Tricia Breton
Professor McHenry
Theoretical Approaches Project
Final Assignment – Fall 2012
In this paper, I attempt to clarify the Marxist Feminism theory. In doing so, the theory
will be explained, summarized, and analyzed. I begin this writing by providing a basic
understanding of class and capitalism. Then, I transition to the major concepts of Marxist
feminism – capitalism and patriarchy – and how theorists believe they collaborate on women’s
inequality. Also, I will look at the prominent ideas that Marxist feminism brought to the feminist
world. In order to provide a balanced approach, I will describe the common critiques about
Marxist feminism and look at the inconsistencies it scatters throughout the literature. Similarly, I
explore three scholarly articles that touch upon several issues – sexual division of household
labor, poverty of single women, and housework within Marxist feminism theory. Although these
articles are not considered feminist writings, they do investigate issues that feminists are
interested in. While analyzing these articles, I emphasize the Marxist feminism beliefs within
the text. The writings do not consistently stay on track with Marxist feminism, so I point out the
similarities to other theories, such as liberal feminism, socialist feminism, and multicultural
feminism. Finally, I conclude the writing with a personal opinion on Marxist feminism.
Throughout history, society has placed people into descriptive categories – classes based on income and the ability to consume material goods. Three of the basic classes – low,
middle, and upper – describe, in terms of monetary value, a space to exist. According to Joan
Acker, “‘class’ stands for practices and relations that provide differential access to and control
over the means of provisioning and survival” (qtd. in Lorber 56). Classes are a small piece to a
bigger puzzle – capitalism. Capitalism is the economic structure that maintains the production of
goods and the selling of goods, which leads to the access of wealth. Judith Lorber suggests that
“if you owned the means of production, you were a member of the capitalist class; if you sold
your labor for production, you were a member of the proletariat” (52). Typically, capitalists
belonged to the upper class because they had the financial means to privately produce goods that
could be sold for profit. In order to sell these goods to consumers, the capitalists needed help
with production. Proletariats, the lower classes, sold their labor, worked in production, and
received wages for their work. Capitalists “hired workers at wages low enough to make a profit”
(Lorber 52). This system of capitalism, along with patriarchy, is the basis for Marxist feminism.
About forty years ago, “Marxist feminism argued that the economic structure and the
material aspects of life were the main sources of gender inequality” (Lorber 54). Capitalism was
seen in the workforce and within the home - the private lives of women, men, and families.
Patriarchy and capitalism work together and interlock to form a link between gendered
oppressions, which primarily touch women’s lives. Lorber states, “it was Marxist feminism that
put wives and mothers at the forefront of its analysis of the gendered structure of capitalism (52).
According to Charlotte Perkins Gilman, “the comfort, the luxury, the necessities of life itself,
which the women receives, are obtained by the husband, and given to her by him” (100).
Unfortunately, women earn low wages and battle to make a livable salary on their own. A
woman’s low wages “…reinforces the family, and, with it, the domestic division of labor, by
encouraging women to marry” (Hartmann 305). Thus, they rely on marriage as a means of
financial survival. This reliance allows marriage to remain an economic benefit for the woman,
wife, or mother. But she does not own this benefit; it is the man’s benefit. Patriarchy and
capitalism collaborate together to keep women at an economic disadvantage.
Marxist feminism argues that women are exploited within the home based on their unpaid
labor –cleaning, cooking, and mother-work. Their work within the home is invisible, even
though it has a direct impact on the capitalist system. A woman’s unpaid labor as a wife and
mother “maintains bosses and workers and reproduces the next generation of bosses and
workers” (Lorber 52). In other words, it is because of her work within the home that a man can
be successful and earn decent wages. Not only does she reproduce the next generation of
workers, she also reproduces the next generation of human beings. Using social reproduction,
she teaches her “children how to be members of society” (Lorber 53). Another source of
inequality, according to Marxist feminists, is that society utilizes women as “a reserve army of
labor” (Lorber 51). Placed in the workforce when the economy is struggling, women are second
choice. Once the economic structure recuperates, society attempts to force women back into
their private world of housework. Of course, some women hold jobs outside the home, but these
jobs are usually low-paying, low-status jobs like service workers, social work, and nurturing
work. These “caring jobs” pay less because women are “doing what comes naturally” (Lorber
61). Under patriarchy and capitalism, these careers are not real jobs; they are “women’s jobs.”
Marxist feminism is not all-inclusive. It has been strongly critiqued by other members of
the feminist world. The theory relies heavily on a heterosexual relationship between a man and a
woman. Thus, Marxist feminism concentrates on the “traditional family” and excludes same-sex
relationships. It appears that same-sex relationships – lesbian, gay, transgender, or bisexual –
cannot utilize the perspectives of Marxist feminism; nontraditional relationships are excluded.
Another critique of the theory is that it fails to recognize the racial/ethnic oppressions and
exploitations that women of color face. The “traditional family” has long been connected with
white, middle-class families. Many non-Marxist feminists like socialist, multicultural, and black
feminists inquire about the women of color, who are closely associated with poor, female-headed
households. Various feminists ask: Where are these groups of women represented in the theory?
Another pressing concern of Marxist feminism is the suggestion that the government should pay
women for their housework and mothering duties. According to Marxist feminism, this would
relieve women’s dependence on husbands, boyfriends, or other male relatives. Unfortunately,
permanent wages for housework and government subsidies would only change the object of
dependence – from men to government. Women would still depend on an agency other than
themselves. Can women’s economic dependence and poverty change over time?
In “A ‘Pauperization of Motherhood’? Single Motherhood and Women’s Poverty over
Time,” author Karen Christopher attempts to look at the rate of single motherhood as well as the
rate of poverty. Her main concern is whether “single motherhood and employment affect
women’s poverty over time” (Christopher 1). Christopher assumes that single motherhood
should increase a women’s poverty over time (4). Using a quantitative methodology, she
acquired her data by using a sample of U.S. women aged 16-60. The “ single mothers” were
never married, separated, divorced, or widowed women, and they had children under eighteen
living with them. Her scholarly article uses textual analysis, data from previous years Current
Population Surveys, to analyze data about single motherhood and poverty over several decades.
She does not use a feminist perspective. However, feminist underpinnings could be hiding
between the lines. First of all, poverty and single motherhood are key issues to feminism,
particularly Marxist feminism. In her research, Christopher states that single motherhood has
risen over the past three decades (3). Her reasons for this rise are “…delays in the age of first
marriage, increases in divorce, increased fertility among unmarried women combined with
decreased fertility among married women, and women’s lessened economic dependence on men”
(qtd in Christopher 3). A Marxist feminist theorist, like Heidi Hartmann, would argue with her
on two points: divorce and women’s economical independence. Hartmann says, “…the
incentives to divorce are not overwhelming for women” and “women’s wages allow very few
women to support themselves and their children independently and adequately” (305). Looking
at another key factor associated with poverty and single motherhood, Christopher investigates
labor market trends. She assumes that the poverty rate should decrease as a result of increased
employment and lessened wage gaps. In order to achieve this argument, Christopher must look
at race because “women of color experience fewer returns to education than white women” and
this “contributes to the racial/ethnic earnings gap among women” (5). This is especially
poignant in her research. Although, it is not specifically a Marxist feminist perspective, it does
fall under the socialist lens. According to Lorber, socialist feminism believes that women
struggle with a complex system of oppressions – the intersectionality of race, ethnicity, class,
and gender (73). In her conclusions, Christopher determines that “single mothers were always
far more likely to live in poverty than women who were not single mothers” (17). Clearly, a
Marxist feminist would agree. The basic argument under Marxist feminism is that patriarchy
and capitalism play significant roles in gender inequality, and Christopher’s conclusions embody
that argument. A woman achieves economic stability through her husband, not independently.
Charlotte Gilman would not deny this fact either. She says, “when the women, left with no man
to ‘support’ her, tries to meet her own economic necessities, the difficulties which confront her
prove conclusively what the general economic status of women is” (Gilman 100). Women have
no economic value; their value is housework.
Another prominent issue that Marxist feminism addresses is that of housework – unpaid
labor in the home. In “Why Do women Do the Lion’s Share of Housework? A Decade of
Research,” researchers Mylene Lachance-Grzela and Genevieve Bouchard attack the sexual
division of labor in the home. Although their researcher is not classified as feminist, they still
ask a big Marxist feminist question: why is there a sexual division of labor? Marxist feminism
would say that it is because of the patriarchal society and the economic structure of capitalism.
Women are “responsible for about two-thirds of routine household tasks, with cooking and
cleaning being the two most time-consuming tasks” and they are “in charge of managing,
planning, and organizing these tasks” (qtd. in Grzela and Bouchard 768). In their research,
Grzela and Bouchard distinguish between “routine tasks” and “intermittent tasks” (769). Routine
tasks are daily, time-consuming household chores like house cleaning, laundry, cooking, and
doing dishes, and intermittent tasks are once-in-awhile tasks, like yard work, car repair, and
household repair (769). Women do the routine tasks and men do the intermittent tasks. Marxist
feminism suggests that the division of household labor is an example of gender consciousness.
According to Lorber, “a wife’s work in the home shapes her consciousness to be different from
that of her husband” (69). Supposedly, the wife should like routine tasks better. This argument is
similar to that of liberal feminism; however, gender consciousness is closely related to classconsciousness, which is used in Marxist theory on capitalism. Liberal feminists believe that
women are taught gender characteristics – a set of behaviors that make women better at nurturing
and caring. In order to answer the “why” question, Grzela and Bouchard use a quantitative
methodology and textual analysis of household surveys over a ten-year time span. To analyze
the data, the researchers use different perspectives, such as relative resources and gender
ideology. The relative resource perspective “is based on the premise that a partner’s external
resources, such as income and education, grant decision-making power (qtd. in Grzela and
Bouchard 771). This perspective falls into the oppressive categories of capitalism and
patriarchy. As noted previously, men are able to work more on-the-job hours because the wives
are doing more household duties. Men are only able to work more hours and earn more money
because “women’s housework and child care make it possible for men to go to work” (Lorber
53). The gender ideology perspective suggests that men and women learn gender roles and those
roles determine who does the unpaid labor at home. Although this perspective does not resemble
Marxist feminism ideas, it does parallel liberal feminism, which recognizes the construction of
gender roles. In their research, Grzela and Bouchard determine that “household labor remains
persistently divided along traditionally gendered lines” (777). Women do more; men do less.
Although they do not offer solutions to their findings, Marxist feminists do. They suggest,
“women should get paid for housework and child-care” (Lorber 60). The reasoning for paid
work in the home is that women do more household chores and mothering, and it takes away
from their opportunities to work and generate an income. In some households, there is enough
earned income to hire someone else to do those menial daily tasks. Would that change the
division of labor in the household? Would it close the divide?
In “Is It Wrong To Pay For Housework,” author Gabrielle Meagher questions the ethics
of purchasing housework to close the divide between men and women in the home. Her work
does not employ a Marxist feminism perspective, but it could be viewed as a solution to the
issues involved in the theory. As previously seen, Marxist feminism asserts that the women’s
unpaid labor – household chores and mothering – creates economic disadvantages for women.
Could women outsource that work and build a more equal home environment? According to
Evelyn Glenn, author of “Gender, Race, and Citizenship,” it would not change women’s status; it
would only “slough off the burdensome tasks onto more oppressed groups of women” (qtd in
Lorber 62). Hiring maids, servants, or housekeepers would only create a hierarchal structure
between women. Lorber agrees with this critique. She says, “women who do paid domestic
labor in people’s homes are usually from disadvantaged social groups [and] under capitalism,
their wages tend to be minimal….”(Lorber 61). In addition, the woman, who employs another
woman to do the housework, is not better off. If a woman’s husband has the financial ability to
hire outside help for inside housework, then the woman assumes the role of advancing her
husband’s social status through charities and her husband’s work events. Basically, a wife erases
housework from her to-do list, but adds on more activities to advance her husband’s career and
social status. In essence, the wife’s primary role is still to “work” for the husband. Meagher
disagrees with the Marxist feminism views on paid housework. She believes that, “if we pay
domestic workers well and treat them with scrupulous respect as workers and persons, it is not
unethical to pay them to clean for us” (Meagher 60). Meagher represents a belief that women
can easily be disadvantaged, and society needs to carefully examine those issues. Her belief
encompasses the socialist feminists belief – complex inequality. This belief, supported by
socialist feminism, argues that women of all classes and racial backgrounds struggle with many
different oppressions that are unique to each woman. For example, a white, middle-class, wife
and mother has privileges that a Black woman of the same social status does not. As Lorber
states, “privilege (and disadvantage) in any one status enhances or brings down status in others”
(75). In other words, the Black, middle class woman faces more disadvantages because of her
race. Her race tends to blur the lines of economic and social privileges.
Privileges, unearned advantages, appear everywhere in society, especially the male
privileges. Men acquire social and economic advantages simply because they are men. Marxist
feminism blames those advantages on capitalism and patriarchy. The key public and private
issues – unpaid labor in the home, low wages, and sexual division of household labor – create
disadvantages for women. These disadvantages cause women to remain dependent on men
within the home and outside the home. Marxist feminists attempt to provide solutions to the
issues by valuing “women’s work” and proposing livable wages for that work. But the solutions
may not be a one-size-fits-all. As a single mother myself, I would love to be paid for my unpaid
labor and mothering work. Would that really be independence? I look at it as commodification
of women and women’s work; women still wouldn’t be equal. Instead, they would be owned by
and paid for by patriarchy. That is not what I want either.
Works Cited
Bartkowski, Frances, and Wendy K. Kolmar, eds. Feminist Theory: A Reader. 3rd ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill , 2010. Print
Christopher, Karen. "A 'Pauperization Of Motherhood'? Single Motherhood And Women's
Poverty Over Time." Journal Of Poverty 9.3 (2005): 1-23. Women's Studies
International. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “Women and Economics: A Study of the Economic Relation between
Men and Women as a Factor in Social Evolution.” Bartkowski and Kolmar 100-104.
Hartmann, Heidi. “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More
Progressive Union.” Bartkowski and Kolmar 299-307.
Lachance-Grzela, Mylène, and Geneviève Bouchard. "Why Do Women Do The Lion's Share Of
Housework? A Decade Of Research." Sex Roles 63.11/12 (2010): 767-780. Women's
Studies International. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.
Lorber, Judith. Gender Inequality. 5th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. Print.
Meagher, Gabrielle. "Is It Wrong To Pay For Housework?." Hypatia 17.2 (2002): 52. Women's
Studies International. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.