Lydia Sargent (ed.), Women & Revolution, 1981 ✓

The Unhappy Marriage discussion

You will be reading in the following pages, thirteen theoretical essays arguing about the role and importance of women in revolution and a future liberated society. The first essay, quoted earlier, “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism” by Heidi Hartmann, sets the contours of the discussion for the other twelve contributing essays. Some women agree with Hartmann, some do not, some elaborate on her thesis, and some present alternative formulations. The following is an outline of these essyas. It will help guide you through the various political perspectives in the pages to come.

The Lead Essay

“The Unhappy Marriage” essay states […] that while marxist analysis provides insights into laws concerning history and the economy, it fails to understand the dynamics of sexism. Marxism is sex-blind. Only specific feminist analysis, according to Hartmann, can reveal the systemic character of relations between men and women. Yet feminist analysis alone is inadequate because it is blind to history and “insufficiently materialist”. Therefore, Hartmann argues, we must use marxist analysis for its strength in understanding economic laws of motion and feminist analysis for its strength in understanding the particular predicament of women.

Disagreements: Socialist, Black, Anarchist, and Marxist Feminist Perspectives

In “Beyond the Unhappy Marriage : A Critique of the Dual Systems Theory”, Iris Young argues that the framework proposed by Hartmann still gives the marxist theory of production relations predominance over the feminist theory of gender relations. Young argues against the thesis that the situation of women is best understood as conditioned by two distinct systems of social relations, capitalism and patriarchy […]

Christine Riddiough argues in “Socialism, Feminism, Gay/Lesbian Liberation” that Hartmann’s definition of patriarchy fails to explain why it is women who are oppressed and men who dominate. An expanded definition of feminism must, according to Riddiough, be aimed at the liberation and sexual self-determination of all people: women, gays, lesbians. […] Riddiough argues that a civil society analysis allows us to see the links between family, the oppression of gays and women, and capitalism more clearly […]

In the “Incompatible Ménage à Trois : Marxism, Feminism, and Racism”, Gloria Joseph laments the absence of an analysis of Black women as a “member of the wedding”. […]

In “The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism : Can It Be Saved ?” Carol Ehrlich argues that it is impossible to build a feminist theory and practice that will be an equal partner in the marriage of marxism and feminism. The task for feminists, Ehrlich argues, should be to use categories which can explain the complexities of class, race, sex, nation, age, and sex orientation. […]

Sandra Harding argues for what she calls the “radical solution” to the problem of the unhappy marriage of marxism and feminism. In the “First Division of Labor Maintains Patriarchy and Capital” [What is the Real Material Basis of Patriarchy and Capital ?], Harding criticizes Hartmann for failing to show the “real material base of patriarchy and capital”. Harding argues that not only is marxism sex-blind, it is also sexist. The material base of patriarchy and capital, Harding states, is not only rooted in the economic aspects of the division of labor by gender in the family. It is also rooted in the biological and psychological birth of a social person. […]

In “Capitalism Is An Advanced Stage of Patriarchy : But Marxism Is Not Feminism”, Azizah Al-Hibri argues […] the male’s perception of his exclusion from reproduction and his consequent need to establish his immortality and importance in the cycle of life through his control of the female […]

In contrast, Lise Vogel believes in “Marxism and Feminism : Unhappy Marriage, Trial Separation, or Something Else ?” that the marxist tradition has proven itself powerful and flexible. The real problem, she argues, is that theorists have been working with too limited an understanding of marxism and too little awareness of the real advances made in expanding and incorporating a feminist analysis with marxist categories. […]

In her essay, “Cultural Marxism : Nonsynchrony and Feminist Practice”, Emily Hicks argues that the marriage of marxism and feminism leads to a narrow formulation of their respective oppressions and a narrow understanding of the dynamics of society. Hicks states that a cultural marxism is needed to reach and incorporate broader groups of people […]