a) What is the author trying to argue?
Eisenstein argues that neither a purely Marxist understanding of capitalism and class conflict nor a purely Radical Feminist analysis of patriarchy and gender oppression can fully encompass the unique experiences of women.
Instead, she argues that a combination of the two into a Socialist Feminist Theory would better address the complex system of exploitation and oppression that women experience as a result of Capitalist Patriarchy.
b) How does the author try to explain the argument?
Eisenstein explains her argument by noting the shortcomings of each perspective on its own. A Marxist analysis focuses primarily on class and class conflict. It assumes that both men and women’s exploitation is derived from the same source (capitalism) and thus both would be freed once a communist society was achieved.
Eisenstein argues that this is a false assumption. She says that, in all likelihood, society would still be structure by a sexual division of labor. This would lead to different opportunities for men and women, leaving women to domestic tasks similar to those they now endure under capitalism. As a result, women would still not achieve the integration of their existence (current exploited/oppressed reality) with their essence (creative potential).
Eisenstein then looks to the shortcomings of Radical Feminist perspectives. This theory sees the cause of women’s oppression as being rooted in sexual, not economic, inequalities. It argues that women exist in a Patriarchal society (sexual system of power wherein males possess superior power and economic privilege). As a result of this biological, rather than economic focus, Radical Feminists feel that women’s freedom from oppression is tied not to production, but reproduction.
Eisenstein then points out that Radical Feminist Theory commits the same faults as Marxist Theory. While it rejects economic theories of power as incomplete and artificially separate from sexual oppression, it then does the same thing by simply replacing “capitalism” with “patriarchy.” It is because of the artificial separation that both theories make that Eisenstein says we should synthesize the two theories into a Socialist Feminist Analysis. This would allow us to adequately address the unique situation that women find themselves in.
c) Does the author assume the “white middle-class women” norm?
Yes. On page 22, Eisenstein notes that race is an important aspect to take into account, yet dismisses it immediately following. She says that this is done because race, as a dimension, falls outside this discussion. I find this problematic because it commits the same artificial separation that Eisenstein argues is true of Marxist and Radical Feminist perspectives.
d) What are the strengths and weakness of the argument?
Strengths:
-Women are viewed in terms of both class and gender oppression/exploitation. This allows for a fuller/richer understanding of the unique problems faced by women in the context of a capitalist patriarchal society.
-
Weaknesses:
-It sets aside the issue of race much like Marx does with gender and Radical Feminism does with class.
-Essentially, it calls for an end to capitalism, which is highly unlikely.
e) How can we apply the author’s logic and/or findings towards a diversity training manual?
-With the addition of the dimension of race/ethnicity to this theoretical interpretation, this could be used to understand wage differences in the workplace.
-It could also be used to lobby for the integration of work and family needs via legislation. Because we believe in the idea of nuclear families, we consider the needs of families to be in the private sphere, which is considered altogether separate from the public sphere of work. One way to integrate the family and the workplace would be to make the welfare of the family a public responsibility. For example, the workplace or the government could be required to provide child-care for work hours. By doing so, this would free women (who are largely responsible for childcare) from this burden. This would provide the additional benefit of removing the assumption that women are unreliable because they are primarily in charge of childcare.
-Another way to integrate work and family would be for workplaces to provide a living wage that would allow a family to live above the poverty line. Providing such a wage (for both men and women) would remove the assumption that women’s wage is supplemental income to that of men’s.
-Another way to integrate work and family would be to provide paid pregnancy leave for both men and women. This would allow women to take time off work without fear of job loss. Once they are ready to return to work, the other parent can take their leave time so that a parent remains able to do childcare.
-Make public education equal by allotting equal amounts of money to all school systems, instead of going by local property tax. By equalizing public school systems, it becomes more in the public interest to better all schools, not just local schools.