Woman's Estate

by Juliet Mitchell

After scrutinizing the political background of the movement, its sources and its common ground with other radical movements of the sixties, Mitchell goes on to describe the organization of women's liberation in Western Europe and in America and to locate the areas of women's oppression. Part II presents her own theories, which focus on four key work, reproduction, sexuality and the socialization of children, and includes a detailed study of the modern family and a reevaluation of Freud's work in this field.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, History, Politics, Gender, Gender and Sexuality, Gender Studies

Mass Market Paperback

First published January 1, 1971

About the author

Juliet Mitchell, FBA (born 1940) is a British psychoanalyst and socialist feminist.

Mitchell was born in New Zealand in 1940, and moved to England in 1944. She attended St Anne's College, Oxford, where she received a degree in English, as well as doing postgraduate work. She taught English literature from 1962 to 1970 at Leeds University and Reading University. Throughout the 1960s, Mitchell was active in leftist politics, and was on the editorial committee of the journal, New Left Review.

She was a fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge and Professor of Psychoanalysis and Gender Studies at Cambridge University, before in 2010 being appointed to be the Director of the Expanded Doctoral School in Psychoanalytic Studies at Psychoanalysis Unit of University College London (UCL).

She is a retired registrant of the British Psychoanalytic Council.

(from Wikipedia)

Reviews

[Chris Gleck]

This book is copyrighted 1971 and my paperback version was printed 1973. I'm pretty sure I purchased it new as part of my reading on feminism that I never got to 50 years ago. This book was in my queue, but I moved it up since the author was referenced in my previous book, The Female Eunuch. I like it when my books overlap. This one was a very readable but more academic tome than the previous book. Another one written by an English author with that perspective primarily. I failed to mention in my review of the The Female Eunuch that Germaine Greer is Australian and educated in England. This one also was very informative and took a Freudian/Marxian viewpoint of how and why women are/were second class citizens, and the progress of history via Marxian economics is the only way to change our status. Much progress has been made in 50 years, but women never achieved equality during that time and of course now we are backsliding. Reading this has convinced me, at least for the time being until I read differently, that we currently are in the late stages of capitalism. Time will tell where we go from here! I will be recycling this book.

[delievi · Rating 5 out of 5]

mis gibi kitap valla, feminizm 101

[skyozlem · Rating 5 out of 5]

kadın kurtuluşu hareketinin ne olduğunu nerde başladığını, sosyalist feministlerle radikal feministler arasındaki farkı, örgütlenme ilkelerini, temel kavramları, Beauvoir nasıl başlamış nasıl dönüşmüş, Kate Millet ne anlatmış, Firestone kimmiş, şimdi ne yapılabilir görmek için çok iyi bir kaynak derim,

[Z. · Rating 3 out of 5]

i agree to a large extent with the basic ideas of Mitchell's philosophy, especially regarding the role of women in reproduction and work, but as per usual with white feminists, this take extends to only modern Western industrial societies and hence lacks representation of an intersectional approach to women's liberation.

[Sara G · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting how in the preface one can mention that talks of feminism are overly focused on the western movements and then casually continue to go "but I won't be discussing anything else either" and not see a problem with it? Incredibly dated and very feminism 101 even when it was current. It's interesting as it captures the moment but other than that, I'd say there's better stuff out there and this one is entirely unnecessary.

[John · Rating 2 out of 5]

As a feminist view of the state of women in the early seventies and how they got there together with an analysis of the situation where to go, it is totally adequate. As a subjective piece of literature, to get an insight into feminist thinking and theory. As an objective work, it is less good but sometimes Juliet Mitchell manages to give a reasonable summary of past events and some current standings. But, and this is the big but, the view itself is nothing more than feminist Marxist as any - and as it happens to be, it all is just totally horribly wrong to the core. The book still gets two stars mainly for it is an accessible read and do give insight into feminist thinking, but deserves no more for its wrong view of history, economy, work, class, and capitalism. It is one of those books I easily could have criticized in detail a multitude of pages while reading it, but in the end - why bother going into detail here. One thing to mention though is that it did make me wiser in the way of coming closer to understand why feminism sees itself as the enemy of capitalism and friend of marxism, but there is still mystery in why and why they never seem to understand even the basics of it.

[James Askari · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mitchell centrally assesses two schools of feminism: 'radical feminists', for whom the fundamental form of oppression is men's domination of women, and Marxist-feminists, who demand that the specific form of sexism be related to how all workers are subordinated in capitalism. Her view is that it is premature (in 1971) to assimilate the feminist push-back against misogyny to a broader theory. The details of her own account of oppression examine the sidelining of women from production (other than in 'newer' service-sector, consumption-oriented jobs, in magazine publishing and other kinds of editing, and in the fashion and homeware industries); the restriction of women to mothering and reproduction; and the sanctification of sex through marital exclusivity. Mitchell has an especially good line on motherhood: 'there are few more precarious ventures on which to base a life'.

[Nathan Fisher · Rating 2 out of 5]

Extremely of its time — bears the marks of late-sixties Marxism (that awkward shotgun marriage of Althusserianism and Maoism) and is notably concise. In the back half, she finally arrives in her wheelhouse, and that retains some contemporary interest, but as for the rest of it, the significance is mainly historical.

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sadly found this not very good. Whilst the baseline politics is correct, the analysis above this was disjointed and unconvincing. Mitchell appears to contradict herself multiple times throughout the book, and will make sweeping assertions will little or no evidence.

At points the politics seems slightly odd - for instance, her defence of the predominantly middle-class nature of the women's liberation movement because "middle-class culture is the dominant culture, and therefore a middle-class movement is a movement that can change that dominant culture". The same goes for her strange diatribe against the slogan "abolish the family", instead arguing for women to use less "maximalist" slogan that focus on achievable reforms. Such an analysis I think highlights the use by some of "prefigurative politics" as a revolutionary coat for reformist politics, and dodges having to present a clear strategy for how women's current role - and related oppression - can be turned on its head to create a revolutionary break with capitalist society. On this question, I found Woman's Consciousness, Man's World by Sheila Rowbotham was a far more useful read.

[aetnensis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Piccolo saggio diviso in due parti principali. La prima parla del Women's Liberation Movement di cui Juliet Mitchell faceva parte, sia in Inghilterra sia in altri paesi occidentali, mettendolo a confronto con altri movimenti di rivolta post '68. Riporta anche sia la varietà di tendenze politiche sia il dibattito tra correnti femministe (all'epoca radicali e socialiste) aggiungendo proprie critiche e riflessioni. La seconda parte parla più strettamente delle varie oppressioni delle donne, a partire da quella lavorativa fino alla famiglia. Mitchell parte dalla sua esperienza parlando principalmente della situazione in UK di donne di diverse classi sociali. Il suo femminismo si basa molto sia sulla realtà materiale, si capisce che ha ben chiare le situazioni di cui parla, sia su una visione psicologica data la sua esperienza in materia. L'ultimo capitolo è infatti dedicato alla psicanalisi come scienza di cui auspica una riappropriazione femminista. Per essere scritto tra il 1966 e il 1971 contiene delle riflessioni che sono valide tutt'oggi.

[Vadzianyk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty good but sometimes outdated.
Insightful views on Freud that I’m not knowledgeable enough to comment on

[Elif Deniz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Çeviri biraz sıkıntılı ve tabii ki güncel duruma çok uzak bir kitap. Feminizm tarihi ve temelleri açısından ise harika.

[Mariam Rawwas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like many feminist texts, offers a recapitulation of the history of feminist theory in relation to the feminist movement, but pales in comparison to Mitchell's more explicitly theoretical work.

[Heavinlei · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very white centric.

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

sigh.... nem aqui consigo escapar do freud...não queria ter lido tanto sobre ele.
mas honeslty at the end of the day...kinda disappointed

[Kizza · Rating 5 out of 5]

Truly one of the best feminist texts I have ever read. Mitchell's passion, her analysis intertwining Psychoanalysis and Marxism is really interesting, and at points had me loudly agreeing with the points put forward or at times being amazed at points which, it is almost amazing are not talked about so much today in discourse.

In short this book is truly one of the best texts I've read, and I cannot wait to read more of Mitchell's work in the future.

[Mystical Turnip · Rating 3 out of 5]

great book, dense at times, often in a dialogue with other feminist writers. interesting critiques of contemporary socialist and radical feminist movements, many of which still relevant today. sometimes outdated examples, valuable as a historical source in that sense. personally i dont get her respect for freud