Women are tired of being “included,”
tired of being taken for granted.
They demand definite recognition,
even as men have it.
-Josephine Conger Kaneko
Hellraisers Journal, Monday May 11, 1908
Chicago, Illinois – National Convention of Socialist Party of America
From the Appeal to Reason of May 9, 1908:
The Convention
—–
The greatest political convention ever held in the interest of the working class in the United States will begin its deliberations on May 10th in the city of Chicago. This convention will represent every state and territory in the union and it will be the only political convention which will adopt a platform and name national candidates wholly in the name, and for the benefit of the working class.
Compared to the conventions of capitalist parties this will be a unique gathering. It will consist of both men and woman and its deliberations will be marked by the one unvarying purpose to faithfully express in political terms the economic interests of the working class….
The Appeal sends greetings to the delegates assembled at Chicago. It has full faith in their ability to clearly see the important duties which lie before them, and in their fidelity to discharge those duties with equal credit to themselves and the party.
———-
[Photograph added.]
From The Socialist Woman of May 1908:
ARE THE INTERESTS OF MEN AND WOMEN IDENTICAL?
A Suggestion to the National Convention
—–Josephine C. Kaneko.
It is an oft repeated phrase among Socialist agitators that the interests of men and women of the working class are identical, and therefore there should be no methods of education and appeal instituted for one sex alone; but that all efforts of this kind should be directed from one point, whether it be newspaper, pamphlet, street corner or platform, to all persons regardless of sex, creed or color.
And on this theory our educational work has proceeded, in this country at least, for the past quarter of a century. That is, we think we have proceeded on this theory. But it does not take very careful thought on the matter to discover that we have not acted in accordance with our theory at all, but have worked always as a matter of expediency along the line of least resistance with the male portion of humanity. It has never been very likely that we could reach the workingman in his wife’s kitchen or nursery, or her little parlor, and as it has seemed more expedient to work with him than with her, we have followed him to his lair—to the street corner, to the trade union hall, to the saloon. We have opened our locals in localities where he could be most easily reached, and have accommodated the environment to his tastes and needs. The little room at the rear of the saloon has not been so comfortable as his wife’s parlor or sitting room, and sometimes no larger. but he has felt more at ease in it when congregating with other men, so the locals have in some instances been established in the rear rooms of saloons, and frequently in other dreary, comfortless halls which are always obnoxious to women.
We have said, half-heartedly, that women could come to our locals in these dreary places. But they haven’t cared to come to any great extent, any more than the men would have cared to meet in the women’s parlors. It has been plainly a discrimination in favor of one sex above another. But it has always seemed a matter of expediency.
