It's a beautiful summer day in Zurich, sometime in mid-August 1893. The socialist movement has gathered for a large international congress . This wasn't easy in those days; the socialist movement was still young. A national Belgian Workers' Party (BWP) had been founded in Belgium a few years earlier, in 1885, and a strong national delegation of seventeen participants had traveled to Switzerland, led by the young Emile Vandervelde.
This time, the participants also include several women. Among them is Emilie Claeys from Ghent, a former textile worker with a solid education who was appointed earlier that year to the BWP national council. She traveled to far-away Zurich, along with her friend and fellow activist Nellie van Kol, who is from the Netherlands.
At the congress in Zurich, the socialists are making room for a list of demands concerning women's rights. A committee will be formed and a report will be drawn up with eight demands. The inspiration comes from recent social measures to protect child labor. They are now also demanding that the government impose protective restrictions on women: a maximum of eight hours per day, no night work, no jobs in dangerous or polluting industries, six weeks of maternity leave, and so on.
That looks good. German delegate Luise Kautsky proudly reports and puts the list of demands to the congress for a vote . Everyone agrees? Suddenly, a hand goes up from the Belgian delegation. Emilie Claeys has something to say.
Emilie Claeys is a fervent socialist, but an even more energetic feminist. For her, the rights of female workers are paramount. She's worked in factories herself, so she knows what she's talking about. And that clashes. Claeys is very pragmatic. Protection, all well and good, but that means women's labor will become more expensive in the labor market. And then factory owners will be more likely to hire men, and some women will lose their jobs.
Before imposing restrictive protective measures on female labor, the government must ensure that women do not lose their competitive position in the labor market. This is Claeys's pragmatic approach to the letter: women should not be protected like defenseless children; they should be given the means to fight for their rights on an equal footing.
There's a case to be made. Congress debates the arguments civilly, only to have them swiftly rejected by a unanimous vote. Women do indeed need protection in the factory, it's argued, because how else will they have time to fulfill their role as mothers at home? Claeys' radical feminism is far ahead of its time.
The same thing happened in Belgium, where Claeys somewhat spoiled the celebrations surrounding the achievement of universal (plural) suffrage by repeatedly repeating that this was about universal male suffrage. Claeys died in 1943, and it wasn't until 1948 that universal suffrage for women was introduced in Belgium. She didn't live to see it.
Want to know more about Emilie Claeys? Read these articles in Brood & Rozen :
- Guy Vanschoenbeek on the historical myth of Emilie Claeys (1996)
- Julie Carlier on the feminism of Emilie Claeys (2008)
Emilie Claeys, Ghent ca. 1909 (photo Amsab-ISG)
