Bridget Lockyer, a PhD student at the University of York, reviews ‘In Conversation with the Women’s Liberation Movement’ which was held at the British Library in October 2013

‘In Conversation with the Women’s Liberation Movement: Intergenerational Histories of Second Wave Feminism’ took place on Saturday 12^th October at the British Library. I first heard about this event when I was approached by Signy Gutnick Allen and Sarah Crook from the History of Feminism Network, who, along with British Library and the Raphael Samuel History Centre, were organising the day-long event.  My work on the Women’s Liberation Movement (WLM) in Bradford and my current research into women’s paid and unpaid work had prompted them to ask whether I would like be an ‘interviewer’ on one of the themed panel sessions. Of course I said yes, this is an event I would have attended anyway, so I was really pleased to be directly involved. I was also intrigued by the conversation format and how the intergenerational discussions would transpire.

The event was inspired by Sisterhood and After: The Women’s Liberation Oral History Project and I really liked this idea of extending this fantastic project, which I had followed closely, beyond the confines of its website and archive into an interactive discussion about the WLM and its legacy. The day would be a series of themed ‘conversations’ with two junior academics/activists interviewing two ‘senior’ academics/activists who had been involved in the WLM. Each panel would also include a question and answer session, giving space for the audience to contribute and join in the conversation.

The event proved to be very popular, selling out twice (having been moved from a smaller space into the British Library’s conference auditorium). The unusual format was nerve-wracking, particularly for the junior interviewers, despite being armed with our pre-prepared questions. There was a lot to fit in, a range of different topics to cover and I think both the speakers and the audience were unsure of what to expect.

Above: Badge from last National Women's Liberation conference, 1978. Unidentified maker. Available via the Women's Library at LSE.

The first session on ‘Women’s History’ was perhaps the most interesting for me as a historian. Sally Alexander and Catherine Hall were interviewed by Lucy Delap and Rachel Cohen. They discussed the close relationship between the WLM and history, the WLM partly emerging out of a need to examine women’s own histories and the histories of other women. Yet I was quite surprised to hear that they were completely confident that they themselves, as part of the WLM, were actively making history. I particularly liked the anecdote about Sheila Rowbotham imploring a women’s group to write dates on their pamphlets and minutes, sparing a thought for future archivists. They also discussed the WLM’s influence on historical methodologies and the importance of positioning yourself within your own research.

In the second session, entitled ‘Reproductive Choices’, April Gallwey and Freya Johnson Ross interviewed Denise Riley and Jocelyn Wolfe. The word ‘choice’ was discussed at length, with particular focus on who had the choice to do what when it came to reproduction, and the change in the terminology from ‘rights’ to ‘choice’. Jocelyn discussed how, as a black woman, the concept of reproductive choice was different, as black women’s bodies were (and are) controlled in different ways. The panel also discussed motherhood and childlessness, and the class implications behind the terms ‘yummy mummy’ and ‘pram-face’, again bringing to the fore questions about language and context.

After lunch, there was the ‘Race’ panel in which Gail Lewis and Amrit Wilson were interviewed by Nydia Swaby and Terese Johnson. Gail Lewis commented how differently her work was received and adopted in the United States compared to Britain. Both Gail and Amrit felt that British feminism has not fully engaged with race and race politics, particularly within academia. Amrit Wilson discussed feminist campaigns around immigration, and I was particularly interested in the anti-deportation campaigns of the 1970s and their links to the WLM. A question from the audience asked how white women should engage with race within their work and activism. The panel’s response was simple: educate yourself, read the texts and do not shy away from it.

The ‘Sexualities’ panel was the most difficult and tense panel. Both Sue O’Sullivan and Beatrix Campbell, answering questions asked by Amy Tooth Murphy and Charlie Jeffries, gave personal accounts of their transition from having only sex relationships with men to having sexual relationships with women. They considered how sexuality and gender was perceived during the WLM, discussing bisexuality, political lesbianism and trans women. During the panel session and the Q and A the followed, there were quite a lot of angry interjections. There seemed to be some misunderstanding of what Bea and Sue had said, a confusion between which views were their own, and which views were the ones prevalent at the time. It was in this session that the location of the event seemed to jar slightly with its purpose, and a smaller, more intimate space would perhaps have been more appropriate.

The fifth session was the ‘Work and Class’ panel, where Kate Hardy and I interviewed Lynne Segal and Cynthia Cockburn. Our questions focused on how the WLM tackled issues of women’s work, what had been learnt and the challenges women face today in the current political and economic climate. We also discussed the how we could and should put class politics and socialist politics back into feminist debate and activism.  

The final speaker was Susuana Antubam, Women’s Officer of the University of London’s Union. She was there partly to represent younger feminist activism. Susuana spoke about some of the prevailing attitudes towards women and feminism on our university campuses but also discussed the multiple campaigns she was involved with, ensuring that the event ended it on positive, hopeful note.

Not everything about this event worked, but that is to be expected with an unfamiliar format. Some people wanted more contributions from the junior feminists and for the dialogue to be less one-way. I found the conflict that arose frustrating and know that others too felt disappointed by the lack of unity. Yet the great thing about feminism in its broadest sense is that it is not afraid to constantly challenge itself and to keep challenging the assumptions made by those within in it, to ensure, as Susuana said, that no woman is left behind. In many ways it was good that the event was not a self-congratulatory ‘pat on the back’ for those in the WLM. Yet we have got to understand the context in which their mistakes were made in and appreciate that they were negotiating unchartered territory and forging new paths. I think this event highlighted some of the differences, intergenerational or otherwise, between feminists, and the potential for miscommunication between them. We’ve got to hope that these differences won’t mean feminism presses the self-destruct button. After all, the common ground is that we were all there, prepared to listen, eager to take part and willing to continue the conversation.

Bridget Lockyer is in the third year of an AHRC funded PhD at the Centre for Women’s Studies, University of York. Her research interests include women’s experiences of paid and unpaid work in the UK voluntary sector; voluntary sector culture and change since the 1970s; feminist activism and its links to voluntary/community work and oral history methods.

This post was originally published on Bridget’s blog: bridgetlockyer.wordpress.com