [1939], p. 67.
\n(82) Not in the political sense, but as an expression of attachment to one\u2019s national culture.
\n(83) Kevin CALLAHAN, \u201c\u2018Performing Inter-Nationalism\u2019 in Stuttgart in 1907: French and German Socialist Nationalism and the Political Culture of an International Socialist Congress\u201d, in International Review of Social History, vol. 45, 2000, nr. 1, p. 51-87; G. VAN GOETHEM, The Amsterdam International, op. cit.
\n(84) L. J. RUPP, The making of an International Women\u2019s Movement, op. cit., p. 117<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[29],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=214"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/global-labour.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}