Marx Today pp 201-228 | Cite as

The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union

  • Heidi Hartmann

Abstract

The “Marriage” Of Marxism and Feminism has been like the marriage of husband and wife depicted in English common law: marxism and feminism are one, and that one is marxism.1 Recent attempts to integrate marxism and feminism are unsatisfactory to us as feminists because they subsume the feminist struggle into the “larger” struggle against capital. To continue our simile further, either we need a healthier marriage or we need a divorce.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    I. Blackstone, Commentaries, 1965, pp. 442–445.Google Scholar
  2. Kenneth M. Davidson, Ruth B. Ginsburg, and Herma H. Kay, Sex Based Discrimination (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1974), p. 117.Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, edited, with an introduction by Eleanor Burke Leacock (New York: International Publishers, 1972).Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    Frederick Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1958).Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    Eli Zaretsky, “Capitalism, the Family, and Personal Life,” Socialist Revolution, Part I in no. 13–14 (January–April 1973), pp. 66–125.Google Scholar
  6. Also Zaretsky, “Socialist Politics and the Family,” Socialist Revolution (now Socialist Review), no. 19 (January–March 1974), pp. 83–98.Google Scholar
  7. Bruce Brown’s Marx, Freud, and the Critique of Everyday Life (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1973).Google Scholar
  8. Henri Lefebvre’s Everyday Life in the Modern World (New York: Harper & Row, 1971) may be grouped with Zaretsky.Google Scholar
  9. 5.
    In this Zaretsky is following Margaret Benston (“The Political Economy of Women’s Liberation,” Monthly Review, Vol. 21, no. 4 [September 1961], pp. 13–27), who made the cornerstone of her analysis that women have a different relation to capitalism than men. She argued that women at home produce use values, and that men in the labor market produce exchange values. She labeled women’s work precapitalist (and found in women’s common work the basis for their political unity). Zaretsky builds on this essential difference in men’s and women’s work, but labels them both capitalist.Google Scholar
  10. 7.
    Mariarosa Dalla Costa, “Women and the Subversion of the Community,” in The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community by Mariarosa Dalla Costa and Selma James (Bristol, UK: Falling Wall Press, 1973; second edition), pamphlet, 78 pps.Google Scholar
  11. 8.
    See Dalla Costa, “A General Strike,” in All Work and No Pay: Women, Housework, and the Wages Due, ed. Wendy Edmond and Suzie Fleming (Bristol, UK: Falling Wall Press, 1975).Google Scholar
  12. 10.
    The literature of the debate includes Lise Vogel, “The Earthly Family,” Radical America, Vol. 7, no. 4–5 (July–October 1973), pp. 9–50.Google Scholar
  13. Ira Gerstein, “Domestic Work and Capitalism,” Radical America, Vol. 7, no. 4–5 (July–October 1973, pp. 101–128.Google Scholar
  14. John Harrison, “Political Economy of Housework,” Bulletin of the Conference of Socialist Economists, Vol. 3, no. 1 (1973).Google Scholar
  15. Wally Seccombe, “The Housewife and Her Labour under Capitalism,” New Left Review, no. 83 (January–February 1974), pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
  16. Margaret Coulson, Branka Magas, and Hilary Wainwright, “‘The Housewife and her Labour under Capitalism,’ A Critique,” New Left Review, no. 89 (January–February 1975), pp. 59–71.Google Scholar
  17. Jean Gardiner, “Women’s Domestic Labour,” New Left Review, no. 89 (January–February 1975), pp. 47–58.Google Scholar
  18. Ian Gough and John Harrison, “Unproductive Labour and Housework Again,” Bulletin of the Conference of Socialist Economists, Vol. 4, no. 1 (1975).Google Scholar
  19. Jean Gardiner, Susan Himmelweit and Maureen Mackintosh, “Women’s Domestic Labour,” Bulletin of the Conference of Socialist Economists, Vol. 4, no. 2 (1975).Google Scholar
  20. Wally Seccombe, “Domestic Labour: Reply to Critics,” New Left Review, no. 94 (November–December 1975), pp. 85–96.Google Scholar
  21. Terry Fee, “Domestic Labor: An Analysis of Housework and its Relation to the Production Process,” Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 8, no. 1 (Spring 1976), pp. 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Susan Himmelweit and Simon Mohun, “Domestic Labour and Capital,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 1, no. 1 (March 1977), pp. 15–31.Google Scholar
  23. 12.
    Laura Oren documents this for the working class in “Welfare of Women in Laboring Families: England, 1860–1950,” Feminist Studies, Vol. 1, no. 3–4 (Winter-Spring 1973), pp. 107–25.Google Scholar
  24. 15.
    Harry Braverman, Labor and Monopoly Capital (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975).Google Scholar
  25. 16.
    Juliet Mitchell, Womens Estate (New York: Vintage Books, 1973), p. 92.Google Scholar
  26. 18.
    Juliet Mitchell, “Women: The Longest Revolution,” New Left Review, no. 40 (November–December 1966), pp. 11–37, also reprinted by the New England Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. 19.
    Juliet Mitchell, Psychoanalysis and Feminism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1974).Google Scholar
  28. 21.
    Shulamith Firestone, TheDialectic of Sex (New York: Bantam Books, 1971).Google Scholar
  29. 22.
    “Politics of Ego: A Manifesto for New York Radical Feminists,” can be found in Rebirth of Feminism, ed. Judith Hole and Ellen Levine (New York: Quadrangle Books, 1971), pp. 440–443.Google Scholar
  30. Additional writings of radical feminists, of whom the New York Radical Feminists are probably the most influential, can be found in Radical Feminism, ed. Ann Koedt (New York, Quadrangle Press, 1972).Google Scholar
  31. 23.
    See Dorothy Dinnerstein, The Mermaid and the Minotaur (New York: Harper Colophon Books, 1977).Google Scholar
  32. Nancy Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978).Google Scholar
  33. Jane Flax, “The Conflict Between Nurturance and Autonomy in Mother-Daughter Relationships and Within Feminism,” Feminist Studies, Vol. 4, no. 2 (June 1978), pp. 141–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 24.
    Kate Millett, SexualPolitics (New York: Avon Books, 1971), p. 25.Google Scholar
  35. 25.
    One example of this type of radical feminist history is Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Will, Men, Women, and Rape (New York: Simon & Shuster, 1975).Google Scholar
  36. 26.
    For the bourgeois social science view of patriarchy, see, for example, Weber’s distinction between traditional and legal authority, Max Weber: The Theories of Social and Economic Organization, ed. Talcott Parsons (New York: The Free Press, 1964), pp. 328–357.Google Scholar
  37. These views are also discussed in Elizabeth Fee, “The Sexual Politics of Victorian Social Anthropology,” Feminist Studies, Vol. 1, nos. 3–4 (Winter-Spring 1973), pp. 23–29.Google Scholar
  38. Robert A. Nisbet, The Sociological Tradition (New York: Basic Books, 1966), especially Chapter 3, “Community.”Google Scholar
  39. 27.
    See Viana Muller, “The Formation of the State and the Oppression of Women: Some Theoretical Considerations and a Case Study in England and Wales,” Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 9, no. 3 (Fall 1977), pp. 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 28.
    The diversity is shown in Toward an Anthropology of Women, ed. Rayna Rapp Reiter (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975).Google Scholar
  41. Woman, Culture and Society, ed. Michelle Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
  42. Females, Males, Families: A Biosocial Approach, by Liba Leibowitz (North Scituate, MA: Duxbury Press, 1978).Google Scholar
  43. 31.
    For an excellent discussion of one such transition to socialism, see Batya Weinbaum, “Women in Transition to Socialism: Perspectives on the Chinese Case,” Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 8, no. 1 (Spring 1976), pp. 34–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 32.
    Alice Clark, The Working Life of Women in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Kelly, 1969) describes women’s preindustrial economic roles and the changes that occurred as capitalism progressed.Google Scholar
  45. 33.
    Karl Kautsky, The Class Struggle (New York: Norton, 1971), pp. 25–26.Google Scholar
  46. 35.
    Cited in Neil Smelser, Social Change and the Industrial Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959), p. 301.Google Scholar
  47. 36.
    These examples are from Heidi I. Hartmann, “Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Job Segregation by Sex,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 1, no. 3, pt. 2 (Spring 1976), pp. 162–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 38.
    For a more complete discussion of protective labor legislation and women, see Ann C. Hill, “Prospective Labor Legislation for Women: Its Origin and Effect,” mimeographed (New Haven, CT: Yale Law School, 1970) parts of which have been published in Barbara A. Babcock, Ann E. Freedman, Eleanor H. Norton, and Susan C. Ross, Sex Discrimination and the Law: Causes and Remedies (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1975), an excellent law text. Also see Hartmann, “Job Segregation by Sex,” pp. 164–166.Google Scholar
  49. 39.
    Carolyn Shaw Bell, in “Working Women’s Contribution to Family Income,” Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 1, no. 3 (July 1974), pp. 185–201, presents current data and argues that it is now incorrect to assume that the man is the primary earner of the family.Google Scholar
  50. Oscar Handlin, Bostons Immigrants (New York: Atheneum, 1968) discusses mid-nineteenth century Boston, where Irish women were employed in textiles; women constituted more than half of all wage laborers and often supported unemployed husbands.Google Scholar
  51. See Carol B. Stack, All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), esp. Chap. 1.Google Scholar
  52. 41.
    As Pat Mainardi said in “The Politics of Housework,” “[t]he measure of your oppression is his resistance” (in Sisterhood is Powerful, ed. Robin Morgan [New York: Vintage Books, 1970], p. 451).Google Scholar
  53. 42.
    See her “Redefining the Question of Revolution,” Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 9, no. 3 (Fall 1977), pp. 54, 78.Google Scholar
  54. Additional studies of the interaction of capitalism and patriarchy can be found in Zillah Eisenstein, ed., Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1978).Google Scholar
  55. 43.
    See Batya Weinbaum and Amy Bridges, “The Other Side of the Paycheck: Monopoly Capital and the Structure of Consumption,” Monthly Review, Vol. 28, no. 3 (July–August 1976), pp. 88–103, for a discussion of women’s consumption work.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 44.
    For the view of the Frankfurt School, see Max Horkheimer, “Authority and the Family,” in Critical Theory (New York: Herder & Herder, 1972).Google Scholar
  57. Frankfurt Institute of Social Research, “The Family,” in Aspects of Sociology (Boston: Beacon, 1972).Google Scholar
  58. 46.
    For more on racial orders, see Stanley Greenberg, “Business Enterprise in a Racial Order,” Politics and Society, Vol. 6, no. 2 (1976), pp. 213–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Michael Burroway, The Color of Class in the Copper Mines: From African Advancement to Zambianization (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, Zambia Papers No. 7, 1972).Google Scholar
  60. 47.
    See Michael Reich, David Gordon, and Richard Edwards, “A Theory of Labor Market Segmentation,” American Economic Review, Vol. 63, no. 2 (May 1973), pp. 359–365.Google Scholar
  61. 48.
    See David M. Gordon, “Capitalist Efficiency and Socialist Efficiency,” Monthly Review, Vol. 28, no. 3 (July–August 1976), pp. 19–39, for a discussion of qualitative efficiency (social control needs) and quantitative efficiency (accumulation needs).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 49.
    See Gerd Korman, Industrialization, Immigrants, and Americanizers, the View from Milwaukee, 1866–1921 (Madison: The State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1967).Google Scholar
  63. 51.
    Stewart Ewen, Captains of Consciousness (New York: Random House, 1976).Google Scholar
  64. 53.
    For the proportion of people in nuclear families, see Peter Uhlenberg, “Cohort Variations in Family Life Cycle Experiences of U.S. Females,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 36, no. 5 (May 1974), pp. 284–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. For remarriage rates, see Paul C. Glick and Arthur J. Norton, “Perspectives on the Recent Upturn in Divorce and Remarriage,” Demography, Vol. 10 (1974), pp. 301–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. For divorce and income levels, see Arthur J. Norton and Paul C. Glick, “Marital Instability: Past, Present, and Future,” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 32, no. 1 (1976), pp. 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Also see Mary Jo Bane, Here to Stay: American Families in the Twentieth Century (New York: Basic Books, 1976).Google Scholar
  68. 54.
    Heather L. Ross and Isabel B. Sawhill, Time of Transition: The Growth of Families Headed by Women (Washington, D.C.; The Urban Institute, 1975).Google Scholar
  69. 55.
    See Kathryn E. Walker and Margaret E. Woods, Time Use: A Measure of Household Production of Family Goods and Services (Washington, D.C.: American Home Economics Association, 1976).Google Scholar
  70. Heidi I. Hartmann, “The Family as the Locus of Gender, Class, and Political Struggle: The Example of Housework,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 6, no. 3 (Spring 1981).Google Scholar
  71. 56.
    Richard Sennett’s and Jonathan Cobb’s The Hidden Injuries of Class (New York: Random House, 1973) examines similar kinds of psychological phenomena within hierarchical relationships between men at work.Google Scholar
  72. 58.
    See John R. Seeley, et al., Crestwood Heights (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1956), pp. 382–94.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Heidi Hartmann 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heidi Hartmann

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations