Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Socialist feminism and it's critics
Socialist feminism and it's critics
Socialist feminism literature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Socialist feminists are feminists who believe that capitalism is a driving force of sexism in America and must be eradicated or altered in order to achieve social equality. For example, in her essay “Nothing Distant About It” Alice Echols quotes Ellen Willis who argued that “capitalism succeeded in exploiting women as cheap labor and consumers ‘primarily by taking advantage of women’s subordinate position in the family and our historical domination by man’” (Echols, 34). The women of the Combahee River Collective also claim the identity of socialist feminists, believing that “the work must be organized for the collective benefit of those who do the work and create the products, and not for the profit of the bosses” (Combahee, 213). According to these women, capitalism is an …show more content…
Mary Fonow explores the role of women in the economy in her essay “Work, Poverty, and Economic Policy.” From the dawn of economics companies have benefited from the uncompensated work of women’s reproductive labors at home. Women’s labor in the home including cooking, cleaning, sewing, and childcare not only maintain the health and well-being of current male workers, but also provide future workers as well. Some women also participate in trade and sustenance farming in order to feed their families. However, none of this work is recognized by the government because no goods are produced and no services are offered to the public; therefor this work goes uncompensated. As Fonow points out “this arrangement made women dependent on marriage for their economic survival and explains in part why women as independent wage earners have such a difficult time earning a living wage” (Fonow, 222). Society and politics not only decide what is considered work in the country, but also decide what kind of jobs are made available and to whom, and many social stereotypes decide how work is
The two works of literature nudging at the idea of women and their roles as domestic laborers were the works of Zora Neale Hurston in her short story “Sweat”, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s short story “The Yellow Wallpaper”. Whatever the setting may be, whether it is the 1920’s with a woman putting her blood, sweat and tears into her job to provide for herself and her husband, or the 1890’s where a new mother is forced to stay at home and not express herself to her full potential, women have been forced into these boxes of what is and is not acceptable to do as a woman working or living at home. “Sweat” and “The Yellow Wallpaper” draw attention to suppressing a woman’s freedom to work along with suppressing a woman’s freedom to act upon her
Widespread unemployment of men forced married women to join the workforce to support their families, causing “a 50% increase...from the 1920s” of married women in the female workforce (Depression). Social and government attitudes opposed this sudden enhancement of the familial role of women beyond that of the traditional housewife. To illustrate, 1932 federal laws discouraged women to work by restricting federal employment to one person per family, ensuring the employment of men, who traditionally held jobs (Boehm). Thus, women’s positions expanded in 1930s society, though not without national
In “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the “Political Economy” of Sex” Gayle Rubin discusses a woman’s role in a capitalist society. She first talks about Marxist ideas. She says that women are often not considered part of the work force, and that their duties best reside in the house. She says that Marx believes that “the difference between the reproduction of labor power and its products depends, therefore, on the determination of what it takes to reproduce the labor power.”(Rubin 162) Basically, workers need means to recharge. They need things like food, clothing, housing and fuel. What Rubin argues is that none of these things can be considered sustenance the way they are given. “Food must be cooked, clothes cleaned, beds made, wood chopped, etc.”(Rubin 162) Extra labor must be done, which isn’t worked into the equation. Because women are the ones at home doing the housework, and their work isn’t considered, they often account for the “surplus value” realized by the capitalist. In short, women are a possession of the capitalist.
Gender inequality has been an abiding battle for centuries. Melissa J. Doak, author of Money, Income, and Poverty, states that “a wage survey taken in 1833 in Philadelphia found that most women workers in local textile factories received less for working seventy-eight hours per week than men were getting for one ten-hour day.” The question is why, after 180 years, this still continues to be an issue? Throughout history we see that men have become the breadwinners, while women were at home taking care of the children and carrying out household chores. This model created expectations of what both men and women were supposed to do in society. Therefore, this prototype or new stereotype of living didn’t provide many opportunities for women in the
In our current economy, it is almost a necessity for both the man and woman to work outside the home in order for the household to survive. It was interesting to learn about the economic factors that affected women’s participation in the work force in the past and relate that to women’s role in the work force today. Bibliography:.. Matthaei, Julie A. An Economic History of Women in America: Women’s Work, the Sexual Division of Labor, and the Development of Capitalism. New York: Schocken Books, 1982.
Domestic Labor has been a part of the European society from the 1960s. It is know as a labor work for women, who are working for long hours and low wages. These women have to abandon their home, family, and children to take care of someone else's home and their children. In the reading Nakano Glenn mentions that, “Recruited as ‘cheap hand,’ migrants fathers and husbands rarely earned a family wage. Moreover, many migrant families has destitute kin at home to support.” (Nakano Glenn 2006, 251) I believe this is the main reason why majority of women have to work as domestic worker, because they have to support and fulfill the needs of their own family. In the lecture, we have conversed on how these women are treated by the owners or the people
Mrs. Olive Schreiner observed, “if women did not win back their right to a full share of honored and useful work, women’s mind and muscle would weaken in a parasitic state; her offspring, male and female would weaken progressively, and civilization itself would deteriorate.” Friedan 8. The work ethic of the younger generation and today’s generation influenced by one’s parents, and if they do not show their willingness to work therefore their children shall not contribute to the community. If the mother, whether at home or work, does not show the desire to work, then her children will follow the same footsteps and ultimately “civilization itself would deteriorate” (Para.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman wrote for and spoke to an audience throughout the United States during the Progressive Era where changes were occurring due to industrialization. In “Women and Economics”, Gilman, described the constraints American women faced for economic freedom. Gilman began her analysis by exploring in depth the values of a wife/women, and the restrictions on women’s work within the capitalist economy. She considered the loss of individuality and societal productivity the cause to restrictions of a wife/women’s work and economic dependency on men.
Today, many women choose their own lifestyle and have more freedom. They can choose if they want to get married and have kids or not. Coontz said “what’s new is not that women make half their families living, but that for the first time they have substantial control over their own income, along with the social freedom to remain single or to leave an unsatisfactory marriage” (98). When women couldn’t work, they had no options but to stay with their husband for financial support. Working is a new way of freedom because they can choose to stay or leave their husband and make their own decisions.
In the year 1960, women’s opportunity and equality was extremely limited. A woman was expected to follow path in which she had to marry in her early 20’s, start a family, and quickly become a homemaker within her conforming community. “They were legally subject to their husbands via ‘head and master laws,’ and they had no legal right to any of their husbands' earnings or property, aside from a limited right to ‘proper support’; husbands, however, would control their wives' property and earnings” (American Feminist Movement, 2017). Women were treated more as their husband’s keeper that cares for the children and the house rather than being treated with respect and equality. Women were oftentimes limited to jobs that would only express “homemaker” abilities, such as a teacher or nurse. Along with having limited job opportunities, women were paid lower salaries than men because the employer assumed women don’t have a family to support, unlike men.
Most women in developing countries don’t get the choice to have a job, because they don’t have education and because they are made to stay home to have and take care of children. “1.4 billion people live on $1.25 a day. 79% of this group is made up of girls and women” (McCarney, R). If a girl in a developing country does get a job often it is because her parents push her into child labour, if the family needs money. “Girls are often made to work for others in order to earn money for their families” (McCarney, R). Women, who do have jobs, whether they live in a developing or developed country, are often paid less than men for the same work. These women don’t choose to be paid less than men for the same work, they are given less money because of their gender. “As a consequence of their working conditions and characteristics, a disproportionate number of women are impoverished in both developing and developed countries. Despite some progress in women’s wages in the 1990s, women still earn less than men, even for similar kinds of work” (“The Human Rights of Women”). Since women often make less money than men, women are more likely to live in poverty. If women were able to choose to have a job, of the type of job they have, or how much they make, less of them would be living in unfortunate circumstances. And when a women pulls herself out of
Especially mothers in America are at an economic disadvantage. With raising children as private responsibility and no net support from the society, the individuals will eventually end up in poverty. There are many countries that have adjust to the massive growth of women in the workforce over the past century by creating public policies to help accommodate work and family obligations. This paper will incorporate scholarly sources from Crittenden, Hays, Schulte, Coontz, Folbre, Stone and Lovejoy to back up the argument.
Is the exploitation of women in the home through an unfair division of labor a result of the beginnings of capitalism? Is this exploitation in the home a cause of other inequalities, mainly those in the wage labor market? Is capitalism bolstered by already existing patriarchal social relations, or is capitalism continuing to reinforce patriarchal systems? Finally is it possible to liberate women and reach true equality in our current capitalist economy? These are the main questions I will examine throughout my paper.
It is not uncommon for women across the world to work both outside and within the home on any given day. Women 's work in the formal sector is necessary for economic survival, but their families cannot endure without the work they also put in at home. For many women, the workday does not end when they leave their jobs, but not till many hours later when the children, their spouses, and the home have been taken care of. Beneria and Sen refer to this as the “double day”. The reality of the double day holds important insights into understanding the ways in which the push for economic growth as the main form of development disadvantages women. In Naila Kabeer 's article, Gender, Poverty, and inequality: a brief history of feminist contributions
Women’s subordination within the labour market is seen by Marxist feminists as suiting the needs of capitalism as women are considered a ‘reserve army of labour’ as they are a more disposable part of the workforce. According to Beechey (1986) women are a cheap ‘reserve army of labour’ that are brought in during economic booms but then thrown out during slumps. Women are often not members of trade unions and are prepared to work for less money as their wage could be a second income. This benefits capitalism as a group of unemployed people looking for work creates competition and exploitation. Employers are given an advantage which allows them to reduce wages and increase the rate of exploitation. Benston (1972) supports this as women are used to benefitting the operation of the capitalist economy by carrying out unprepared work in the home. This proves that patriarchy dominates women which leads to women’s subordination. Hartmann (1981) believes that patriarchy and the economy both play a crucial role in explaining and understanding gender inequality. Historically, men have controlled women especially by control of labour power. This can come through legislation that operates economically to the benefit of men, for example Maternity and Paternity Rights. This proves that patriarchy and economics together explains gender inequality. However, Walby (1986) argues that women staying at home can actually harm capitalism because if women were to compete for jobs with men this would lower wages and increase profits. Women who earn also have superior spending power which would boost the economy and benefit