As you can guess, this theory is derived directly from Karl Marx’s theories on capitalism and class relations. Unlike Liberal feminism, Marxist feminism does address structural and systemic power relations as a means of one group oppressing another. Unlike Radical feminism, this theory focuses on the intersection of gender and class divisions which create women's oppression. Marxist Feminists are more concerned with the material conditions of women - in other words, how to make real women's lives better by reducing economic burdens, reducing the burden of housework, bettering women's access to education. They've often criticized other feminists as being too theoretical to make any real differences in the daily lives of women.
This theory also focuses on the social significance of the mode of production (I won't go into Marx here, but if you've never read das Kapital, here is a decent synopsis) Pure Marxisim argued that society was divided into those who own the means of production (capitalists) and those who sold their labor for wages (workers). The only way for capitalists to make money is to extract as much work from the workers for as little wages as possible whilst keeping workers are kept minimally educated (enough to do their jobs, not enough to want to change the system). Marxism focused exclusively on the inequalities between these different economic classes and did not take into account the unequal status of men and women within each social class. In true Marxism, a working class man and woman would be equal - but we all know that isn't the case - women were still inferior to men. Marxism also did not address how women's low-wage and unpaid labor benefits the capitalist structure.
Unlike pure Marxism, Marxist feminism views the interdependence and combination of patriarchy and capitalism as the primary source of oppression to women. They re-define the meaning of production, to include unpaid labor provided by women in the home (including childrearing), and the values we place on these activities. They argue that patriarchy operates in service of capitalism – the unpaid labor of women, such as child care and housework, makes it possible for men to produce more at work, creating more surplus for the capitalist. Keeping women at home and in menial jobs also means a smaller workforce and less wages to pay out.
(Sidenote: If you look back to before the industrial revolution and before the 'invention' of the nuclear family, women worked alongside men in all chores and duties. This was because there were usually extended family members living together and someone was always around to watch the children. The industrial revolution was when we saw the breakup of these families into the nuclear family, whilst also taking the father away from the home for work. This meant the mother had to stay at home.)
The issue of women's housework is a complicated one, since capitalism values waged labor more than upaid labor, but at the same time women generally kept out of the larger workforce to be encouraged to have children and properly socializing their children to be effective workers– in turn producing more labor force. Remember, this theory doesn't just apply to America and Europe, where women are comprising a larger, but still underpaid, section of the workforce. Many modern Marxist Feminists are concerned with the third-world. In fact, non-western or Third World Feminism has a lot in common with Marxist Feminism due to the focus on economic exploitation and imperialist capital.
Marxist Feminists view heterosexual marriage as a form of political and economic exchange – men take care of women in return for the women producing heirs and workers. In this set of theories, women are thought of as a class, rather than as individuals, and are looking for a collective response and solution to the problems of both capitalism and patriarchy. They challenge the Liberal feminist assumption that personal agency can battle oppression, because under capitalism all the resources and power are concentrated in the hands of a few. The capitalist system ensures that women are economically dependent on men, thus keeping the cycle going. However, they argue that the socialist structure alone, as seen in Eastern Europe and other places in the world, is not enough to ensure the rights of women. Though women's position in society improved somewhat under socialist governments, this was only the case in the public sphere. In private and within the family, women continued to take a back-seat to men. Captialist and patriarchal exploitation of women must be combated together.
OK. So on to prostitution. I think you can guess what a pure Marxist Feminist would say about prostitution. Since, to Marxists, wage labor is a form of oppression and exploitation, then prostitution is nothing different. Marx himself asserted that “prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the laborer."* Prostitution, therefore, is a symbol of all that is wrong with a capitalist society.
*. The Sexual Contract, p. 201
7 comments:
Interesting read.
I wanted to comment on your sidenote first about the extended family. Yes, if you look at extended families, men and women had similar roles in a lot of societies. With the nuclear family, women ended up raising the kids and working, because there was no one to take care of the kids.
I've always argued that capitalism is a good thing, because it gives people choices. We now have more choices than ever. I think under capitalism, couples should consider being DINKs for awhile, build up a nice safety net, then have the kids. Then one of them should stay at home.
In our case, it was her because she was better with small kids and I made a lot more money.
The bad thing about a nuclear family is that there is no safety net. Under a traditional family, one of the parents dies and it sucks big time, but the others in the family absorb the role of the dead parent. In the nuclear family, a parent dies and not only does it suck, but the surviving parent has to play both roles, which usually amounts to being drastically overwhelmed.
Now on to Marxist Feminism.
Marxist Feminists are more concerned with the material conditions of women - in other words, how to make real women's lives better by reducing economic burdens, reducing the burden of housework, bettering women's access to education.
Yeah, I've read both The Manifesto and parts of Das Kapital. Had to for sociology. Marx was one of the founders of the field of sociology.
A lot of labor is unpaid. I really think it's selfish to see childrearing as unpaid labor. For one, it needs to be done, and we all know from the Jerry Springer show that it's not done enough in this country.
I work on the cars, do all the cooking, and own the kitchen (which includes cleaning it), and mow the lawn. Should I be asking for money for this? No, it's one of my roles.
Childrearing is a role too. Sure women do more than their share of it, but it's not like men just sit around and watch tv while women do all the childrearing. I do 100% of the tutoring and most of the disciplining, which we all know is not fun (the disciplining, not the tutoring).
And once again, I don't see patriarchy as a bad thing. Some families are patriarchal and some are matriarchal. As for our gov't being patriarchal, I don't see it. We have so many safety nets (a "female" thing). A lot of people don't know about the safety nets we have.
I took advantage of a few. I got money from the government for being a minority and going to college for Engineering (Computer Science technically). I got money when I had my job sent overseas. I got money for being less than average economically and going to college.
They're out there. We just shouldn't depend on them. We should use them when we have to.
Since then, I've more than ten fold paid the money I got back in taxes, so Uncle Sam got his money's worth.
This is fair capitalism, and these same opportunities are open to women just as well as men.
For the record, there are now more women in college then men. So do you think the Marxist Feminists' goals of bettering women's access to education has been properly addressed? Or do they completely want every single field dominated by women until they're happy?
They've often criticized other feminists as being too theoretical to make any real differences in the daily lives of women.
Heh, this is a common problem with Marxists in general. They spend too much time arguing fine points and not enough time actually doing anything. Knew a lot of Marxists like this (the San Francisco area is full of Marxists).
Lastly, I think capitalism has made it more fair for women than what we had before. In this country, a woman really can be anything she wants to be. I keep hearing of things like glass ceilings. Well, one of my friends would never know because she starts her own corporations, of which I'm a Venture Capitalist in one of them. This is something a woman just can't go off and do under a Marxist state.
I've known women doctors, women with PhDs, women mechanics, women doing everything. I really think it's as close to as fair as we've ever been. We'll never have true equality, but the main thing (not the only thing, but the main thing) holding people back nowaways is themselves.
Zombie: Glad you’re enjoying the posts. I think your comments are interesting and I like seeing your take on this. I want to address a couple of things in your response
1. “A lot of labor is unpaid. I really think it's selfish to see childrearing as unpaid labor”.
Marxist feminists aren’t saying that housework should be wage labor. What they’re saying is that it is, in fact, labor which is often invisible and undervalued. They question the priorities of a society that places more importance on wage labor than on unpaid tasks such as childrearing, housekeeping, etc.. If we, the US, were truly a family-oriented society, we would place more importance on family needs – affordable childcare, better schools, more family leave and vacation time. Instead, what they’re saying is that the role of capitalism places emphasis on wage labor at the detriment of other forms of labor.
2. “Sure women do more than their share of it, but it's not like men just sit around and watch tv while women do all the childrearing.” Several of your comments were geared toward conditions in America, however much feminist scholarship and activism involves women in other countries. American and EU women make up a small percentage of the world’s women and in many parts of the world men do indeed sit around while women serve them and raise the children. My dad wasn’t like that, John’s not like that (he doesn’t like kitchen work, but he does laundry and cleans house), you’re not like that. In Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America many women are treated as livestock whose only role is to serve the men in their families and produce male heirs. Try to keep in mind that these theories are meant to apply to more than just American women. Even though, in America there are plenty of men who sit on their asses and let women wait on them hand and foot.
3. “So do you think the Marxist Feminists' goals of bettering women's access to education has been properly addressed? Or do they completely want every single field dominated by women until they're happy?” Absolutely not. But again, remember that in many parts of the world, women are not allowed or discouraged to attend school.
4. “Lastly, I think capitalism has made it more fair for women than what we had before. In this country, a woman really can be anything she wants to be.” Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism are the ideal society. In America we are pretty close to fair, and sure your friend bucked the trend, but there are always exceptions to rules. For the vast majority of women, especially of the working class, they end up spending more time at work than they do with their kids, financial strain splits up families (the most common cause for divorce is financial problems), they spend so much time and energy working (in and out of the home) that it’s generally impossible to get further education or get access to the types of tools necessary to get a step up. Take me for instance – I have personal experience with the good ol boys club of higher education. I’ve had faculty members talk to me like I’m some dumb kid who has no idea what I’m talking about and question my work with my superiors. I have to be extra careful and play a role at work in order to be taken seriously. And this is in a liberal profession! I know women who are paid less than men with equal jobs. In Illinois, women make 71 cents for every dollar men make. Now, I could say “that’s better than nothing” or I could say “that’s not good enough”. I choose the latter.
Laura - Well, you know how I feel about the gov't paying about childcare already. I think I offended a few people with my comments. :(
But yes, we could definitely use more vacation time. There will be a lot less divorces and less ungrateful bratty kids if we took more vacation time and actually used it.
As for the rest of the world, you're 100% right, but I've always been America-centric (even though I studied world history). The reason is I strongly believe you fix what's wrong here before you start fixing everywhere else. I think you and I agree that there is much to fix here.
As for women and wages, wait. It really wasn't that long ago that women in droves started working. In my grandmother's generation, she was a rarity (she was a professional). Even in my mother's generation, she was way more educated than most women.
Now, women are going to college more than men. That 71c will change on its own. I really don't think legislative measures need to be taken.
If you feel you are directly discriminated against though, for example, Jim does everything you do, has the same amount of experience and the same degree, but makes 30% more than you do, fight it.
Another thing, women are less assertive. I went up to my boss at the last job and demanded I get $30k more or else I'll leave. I walked in there with a two-weeks notice and said I'll rip this up if I got that raise. If I don't, here's my two weeks notice.
I didn't get it, so I left. Now I make more than even that and have a much better job in a better company in a job that can't be outsourced.
That's from being assertive. The women I've worked with aren't as assertive as I am. One of my good friends who now works in San Jose should have been Director of our department at my job that got outsourced. The guy who was Director was a jackass and she would have done circles around the guy. I've brought it up to her many times and she didn't want to do it.
Well, you can't make the big money if you don't fight for it. Women aren't as assertive as they should be. Even with better education, better experience, and a better skill set, you won't make as much money as someone who demands to get what they want or else.
This is even in a profession that is horrible, one where our jobs are insecure and almost all of us have had our jobs outsourced.
If you really want to change things, sometimes you have to go to the root of the problem. Parents teach boys to be assertive but girls to be nice. Screw that. Teach them both to be hard-working, disciplined, fair, and assertive when being assertive is necessary. Teach them both not to put up with any crap. If you're too nice, you'll be walked all over, and that's what's happening to women. If I had a daughter, you can bet that she'd make just as much or if not more money than her peers.
Zombie: Who says the government has to pay for childcare. I'd be against that too. But a wage that would allow working families to afford safe, decent childcare... That can come from effective semi-socialist legislation.
Now, women are going to college more than men. That 71c will change on its own. I really don't think legislative measures need to be taken.
Women have been going to college more than men for over 30 years now. I'm not saying we need legislative measures - but we certainly can't throw our arms up (as women) and say "oh well". The fact that we continue to draw attention to the problem is one reason why it is slowly being rectified. That, and women are having fewer children at older ages (time off for child-rearing takes women out of the workforce long enough to have different salary-raise schedules than men in the same jobs).
I know I've said this before - but you've got to think in the collective form if you're going to really understand feminist theory. I've bucked the trend too - but there are millions of women (and men) who do not have the resources to be able to say "give me a raise or I'll quit". Think of someone in a low wage factory job whose family lives paycheck to paycheck, has no savings, and no credit. That person cannot take the risk of losing that job. People like you and me are exceptions - but take a moment to consider that you are an exception and not the standard.
But a wage that would allow working families to afford safe, decent childcare... That can come from effective semi-socialist legislation.
This doesn't need legislation, but rather taxes on corporations for outsourcing jobs, plus enforcing the border. You do both of these and the wage problems will correct themselves.
I've bucked the trend too - but there are millions of women (and men) who do not have the resources to be able to say "give me a raise or I'll quit". Think of someone in a low wage factory job whose family lives paycheck to paycheck, has no savings, and no credit. That person cannot take the risk of losing that job.
You're actually right about this. I wasn't thinking at the time that I was in a better position than others.
That said, see my first comment. Working class jobs used to be pretty good in this country before corporations started using illegals to undercut the working classes. Plus, you notice that union membership is at an all-time low? How many illegals do you think join unions?
I'm not at all denying there still is sexism and still are gains to be made, but I really think the bigger problem is The Man is using illegals and outsourcing to undercut us, and American men and women are fighting each other for scraps instead of fighting the root causes of the mess we're in now.
"This doesn't need legislation, but rather taxes on corporations for outsourcing jobs, plus enforcing the border. You do both of these and the wage problems will correct themselves."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't tax codes, border security, and regulations of business practices determined in part by legislation? :P
"American men and women are fighting each other for scraps instead of fighting the root causes of the mess"
You just outlined the strategy of our current administration: "Keep them fighting amongst themselves and too busy watching sports and the Bachelor to notice they're being screwed..."
Agreed on that one, for sure.
Laura - Heh. Good points.
Yeah, well, you know my thoughts on the current Administration. Hate to say this, but the economy was better under Clinton. As much as I didn't like Clinton, we had no deficit under Clinton and under Bush, of all the countries we owe money to, China's a big one. That's not a good thing from an economic perspective.
Post a Comment