In modern as well as historical feminism, there has been a tendency to overlook the disease and address only the symptoms – a rather insufficient approach. During the 1970s and 1980s, feminist philosophers and theorists delved into the various sciences to look for the root of sexual inequality [a social ill which has had astounding longevity]. Of the various things that feminist philosophers have claimed to be at the root of sexual inequality – everything from systems of economics to psychological relationships between mother and child – the female role in reproduction has been found to be the most basic and strongest proliferator.
Many feminist thinkers have looked to Marx and Engels to aid them in their evaluation of historical and systematic sexual oppression. However, few of them have found this to be quite enough. The dominant question that has to be answered is whether capitalism itself is at the root of women’s subordination to men. ‘…The oppression of women, although not a functional prerequisite of capitalism, has acquired a material basis in the relations of production and reproduction of capitalism today,’ notes Michèle Barrett, in Capitalism and Women’s Liberation. (124)
Barrett believes that capitalism is a roadblock on the path to sexual equality which must be overcome. She states that economic equality and women’s liberation are interdependent movements and proclaims that neither can truly exist without the other. (127) As she aptly states, ‘…the struggle for women’s liberation and the struggle for socialism cannot wholly be disengaged. Just as we cannot conceive of women’s liberation under the oppression of capitalism so we cannot conceive of a socialism whose principles of equality, freedom and dignity are vitiated by the familiar iniquities of gender.’ (129)
However, despite this, Barrett recognizes that capitalism is not to blame for the sexual status quo, which, she comments, is the result of women’s struggles with men, regardless of class distinctions. (124) She is quite aware that masculinity and femininity were not born of capitalism, but argues that capitalism has exaggerated them. ‘Feudal households were not, in any class, egalitarian as between men and women, but the development of capitalism brought an exacerbation of these divisions.’ (127)
Having recognized that capitalism is not entirely at fault, Barrett suggests reforming institutions which have presumably predated capitalism by thousands of years. She emphasizes that ‘the liberation of women would require, first, a redivision of the labour and responsibilities of childcare.’ (127)
Another writer who speaks on this subject is Nancy Hartsock, whose work concerning ‘feminist historical materialism’ has contributed a lot to the study of the root of sexual inequality. ‘…A feminist standpoint can allow us to understand patriarchal institutions and ideologies as perverse inversions of more humane social relations,’ Hartsock stresses in The Feminist Standpoint. (218) Hartsock’s stance is that while sexual inequality can partially be attributed to social phenomenon, they do not cover all the bases in explaining sex roles and the divisions of labor. Her profound claim is that our reproductive roles factor into our position in society immensely. ‘…The fact that women and not men bear children is not (yet) a social choice, but that women and not men rear children in a society structured by compulsory heterosexuality and male dominance is clearly a societal choice.’ (222) Obviously, Hartsock’s prescription for equality is similar to Barrett’s, as she calls for change in both the social and economic spheres.
Also like Barrett, Hartsock believes that capitalism perpetuates divisions and inequalities between the sexes. She evaluates the manner in which women and men work, what the results of their respective work are, and how their work impacts their lives. The most notable thing she mentions is that men’s work does not occupy their lives as much as women’s does. Women are perpetually working, be it cleaning house or taking care of children. (223) This fact brings to light the extent to which the social structure is dominated and controlled by males, who ‘structure social relations in their own image.’ (232)
But Hartsock makes a radical claim. Referring to Marx, she states that capitalism may actually be a positive thing for women – its full development only attainable in conjunction with human equality. (233) Predictably, to end this division of labor Hartsock recommends a redistribution of childcare responsibilities but adds to that ‘the transformation both of every human relation, and of human relations to the natural world.’ (233)
Shulamith Firestone takes by far the most radical approach to this issue. She discredits the claims of Hartsock and Barrett, noting that ‘it would be a mistake to attempt to explain the oppression of women according to this strictly economic interpretation. The class analysis is a beautiful piece of work, but limited: although correct in a linear sense, it does not go deep enough.’ (21) In Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex, the emphasis is on the biological root of what is referred to as ‘sex class.’ Ignoring what are more than likely irrelevant developments and technicalities such as economic class, Firestone suggests that we ‘attempt to develop a materialist view of history based on sex itself.’ (22)
‘Unlike economic class, sex class sprang directly from a biological reality: men and women were created different, and not equally privileged.’ (23) Therefore, the existence of sex roles and inequalities are often justified as being naturally-occurring and challenges to them are blown off as idealistic and unnatural at best. In response to this attitude, Firestone remarks that ‘We are no longer just animals. . . Thus, the “natural” is not necessarily a “human” value. Humanity has begun to outgrow nature: we can no longer justify the maintenance of a discriminatory sex class system on the grounds of its origins in Nature.’ (24)
As Firestone sees it, the biological basis for sex class is women’s role in reproduction. She claims that pregnancy, child-birth, and child-rearing put women in a position of vulnerability and create a dependence on men for survival. (23) And while Firestone doesn’t believe that economic systems have created the sexual imbalances and oppression that continue to exist, she uses a somewhat Marxist approach in recommending a solution:
‘So that just as to assure elimination of economic classes requires the revolt of the underclass (the proletariat) and, in a temporary dictatorship, their seizure of the means of production, so to assure the elimination of sexual classes requires the revolt of the underclass (women) and the seizure of control of reproduction, not only the full restoration to women of ownership of their own bodies, but also their (temporary) social institutions of childbearing and childrearing: And just as the end goal of socialist revolution was not only the elimination of the economic class privilege but of the economic class distinction itself, so the end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally.’ (24)
Ultimately, the conclusion to be drawn from Firestone is thus: women must take control of every aspect of reproduction. To upend the sexist oppression of women, women must for some time avoid reproduction all together. The end goal would be to put in place a system of artificial reproduction, so that the cycle of dependence on men and the accompanying sex roles and notions of inferiority [as well as gender] would be eliminated. ‘The tyranny of the biological family would be broken.’ (24)
Having disproven capitalism to be the cause of sexual inequality, attacks on capitalism alone would not nearly be sufficient in dismembering the greatest, most wide-spread, and historical oppression of all time. ‘Feminists have to question, not just all of Western culture, but the organization of culture itself, and further, even the very organization of nature,’ asserts Firestone. (20) To destroy this self-perpetuating system of inequality, social and economic aspects must be addressed, but to end there would be to be unreasonably disattentive to the deepest and most fundamental cause and perpetuator of sex class.
The destruction of capitalism and teaching of egalitarian social principles should be only icing on the cake. First and foremost, women must reclaim their bodies and put an end to their primary role as the bearers and caretakers of children. This path must be taken only because all others require a very high level of male compliance. Women cannot reasonably expect to keep themselves dependent on male cooperation, say in the redistribution of household and emotional work, and also at the same time free themselves from male supremacy. Firestone’s suggestion is the only one which women can themselves fully implement. Sadly, we cannot rely on our privileged male counterparts to be as dedicated to our liberation as we are. Feminists have for decades tried to extinguish the conservative ideology which places women in the home and men in the workplace and to get men more involved in what have traditionally be considered women’s duties and vice versa, but the trend has been for women to adopt men’s work while still bearing the burden of responsibility of caring for children and household. We have tried to trust men to be equal and reliable partners in the struggle to destroy sex roles and classes but the prospects do not look good. Therefore, we must take it upon ourselves and exercise the power which is inherently our in order to render gender and sex roles null and void.
Nicholson, Linda ed. The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory. Routeledge: London, England. 1997. .