Feminism as a Class Act: Working-Class Feminism and the Women's Movement in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a widespread claim that the women's movement of the 1960s and 1970s was middle-class and that its politics of reforming the state reflected the concerns of middle-class women. This paper challenges that claim, arguing instead that the development of the women's movement created an environment in which a union-based, working-class feminism became an important political factor. Working-class and socialist-feminist activists developed a strong feminist presence in the labour movement and a significant working-class orientation in the women's movement that both continue to influence the current women's movement. Resume Il existe une opinion generale que le mouvement feministe des annees 1960 et 1970 etait de la classe moyenne et que ses politiques de reforme de l'Etat ne refletaient que les inquietudes des femmes de la classe moyenne. Cet article met en doute cette opinion et constate qu'au contraire, la facon dont le mouvement feministe s'est developpe permettait de creer un environnement dans lequel le feminisme de la classe ouvriere et d'origine syndicale devenait une force politique importante. Les activistes feministes et socialistes ont assure a la fois une forte presence feministe dans le mouvement syndical et une orientation ouvriere remarquable dans le mouvement feministe qui, a l'heure actuelle, continue a l'influencer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".