Heidi Hartmann’s essay examines the unequal relationship between Marxism and feminism – the latter being subordinate to Marxism. Indeed, Marxism is sex blind, as it focuses more on class distinction rather than gender and sex. Hartmann states that social structures enable men to control women.
Hartmann proposes a definition of the patriarchy, which is characterized by a solidarity among men (despite a hierarchy within the patriarchy), which brings them together in order to dominate women. Men control women’s labor power by excluding them from production resources (e.g: higher wages) and by restricting women’s sexuality, through a monogamous (middle-class) heterosexual marriage, and the addition of children in the marriage reproduces patriarchal relations and gender hierarchy.
…show more content…
Family wages, the sexual division of labor (in the workforce and in the home), are contributing factors, which work against women. However, capitalism might eventually, in the name of profit, lead to the collapse of the oppressive family structure as women will increasingly be able to support themselves (and their children). Yet, capitalism values traits which are tied to masculinity (e.g. power, domination, individualism, competitiveness…) and disavows “female” traits (i.e. nurturing, artistic, irrational, emotional…), in turn making women “dependent” on men. Hartmann also talks about the “double day”, which signifies that working-women still do most of the house chores, so they contribute to the capitalist productions and the male
Even though some women did work, it was more commonly thought of only men who did labor. Labor rarely mentioned housewives, domestic servants, and female outworkers. The idea that the men were the head of the house meant that he, not the wife, should bring in income to support his family (Foner 351). According to the newspaper Workingman’s Advocate, “Capitalism tore women from their role as ‘happy and independent mistresses’ of the domestic sphere and forced them into the labor market, thereby undermining the natural order of the household and the authority of its male
Currently, gender inequality, although less than before, still exists, for example in wage gaps. “The gender gap in paid work is narrowing, but women still do most of the domestic work and child care… all of which is low-waged labor” (Lorber, 2001, 6). Many expectations for male and female roles, especially in religious customs, continue to exist and “legitimate the social arrangements that produce inequality, justifying them as proper” (Lorber, 2021, 6). Women are somewhat encouraged to work more “feminine” jobs which is causing many women to continue working in more low-paying, domestic jobs. However, there are still many, and a growing increase in successful women working high-paying jobs, inspiring more women to do the
Veronica Tochenor’s article "Thinking About Gender and Power in Marriage," discusses the idea of gendered power in marriages and how this can affect the family dynamic. she conveys about men being viewed as the breadwinners and providers for the family through working, which takes power way from the woman and puts her in a submissive position. Throughout the reading Tichenor conveys about the outdated idea of how power often times rests with he partner that makes greater contribution to the relationship. However, she states “if this conceptualization of power within marriage were accurate, we would expect to see a shift in the balance of power between spouses over the last several decades as women have moved into the paid labor force in great
Many do not consider domestic labor as “work”. Women’s unpaid labor in the home maintains systems of oppression. One way unpaid domestic labor maintains systems of oppression is because men benefit from the domestic labor that women perform and they expect women to do it. It reenforces the idea that women are there to take care of the children
The mention of men is either absent or regarded with topics they usually aren’t associated with. Slaughter mentions men throughout her article, however they are placed in the position of the domestic perspective, rather than the breadwinner character. She also mentions men, such as her husband, throughout her paper, and states that they are able to maintain a work-balanced lifestyle more easily than women. Her approach to regarding men seems to always place them in the light of constantly being more privileged. Although she doesn’t necessarily place a negative connotation on the topic, she makes sure to reiterate her point that “men are still socialized to believe that their primary family obligation is to be the breadwinner” (Slaughter 10) and will continue to have an easier work-balance lifestyle until women are fully in power.
During this week, we have covered numerous topics, none more prominent than the oppression of women. Everyone had different opinions, allowing me to take into account different views on the issue. In one of the texts we examined, “Oppression”, Marilyn Frye, a philosopher, debates the subjugation of women. She states the cultural customs that causes oppression of women. I do agree with her view that women are oppressed, but I do not agree that it is just women.
“Generally, men are socialized into believing that their essential role in life is to work outside the home and provide for the family while women are taught that their main role is to be homemakers” (Akotia and Anum 5024). The breadwinner is normally thought of as a man, but Lena puts a twist on that gender role. “You the head of this family. You run our lives like you want to” (Hansberry 1948). Lena breaks the gender role
Whether reproducing workers or gender norms, social reproduction can be defined as the process of reproducing the capacity to continue working, leading to the reproduction of the pseudo-commodity known as labour power. The reproduction of this labour power is reliant upon unwaged, domestic labour to help replenish the labourer for the next day of work. Reproducing this worker, typically the male breadwinner, is reliant upon women’s unpaid labour, creating the nuclear family form. Armstrong believes social reproduction involves the processes of “socializing children, repressing sexuality, and instilling appropriate hierarchical relationships through the education of future workers” (Armstrong, [ ] , p. 74). Peck views social reproduction in a spherical configuration, distinguishing the multiple factors involved in reproducing people, such as education, training, the media, and biological procreation (Peck, [ ], p. 38).
Within my own life, gender socialization has caused me not to pursue lucrative jobs in career fields that are “for men,” while sociobiology could have deterred me from entering the more physically demanding but rewarding field of culinary arts in favor of the less prestigious field of baking and pastry arts. As for Gilman’s Marxist emphasis, my co-worker has unfortunately lost her economic independence simply because she had to give up her job in order to give her son the attention he needs. Overall, while writing this essay, I was disheartened to discover that it was easy for me to identify the aforementioned examples, but I also realized that it is not as bad as it once was for women—it is a lot easier for women to rebel against gender inequality now. Despite these advances in freedom, however, I feel that Gilman’s theory is relevant when it comes to explaining the social world due to the fact that gender inequality still exists today, and it can still have an impact on a woman’s economic independence even though it is not as overt. With that being said, Gilman’s theory will continue to be useful because it helps to identify the roots of gender inequality that need to be eliminated if we ever want complete gender equality within our
Marx’s discussion on the matter of gender and family extends beyond just perceiving women as factory workers. The persistence of oppression in the bourgeois family as well as the notion for a new form of the family was noted by Marx. Even though not all of Marx`s writings on gender and the family could be applicable today, Marx discussions provide essential insights on gender and political reasoning especially with regards the topic of this research. Regardless of the fact that Marx did not develop a specific systematic theory of gender and the family, gender was an important category for understanding the division of labour, production and society as whole. Marx provided considerable insight into the gender relations of his own time, showing the need for a total transformation of society that would necessarily involve new relations between men and women.
This power in the Marxist paradigm held by the bourgeoisie and aristocracy results from their possession of the means of production, which in turn assures the unconstrained access to the superstructural goods, e.g. education and politics, that is cultural goods not related directly to the process of production. The access to those can perpetuate dependency between the oppressed and the oppressors as it maintains or regulates the social divisions. The feminist perspective, on the other hand, assumes men as the enemy with their patriarchal construct of womanhood imposed upon women along with
Marxism and feminism are two sides of a coin. Encarta reference library defines Marxism as “a theory in which class struggle is a central element in the analysis of social change in western societies”. Feminism is defined as a recognition and critique of male supremacy combined with efforts to change it. Marxism is an economic and social system.
Introduction Patriarchy is the sociological structure in which man dominates women. Within this structure men have power to subordinate women (Warren, 2004). The entire relationship is not only on family, but the whole community. Slavery of women in the form of patriarchy is still fueling most activities of feminist movements. This view is a complex change to be made in human relations.
The book is divided into two parts – (a) Patriarchy and its concerns, and (b) Patriarchy its origin and theories. The first part of the book begins with the question 'what is patriarchy?' and answers a wide range of questions on this issue. The second part, named as the 'origin of patriarchy' deals with various views about patriarchy. Theories regarding patriarchy by different schools are mentioned in a brief but yet in a detailed manner in this
•The weaknesses of Marxist Feminism include its obscuring differences between distinct economic classes of men and women and its failure to make room for issues unrelated to the nature and function of work (the sex-gender system). SOCIALIST FEMINISM •influence: Marxism, psychoanalysis, radical feminism •key concepts: unity and integration of capitalist system and patriarchy •explanation: women 's oppression is complexly determined by a variety of forces, including economic, social, psychological. •Socialist feminism attempts to synthesize best insights of Marxist and Radical feminism. Capitalism, male do minance, racism, imperialism are intertwined and inseparable. •Socialist feminism remains more historical than biological and more specific than universal: recognizes all the important differences among human beings—class, sex, but also age, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation.