marxist feminism thesis

Brill | Nijhoff

Brill | Wageningen Academic

Brill Germany / Austria

Böhlau

Brill | Fink

Brill | mentis

Brill | Schöningh

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht

V&R unipress

Open Access

Open Access for Authors

Open Access and Research Funding

Open Access for Librarians

Open Access for Academic Societies

Discover Brill’s Open Access Content

Organization

Stay updated

Corporate Social Responsiblity

Investor Relations

Policies, rights & permissions

Review a Brill Book

Author Portal

How to publish with Brill: Files & Guides

Fonts, Scripts and Unicode

Publication Ethics & COPE Compliance

Data Sharing Policy

Brill MyBook

Ordering from Brill

Author Newsletter

Piracy Reporting Form

Sales Managers and Sales Contacts

Ordering From Brill

Titles No Longer Published by Brill

Catalogs, Flyers and Price Lists

E-Book Collections Title Lists and MARC Records

How to Manage your Online Holdings

LibLynx Access Management

Discovery Services

KBART Files

MARC Records

Online User and Order Help

Rights and Permissions

Latest Key Figures

Latest Financial Press Releases and Reports

Annual General Meeting of Shareholders

Share Information

Specialty Products

Press and Reviews

Marx, Women, and Capitalist Social Reproduction

Marxist-feminist essays, series:  historical materialism book series , volume: 169.

Prices from (excl. shipping):

• Hardback: €174.00
• E-Book (PDF): €174.00
• View PDF Flyer

Biographical Note

Review quotes, table of contents, share link with colleague or librarian, product details.

• Critical Social Sciences
• Sociology & Anthropology
• Gender Studies
• Economics & Political Science
• Global Studies

Collection Information

• Social Sciences E-Books Online, Collection 2019

Related Content

Reference Works

Primary source collections

COVID-19 Collection

How to publish with Brill

Open Access Content

Contact & Info

Sales contacts

Publishing contacts

Stay Updated

Newsletters

Social Media Overview

Terms and Conditions  

Privacy Statement  

Cookie Settings  

Accessibility

Legal Notice

Terms and Conditions   |   Privacy Statement   |  Cookie Settings   |   Accessibility   |  Legal Notice   |  Copyright © 2016-2024

Copyright © 2016-2024

• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.136]
• 81.177.182.136

Character limit 500 /500

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics

Literary and Critical Theory

• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Socialist/Marxist Feminism

Introduction, early marxist feminism.

• 20th-Century Socialist/Marxist Feminist Theory
• Gender and Class
• Domestic Labor
• Reproductive Labor
• Sexuality and Race: Late 20th to Early 21st Centuries
• Sexuality and Race: 21st Century
• Global North and Global South: Late 20th to Early 21st Centuries
• Global North and Global South: 21st Century
• Socialist/Marxist Ecofeminism: Late 20th to Early 21st Centuries
• Socialist/Marxist Ecofeminism: 21st Century
• Socialist Feminist Revolution: Seeds in the 20th Century
• Socialist Feminist Revolution: Fruition in the 21st Century

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Transnational Feminism

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Black Atlantic
• Postcolonialism and Digital Humanities
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Socialist/Marxist Feminism by Wendy Lynne Lee LAST REVIEWED: 15 January 2020 LAST MODIFIED: 15 January 2020 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780190221911-0088

The long arc of Marxist scholarship certainly reaches many domains—economics, sociology, political ecology. However, few scholarly projects have likely benefited more, or offered more, to sustaining the relevance of Marx and Marxism than the feminist analysis, interpretation, and application of the Marxist critique of capitalism. From the earliest translations of Marxist thought into revolutionary action, socialist feminists have sought to introduce sex and gender as salient categories of capitalist oppression, arguing that being a woman bound to patriarchal institutions such as marriage is comparable to a working-class laborer bound to the wage. Friedrich Engels also plays a key role in the socialist feminist appropriation of Marxist ideas. By showing the extent to which marriage is about the maintenance and expansion of property, Engels opens the door to a wide range of analysis concerning the material conditions of women’s lives and labors. Marxist ideas become the focus of renewed interest over the course of the American civil rights and feminist movements of the 1960s. It is thus unsurprising that a wealth of new feminist and antiracist theories begin to develop during this period, as well as analyses of structural inequality, including oppression with respect to the LGBTQ community. It is perhaps the most recent work among socialist feminists, in league with other activists and theorists, however, that is both truest to Marx’s original intent and that demonstrates the relevance of his ideas to the future fortunes of human societies, namely, the application of Marxist critique to environmental deterioration—especially anthropogenic climate change. Hence, the following is organized historically but also topically. It begins with the work of early socialist feminists, looking to include women within Marxist categories of class analysis but quickly moves to arguments that sex and gender—and then race/ethnicity and sexual identity—constitute their own salient categories of oppression. This explosion of theory and activism deserves to be treated topically so that the variety and breadth of socialist feminist ideas as well as the divisions and debates among its representatives becomes clear. The critique of capitalism has, of course, always been an essentially global enterprise. It is thus not surprising that the extension of socialist feminist analyses to the Global North and Global South would produce a wealth of insight and activism. For many of the same reasons, the same is true of the rise of socialist ecofeminism. The last section comes full circle. Devoted to arguments whose focus is the justification and fomenting of revolution, The Communist Manifesto finds its place next to contemporary socialist ecofeminist calls for workers from all regions of the planet to unite to overthrow once and for all the capitalist economic system responsible for jeopardizing the planet’s capacity to support life.

Although not explicitly defined as feminist, among the key early influences on Marxist/socialist feminism is Engels 1972 (originally published in 1884). Engels 1972 argues that as early human communities became more agrarian—as the institution of private property became more and more bound to inheritance—women’s capacity for both domestic and sexual reproductive labor became a crucial commodity. The origin of the institution of marriage is not, argues Engels, love or fidelity but rather the disposition of inheritable wealth through male bloodlines. Hence, private property is intimately bound to the rise of patriarchy and to what later feminist theorists will refer to as the structural inequality of both sexual and (given the economic dependence it generates) gendered forms of class. Engels sets the scope and tenor of early Marxist/socialist feminist work either with respect to developing his insights further, or as critique. Some key works that revolve around the broad scope of these themes beyond Engels 1972 include Montefiore 2017 (originally published in 1905), Kollontai 1977 , Weil 1986 , Nye 1994 , Shulman 1996 —a collected set of essays from Marxist/anarchist theorist Emma Goldman— Lee 2001 , Weiss and Kensinger 2007 , Scott 2008 , and Bender 2012 .

Bender, Frederic. The Communist Manifesto: They Only Call it Class War When We Fight Back . New York: W. W. Norton, 2012.

This edited volume offers a range of commentary and critique on the famous revolutionary pamphlet, Marx’s Communist Manifesto . Not all are explicitly feminist in orientation, but Wendy Lynne Lee’s radical feminist critique of Marx’s references to “the community of women,” Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s postmodernist reading, and Lucian Laurat’s sociological interpretation all shed light on important feminist questions concerning the intersection of class, gender, and historical moment.

Engels, Friedrich. The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State . New York: Penguin Classics, 1972.

Originally published in 1884. Engels makes out a key early argument for Marxist/socialist feminism, namely that the institution of marriage is essentially a socially sanctioned form of prostitution that exists to insure male bloodlines for the purposes of inheritance. Also asserts that women’s capacity for both unpaid domestic labor and the sexual reproduction of labor and progeny is fundamental to the rise of capitalism.

Kollontai, Alexandra. Alexandra Kollontai: Selected Writings . Toronto: Alix Holt, 1977.

A truly trailblazing early Marxist feminist, Kollantai’s work encompasses commentary on the early-20th-century Russian women’s movement, the rights of workers, sexual morality, and marriage. As an agent of the emergent Soviet state, Kollontai occupied one of the few positions of power for women: minister of social welfare.

Lee, Wendy Lynne. On Marx . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2001.

This introduction to Marx (intended for undergraduates) includes brief discussion of a number of central Marxist themes, historical materialism, the critique of capitalism, the alienation of workers, and the prospects for a Communist revolution. But it also includes a chapter devoted to the critique of oppression, focused on the oppression of women and a Marxist feminist analysis of Marx’s own complex and conflicted view of women.

Montefiore, Dora B. Socialism and Women . Northhampton, MA: The Anarcho-Communist Institute Digital Publication, 2017.

Originally published in 1905. Situated in a fundamentally socialist outlook, this wide-ranging set of essays and op-ed offers a rich set of topics that give the reader a clear sense of the conflicts women faced given the essentially patriarchal distribution of access to capital, wages, and opportunity in the early 20th century. Less theory than practical advice, Montefiore is a window into the real-time implications of Engels’s arguments concerning marriage, wealth, and inheritance.

Nye, Andrea. Philosophia: The Thought of Rosa Luxemburg, Simone Weil, and Hannah Arendt . New York: Routledge, 1994.

Nye argues that although much of feminist theorizing remains a response to male figures, an appreciation of the thinking and experience of female theorists who share a history and a theoretical orientation can open up new vistas. Such is the case, argues Nye, with Luxemburg, Weil, and Arendt who broadly Marxist orientation to questions of morality and justice offer new insight to the philosophical tradition.

Scott, Helen, ed. The Essential Rosa Luxemburg: Reform or Revolution . Chicago: Haymarket Press, 2008.

Rosa Luxemburg was a critical Marxist thinker in the early 20th century. Her observations about class in Reform or Revolution , and her insight concerning the use of labor strikes as a tool to address the oppression of workers in Mass Strike still resonate with socialist activists, and especially socialist feminists. Both works are collected in Scott’s volume along with an excellent introduction.

Shulman, Alix Kates. Red Emma Speaks: An Emma Goldman Reader . New York: Humanities Books, 1996.

This volume includes a wide range of key essays from a central early figure of Marxist/socialist feminism, Emma Goldman. The volume includes selections from Anarchism and Other Essays (1910) Goldman’s autobiography, Living My Life (1931), and other sources. A prolific writer and social critic, Goldman develops and critiques Engels’s arguments concerning marriage as prostitution, the institution of private property, and women in the labor force.

Weil, Simone. Simone Weil: An Anthology . New York: Penguin, 1986.

While we might rightly regard Weil as somewhat on the margins of socialist as well as feminist theory, her work as a moral and political thinker and activist, particularly in the context of social upheaval and Marxist ideas, makes her an important inclusion in this set of early feminist and socialist thinkers. Weil has been especially influential with respect to contemporary feminist work in the critique of war and the masculinist vocabulary of war.

Weiss, Penny, and Loretta Kensinger, eds. Feminist Interpretations of Emma Goldman . University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007.

In this excellent anthology devoted to Goldman’s work, we see a wide array of contemporary feminist thinkers offer analyses of Goldman’s feminist perspective, her Marxist commitments, and her relevance for contemporary issues confronting women, especially working-class women.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Literary and Critical Theory »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Achebe, Chinua
• Adorno, Theodor
• Aesthetics, Post-Soul
• Affect Studies
• Afrofuturism
• Agamben, Giorgio
• Anzaldúa, Gloria E.
• Apel, Karl-Otto
• Appadurai, Arjun
• Badiou, Alain
• Baudrillard, Jean
• Belsey, Catherine
• Benjamin, Walter
• Bettelheim, Bruno
• Bhabha, Homi K.
• Biopower, Biopolitics and
• Blanchot, Maurice
• Bloom, Harold
• Bourdieu, Pierre
• Brecht, Bertolt
• Brooks, Cleanth
• Caputo, John D.
• Chakrabarty, Dipesh
• Conversation Analysis
• Cosmopolitanism
• Creolization/Créolité
• Crip Theory
• Critical Theory
• Cultural Materialism
• de Certeau, Michel
• de Man, Paul
• de Saussure, Ferdinand
• Deconstruction
• Deleuze, Gilles
• Derrida, Jacques
• Dollimore, Jonathan
• Du Bois, W.E.B.
• Eagleton, Terry
• Eco, Umberto
• Ecocriticism
• English Colonial Discourse and India
• Environmental Ethics
• Fanon, Frantz
• Feminism, Transnational
• Foucault, Michel
• Frankfurt School
• Freud, Sigmund
• Frye, Northrop
• Genet, Jean
• Girard, René
• Global South
• Goldberg, Jonathan
• Gramsci, Antonio
• Greimas, Algirdas Julien
• Grief and Comparative Literature
• Guattari, Félix
• Habermas, Jürgen
• Haraway, Donna J.
• Hartman, Geoffrey
• Hawkes, Terence
• Hemispheric Studies
• Hermeneutics
• Hillis-Miller, J.
• Holocaust Literature
• Human Rights and Literature
• Humanitarian Fiction
• Hutcheon, Linda
• Žižek, Slavoj
• Imperial Masculinity
• Irigaray, Luce
• Jameson, Fredric
• JanMohamed, Abdul R.
• Johnson, Barbara
• Kagame, Alexis
• Kolodny, Annette
• Kristeva, Julia
• Lacan, Jacques
• Laclau, Ernesto
• Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe
• Laplanche, Jean
• Leavis, F. R.
• Levinas, Emmanuel
• Levi-Strauss, Claude
• Literature, Dalit
• Lonergan, Bernard
• Lotman, Jurij
• Lukács, Georg
• Lyotard, Jean-François
• Metz, Christian
• Morrison, Toni
• Mouffe, Chantal
• Nancy, Jean-Luc
• Neo-Slave Narratives
• New Historicism
• New Materialism
• Partition Literature
• Peirce, Charles Sanders
• Philosophy of Theater, The
• Postcolonial Theory
• Posthumanism
• Postmodernism
• Post-Structuralism
• Psychoanalytic Theory
• Queer Medieval
• Race and Disability
• Rancière, Jacques
• Ransom, John Crowe
• Reader Response Theory
• Rich, Adrienne
• Richards, I. A.
• Ronell, Avital
• Rosenblatt, Louse
• Said, Edward
• Settler Colonialism
• Socialist/Marxist Feminism
• Stiegler, Bernard
• Structuralism
• Theatre of the Absurd
• Thing Theory
• Tolstoy, Leo
• Tomashevsky, Boris
• Translation
• Transnationalism in Postcolonial and Subaltern Studies
• Virilio, Paul
• Warren, Robert Penn
• White, Hayden
• Wittig, Monique
• World Literature
• Zimmerman, Bonnie
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.136]
• 81.177.182.136

Marxist Feminism Theory

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Marxist feminists view capitalism and patriarchy as inseparable systems. They believe capitalism relies on the unpaid domestic labor of women to function, and that this exploitation reinforces patriarchal power structures within society.

Key Takeaways

• Marxist feminists see the family as a tool of capitalism and that it is capitalism, not men, who oppress women.
• They see the family as oppressing women while support capitalism in three ways:
• Women reproduce the workforce and socialize them into a social hierarchy.
• Women absorb the anger of men who are frustrated by their alienation and exploitation (cushioning effect).
• Women are a reserve army of cheap labor that can be activated when they are needed and let go when no longer needed

What Is Marxist Feminism?

Marxist feminism is a branch of feminist theory which argues that the main cause of women’s oppression is capitalism.

This type of feminism is based on the understandings of Marxism, proposed by Karl Marx and collaborator Friedrich Engels in the 19th century. Marx demonstrated how capitalism was able to grow through the exploitation of labor.

Social classes were described to explain how one class controls the other as a means to produce goods. People who are of a high-class level of economic condition are the bourgeoise, whereas people who are of a low-class level are claimed as the proletariat since they become the labors of the bourgeoise (Marx & Engels, 1848).

Marxist feminists regard classism, rather than sexism, as the fundamental cause of women’s oppression. They explore how ideas of gender structure production in capitalism and argue that women are exploited by a capitalist society.

While some Marxist themes may not be as relevant today, Marxist feminists can still be used to explore how the political economy is gendered in late-stage capitalism and how the social reproduction of people and communities renews capitalism (Armstrong, 2020).

Whilst Marxist feminism can affect all individuals, this article will be focused on cisgender women in typically heterosexual relationships since this is who much of the research and theory centers on.

The Key Issues According to Marxist Feminism

The main view of Marxist feminists is that the traditional nuclear family only came about with capitalism. They believe that the traditional role of the housewife- who does not have paid employment and resides in the home completing domestic tasks- supports capitalism.

Marxist feminists claim that while the proletariat are oppressed through the capitalist system, women are double oppressed through capitalism as well as through the nuclear family.

Women’s oppression is thought to support capitalism in multiple ways, which are detailed below:

Women reproduce the labor force

In a capitalist society, women are expected to reproduce children. These children will then grow up to be the next generation of workers and mothers.

Women are also socializing the next generation of workers and ‘servicing’ the current workers (their husbands) with their unpaid domestic labor. Thus, women are supporting capitalism through their own means of reproduction, according to Marxist feminists.

Unpaid domestic labor of women

Marxist feminists claim that there is a division of labor between men and women: men are assigned economic production, whereas women have been assigned reproduction of the workforce.

In a capitalist society, more value is given to the production of material goods by men, than the reproduction of people by women.

Domestic work which is usually carried out by women include household chores, house management, and childcare. This labor is not respected in capitalist society since there is no exchange value. It is, therefore, devalued, and unpaid but expected to be done, nonetheless.

Marxist feminists explain that the unpaid labor of women is a way to exploit them. It is done for free, and it benefits both men and the capitalist system.

Capitalism would not exist without this unpaid labor because workers would not be able to work all day if they also had to take care of their children and the house (Cottais, 2020).

Women are a reserve of cheap labor

Since the primary role of women in a capitalist society is in unpaid domestic labor, they were usually restricted from working a paid job. However, women are used as a reserve, to be taken on temporarily when required by the bourgeois.

This was observable during the World Wars when most men were sent away to fight. When the men were away, many women were enrolled in the work that they would have otherwise not been allowed to do (Grayzel, 2013).

However, the women would have been paid less than the men and many would have had to return to their unpaid domestic duties once the men returned from war.

Women take on emotional labor

While not directly creating any produce or service, Marxist feminists claim that women must provide emotional labor under a capitalist society. This refers to the labor that is involved in keeping family members emotionally stable, so they can work efficiently.

The partners of the women may be understandably frustrated by the exploitation they experience by the bourgeois and women are often expected to absorb this frustration which may result in domestic violence.

How Was Marxist Feminism Developed?

Although Marxist theory was not initially focused on women’s issues, it was realized that under a capitalist system, women were exploited by not being paid for the reproductive and emotional labor they were involved in.

Eleanor Marx, daughter of Karl Marx, is thought to be one of Marxist feminism’s pioneers in England in the 19th century among others such as Rosa Luxembourg.

During the suffrage movement in the early 20th century, class systems were considered when working-class women forged their own movement for the right to vote alongside white middle-class women.

It was not until the 1960s and 70s when Marxist feminism became particularly popular, resounding the most with women of the time. Marxist feminism is thought to have arisen in reaction to liberal feminism , whose fight failed to go beyond equal rights.

Marxist feminists argue that legal liberation is not enough to free women since it does nothing to abolish the patriarchy in social relations (Cottais, 2020). A few of the key women who contributed to the development of Marxist feminism as a theory are Chizuko Ueno, Anuradha Ghandy, Claudia Jones, and Angela Davis.

What Are The Goals Of Marxist Feminism?

Abolish capitalism.

The main goal of Marxist feminists is to abolish capitalism. Through this, they believe that patriarchy itself can be tackled. Overthrowing the existing economic system is thought to liberate women.

Since capitalism is at the root of inequality and patriarchy is a product of capitalism, removing this system should eliminate gender inequalities.

A classless society

Instead of capitalism, Marxist feminists advocate for a classless, communist society. Through a classless society, both the upper-class and working-class people will be treated equally.

Other solutions can be proposed such as reevaluating the reproductive work through the collectivism of domestic work and childcare.

The vision of Marx and Engels was to ensure that there was a collective ownership and the basic dignity of women in society, thus the domestic duties will be shared equally between partners.

More women in the public sphere

Since women’s exclusion from paid work makes them more oppressed, a way to combat this is to integrate women into paid work and the public sphere. This includes ensuring that women are paid equal wages to men and are offered the same opportunities if they have the necessary qualifications.

Marxist feminists do not generally seek to exclude men from feminist struggles, in fact, they often want to avoid separation between the sexes for fear of fueling a class division (Cottais, 2020).

Valuing domestic labor

Marxist feminists do not necessarily disagree that domestic labor should be ignored. Likewise, if a woman chooses to not work and instead take care of the household and children, then they should be free to do so. However, Marxist feminists wish for domestic labor to be as valued as reproductive labor.

For domestic labor to be fairly valued, Marxist feminists argue that women should be paid for domestic work. Being paid for this work puts an economic value on what is still largely considered women’s work.

Control over reproductive rights

If women have more reproductive rights and more of a choice as to whether to be a parent, they have more choice as to their role in society. Capitalist societies see women’s main job as to be a mother and nothing else.

So, if women realize they have a choice as to whether to go down this path, they can feel more liberated to do what they want to do.

Strengths And Criticisms Of Marxist Feminism

Marxist feminism has shone a light on how women are oppressed by a capitalist society. Attention has been drawn to the intersection of capitalism and patriarchy and the importance of taking both class and gender into consideration in feminist demands.

It considers how some previous feminist movements may have been more focused on the rights of middle-class or upper-class women, with working-class women being ignored or forgotten in history.

Marxist feminism can also highlight how working-class women are not only subservient to men, but often to wealthy women. More women and men recognize that there is often an imbalance in the share of household and childcare responsibilities.

This awareness means that couples can discuss and come to agreements as to how to split the duties. Many more men take on an active role in the household which can allow their partners to relax or to work on their career.

Likewise, people in relationships can start to be more aware of whether they are unwillingly doing more of the domestic duties. If someone’s partner is not willing to take on more of the unpaid labor and this is making them unhappy, then they can consider whether this is the person they want to spend their life with.

Ultimately, more people can find a partner who suits their lifestyle and do not have to settle for someone who is not helpful or supportive.

A main criticism of Marxist feminism is that women’s oppression is thought to have been prevalent in the family system before capitalism existed.

Therefore, it is doubtful whether men would suddenly stop exploiting women in a classless society. In fact, sexism and oppression of women can still be found in communist political parties, trade unions, and left-wing militant structures.

As such, viewing Marxism as a condition for women’s liberation ignores sexism as a whole and may only deal with a small percentage of the wider issue. Marxist feminism has focused heavily on the intersection of class and gender but initially did not always incorporate the intersection of race, sexuality, or disability alongside these issues.

A black woman in a mostly white capitalist society, for instance, would be oppressed because of being a woman, but also for being black. Angela Davis discusses the intersection of race on Marxist feminism in her book ‘Women, Race, & Class’ (1981).

Marxist feminism may also be criticized as not being relevant in today’s society. Since more women have the opportunity to work and have the choice as to whether to bear children, they are not necessarily restricted to being a traditional housewife, unless this is what they choose to do.

Thus, many aspects of Marxist feminism may now be outdated.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between marxist and socialist feminism.

Marxist and socialist feminism can often be confused and sometimes used interchangeably. While they may be similar, a way to distinguish between them is by their view on women’s oppression.

Marxist feminism considers capitalism to be the root cause of women’s exploitation, which is analyzed through the construct of social classes. However, socialist feminism takes both class and gender factors into account when it studies how patriarchy-capitalism articulate (Cottais, 2020).

How does intersectionality relate to Marxist feminism?

Intersectionality acknowledges that everyone has their own unique experiences of discrimination and oppression based on factors such as gender, race, class, sexual orientation, and disability, among others.

While intersectionality views all forms of oppression as equally important, Marxists highlight how class is the fundamental dividing line in capitalist society.

Marxist feminism is intersectional since it considers how women are double oppressed under capitalism. First by being a woman, and second by their social class.

Are women in paid work still affected by capitalism according to Marxist feminists?

Many may criticize Marxist feminism by stating that it is not relevant to modern day society since more women are able to work in paid jobs and do not have to be restricted to staying in the household, doing chores, and caring for their children.

However, for women, there are some barriers which can make it harder for them to have a career and children at the same time.

Women who work in paid jobs are often still required to complete their ‘second shift’ when they return home (housework, childcare, and home management), which uses up more of their time and energy (Arruzza, Bhattacharya, & Fraser, 2019).

While it may not be the case for every household, heterosexual women are still shown to complete more hours of ‘unpaid labor’ compared to their male partners (Seedat & Rondon, 2021).

Likewise, the jobs which are typically undertaken by women (e.g., care work and teaching) are often underpaid meaning that they may not sufficiently cover the costs of raising a child.

To make life easier, many women may resort to working part-time or quitting work completely, falling back into the role of a housewife while relying on their husband’s income.

Althusser, L. (1969). For Marx (B. Brewster, Trans.). London: Penguin Press. (Original work published 1965)

Althusser, L. (1971). Lenin and philosophy and other essays (B. Brewster, Trans.). London: New Left. (Original work published 1970)

Althusser, L., & Balibar, E. (1970). Reading Capital (B. Brewster, Trans.). London: New Left. (Original work published 1968) Brown, H. (2012). Marx on gender and the family: A critical study (Vol. 39). Brill.

Armstrong, E. (2020). Marxist and socialist feminism. Study of women and gender. Faculty Publications, Smith College. Retrieved August 8, 2022.

Arruzza, C., Bhattacharya, T., & Fraser, N. (2019). Feminism for the 99 Percent . A Manifesto. London, New York.

Davis, A. Y. (1981).  Women, race, and class . Vintage.

Delphy, C. (1980). Sharing the same table: consumption and the family. The Sociological Review, 28 (1_suppl), 214-231.

Grayzel, S. R. (2013).  Women and the First World War . Routledge.

Johnson, D. P. (2008). Contemporary sociological theory. An Integrated Multi-Level Approach . Texas: Springer.

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. Selected Works by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. New York: International Publishers, 1363.

Seedat, S., & Rondon, M. (2021). Women’s wellbeing and the burden of unpaid work.  BMJ,  374.

Stern, B. J. (1948). Engels on the Family. Science & Society , 42-64.

Tilly, L. A. (1978). The family and change .

Thompson, K. (2014). The Marxist Perspective on The Family .

Zaretsky, N. (2010). No direction home: The American family and the fear of national decline , 1968-1980. Univ of North Carolina Press.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Marxist Feminism and its Importance in Today's World of Intersectional Approaches

2021, Contemporary Literary Review India

This paper deals with the relevance of Marxist Feminism in the 21 st century. It begins by talking about Marxism and Feminism as independent schools of thought and then goes on to discuss how their amalgamation is the need of the hour since disparities based on class structures is something even Intersectional Feminism doesn't delve into. This paper tries to critique both through the lens of the other and aims to prove how at the point of their intersection we can expect a change. It also discusses the struggles of the working class and their revolution within the feminist framework.

Related Papers

ΚΡΙΣΗ / KRISI

Angela Dimitrakaki

Opening with a discussion of the relationship and tension between Marxism and feminism, the article argues for the specificity of Marxist feminist analysis in relation to other currents of feminism on the left. Drawing on Susan Watkins, the article contends that capitalist strategy has contributed to shaping the intellectual trajectory of feminism as known today. This trajectory developed under a complex hegemony that entailed, among other things, the Cold War and the end of Bretton Woods in relation to postmodernism and cultural imperialism, ideological uses of the 'middle class' , and technologies that increasingly challenge the clear distinction between production and reproduction. The analysis is specifically concerned with (a) how histories of reactionary but also progressive ideas formed under this hegemony (b) the pull of/ to immateriality in a perceived 'post-industrial' society, and the relevance of both to feminism. The article revisits the debate of Judith Butler and Nancy Fraser from 1997 as encapsulating the roots of a divide within left feminism-one related to understandings of intersectionality, a popular concept also in Marxist feminism. Intersectionality brings together salient political categories (such as gender, race, class), the question for Marxist feminism being: how? It is argued that intersectionality, coined at a specific moment of American cultural history and in relation to postmodernism's spatialising imaginary, is not always and necessarily compatible with Marxist feminism's focus on a social totality forming out of a mode of production and reproduction. To demonstrate this, the article concludes by considering Ashley Bohrer's influential interpretation of intersectionality. Overall, the article argues for a Marxist feminism that attends closely to the key tendencies, possibilities and contradictions of 21st-century capitalism and what hegemony consists of-as a first step towards re/thinking the priorities and specificity of struggle. Reference: Κρίση 13-2023/1, 9-44 Journal: ΚΡΙΣΗ - Εξαμηνιαία Επιστημονική Επιθεώρηση / KRISI - Biannual Scientific Review

Capital & Class

Heidi Hartmann

This paper argues that the relation between marxism and feminism has, in all the forms it has so far taken, been an unequal one. While both marxist method and feminist analysis are necessary to an understanding of capitalist societies, and of the position of women within them, in fact feminism has consistently been subordinated. The paper presents a challenge to both marxist and radical feminist work on the “woman question”, and argues that what it is necessary to analyse is the combination of patriarchy and capitalism. It is a paper which, we hope, should stimulate considerable debate.

Ashley Bohrer

In recent years, there has been renewed interest in conceptualising the relationship between oppression and capitalism as well as intense debate over the precise nature of this relationship. No doubt spurred on by the financial crisis, it has become increasingly clear that capitalism, both historically and in the twenty-first century, has had particularly devastating effects for women and people of colour. Intersectionality, which emerged in the late twentieth century as a way of addressing the relationship between race, gender, sexuality and class, has submitted orthodox Marxism to critique for its inattention to the complex dynamics of various social locations; in turn Marxist thinkers in the twenty-first century have engaged with intersectionality, calling attention to the impoverished notion of class and capitalism on which it relies. As intersectionality constitutes perhaps the most common way that contemporary activists and theorists on the left conceive of identity politics, an analysis of intersectionality's relationship to Marxism is absolutely crucial for historical materialists to understand and consider. This paper looks at the history of intersectionality's and Marxism's critiques of one another in order to ground a synthesis of the two frameworks. It argues that in the twenty-first century, we need a robust, Marxist analysis of capitalism, and that the only robust account of capitalism is one articulated intersectionally, one which treats class, race, gender and sexuality as fundamental to capitalist accumulation. Keywords Marxism – Marxist feminism – intersectionality – decolonisation – identity politics

Michael Braverman

Arguing that it is too easy to release postmodernism as just another example of Western intellectual's separation from activism, this essay considers the connection between feminism and postmodernism as a largely anti-Marxist endeavour. The type of post-modern feminist theory that has blossomed, has presented distinct and well-documented challenges. It has destabilised previously secured categories and encouraged theorists to analyse meaning and relationships of power in a way that has called into question unitary, universal concepts and radically opened discussions concerning subjectivity, sex and gender. Taking into consideration postmodernism as a historically-situated occurrence rather than an intellectual abstraction or movement, the author contends that feminists and their allies need the fragmentation of identities not as a cause for celebration or an oppositional strategy, but rather as an effect of oppressive structures that must be analyzed within the context of their historical, political and economic specificity. It is this tension in postmodernism (between what is expressed and its expression between the latent and manifest) and its parallelism in feminist theory that is the interest of the study. It is the contention of the study that feminist postmodernism, like any other system of thought, has internalised contradictions that heightened during the 1980s and are now becoming self-evident.

Céline Hequet

I would like to come back to a debate that took place in the ’80s as it is still pertinent today, both in academia and activist circles: it is the debate between Marxist and radical feminists. The disagreement between the two groups is important for feminists who start with the premise that women’s subordination has material bases; in other words, feminists who think that someone, somewhere, is benefitting from the inequality between men and women. Once we agree on what these bases are exactly and who are the beneficiaries, the struggle can be more clearly oriented. For now, because there is no consensus, strategies deployed to improve women’s status tend to spread in different, sometimes contradictory, directions. I want to demonstrate here that Marxist feminists have failed to provide a truly materialist explanation of women’s condition, that is an explanation of how the subordinated group “women” is socially formed. Consequently, because radical feminism provides a more meaningful analytical framework, I believe it also offers better guidance for women’s struggles.

Lee E. (1996) Marxism and feminist theory. In: Wolton S. (eds) Marxism, Mysticism and Modern Theory. St Antony’s Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London.

Questioning old assumptions is central to much feminist thought today. In the past feminism relied on the assumption that all women had something in common. In current feminist literature, by contrast, it is suggested that to talk of ‘woman’ is problematic. The idea that women can be discussed in general, as a group in society with something in common, is said no longer to hold. Keywords Modern Theory Feminist Theory Capitalist Society Marxist Theory Feminist Thought

The International Marxist-Humanist

Eleonora Roldán Mendívil

Gender Class and Sexuality Under Contemporary Capitalism" examines whether or not the book succeeds in providing an unifying analysis of intersectionality and revolutionary Marxism-Editors Intersectionality has become one of the most important leftist terms of reference in recent years. Politics should be thought intersectional, that is, inclusive activists and/or scholars cry out. Social difference is not perceived as an obstacle but as a possibility for a diverse left political practice. Divided into three sections, Ashley J. Bohrer attempts to bring Marxist analyses into critical conversation with analyses stemming from an intersectionality theory approach. To do so, she traces the histories of the respective political traditions, as well as the dominant debates surrounding Marxist approaches to gender, "race" or sexuality, and intersectional approaches to social analysis. Her focus is largely on the United States, even if this is not explicitly made clear as a specifically historical-geographical lens throughout the book. This makes the historical tracing seem like a global-historical one - something it does not deliver.

Capital & Class

Mònica Clua-Losada , JULE GOIKOETXEA

The fourth international Marxist feminist conference was the most international and best attended with around 700 participants, including Silvia Federici, Nancy Fraser, Tithi Bhattacharya, Lorena Cabnal, Ochy Curiel, Ana Cecilia Dinerstein, Elsa Dorlin, Jules Falquet, and Frigga Haug. The main themes of the panels established continuity with the previous conferences, from debates on intersectionality which overlap in various fields with practical and theoretical issues such as value, the state, law, care, production, and social reproduction to those that were closely linked to the thinking of new organizations and repertoires of struggle. This Special Issue is based on the plenary titled: the Thirteen Theses of Marxist Feminism. Frigga Haug, the author of The Thirteen Theses, considers all of them in her opening interview. The most widely debated theses by the Special Issue contributors are Theses I, II, and III on relations of production and the production of the means of life followed by theses from V to VIII which deal with intersectionality and how to study race, class and gender, the role of labor movement in the process of emancipation, and the issue of primary and secondary contradictions which is closely related to the development of an effective political emancipatory subject. The Special Issue closes with an interview with the philosopher Nancy Fraser on the three faces of labor.

David Camfield

RELATED PAPERS

licinio lima

LIONEL FIDEL

Heringeriana

Claudenir Caires

Katsuya Nagamori

Scott Stafne

Journal of General Virology

P. Sawanpanyalert

Russian Journal of Electrochemistry

Lê Thị Thanh Huyền

Dr Virendra Gawande

Arif Setiawan

Head & Neck

Danko Müller

Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare

A. Alahmari

Journal of Biological Chemistry

JOSE MANUEL SANCHEZ ROSA

Xiao Guo (郭霄)

2012 Ninth International Conference on Information Technology - New Generations

Fabrizio Baiardi

Abdul Rehman

Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry

Vijay Kumar Kutala

Jørgen Dige Pedersen

Ingeniería del agua

ALEJANDRO CARVAJAL RUIZ

Tạp chí Y học Việt Nam

Nguyễn Thế Anh

Sapna Jarial

Grisel Pécora

Journal of Muslim Mental Health

Tarek Zidan, MSW, Ph.D.

Masayuki Saijo

talip vural

Jurnal Sain Peternakan Indonesia

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Marxism and Feminism: Similarities and Differences

Introduction, similarities between marxism and feminism, differences between the marxist and feminist theories, reference list.

Social and political theories give specialized knowledge in the spheres of sociology and political sciences. Social theories comprise empirical evidence that is essential when studying and analyzing social phenomena. On the other hand, political theories encompass the principles and concepts that are incorporated when evaluating political institutions and activities. Both the historical political thought and the contemporary political philosophy play a vital role in issues of liberty, justice, and the responsibilities of the citizens in legitimizing the government. Furthermore, the social and political theories give varying views concerning the key actors and processes in the international realm that stem from particular opinions on conflict, power, and human nature. This essay compares and contrasts the Marxism and feminism theories.

Marxism or socialism comprises a body of ideas that were advanced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. The postulations under the Marxist theory provide the theoretical basis about the struggles of the working class to achieve socialism as a better form of human society (Mouffe 2014). The stratification of society into different classes emerges from the concept of materialism and dialectical view to social changes. Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels demonstrate the effect of capitalism that divides a nation into two fundamental classes of bosses and workers. The higher class is composed of the owners of capital who are the ruling class while the proletarian is the working class. In this view, the Marxism theory originates from an economic viewpoint (Vogel 2013). The class conflict arises from the contradictions between the ones who own the means of production and those involved in the manufacturing process. In most cases, those involved in the manufacturing process or simply the workers are exploited, as they get barely enough to lead comfortable lives.

The owners of the capital privately own the production machinery, but they employ inequality in the sharing of the surplus profits to the majority working class, thus resulting in class struggles (Barrett 2014). As the antagonism between the rich and the working class intensifies, a social revolution emerges as the proletariats fight for equality in the distribution of resources based on an individual’s contribution to the production process. Karl Marx anticipated that the socialism emanating from the advancement of output forces and technology would eventually pave a way for communism (Mouffe 2014). The communist stage of social development would ensure a society that bears establishment from joint ownerships and void of class stratifications.

The Marxist philosophy is based on dialectics and materialism. According to dialectics, the alterations and interactions play a fundamental role in influencing the behavior of institutions and processes (Vogel 2013). The past context of economic systems affects the current development of the society. Actual changes that took place in history are the outcomes of divergent tendencies and contradictions that arise during the ordinary functioning of the community (Mouffe 2014). The methodologies and analysis of the Marxist theory help in the interpretation of various political ideologies as well as social movements and especially in an element that involve power, conflict, and human relations.

The history of the feminist theory can be traced from the abolitionist movement of the late 1830s. The convention on human rights that took place in Seneca Falls under the leadership of Elizabeth Cady and Lucretia Mott launched the efforts of fighting for equality among all sexes (Pateman & Grosz 2013). The convection led to the declaration of the sentiments that demonstrated that men and women are equal, and thus they should have similar opportunities. Gunew (2013, p. 83) notes that in Germany, ‘several feminists fought for the rights of women to initiate sexual relations regardless of their marital status’. Marianne Weber advocated equal treatment of women in social institutions and particularly marriage. For liberal feminists to support social changes successfully there needs to be proper legislation and efficient regulation of employment because they view sexism as the primary obstacle to equality.

According to the radical feminists, the privileges and power shape social relations and utilize the tool of patriarchy to ensure the oppression of women (Pateman & Grosz 2013). Feminism entails a conglomeration on political ideologies and social movements that have the sole objective of achieving equal rights for women that are similar to those of men. The theory supports political, social, and economic equality between men and women. Feminism seeks to establish similar changes for all both in employment and education by promoting the social rights of women (Barrett 2014). The feminists re-examine the roles of women’s experiences, chores, and interests concerning established processes and systems within society.

The theory aims at achieving gender equality by avoiding instances of discrimination against women. The feminist theory refutes the patriarchy system that views men to hold more power and dominance in all the spheres of life including political leadership, religion, and the absolute right to own and control property (Barrett 2014). Some feminists also disapprove of the postulation that sees men as the father figures who hold the authority over the children and wives. The theme of negative stereotyping against women is an essential element that the feminist theory addresses (Pateman & Grosz 2013). The theory postulates that thoughts and beliefs aligned to hold women in a subordinate position are erroneous.

The feminist theory coincides with Marxism by relating the division of labor to the expectation accruing from gender roles. Gender entails socially constructed roles that are attributed to both sexes (Kennedy 2013). In some societies, it is the role of women to give birth and nurture the children while the responsibility of men is to offer support to the family. In this view, men assume the role of the bourgeoisie while the women are the proletariat. Men exclusively on the resources of the family due to the superior position they occupy and they have the sole mandate to redistribute the earnings to the other family members (Lane 2015). Similarly, the ruling class in the Marxist theory owns the means of production thereby oppressing the working class by extracting the surplus profits rather than redistributing them to the workers.

Both Marxist and feminist theories advocate a revolution. The radical feminists postulate sexism as a primary weapon that men use to oppress women. The discrimination against women acts as a viable conceptual model of comprehending other divergent forms of oppression (Barrett 2014). Consequently, radical feminist advocates a drastic realignment of society. Through a revolution, feminists seek to abolish the male supremacy in both the economic and social contexts by opposing the prevailing male social institutions as well as norms. The radicals attempt to remove the gender equality barriers created by sexual objectification and the traditional definition of women’s roles in society (Lane 2015). The revolution does not follow pure political processes, but it encourages women to raise their voices against abusive social structures enacted by men and refuse reproduction responsibilities.

Consequently, the Marxist theory advocates a revolution as a way of emancipating the working class from the oppression of the bourgeoisie. The social revolution emerges from the dissatisfaction of the proletariats who seek the initiation of a production system that distributes the production profits in an equitable and organized way (Mouffe 2014). The objective of the insurgency introduces joint ownership by eliminating power and control among the political cohort and elites who own the production machinery.

Alienation plays a critical role in both feminist and Marxist theories. Women become the subjects of class-oriented capitalism due to the inferior position that they occupy in patriarchal societies (Kennedy 2013). The repression of women stems from the nature of their work both at the domestic and national levels. Women are also alienated in making political decisions due to their misrepresentation in leadership positions in the social and economic organizations. Similarly, the Marxist theory depicts forms of labor characteristics among the bourgeois society as a profound form of alienation (Lane 2015). The earnings that the working class receives in exchange for its work contribution alienate them from the right to receive an equitable allocation of production profits.

The two theories differ in their ultimate objectives. The feminist theory is interested in gender equality through the abolishment of the patriarchal system while Marxism rejects capitalism. Through communism, the workers gain awareness of their afflictions thus bringing into action an ideal system of a classless society where benefits are shared amongst all (Mouffe 2014). The Marxist theory observes the change of power in society to coincide with economic relationships because individuals define themselves by social relations. The shift of society from feudalism to capitalism creates stratification within the society (Barrett 2014). Subsequently, the power to control both the social and legal institutions is skewed towards the side of the bourgeoisie.

Furthermore, the Marxist theory abhors capitalism because it articulates authority to the control of educational, political, and religious systems on jurisdictions of the ruling class, thus alienating the middle and the lower classes (Lane 2015). On the other side, the focus of the feminist theory is to reject the postulation that women possess fewer abilities as compared to men. Men supremacy denies women their fundamental rights and demands them to initiate vibrant awareness to avoid instances of discrimination and stereotyping.

Although both theories have a social dimension, the Marxist theory is more concerned about the economic and the educational system of society (Mouffe 2014). The disparity in the level of education assists the bourgeoisie in the acquisition and maintenance of power at the expense of the illiterate who are involved in the production of goods and services. Karl Marx also believed that economic dominance leads to more authority that is political in nature (Lane 2015). In this regard, fiscal systems result in the establishment of a wealthy category of individuals who own industries while the lower and middle classes provide cheap labor. Other social institutions such as churches, prisons, and courts among others are established to sustain the gap between those who are economically powerful and have-nots (Kennedy 2013). However, the feminist theory lays less emphasis on the monetary systems because it attributes the suffrage of women to patriarchy. Male dominance over women is the primary cause of oppression in all other critical spheres of life including business, power, and marriage.

Feminism bears a discrepancy from Marxism due to the lack of unique goals. Multiple feminists have varying opinions among themselves and the emergence of many controversial topics on equality between the two sexes (Lane 2015). Varying waves in the generation of feminism is characterized by different demands. Initially, in the 1700s, women feminists advocated the establishment of a vindication of their rights that was later followed by the declaration of sentiments in 1848. The second signal in the generation of feminism started in North America through vigorous campaigns of gender equality. Other brackets of women in the late 18 th Century shifted their attention to issues of sexual orientation and identity (Kennedy 2013). As time unfolds, the feminists’ agenda keeps on fluctuating, thus creating a distinction from the Marxism theory.

Social and political theories are significant in shaping international politics. The Marxist theory postulates the position of the bourgeoisie in controlling the means of production while the middle and the lower classes provide labor in the manufacturing of goods and services. The feminist theory focuses on ensuring that both men and women acquire similar rights economically, socially, or politically. The similarities inherent between the two theories include alienation and their advocacy for a revolution while the discrepancies arise in the ultimate objectives and economic dimension. Besides, different feminists promote varying opinions with time.

Barrett, M 2014, Women’s oppression today: The Marxist/feminist encounter , Verso Books, New York.

Gunew, S 2013, Feminist Knowledge (RLE Feminist Theory): Critique and Construct , Routledge, London.

Kennedy, S 2013, ‘Marxism and Feminism in an Age of Neoliberalism’, Irish Marxist  Review , vol. 2, no.7, pp. 5-16.

Lane, D 2015, ‘Book Review: Dangerous Liaisons: The Marriages and Divorces of Marxism and Feminism’, Political Studies Review , vol. 13, no.3, pp.393-394.

Mouffe, C 2014, Gramsci and Marxist Theory (RLE: Gramsci) , Routledge, London.

Pateman, C & Grosz, E 2013, Feminist challenges: Social and political theory , Routledge, London.

Vogel, L 2013, Marxism and the oppression of women: Toward a unitary theory , Brill, Leiden.

Cite this paper

Select a referencing style

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

AssignZen. (2023, April 18). Marxism and Feminism: Similarities and Differences. https://assignzen.com/marxism-and-feminism-similarities-and-differences/

"Marxism and Feminism: Similarities and Differences." AssignZen , 18 Apr. 2023, assignzen.com/marxism-and-feminism-similarities-and-differences/.

1. AssignZen . "Marxism and Feminism: Similarities and Differences." April 18, 2023. https://assignzen.com/marxism-and-feminism-similarities-and-differences/.

Bibliography

AssignZen . "Marxism and Feminism: Similarities and Differences." April 18, 2023. https://assignzen.com/marxism-and-feminism-similarities-and-differences/.

AssignZen . 2023. "Marxism and Feminism: Similarities and Differences." April 18, 2023. https://assignzen.com/marxism-and-feminism-similarities-and-differences/.

AssignZen . (2023) 'Marxism and Feminism: Similarities and Differences'. 18 April.

This report on Marxism and Feminism: Similarities and Differences was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly.

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on Asignzen, request the removal .