What do you think?
Rate this book
Historical Materialism #45
Marxism and the Oppression of Women: Toward a Unitary Theory
Marxism and the Oppression of Women
231 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1983
46 people are currently reading
2635 people want to read
About the author
Lise Vogel
9 books16 followersLise Vogel is a feminist sociologist and art historian from the United States. An influential Marxist-feminist theoretician, she is recognised for being one of the main founders of the Social Reproduction Theory.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
March 16, 2018
The most correct book in the entire world. Read it whether you're a Marxist wanting to understand feminism better or (especially) a feminist wanting to understand Marxism better. The explanations of core Marxist concepts like surplus value, labour-power, necessary labour, and so forth are some of the most precise and accessible out there, while still making subtle but important new insights into how and where they work. The core of the book's genius, to me, is that Vogel doesn't take the easy way out by just looking at Marx's (and Engels' and Lenin's) failure to fully or properly theorise women's oppression and going "okay, I guess they have nothing to say about this, we gotta come up with something new." Instead of seeking to revise, rewrite, or contradict Marxism, she pinpoints something that was already inside the logic of Marxism (Capital, Vol. 1 in particular), namely the fact that labour-power is a commodity (with a use and exchange value) that must be produced and reproduced, and fully opens it up for analysis. The implications are absolutely revolutionary, and in the last few years people like Tithi Bhattacharya and David McNally have finally started taking it on and pushing it forward. While other feminists have tried (and, in my opinion, failed) to do this as well, in particular the autonomist feminists, only Vogel's theory actually holds up. This is because, rather than simply taking the Western nuclear family as a "social factory" and analysing women as essentially a "proletariat" within this framework (a very dogmatic, lazy way of shoehorning the economics of production somewhere it doesn't quite belong), Vogel produces a framework for a theory of social reproduction that can account for all the different places, contexts, classes, and social formations labour-power is reproduced. Read it today!
April 21, 2023
برای من یک سوم انتهایی کتاب بهدردبخور بود. چون اگر قرار باشه درباره فمینیسم سوسیالیستی بخونم کتاب سیلویا فدریچی همچنان گزینه بهتریه. چون با بررسی دقیق موضوع کار خانگی در کنار آرای مارکسیستها، نواقص نظریه مارکسیستی رو هم بررسی کرده و فقط به عیبجویی و انتقاد از سرمایهداری نپرداخته. ولی فصلهای اولیه این کتاب شبیه این بود که نویسنده به زور میخواد یه جاهایی از حرفهای مارکس و انگلس رو ربط بده به مسئله زنان و برداشتهایی ازشون داره که نمیشه با قطعیت گفت نظر اونهاست. یه جاهایی هم که مارکس و انگلس حرفهایی زدن که نباید میزدن در توجیهشون میگه منابع کافی در اختیارشون نبوده. مثلاً یه جا از قول انگلس نوشته: «غالباً کار کردن زن متأهل منجر به اختلال کامل در خانه نمیشود اما به وارونه شدن تقسیم کار طبیعی درون خانواده میانجامد. زن نانآور است در حالی که شوهرش در خانه میماند تا از بچهها مراقبت کند و کار نظافت و پختوپز را انجام دهد. چنین وضعیتی شوهر را از مردانگیاش محروم میکند. این وضعیتی شرمآور برای ویژگیهای انسانی جنسهاست». دیگه وقتی الگوی ذهنی طرف این بوده چطور ازش انتظار داری درباره برابری حرف بزنه؟ یه جاهایی مارکس و انگلس منظورشون «کارگر» به طور عمومیه ولی نویسنده اون حرف رو گرفته و میچسبوندش به فمینیسم. البته همین نکتهای که من میگم رو توی مؤخرهای که دیوید مکنالی نوشته بهعنوان ویژگی مثبت آورده ولی برای من یکی که قانعکننده نبود.
September 3, 2025
Buah estoy super contento de haberlo terminado, me ha costado leerlo la vida y media. Si no fuera porque fui comentándolo y aclarando dudas en un grupo de lectura, no sé si me habría enterado de algo.
Diría que es un gran libro para entender el desarrollo histórico que ha tenido la opresión de las mujeres en el marxismo, pero he echado bastante en falta el desarrollo de varios puntos importantes: la relación entre la opresión de las mujeres con otras opresiones o el abordaje de aspectos como la violencia de género, la transfobia y homofobia.
En última instancia y siendo yo un bebé en la teoría marxista, me da la sensación de que la perspectiva de Vogel es muy limitada al plantear que el pilar de la opresión de las mujeres es la imposición capitalista del trabajo reproductivo y que su superación se dará a partir de la incorporación de las tareas de cuidados al proceso de producción social en un período de transición socialista. Bajo este prisma, deja sin abordar el cómo se podrían superar el resto de vertientes de la opresión de género, que me parece un aspecto fundamental.
En conclusión, mi percepción es que el objetivo de Vogel de retomar el proyecto inacabado de las feministas socialistas de los 70 de teorizar el trabajo doméstico desde el marxismo requiere necesariamente de abrir la perspectiva y el alcance con el que se inició esta literatura, ya que las conclusiones a las que llega el considerar el trabajo doméstico como foco principal de manera aislada, son importantes pero muy limitadas.
Aun así, creo que es un buen libro desde donde partir para revisitar tanto la teoría feminista como la marxista y para entender en su complejidad el papel que los grupos oprimidos juegan en la reproducción social capitalista.
Diría que es un gran libro para entender el desarrollo histórico que ha tenido la opresión de las mujeres en el marxismo, pero he echado bastante en falta el desarrollo de varios puntos importantes: la relación entre la opresión de las mujeres con otras opresiones o el abordaje de aspectos como la violencia de género, la transfobia y homofobia.
En última instancia y siendo yo un bebé en la teoría marxista, me da la sensación de que la perspectiva de Vogel es muy limitada al plantear que el pilar de la opresión de las mujeres es la imposición capitalista del trabajo reproductivo y que su superación se dará a partir de la incorporación de las tareas de cuidados al proceso de producción social en un período de transición socialista. Bajo este prisma, deja sin abordar el cómo se podrían superar el resto de vertientes de la opresión de género, que me parece un aspecto fundamental.
En conclusión, mi percepción es que el objetivo de Vogel de retomar el proyecto inacabado de las feministas socialistas de los 70 de teorizar el trabajo doméstico desde el marxismo requiere necesariamente de abrir la perspectiva y el alcance con el que se inició esta literatura, ya que las conclusiones a las que llega el considerar el trabajo doméstico como foco principal de manera aislada, son importantes pero muy limitadas.
Aun así, creo que es un buen libro desde donde partir para revisitar tanto la teoría feminista como la marxista y para entender en su complejidad el papel que los grupos oprimidos juegan en la reproducción social capitalista.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 28, 2015
It was a pretty good book and explained a lot of things (like use value and surplus value and necessary work) about Marxism more clearly than I had understood it before. It repeated itself a fair bit but I found it good because I gradually came to understand some of the hard to grasp concepts. This way of thinking is very intellectual. I found the book was a bit naive in the way it idealised communism (including the soviet union) when anyone from my family could tell you how repressive that regime was (with evidence).
The analysis of capitalism is very accurate I think and the ideal of striving for a society where surplus value is fed back into social benefits rather than private profit is a very good point for this day and age. All this hyper-individualistic crap about winners and losers in the market ignores the reality that the real producers (the workers) are exploited by someone who appropriates their surplus labour and that if they cannot themselves be the owners of their surplus labour it ought to benefit society not some exploitative individual.
Anyway this book is definately worth struggling through slowly enough so that you have actually understood it!
The analysis of capitalism is very accurate I think and the ideal of striving for a society where surplus value is fed back into social benefits rather than private profit is a very good point for this day and age. All this hyper-individualistic crap about winners and losers in the market ignores the reality that the real producers (the workers) are exploited by someone who appropriates their surplus labour and that if they cannot themselves be the owners of their surplus labour it ought to benefit society not some exploitative individual.
Anyway this book is definately worth struggling through slowly enough so that you have actually understood it!
October 1, 2022
As ridiculous as 'Patriarchy of the Wage' from Silvia Federici: Vogel and Federici argue that marxism and marxists are misogynistic because we consider domestic labour as an improductive one.
Tell me where is the lie in that statement: does domestic labour produces a specific commodity?
No, therefore, domestic activites are an IMPRODUCTIVE labour: negating this is a denial of reality and falling in idealist/anti-scientific statements.
That said, it is obvious that domestic chores are vital, but these petty bourgeoisie authors think that giving wages to domestic housewives is going to end misoginy and patriarchy.
If you think that letting private property manage the domestic activites is a serious solution, then read Marx's Capital a hundred times more.
For a better understanding of Marx in relation to gender issues better read: 'Marx on Gender and the Family: A Critical Study' by Heather Brown.
For a better understanding of how socialist countries have planned and tackled this problems read: 'Women's Liberation and the African Freedom Struggle' by Sankara.
Tell me where is the lie in that statement: does domestic labour produces a specific commodity?
No, therefore, domestic activites are an IMPRODUCTIVE labour: negating this is a denial of reality and falling in idealist/anti-scientific statements.
That said, it is obvious that domestic chores are vital, but these petty bourgeoisie authors think that giving wages to domestic housewives is going to end misoginy and patriarchy.
If you think that letting private property manage the domestic activites is a serious solution, then read Marx's Capital a hundred times more.
For a better understanding of Marx in relation to gender issues better read: 'Marx on Gender and the Family: A Critical Study' by Heather Brown.
For a better understanding of how socialist countries have planned and tackled this problems read: 'Women's Liberation and the African Freedom Struggle' by Sankara.
June 11, 2019
This is a good book. I struggle in comprehension with a lot of theoretical works but Lise Vogel broke down many key Marxist concepts like use-value, labor-power, etc. in a clear manner. Things were clarified. Marxism and the Oppression of Women should be a necessary read for Marxists stepping into feminist thought for the first time (most men) and as well as Feminists in the reverse (like myself). Approachable and knowledgable, Lise Vogel wrote a classic. Hopefully, in the next few months, I'll find myself furthering my – admittedly self-guided – studies in social reproduction theory.
April 14, 2024
Aquest és un llibre fonamental i inesquivable per a qui vulgui comprendre l'opressió de gènere en el mode de producció capitalista.
La major part del llibre és una revisió dels textos de Marx, Engels, Bebel (i la seva influència durant la segona internacional, Zetkin i Lenin. La gran aportació de Vogel és ubicar en el llegat de la tradició socialista el mateix problema que durant els 70 (i fins el dia d'avui) preocuparà al feminisme-socialista: el conflicte entre una teoria dual i una teoria unitària. La primera ubica l'opressió de les dones en un sistema autònom separat però vinculat al capitalisme (normalment anomenat patriarcat). En canvi, les teories unitàries (com la de Vogel) situa l'opressió de gènere dins del capitalisme. L'autora troba en la reproducció social la seu oculta per comprendre la posició subordinada de les dones. La teoria de la reproducció social de la qual Vogel forma part es mou contradictòriament entre les posicions duals i les unitàries. En aquest sentit, el llibre de Vogel suposa una superació de les posicions dualistes que redueixen la reproducció social a la reproducció de la força de treball i aquesta última al treball domèstic no remunerat.
Tanmateix, quan Vogel acaba amb la revisió filològica dels clàssics socialistes ja porta dos terços del llibre i amb el restant dona voltes sobre les mateixes idees i se m'ha fet frustrant sentir que no acaba aprofundint gens en l'anàlisi de la posició concreta de l'opressió de gènere. Potser, perquè per a ella la teoria només pot ser abstracta i anar més enllà de l'anàlisi abstracta és abandonar la teoria. No hi podria estar més en desacord, la teoria és la reconstrucció de la totalitat en el pensament i les abstraccions són necessàries en la mesura que divideixen la realitat per comprendre-la i tornar-la a unir. Si des de les proposicions abstractes no es pot reconstruir la totalitat, el vincle amb l'objecte d'estudi es perd. També per això insinua una pràctica política interclassista d'unificació de les dones com a subjecte a la vegada que rebutja derivar conseqüències organitzatives de la seva teorització.
Resumint, com que feia molt de temps que esperava aquesta traducció m'havia generat unes falses expectatives del contingut del text. Però això no impedeix que sigui un molt bon llibre en la mesura que: revisa en profunditat el llegat socialista sobre l'opressió de gènere i estableix la base pel que per a mi permet la superació del dualisme de bona part de la TRS: el pas de la reproducció social com a reproducció de la força de treball a la reproducció social com a reproducció de les relacions socials capitalistes derivades del mateix procés d'acumulació de capital.
Ale, petonets unitaris💓
La major part del llibre és una revisió dels textos de Marx, Engels, Bebel (i la seva influència durant la segona internacional, Zetkin i Lenin. La gran aportació de Vogel és ubicar en el llegat de la tradició socialista el mateix problema que durant els 70 (i fins el dia d'avui) preocuparà al feminisme-socialista: el conflicte entre una teoria dual i una teoria unitària. La primera ubica l'opressió de les dones en un sistema autònom separat però vinculat al capitalisme (normalment anomenat patriarcat). En canvi, les teories unitàries (com la de Vogel) situa l'opressió de gènere dins del capitalisme. L'autora troba en la reproducció social la seu oculta per comprendre la posició subordinada de les dones. La teoria de la reproducció social de la qual Vogel forma part es mou contradictòriament entre les posicions duals i les unitàries. En aquest sentit, el llibre de Vogel suposa una superació de les posicions dualistes que redueixen la reproducció social a la reproducció de la força de treball i aquesta última al treball domèstic no remunerat.
Tanmateix, quan Vogel acaba amb la revisió filològica dels clàssics socialistes ja porta dos terços del llibre i amb el restant dona voltes sobre les mateixes idees i se m'ha fet frustrant sentir que no acaba aprofundint gens en l'anàlisi de la posició concreta de l'opressió de gènere. Potser, perquè per a ella la teoria només pot ser abstracta i anar més enllà de l'anàlisi abstracta és abandonar la teoria. No hi podria estar més en desacord, la teoria és la reconstrucció de la totalitat en el pensament i les abstraccions són necessàries en la mesura que divideixen la realitat per comprendre-la i tornar-la a unir. Si des de les proposicions abstractes no es pot reconstruir la totalitat, el vincle amb l'objecte d'estudi es perd. També per això insinua una pràctica política interclassista d'unificació de les dones com a subjecte a la vegada que rebutja derivar conseqüències organitzatives de la seva teorització.
Resumint, com que feia molt de temps que esperava aquesta traducció m'havia generat unes falses expectatives del contingut del text. Però això no impedeix que sigui un molt bon llibre en la mesura que: revisa en profunditat el llegat socialista sobre l'opressió de gènere i estableix la base pel que per a mi permet la superació del dualisme de bona part de la TRS: el pas de la reproducció social com a reproducció de la força de treball a la reproducció social com a reproducció de les relacions socials capitalistes derivades del mateix procés d'acumulació de capital.
Ale, petonets unitaris💓
March 16, 2023
Dans cet œuvre originalement écrit en 1983 et disponible en version française depuis 2022, Vogel y expose sa théorie marxiste de la reproduction sociale à travers une lunette féministe socialiste. L’œuvre s’ouvre sur une analyse du débat sur le travail domestique des féministes socialistes des années 70. Ensuite l’autrice continue en une analyse historique de la théorie marxiste de la « question de la femme » de Marx à Engels en passant par Clara Zetkin et Lénine jusqu’aux théoriciens de la seconde internationale. Vogel y propose ensuite sa propre théorie de la reproduction sociale de la force de travail qui me semble la plus poussé et la plus pertinente historiquement à l’intérieur d’un cadre conceptuel d’analyse purement marxien de la valeur travail. Cadre conceptuel qui peut être vu et critiqué par les féministe matérialistes comme une version économiste orthodoxe du paradigme mit en place par Marx, comme une réification de l’économie dans la grille d’analyse. Seul bémol du livre, la partie théorique sur la reproduction générationelle de la force de travail, qui est encré dans un réductionnisme biologique de la catégorie sociale et historique de la femme à sont utérus, à sa condition binaire hétéronormative naturaliste du corps qui peut être la source d’un essentialisme toxique posant les bases théoriques d’une transphobie et d’une homophobie de certains courants marxiste orthodoxe. Ce qui arrive la plupart du temps quand on veut expliquer des phénomènes sociaux construits par des pseudo causes naturelles.Terf alert !! Sinon excellent livre qui a encore une portée totalement pertinente dans nos luttes mettant de l’avant un réel projet politique révolutionnaire féministe unitaire de classes. La préface d’Aurore koechlin est aussi magistrale.
August 23, 2025
Super integro e introductorio el texto, en él desarrolla una feroz crítica de la incoherencia ontológica que contiene el componente reaccionario del feminismo interseccional, es decir, que género/raza/clase, son contradicciones de un mismo orden y que deberían ser "tratadas en unidad", cuando en la práctica a lo que llevan, es al tratamiento segmentado, paralelo y parcializado de c/u.
Por desgracia, Vogel a lo largo de su obra termina cayendo en un error similar. Al quedarse en la abstracción de los aspectos indisolubles del proceso de metabolismo social, termina "dividiendo en dos" al capitalismo, por lo que su "teoría unitaria" termina atacando por separada y paralelamente al trabajo productivo del trabajo reproductivo, con las mismas consecuencias prácticas que el feminismo interseccional.
A pesar de todo, se rescata su trabajo de "desarrollar el marxismo" (cuando en realidad es sólo hacer uso del método dialéctico) para dar respuesta a los problemas inconclusos del feminismo. A diferencia de las reaccionarias interseccionales, que plantean que hay que desecharlo, o enmarcarlo dentro de su sistema trilógico y sociológico-burgués.
Por desgracia, Vogel a lo largo de su obra termina cayendo en un error similar. Al quedarse en la abstracción de los aspectos indisolubles del proceso de metabolismo social, termina "dividiendo en dos" al capitalismo, por lo que su "teoría unitaria" termina atacando por separada y paralelamente al trabajo productivo del trabajo reproductivo, con las mismas consecuencias prácticas que el feminismo interseccional.
A pesar de todo, se rescata su trabajo de "desarrollar el marxismo" (cuando en realidad es sólo hacer uso del método dialéctico) para dar respuesta a los problemas inconclusos del feminismo. A diferencia de las reaccionarias interseccionales, que plantean que hay que desecharlo, o enmarcarlo dentro de su sistema trilógico y sociológico-burgués.
August 12, 2024
De los mejores libros que puedes encontrar que analicen el marxismo desde una perspectiva feminista.
December 30, 2024
El 2024 fue de esplendor para las chicas marxistas que no leemos inglés académico cuando llegó al cono sur latinoamericano está edición en español de esta joya escrita en los años 80s.
Lise Vogel revisa autoras y autores, incluido un gran y extenso análisis sobre Marx y sus obras para decir: la teoría de Marx no alcanzó para abordar la opresión de las mujeres pero si es sobre la base de sus conceptos más relevantes que construiremos lo que falte por comprender. Entendiendo que es un libro que leemos en 2024 y se escribió en los años ochentas por lo cual hay cantidades de cuestiones sobre género y sexualidad que quedan acotadas. Sin embargo, siempre voy a sostener que la teoría marxista no envejece sino que se reescribe y eso hace exactamente Vogel al plantear las bases de la Teoría de la Reproducción Social.
Esta fue mi lectura de reencuentro con la tradición marxista que abracé en mi trayectoria académica y en la me que apoyo para la lectura de mis horizontes de mundo.
Además fue la primera vez que integre un grupo de lectura transfonterizo, y gracias a la internet, pude compartir vía zoom encuentros con compañeres de Chile y Alondra Castillo quien me enriquecieron y ampliaron la visión personal sobre esta autora y estos planteamientos éticos polticos.
Lise Vogel revisa autoras y autores, incluido un gran y extenso análisis sobre Marx y sus obras para decir: la teoría de Marx no alcanzó para abordar la opresión de las mujeres pero si es sobre la base de sus conceptos más relevantes que construiremos lo que falte por comprender. Entendiendo que es un libro que leemos en 2024 y se escribió en los años ochentas por lo cual hay cantidades de cuestiones sobre género y sexualidad que quedan acotadas. Sin embargo, siempre voy a sostener que la teoría marxista no envejece sino que se reescribe y eso hace exactamente Vogel al plantear las bases de la Teoría de la Reproducción Social.
Esta fue mi lectura de reencuentro con la tradición marxista que abracé en mi trayectoria académica y en la me que apoyo para la lectura de mis horizontes de mundo.
Además fue la primera vez que integre un grupo de lectura transfonterizo, y gracias a la internet, pude compartir vía zoom encuentros con compañeres de Chile y Alondra Castillo quien me enriquecieron y ampliaron la visión personal sobre esta autora y estos planteamientos éticos polticos.
May 11, 2020
Beyond this being a work of talking about talking about the subject, Vogel advances no paradigm shifts, away from the white supremacist- and imperialist-friendly conception of progress nor away from including slavery in the equation in the reproduction of labour-power. In 1983 she reviews thoughts from the late 1800s, and humans remain mechanical inputs in the failed and antiquated grail of production (even non-accumulative) removed from social and ecological justice. There is no useful unitary bridge when both points are rooted in decayed models.
February 12, 2013
this was a remarkable book. it sets out to clarify, theoretically, the basis for women's oppression and, while doing so, offers some fantastic and insightful critiques of existing marxist scholarship on the subject. i highly recommend this book in furthering the understanding of women's oppression within the marxist framework. this book should be read but many more people and i am pleased that it will be republished soon by haymarket books.
July 23, 2020
Es un libro cortito, 30 páginas que se vuelven complejas de leer, hay que dejarlo y volver al menos una noche, pero es muy interesante como punto de entrada a otra miradas sobre el feminismo, lejos del imaginario burgués del power girl. Hoy en día se me hace imposible no desconfiar del feminismo que solo hable de violencia se género.
December 19, 2023
devoró
March 23, 2025
In her book Marxism and the Oppression of Women, Lise Vogel traces the history of Marxist theorizing on the issue of women's oppression. She provides a rough outline of what she believes is required to properly situate women's position in the capitalist mode of production.
The work was originally published in 1983. Its language conflates sex and gender. A modern re-writing of the work would probably need to explicitly address this.
Vogel reviews the work of Marx and Engels, thoroughly analyzing Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. She also looks at the work of Bebel, Zetkin, Lenin, and others.
In Marxist terms wage labor can be divided into necessary and surplus labor. Necessary labor is that which is required to cover the needs of the worker and their dependents. Surplus labor is appropriated by the capitalist. Capitalists want to reduce necessary labor so they get more surplus labor. If a man performs wage labor and his wife does not, this increases the necessary portion of his labor because his pay must cover his consumption and his wife's.
For this reason, there is a tendency for capitalism to push women into wage labor. We see a gradual equalisation of wage labor participation across gender. This contradicts the arguments of many other feminists who say that women's unpaid housework benefits capitalists, since no wage is paid for it. I'm not sure if Vogel adequately responds to this, even though she dedicates a lot of space to the "domestic labor debate."
Reproduction occupies a contradictory position in capitalism. Generally, capitalism needs people to give birth to renew the supply of workers. But during this time, the pregnant person will need their partner to receive higher wages and will not be able to perform wage labor themselves. Vogel does not explain the exact balance here, but says that it will be determined by class struggle between working families, capitalists, women, etc. A very complicated picture begins to emerge.
This book offers a good summary of the "woman question" and Marxism over the years. It doesn't, however, provide any easy answers. I would love recommendations for further reading on this topic!
The work was originally published in 1983. Its language conflates sex and gender. A modern re-writing of the work would probably need to explicitly address this.
Vogel reviews the work of Marx and Engels, thoroughly analyzing Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. She also looks at the work of Bebel, Zetkin, Lenin, and others.
In Marxist terms wage labor can be divided into necessary and surplus labor. Necessary labor is that which is required to cover the needs of the worker and their dependents. Surplus labor is appropriated by the capitalist. Capitalists want to reduce necessary labor so they get more surplus labor. If a man performs wage labor and his wife does not, this increases the necessary portion of his labor because his pay must cover his consumption and his wife's.
For this reason, there is a tendency for capitalism to push women into wage labor. We see a gradual equalisation of wage labor participation across gender. This contradicts the arguments of many other feminists who say that women's unpaid housework benefits capitalists, since no wage is paid for it. I'm not sure if Vogel adequately responds to this, even though she dedicates a lot of space to the "domestic labor debate."
Reproduction occupies a contradictory position in capitalism. Generally, capitalism needs people to give birth to renew the supply of workers. But during this time, the pregnant person will need their partner to receive higher wages and will not be able to perform wage labor themselves. Vogel does not explain the exact balance here, but says that it will be determined by class struggle between working families, capitalists, women, etc. A very complicated picture begins to emerge.
This book offers a good summary of the "woman question" and Marxism over the years. It doesn't, however, provide any easy answers. I would love recommendations for further reading on this topic!
April 27, 2024
A couple of disorganised notes (again):
- Subordinate class women's necessary labour in the home and subordinate class men's provision of material means of subsistence + surplus labour has been a historic (not specifically capitalist) source of women's oppression
- Ensuring paternity is the source of women's oppression in the ruling class.
- The working class family is not invariant and needs concrete analysis. For example, where female-headed households make up a large sector of the population, demand for a family wage will most likely threaten women's position in the labour market and deepen divisions already existing within the working class. Or for example, a woman migrant labourer who leaves the countryside and works in the city as breadwinner for the rural household.
QUESTIONS:
- Can necessary labour and surplus labour be divided so neatly? Doesn't necessary labour in the home indirectly contribute to surplus labour? Would it, instead, be more correct to say that working-class women have to disproportionately bear the brunt of producing (indirect) surplus labour in the home and surplus labour in the workplace? Isn't this the source of economic oppression for working class women? (I agree with Vogel however that, unlike most socialist-feminists, the political source of oppression also needs to be emphasised in lack of equal rights for all women, rather than just economic).
- Labour power is not produced capitalistically unlike other commodities?
- Subordinate class women's necessary labour in the home and subordinate class men's provision of material means of subsistence + surplus labour has been a historic (not specifically capitalist) source of women's oppression
- Ensuring paternity is the source of women's oppression in the ruling class.
- The working class family is not invariant and needs concrete analysis. For example, where female-headed households make up a large sector of the population, demand for a family wage will most likely threaten women's position in the labour market and deepen divisions already existing within the working class. Or for example, a woman migrant labourer who leaves the countryside and works in the city as breadwinner for the rural household.
QUESTIONS:
- Can necessary labour and surplus labour be divided so neatly? Doesn't necessary labour in the home indirectly contribute to surplus labour? Would it, instead, be more correct to say that working-class women have to disproportionately bear the brunt of producing (indirect) surplus labour in the home and surplus labour in the workplace? Isn't this the source of economic oppression for working class women? (I agree with Vogel however that, unlike most socialist-feminists, the political source of oppression also needs to be emphasised in lack of equal rights for all women, rather than just economic).
- Labour power is not produced capitalistically unlike other commodities?
January 27, 2024
uma reflexão sobre autores e críticas passados sobre os efeitos do patriarcado e do capitalismo no ser mulher. considera diversas visões e propostas para formular concepções críticas sobre como é ser mulher e se conceber mulher na atualidade, especialmente com tantas influências para reproduzir, produzir e se diminuir em função dos outros. tem muitos teóricos importantes e abordados na construção do feminismo e no marxismo, e a autora faz questão de apontar partes pertinentes e refutar ideias que não se aplicam ou que podem ser melhoradas. acima de tudo, traz perspectivas para se formar um novo e constante feminismo marxista que considere as bases e os estudos e as propostas que vieram antes, mas sempre buscar novas ideias e - principalmente - ações para a libertação da mulher de todas as suas amarras.
September 19, 2018
One of the most impactful interventions in feminist theory today. Vogel overviews radicals and socialist thought, pointing to it's gaps and weaknesses. She then returns to core texts by Engels and Marx to find out what we can glean about women's condition from these texts. She then scientifically finds the gaps in this thought and constructs a materialist theory of women's oppression. As a woman reading through socialist and liberal feminist texts, this book was the most logically constructed and convincing. I'm sad that it is not more widely read.
October 27, 2023
finally sat down and fully read this book i was referencing in my thesis. vogel was incredibly ahead of her time and laid a foundation on which concepts like domestic labor and reproductive futurism theoretically build on. i appreciated the writing she did surrounding struggles of both marxist and feminist circles expanding upon their core identity issues, and found a lot of the book really foundational. her feminist reading of marxist texts is also superb. it’s not perfect, but it’s super important and a great exploration into capitalist reproduction.
July 2, 2023
Libro importante para entender el camino hasta sentar las bases de una teoría de la reproducción social. Sin embargo, los primeros capítulos de recorrido histórico y crítica a los anteriores textos sobre la cuestión de la mujer dentro del marxismo y el pensamiento socialista se hacen pesados de leer. En este sentido, recomiendo el trabajo posterior de Susan Ferguson “Feminismo, trabajo y reproducción social”, traducido por viento sur.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 7, 2025
Vogel has an impressive grasp on Marxist theory and is able to clearly illustrate how these concepts connect to social reproduction theory. I was impressed by the scope of the arguments considered. For a greater understanding of the arguments surrounding domestic labor from a Marxist perspective, Vogel is a strong place to start.
October 13, 2018
Essential reading for every Marxist. It does get fairly convoluted at times, but Vogel tends to revisit main points so my advice to anyone looking into reading this would be to just keep going because things will be clear by the end.
February 21, 2019
Marksist-feminist gelenek icinde su ana kadar okudugum en iyi kitap, en saglam teorik katki bu. Nasil bu zamana kadar karsima cikmadi, daha once okumadim sasiriyorum. Umarim Turkiyeli feministler de hakettigi ilgiyi gosterir bu kitaba.
March 13, 2024
On rereading, this book remains incredibly good.
I cover some of the stuff in it here: https://workersliberty.org/story/2022... though I'm not sure I necessarily agree with all of what I wrote, still. I did a presentation on this book which I can dig out the powerpoint from.
To check out:
McClintock 1995, pp. 114–18
Lenin's writing on Women's oppression and liberation sounds good.
Not functionalism. See footnotes: Murdock argued that the universal nuclear family incorporates the ‘four functions fundamental to human social life – the sexual, the economic, the reproductive, and the educational [i.e. that pertaining to socialization]’. (Murdock 1949, p. 10.) For critiques
of Mitchell’s functionalism, see also: Landes 1977–8; Middleton 1974. On the family in functionalist theory, see: Beechey 1978; Morgan 1975; Vogel 1978. Another footnote: O’Laughlin 1977, pp. 6–7; Rapp 1979, pp. 319, 321–2; Vogel 1978. For discussions of functionalism in socialist-feminist theory, see Barrett 1980, pp. 93–6, and Sayers 1982, p. 202.
Two positions on the national question footnote bit of Vogel: This terminology revises that used in Vogel 1979, which opposed the ‘family argument’to the ‘social production argument’. The term dual-systems perspective is adopted from Young 1980. I am grateful to Nancy Holmstrom for a discussion that clarified both the terminology and the analysis in this chapter. For an interesting parallel, see the discussion of two positions on the so-called national question in Blaut 1982.
Some notes from reading it:
Women's experiences are necessary to look at but need to go beyond it for theory. Otherwise its like economism, nationalism of the oppressed.
Against dual systems theory, instead feminist extension of Marxism.
Postmodernism gives up on this project.
Oppression rooted in ruling class's need for domestic labour.
Not functionalism: capitalism didn't fully create heterosexual nuclear family but… preexisting family forms defended by working class people keen on kinship, plus reinforced and modified by policy by capitalist states etc. Contradictory processes and struggle.
Domestic unit theoretically analysed with reference to capitalist accumulation. Other institutions, like schools important. Also migration.
McClintock 1995, pp. 114–18
Often reversion to dual systems theory, or to atheoretical descriptivism… It points to “structuralism”, which looks in terms of this or that structure, as the problem. This is positivism.
No easy conclusions following straightforwardly
Neither crude economic determinism, nor (crude) idealism, a focus solely on ideology
Marx a bit theoretically underdeveloped, and some historical assumptions are wrong. But there’s more power in there for a socialist feminist analysis, for analysis of women and women’s oppression than even Marx realised.
Marx talks of, and the history of capitalism involves, a struggle over the oppression of children as well as women.
Engels’ Origin limited in several ways. In part due to his overly importing ideas from his newly rediscovered “The German Ideology”.
Second international more dual systems theory. Babel critique is interesting. Flawed that way yet also talk of dependence and independence perhaps helps later? If seen as a class.
Long term grand vision combined with immediate political freedom. No link…
Zetkin. Ruling class: the right of bourgeois women to control their property after marriage. Complete the bourgeoisie revolution
Intellegencia and petty bourgeoise it's more precarious, women play an economic role, but it's not equal, less access to education etc. Demand equality: a call for capitalism to fulfil it's pledge in the economic arena. As earners rather than property owners. Gap between promise of equality and absence in daily life.
Working class women dual obligation. Work and home responsibility. Against further exploitation of women. Rights as wife and mother? What's that? More stuff?
Support more legal rights to open up more of a fight.
Zetkin had strengths, but also weaknesses: Ignoring peasantry. Not enough attention to empirical reality.
Need for a specific outreach to women.
When "later" zetkin how late? Is Vogel sharp enough on Stalinism?
Her analysis or characterisation of the Russian revolution is less good. Not awful but limited.
Lenin on the political autonomy of different factors, oppressions, etc. The importance of the struggle for democratic rights. 1) improves situation, 2) easier to identify enemy, 3) … not mentioned but movement building i guess? Problem is capitalism not laws, lay bare helps.
Lenin's writing sounds good.
Change pretty housekeeping into communal things. Good, both good. Though a specific context.
Dual systems theory Vs srt
Labour power in all societies
Reproduction of labour power: generational, daily. Also eg education
Not just family
Not functionalism. See footnotes
Discussion
Disability question…
Oppression of Ruling class women… and commonality…
Engels: bequething of property, patrilinial
Zetkin: Free and independent control over their own property, after marriage
Petty bourgeois
I cover some of the stuff in it here: https://workersliberty.org/story/2022... though I'm not sure I necessarily agree with all of what I wrote, still. I did a presentation on this book which I can dig out the powerpoint from.
To check out:
McClintock 1995, pp. 114–18
Lenin's writing on Women's oppression and liberation sounds good.
Not functionalism. See footnotes: Murdock argued that the universal nuclear family incorporates the ‘four functions fundamental to human social life – the sexual, the economic, the reproductive, and the educational [i.e. that pertaining to socialization]’. (Murdock 1949, p. 10.) For critiques
of Mitchell’s functionalism, see also: Landes 1977–8; Middleton 1974. On the family in functionalist theory, see: Beechey 1978; Morgan 1975; Vogel 1978. Another footnote: O’Laughlin 1977, pp. 6–7; Rapp 1979, pp. 319, 321–2; Vogel 1978. For discussions of functionalism in socialist-feminist theory, see Barrett 1980, pp. 93–6, and Sayers 1982, p. 202.
Two positions on the national question footnote bit of Vogel: This terminology revises that used in Vogel 1979, which opposed the ‘family argument’to the ‘social production argument’. The term dual-systems perspective is adopted from Young 1980. I am grateful to Nancy Holmstrom for a discussion that clarified both the terminology and the analysis in this chapter. For an interesting parallel, see the discussion of two positions on the so-called national question in Blaut 1982.
Some notes from reading it:
Women's experiences are necessary to look at but need to go beyond it for theory. Otherwise its like economism, nationalism of the oppressed.
Against dual systems theory, instead feminist extension of Marxism.
Postmodernism gives up on this project.
Oppression rooted in ruling class's need for domestic labour.
Not functionalism: capitalism didn't fully create heterosexual nuclear family but… preexisting family forms defended by working class people keen on kinship, plus reinforced and modified by policy by capitalist states etc. Contradictory processes and struggle.
Domestic unit theoretically analysed with reference to capitalist accumulation. Other institutions, like schools important. Also migration.
McClintock 1995, pp. 114–18
Often reversion to dual systems theory, or to atheoretical descriptivism… It points to “structuralism”, which looks in terms of this or that structure, as the problem. This is positivism.
No easy conclusions following straightforwardly
Neither crude economic determinism, nor (crude) idealism, a focus solely on ideology
Marx a bit theoretically underdeveloped, and some historical assumptions are wrong. But there’s more power in there for a socialist feminist analysis, for analysis of women and women’s oppression than even Marx realised.
Marx talks of, and the history of capitalism involves, a struggle over the oppression of children as well as women.
Engels’ Origin limited in several ways. In part due to his overly importing ideas from his newly rediscovered “The German Ideology”.
Second international more dual systems theory. Babel critique is interesting. Flawed that way yet also talk of dependence and independence perhaps helps later? If seen as a class.
Long term grand vision combined with immediate political freedom. No link…
Zetkin. Ruling class: the right of bourgeois women to control their property after marriage. Complete the bourgeoisie revolution
Intellegencia and petty bourgeoise it's more precarious, women play an economic role, but it's not equal, less access to education etc. Demand equality: a call for capitalism to fulfil it's pledge in the economic arena. As earners rather than property owners. Gap between promise of equality and absence in daily life.
Working class women dual obligation. Work and home responsibility. Against further exploitation of women. Rights as wife and mother? What's that? More stuff?
Support more legal rights to open up more of a fight.
Zetkin had strengths, but also weaknesses: Ignoring peasantry. Not enough attention to empirical reality.
Need for a specific outreach to women.
When "later" zetkin how late? Is Vogel sharp enough on Stalinism?
Her analysis or characterisation of the Russian revolution is less good. Not awful but limited.
Lenin on the political autonomy of different factors, oppressions, etc. The importance of the struggle for democratic rights. 1) improves situation, 2) easier to identify enemy, 3) … not mentioned but movement building i guess? Problem is capitalism not laws, lay bare helps.
Lenin's writing sounds good.
Change pretty housekeeping into communal things. Good, both good. Though a specific context.
Dual systems theory Vs srt
Labour power in all societies
Reproduction of labour power: generational, daily. Also eg education
Not just family
Not functionalism. See footnotes
Discussion
Disability question…
Oppression of Ruling class women… and commonality…
Engels: bequething of property, patrilinial
Zetkin: Free and independent control over their own property, after marriage
Petty bourgeois
June 5, 2022
Mixed feelings about this and I'd probably tend more towards a 3.5 than a 4 all things considered. I'd like to revisit this in the near-ish future though so I could make some proper criticisms/comments.
December 18, 2025
An interesting book but the majority of it is summary of others’ ideas. Novel arguments were shallow and repetitive. Worth the read if you’re interested in a concise summary of 20th century Marxist feminist discourse.
May 9, 2017
A long neglected classic
May 17, 2019
Compelling read, particularly part four.
February 15, 2024
ela é literalmente minha vó
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews