Charles writes:
>It is important to note that Engels made an
>important leap forward in his feminism in the Preface to _The Origin of
>the Family, Private Property and the State_, when he advanced the short
>formula of historical materalism from "the form of a society in any
>historical epoch is determined by the relations of production" to the
>determination of the form of society is twofold: on the one hand
>production of immediate life, and on the other reproduction or
>propagation of the species. Theoretically, this fulfills your critique
>above, but in classical practice, Marxism has been unbalanced as you
>describe.
And puts it very well. The theory is there for the job Maggie demands of it. And Maggie surely has an important point. Mainstream Marxism (I'm trying to make the distinction Maggie makes, ie Marxist work that is not generally classified as feminist - the latter category unfortunately being rather less read on the left) could much more with this.
By the way, what might people's thoughts be on the proposition that one needs comparable objective conditions of being before a subjective unity is likely. Traditionally (under capitalism) working class men depend directly on the bourgeoisie, while working class women depend directly on those working class men for their bread and status. This strikes me as a significantly different locale in the relations of production. This helps explain socialism's less than auspicious record on gender issues (we don't even remember Clara Zetkin) and I'd like to posit the theory that working class solidarity, the logical guts of Marxian change, won't come about until women fight the same battle as men. Is it too strong to suggest that most women might see themselves as engaged in a logically prior contest? Here I guess, I'm suggesting that where the Liberal Feminist sees salary/conditions/status comparability or equality as the ultimate terms of debate, the Socialist Feminist sees this as a requisite for the ultimate struggle. Until then, man and woman are alienated from each other.
Cheers, Rob.