>
> marxist explanations of inequality: gender inequality is embedded in and a
> tool of a more fundamental system of class oppression and exploitation.
> women are oppressed, exploited, dominated by men b/c it's functional for
> capitalism: reserve army of labor, depresses wages, women perform the bulk
> of unpaid "reproductive" labor in the home which, for many marxist
> theorists, is not really productive labor. on proyect's marxism list there
> was debate about unionizing sex workers. sex workers were said to be
> parasitic labor, not 'real' labor because it merely provides sex etc rather
> than contributing valuable social goods/services to the economy. [stems
> from rosa luxembourg's claims that the reproductive (childbearing, rearing,
> housework, sexual and emotional comforts/nurturing) labor performed by
> bourgeois housewives renders women "the parasite of a parasite" --b.s. to
> that one, i say].
I think this description of Marxist Feminism relies more on perjorative descriptions of the field than on what (at least today) makes up Marxist Feminism. (For people wanting a good description of M-F, have a look at http://csf.colorado.edu/soc/m-fem/index.html, or Martha Gimenez's essay at http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/mar.html) Firstly, Rosa L. was certainly not a feminist (I think she might have been offended if someone had called her one), and thus quoting her views on women is about as valid (for describing M-F) as quoting any other non-feminist Marxist - e.g. Gramsci. Secondly, the kind of 'instrumentalist' Marxist description of women's oppression - as if it were a tool to be (fairly arbitrarily) picked up whenever the time seems right - is not necessarily accepted by modern proponents of M-F (e.g. Lisa Vogel).
Finally the comments of some people on a Marxist list about sex workers are hardly a criterion for judging either Marxism, or Marxist-Feminism. In particular the 'productive labour' debate often starts off on the wrong foot by confusing what for Marx was an analytical catagory (productive vs. non-productive labour) with a value judgement (useful vs. non-useful work). Any so-called Marxist who argues that non-productive labour is not 'real' labour is a poor Marxist, and an even poorer friend of the working class.
Peter -- Peter van Heusden : pvanheus at hgmp.mrc.ac.uk 'The demand to give up illusions about the existing state of affairs is the demand to give up a state of affairs which needs illusions.' - Karl Marx