Socialist Feminism: Jumping Out of the Frame of Gender

Article by Lynetta Wang -- Featured Author of the Month!

Feminism, a word that is familiar to most of us in our modern society. We hear people talking about it every day on the news and social media, and lots of us tagged ourselves as feminists. Essentially, feminism pursues the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes, yet within this broad umbrella term, there are many disputes about the angle of approaching this issue. These arguments tend to evade us, and socialist feminism, also known as Marxist feminism, stands out as one of the strands of feminism that we barely hear about- a feminism that deeply ties in with the philosophy of patriarchy and capitalism.

It is worth noting that even though this strand of feminism is named after Karl Marx, the feminist angle was not proposed by the philosopher himself but by later feminists in the 1960s and 1970s, using Marxist philosophy proposed by Marx and Engels as a blueprint. Similar to liberal feminism, It believes that the so-called “male way of thinking and female way of thinking” is socially constructed- a label created by society. However, it denies the abstract theory of human nature proposed by liberalists. In a society stratified in class, there is only class-bearing humanity and no humanity beyond class.

Karl Marx’s philosophy is historical materialism, evident in his quote “Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand”. In general terms, people's ideologies and thoughts are determined by the mode of production of this society, and in a way no matter if it is “male-thinking” or “female thinking”, they are all decided by the mode of production.

What is the mode of production anyway? Think of it as a factory, it consists of production power and social and technical relations of production. Here a crucial problem arises: who owns and possesses the means of production? Those who have ownership are the ruling class, and in Capitalism, they are the bourgeoisie; those who are without the means of production are the proletariats, the “working class”.

In the doctrine of socialist feminism, the oppression of women by men is structured just like the exploitation of workers by capitalists. Therefore, the oppression appears to be a gender issue on the surface, but it is deep down a class issue-the oppression from male ruling capitalists against the female proletariats.

It is important to see how the two theories parallel:

Capitalists who monopolize the means of production do not need to do their own labor but hire workers. But the capitalist's payment of workers' wages is not completely distributed according to work, but the surplus value created by the workers is deducted. In a patriarchal society, socialist feminism explains that men are the ones monopolizing the means of production. It is argued that women’s freedom in the workplace and marriage is delusional, while at work women are limited by a “glass ceiling”, and restrained by “family duties”, men are therefore preferable to hire; in marriage, it seems like women have achieved freedom in choosing, yet this “freedom” comes with expectations- to cook, to take care of babies, to do chores, etc. If women do not gain ownership of means of production, this “freedom” is，essentially, an oppressed freedom.

There are two main ways proposed by the socialist feminists in order to achieve equality and gain means of production. First is through eliminating traditional family values and realizing the socialization of women. Women are encouraged to immerse themselves fully in society and cast away the restraint exerted by traditional families, which implies the socialization of child fostering and chores, thereby freeing women from traditional duties. The second way of approach is to keep the traditional family values, however, salaries should be issued for women’s contributions and work in the households- adequate wages from the state are paid according to the principle of distribution according to work, even though it means female could be even more cornered to family issues. It is controversial even within socialist feminism which method to implement, and to this day is still open to debate.

Criticisms of a school of thought, along with claims, should be noted equally. As socialist feminism does not emphasize the differences between sexes, some may argue that by acclaiming the conflict as a class issue is demolishing the debate on gender inequality. Is Marxist feminism still called feminism, or should it just be part of Karl Marx’s political philosophy? The second criticism is centered on the interconnection between feminism and capitalism-does the relationship between man and women perfectly fits the model of ruling class-working class relationships? Is this theory simply copying and pasting a class theory to feminism? Do they genuinely equate? Despite its many inspirations, it’s practicality in the modern world remains arguable and it is for the readers to decide if socialist feminism is rightfully the way to battle gender inequality.

Author Lynetta Wang

Editor Suhh Yeon Kim