Talk:Marxist feminism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 22 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tcochran6. Peer reviewers: Tcochran6.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mjo82.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

criticism section

Erm...should the criticism section really be longer than the main body of the article? Just a question. - Anon

If it takes more words to explain the criticism than the theory, then yes it should. - Corvus 2 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)

I agree with the concern of Anon above. Like many theories, Feminist Marxism can be explained quickly or in detail, so can the criticisms of it. Wouldn't it be possible to write a short description of evolution and then a book about the criticisms of it? Having a critique section longer than the article looks like a bias against it to me. - Another Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.179.125 (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph implies that capitalism is the root of women's oppression, despite the fact that women have been oppressed before capitalism arose. Marxist DO recognise this, and the article is wrong. The oppression of women came out of the development of CLASS SOCIETY, not specifically capitalism. - user:mattkidd12 18 July 2005 21:23

It was explained to me that Marxist Feminism is a subset of socialist feminism which specifically _targets oppression of women arising from capitalism, not all forms of oppression. If the article implies all forms of oppression arise from capitalism then it is wrong, but that is not the impression I got. -- Corvus 18:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with mattkidd12's comments: Engel's book on the origins of women's oppression makes the case clear. Unless there are any objections, I suggest we revise that.--Duncan 13:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree absolutely. My interpretation of this is that Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State by Engels should be considered the maiden voyage of Marxist feminism, and he is unequivocal that the historical domination of women began not with capitalism, but some millennia earlier with the overthrow of mother right. I suggest we find some citations for this and amend the article. --causa sui ^talk 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Radical Women"

Why does the article say "Radical Women, a major Marxist-feminist organization, bases its theory on Marx' and Engels' analysis".... Why not just "Marx' and Engels' analysis was"... It just looks like an unncessary name-check. --Duncan (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

updates made to Marist Feminism Page

The changes that have been done to the Marxist Feminist page; were done as a part of a project for an Introduction to Feminist Theory class, it was found that the information given on the original page was incomplete and needed to be added to. This was the goal of the project. To gain as much knowledge as possible and condense it, in order to give correct and complete information on the different subjects found in Feminist Theory. This is an attempt to expand the knowledge and history of Marxist Feminism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylier Autumn (talk • contribs) Dec 9, 2008

Thanks for you contribution, it looks like it's the result of a fair amount of work and research. However, I think it's a mistake to completely rewrite the article, as you did, without discussing it first. The point of Wikipedia, after all, is that it is a collaborative encyclopedia, where we all correct and expand on each other's work. Although your rewrite added valuable new information, it also lost useful information from the existing article. So, I changed the article back to the version before your rewrite, but I don't want all your work to be wasted; please consider going through your version and adding information from it to the current article. I've stored your rewrite at User:Skylier Autumn/Marxist feminism, so you can use it to make additions to the current article. VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the 'The Three Waves of Marxist Feminism' and organisation of the key points section would be valuable to integrate into the current article.184.60.31.237 (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Cultural Marxist Feminism

Feminism itself is communism--it's Cultural Marxism using Critical Theory. I think this matter might be mentioned in the article. The emergence of feminism via the Frankfurt School (q.v.) should also be mentioned, to give more completeness to the article. --Just some suggestions. A good book to start with is "Red Feminism" by Kate Weigand. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Possible Issues In Writing Style etc.

The article could definitely use some revision. I think my brief critique can be best identified in the "Productive and Reproductive Labour" section. The first issue in the section is with the link two types of labor exist. The article is defining it as "productive and reproductive", but the link is sending it to "productive and unproductive". If these are different subjects the link should likely not exist. If it's the same subject, they difference should likely be reconciled between pages, or at least addressed in this particular article here. Secondly, this article is representing philosophical and/or economic theory. As such, to avoid being opinion and adhere as strictly commentary of opinion. Using statements like "according to..." and "as defined by..." tends to be preferable. The theoretical background on Marxism seems to do this appropriately, but you can tell it gets lost in the "productive and reproductive labour" section. I'm not even sure if this is a writing style issue or if the author of how it currently stands is actually just inserting opinion as fact (hopefully the former). Hobbeswood (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Social reproduction theory

A important trend to day in Marxist feminism seems to be social reproduction theory. (Since Lise Vogel, 1983?) I became aware of that trend trough https://monthlyreview.org/2018/01/01/women-nature-and-capital-in-the-industrial-revolution/. There is much about reproductive labour in the page, but no mention of social reproduction theory. There is a Wikipedia page about social reproduction, but in the sense of cultural heritage of social positions à la Bourdieu. I see therefore the following program: (1) mention social reproduction theory in this page; (2) a Social reproduction theory page; (3) a disambiguation page mentioning the new Social reproduction theory page and the existing Social reproduction page. I am in the comfortable situation of leaving this program to others because (i) I am not a social scientist; (ii) my English is not good enough. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Gilman does not belong here

With some feat of acrobatics, it might be said that Gilman was a "socialist", but it's simply inaccurate to claim that she was a Marxist. Only one source cited claims that Gilman was a "socialist" and even here, it is claimed that she was a "19th century utopian modernis[t]", which was explicitly not a Marxist theory.

If Gilman's contribution to Marxist feminism is notable enough, it should be clearly stated that Gilman was not a Marxist. Otherwise the reference should be removed. If there is no discussion after a week or so, I will opt for the latter.

AndersLeo (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing Gilman would remove a lot of other valuable information that does relate to the Marxist feminism movement. I recommend rewording it to make it more accurate or incorporating another reference. Do you have another reference to replace Gilman with? Anne Phillips and Barbara Taylor can be good additions or starting points for a new reference for this section. Mjo82 (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no issue with the references. And it's not a matter of simply replacing Gilman with some other reference. The issue is with referring to Gilman as a socialist with the further (erroneous) implication that Gilman is a Marxist feminist, which this article deals with. The point of contention is whether or not Gilman is a Marxist, a claim that none of the references support.

This applies not only to Gilman, but to a host of other theorists mentioned in the article. In that regard, Anne Phillips is not a "good addition" to the article, since Anne Phillips is not a Marxist. Merely critiquing liberal feminist theories does not make somebody a Marxist. In addition to specific theorists, there are some moderate WP:POV issues that need to be addressed as well. For instance, the claim that "In the capitalist system, two types of labor exist", where the link is a redirect to the page on Productive and unproductive labour, but the two types are referred to as "productive" and "reproductive". This is the claim of specific theorists who, although appropriately cited, do not necessarily represent the Marxist position. The statement is moreover non-exhaustive, as unproductive labour as espoused by Marx was not limited to reproductive labour (and furthermore, "reproductive" is not primarily used in the biological sense in Marxist literature).

That said, I am not opposed to the inclusion of decidedly non-Marxist theorists, as long as their contributions provide reasonable context for the Marxist feminist discourse. In that case, I recommend creating an entirely new section dedicated to non-Marxist feminists to very clearly indicate that they are, in fact, non-Marxist theorists, along with an explanation of their relevance to the development of Marxist feminist theory. AndersLeo (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Revert

I've done a manual revert of the page because the recent edits made by User:RTG were problematic for a number of reasons.

First: Multiple paragraphs were blanked, and entire new paragraphs were added. This is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, but most of the new edits involved detailed accounts of Engels' text, which has its own Wiki page and does not belong here.

Second: Content was added immediately before citations that were in the previous edit, effectively "piggy-backing" on the citation that was provided. If new content is added, the editor should decide whether or not the claim needs a source cited and if so cite properly.

Third: The edits were made in rapid succession, making collaboration and evaluation difficult. I may be mistaken, but to me this is seems to be poor etiquette. Unless there is a pressing reason not to do so, editors should try to make substantial edits at once, not 14 consecutive edits over the course of a few hours.

Fourth: Much of the added content was poorly worded and difficult to understand. In places where the content between the edits overlapped, the original edit represented a clearer overview of the subject.

AndersLeo (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• At this point, "However with the development of more effective methods of producing for human needs," the current article diverges from what is in the book. The section quotes to be emotive rather than explanatory.
• "In a private ownership system, individuals who do not own land or other means of production are in a situation" -- This statement makes it seem as though we read two different books. I am talking about sitting with the book open on one page, and the article on another page beside it searching and reading exactly what Engels was explaining.
• He doesn't just compare it to enslavement, but accuses it of being the very instigation of slavery as a part of human life.
• He doesn't say "chastity and fidelity are rewarded"
• These are just some points about the current section. It's not a copy edit. It's inaccurate over the most part. The truth of the book, which gives as much as it takes from the other "side", is much more convincing.
• There is no "piggybacking".
• I see several opinions of which none are focused. I have only described the main points of contention I can see in the section. @AndersLeo: ~ R.T.G 19:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

In my original edit, I left out explanation of "paired marriage", I made an assumption of my own "for the sake of the household", I left out "Asiatic" from his claim that there was abundant material to do the study, I left out the basis for the book being in Marx own works, and I didn't explain very well how the lineage of inheritance was skipping the males. When I came back and reviewed it the second time, I got the last of these points and considered it done. I got all the main points Engels makes up until the time where inequality is based, which I saw as the point of having a large explanation of the book in the section. I'm not particularly eager about any particular wording as long as it is accurate and representative. It's actually a quite deep and insightful study to that point in the book, not particularly focused on any politics so much as anthropology itself. That's my full two bits about it. ~ R.T.G 20:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• At this point, "However with the development of more effective methods of producing for human needs," the current article diverges from what is in the book. The section quotes to be emotive rather than explanatory. Disagree

The source text directly states that "All the surplus which the acquisition of the necessities of life now yielded fell to the man; the woman shared in its enjoyment, but had no part in its ownership." While you may be correct in saying that the section quotes are emotive rather than explanatory, that does not detract from the fact that they are germane to Engels' work in regards to Marxist feminism. In other words, the quote no less belongs to Engels as it stands simply because the editor has understood it outside of its intended context, as long as this biased understanding is not reflected in the article. I see no evidence that this is a type of "cherry-picking" of quotes. AndersLeo (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• "In a private ownership system, individuals who do not own land or other means of production are in a situation" -- This statement makes it seem as though we read two different books. I am talking about sitting with the book open on one page, and the article on another page beside it searching and reading exactly what Engels was explaining. Agree

Yes, doesn't seem to conform with the literal text found in Engels' English translation. It's closer to the apparent translation used by the Communist Party of Peru in the 1974 statement Mariategui and the Women's Movement, which most likely originates from a translation from the English to Spanish, then from Spanish to English. If this is to be included, then it should be cited as such. AndersLeo (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• These are just some points about the current section. It's not a copy edit. It's inaccurate over the most part. The truth of the book, which gives as much as it takes from the other "side", is much more convincing. Not sure what you mean. AndersLeo (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no "piggybacking". Agree

On a second pass, I mostly agree. I'm not referring to rewording the explanation of Engels. I was referring to a more minor point about Engels' work being based on Ancient Society (1877), which I admit I extrapolated to be represented to the bulk of the edits. AndersLeo (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• I see several opinions of which none are focused. I have only described the main points of contention I can see in the section. ...and so do many others

As other have pointed out, this article has a lot of serious issues and could, in this editor's opinion, be completely revamped. I'm not criticizing edits generally. My criticisms address mainly: 1) That the article should include Engels' work only insofar as it is relevant to Marxist feminism, leaving the most substantial overview of the text to its own Wiki page, which already exists, 2) That the edits were poorly worded and difficult to understand. AndersLeo (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

"It's actually a quite deep and insightful study to that point in the book, not particularly focused on any politics so much as anthropology itself."

Agree and disagree. Both Marx and Engels engage in an anthropological study. This is why it's even more important to emphasize that references to "Asiatic" society and so on are carried out as anthropological comparisons between societies, not orientalist generalizations of "civilized vs barbarians" that characterized much of the literature in their time. Moreover, it should be underscored that while both Marx and Engels were engaged in analysis, at no point could their contributions be understood as apolitical. Dialectic materialism as espoused by Marxism requires analysis through practice. Otherwise it is not Marxist. AndersLeo (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that your edits were wholly unproductive. You make some salient points. The readability is secondary to content, in my opinion, and there's no reason we can't, as a community of editors, work on improving good content. What's more, where there's disagreement about the content itself, there's no reason we can't discuss it. My suggestion is that making fewer, but more substantial edits rather than smaller rapid-fire edits would improve collaborative work in this direction significantly. AndersLeo (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, when I say it diverges, given this topic is feminism, there is an awful lot of debate about the family and social position relevant to feminism, but the article skips that and goes to the effect of the acquisition of wealth. Given this is close to a major politics topic, I have my head in my hand at that stage. I mean, this is a real anthropological study of the nature and background of the family structure. A lot of interesting terms and connections are made. Assumptions are challenged and made. Someone has read that for the purpose of this article, skipped all the good stuff, and gone straight to complaining about the money, because this is a political genre after all, is my opinion.

Okay you agree there to an extent. Marxists is not giving me the link. I'll be more succinct. He is not talking about "private ownership system" at the relevant point in the book. What he says about ownership is, in my words, the man owned the outside world for gathering, and the woman owned the world of the house, and they both worked at what they owned, and their work was seen of equal value, providing a balance. There is none of this modern economic political rhetoric. It's is totally an anthropological study, at least up until the point where he claims subjugation is secure and slavery begins.

He doesn't argue specifically that a womans social disposition is "not biological", or that it revolves around "reproductive capacity". It says monogogamy would ensure that "only" his children... Engels didn't put it like that. Engels said to ensure any inheritance at all in the male line. He didn't portray it as greedy at all and in fact supports the move as a step forward accompanied by a step back, as I quoted in the article to show it is a major point he is making,

"Thus the heritage which group marriage has bequeathed to civilization is double-edged, just as everything civilization brings forth is double-edged, double-tongued, divided against itself, contradictory: here monogamy, there hetaerism, with its most extreme form, prostitution. For hetaerism is as much a social institution as any other; it continues the old sexual freedom – to the advantage of the men. Actually not merely tolerated, but gaily practiced, by the ruling classes particularly, it is condemned in words. But in reality this condemnation never falls on the men concerned, but only on the women; they are despised and outcast, in order that the unconditional supremacy of men over the female sex may be once more proclaimed as a fundamental law of society."

I have no prior knowledge about Engels or reading of his work specifically that I can recall. My main political bias is general negativity, and not only for the politicians, so mix ups in that genre are unlikely from me. If you consider anti-oppression a politic, then yes, that part of the book has occasional reference to inequality for the woman in both past and present times. If you consider equality between the sexes a part of nature, then no there is no politics in it at all, at least up to the point of enslavement.

Poor wording gets corrected over time. Inaccuracy must be stopped at a point with all other priorities rescinded. Now that's a politic.

There is no need to apologise for the book, and if you engage in doing so, bias is guaranteed. Keywords here are, impartial, dispassionate, neutral. All that is required to achieve this goal is to point out that the author was a close colleague of Marx, and based the book on Marx own writing. No conclusions should be drawn unless separately represented by reliable sources.

As far as I saw it, I was done with the section. My small fire edits were merely supposed to finish off, regarding the issues mentioned in my first response. There is no attempt by me to be poetic or anything like that, but my goal here is to disseminate the relevance of the book accurately. I'm not sure I can alter the rest of the article so significantly, but I probably will check at least some of it for, the more significant points, as most of the material seems to be available and this is a somewhat important topic in my estimation, beyond adherence to Marxism for instance, and should be accurate. ~ R.T.G 10:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

In my impatience I have come all the way around to finishing and reducing the section hoping that it might be smaller and more accurate than it was last week. I dropped most of the discussion on the precepts and the quotes, and otherwise don't think I missed any major relevant points. I've gone up to about page 30-35 where he says subjugation is secure and slavery begins as a feature of society, as what the previous version seemed to be aiming at.  Done ~ R.T.G 15:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sex work

While sex work is a worthy section for this topic, the current content could be deleted entirely. I've kept it for now until there's either something to replace it or more discussion in favor of removing earlier.

1. Unsure of the relevance/importance of Sobel's work. If there's something compelling about his analysis then that should be added. In the meantime I've removed the "brings forth a challenging perspective" language since the claim is not, on its face, new or challenging.
2. Similar quibble with Phillips and Taylor. What's the relevance to Marxist feminism/Marxism?
3. Is SWOP a Marxist feminist organization? I can't find any reference to them as such, and "normalizing sex work" isn't a Marxist project. Not sure why they're here.
4. Plenty to be added, but that's surely not surprising for a two-paragraph section that starts in 1980. Engels, Kollontai, and Lenin are the first who come to mind.
5. Could use a brief intro or definition but not yet sure of scope.

Deltacubes (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting some help

Hi,

Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics would interest you.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andreaag0nzalez (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Giselleam317.

— Assignment last updated by WGST320 (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samsara 11 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: KingKibba.

— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)