What do you think?
Rate this book
Dangerous Liaisons: The Marriages and Divorces of Marxism and Feminism
An accessible introduction to the relationship between the workers’ movement and the women’s movement, this book investigates the questions Why does gender inequality exist? and How does it relate to capitalism? Historical examples range from the mid-19th century to the 1970s and include events, debates, and key personalities from China, Russia, the United States, France, Italy, Spain, and Britain. It shows time and again the controversial, often difficult relationship between feminism and Marxism. The theoretical questions discussed include the origins of women’s oppression, domestic labor, dual systems theory, performativity, and differentialism. Women’s oppression is a structural element of the division of labor and one of the direct factors through which capitalism not only reinforces its ideological domination but also organizes the exploitation and reproduction of labor. The integration of patriarchal relations and capitalism has led to their radical transformation—in the family, in terms of women’s place in production, in sexual relations, and with respect to sexual identity. Marxism needs to probe complex processes: ongoing transformations and crises, a global context creating an increasingly feminized workforce, and changing relations between men and women. The book maintains that it is a mistake to submerge gender into class or to believe that freedom from exploitation automatically brings about women’s liberation and the ending of sexual roles; it is equally wrong is to think the class question can be removed and gender made the main enemy.
150 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
About the author
Cinzia Arruzza
23 books156 followersCinzia Arruzza is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the New School for Social Research. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Rome Tor Vergata and subsequently studied at the universities of Fribourg (Switzerland), and Bonn (Germany), where she was the recipient of an Alexander von Humboldt postdoctoral fellowship. Her research interests include ancient metaphysics and political thought, Plato, Aristotle, Neoplatonism, feminist theory and Marxism. She is currently working on two projects: 1) a monograph on tyranny and the tyrant in Plato's Republic; 2) a research project on gender, capitalism, social reproduction, and Marx's critique of political economy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
November 15, 2014
Definitely a Eurocentric account of Marxism and feminism but still a must read! Great survey of the debate and events that have shaped the problematic relationship between various forms of feminism and Marxism. And very well written!
October 15, 2022
El libro es muy bueno. Da un montón de información y de revisiones teóricas que no dejan de ser conceptualmente correctas a la vez que mantiene una accesibilidad envidiable.
Un libro perfecto para un curso tipo feminismo 101. Por lo demás el capitulo final es muy interesante.
Un libro perfecto para un curso tipo feminismo 101. Por lo demás el capitulo final es muy interesante.
September 20, 2021
Το πρωτότυπο της Αρρούτσα είναι αρκετά ενδιαφέρον, και ίσως αποτελεί ένα πολύ καλό εισαγωγικό κείμενο στη σχέση Μαρξισμού-Φεμινισμού. Κάνει μια πολύ καλή παρουσίαση των διαφόρων συμφωνιών και διαφωνιών που έχουν προκύψει κατά την γέννεση και ανάπτυξη αυτών των δυο κινημάτων. Όμως αδυνατεί να (η επιλέγει να μην) προσφέρει απαντήσεις στο φλέγον ζήτημα. Επίσης στο κείμενο, παρά το ότι είναι προσεκτικά γραμμένο, είναι λίγο δύσκολο να ξεχωρίσεις τις σκέψεις τις ίδιας τις συγγραφέως από όλες τις θεωρητικούς τις οποίες παρουσιάζει. Ενώ το κομμάτι που η ίδια επιδιώκει μια σύνθεση, κάνει κάποια βήματα, αλλά μένουν μετέωρα, και χάνονται μέσα στον πλούτο τον αντιφάσεων τον οποίο καλείτε να συνθέσει.
Την ίδια στιγμή, δυστυχώς, η ελληνική έκδοση, αδικεί το έργο με κακές προσθήκες, όπως ένα κακογραμμένο επίμετρο στο οποίο ο επιμελητής αποφασίζει να διορθώσει τη συγγραφέα για τις επιλογές της ως προς τις φεμινίστριες που (δεν) παρουσίασε. Αλλά αυτό το κάνει σπασμωδικά, και με αντιφάσεις σε σχέσει με το κυρίως κείμενο.
Την ίδια στιγμή, δυστυχώς, η ελληνική έκδοση, αδικεί το έργο με κακές προσθήκες, όπως ένα κακογραμμένο επίμετρο στο οποίο ο επιμελητής αποφασίζει να διορθώσει τη συγγραφέα για τις επιλογές της ως προς τις φεμινίστριες που (δεν) παρουσίασε. Αλλά αυτό το κάνει σπασμωδικά, και με αντιφάσεις σε σχέσει με το κυρίως κείμενο.
May 23, 2019
Not "that" bad, but since it's a trotskist one, that spit shit over stalin while praising the USSR achivements during "his" time and that she give too many pages to the lib feminism in so giving it too much voice to a horrible ideology... not too good.
Also she takes the "marxist" line in the trotskist line, she kind of forget the collapse over the workers class ideology and critise all communism or worker organization for its decadence, but at the same time she "forgives" the same decadence in the feminist movements in their fights against abortion in their first years... in their complete individualism now... but she acknowlegde this with a stupid optimism that MAGICLY the feminist movement is gonna radicalice in some marxist ideology... so messy...
Too much liberalism, too little SLAVA STALIN (also many contradictions, lack of understanding of the material reality and lack of logical consecuencies of her thoughts)
Also she takes the "marxist" line in the trotskist line, she kind of forget the collapse over the workers class ideology and critise all communism or worker organization for its decadence, but at the same time she "forgives" the same decadence in the feminist movements in their fights against abortion in their first years... in their complete individualism now... but she acknowlegde this with a stupid optimism that MAGICLY the feminist movement is gonna radicalice in some marxist ideology... so messy...
Too much liberalism, too little SLAVA STALIN (also many contradictions, lack of understanding of the material reality and lack of logical consecuencies of her thoughts)
August 28, 2026
Cinzia Arruzza is an orthodox Trotskyist and a Marxist feminist. She believes the patriarchy in some form exists today and sexual oppression won’t be defeated with the defeat of capitalism. Even though I disagree with this, somebody with this political perspective could still write something useful. That isn’t really the case with this book.
My main qualm is that there is about one paragraph in this book explicitly dealing with the difference between Marxism proper and feminism. Arruzza mainly talks about the difference between Stalinism and feminism. Although she recognises Stalinism is the complete opposite to Marxism, it’s the main focus of the chapter on differences between Marxism and feminism which completely fudges the question.
This chapter was still useful in terms of looking at how terrible the Stalinist parties around the world were on the question of women’s oppression. For example- the communist party in France opposed birth control rights and called The Second Sex ‘disgusting trash’. It shows a complete break with real Marxism that wanted to smash women’s oppression and demonstrates how Stalinism was really about reinstating capitalism is Russia which required sexual oppression and a strong family unit. Feminists and feminist movements operating at the same time as the Stalinist communist parties were understandably repulsed and Marxism was seen as a dead end for understanding women’s oppression.
Again, this is useful but fails to actually look at the difference between real Marxism and feminism and in that way really downplays the difference.
The book explains different types of more radical/left wing feminism which is useful to know about. The problem is Arruzza’s analysis of these feminist movements is just confusing and not clarifying because she herself is trying to reconcile Marxism and feminism even though she keeps saying nobody has been able to do it so far.
All in all, the book just really fails to achieve what it sets out to do.
My main qualm is that there is about one paragraph in this book explicitly dealing with the difference between Marxism proper and feminism. Arruzza mainly talks about the difference between Stalinism and feminism. Although she recognises Stalinism is the complete opposite to Marxism, it’s the main focus of the chapter on differences between Marxism and feminism which completely fudges the question.
This chapter was still useful in terms of looking at how terrible the Stalinist parties around the world were on the question of women’s oppression. For example- the communist party in France opposed birth control rights and called The Second Sex ‘disgusting trash’. It shows a complete break with real Marxism that wanted to smash women’s oppression and demonstrates how Stalinism was really about reinstating capitalism is Russia which required sexual oppression and a strong family unit. Feminists and feminist movements operating at the same time as the Stalinist communist parties were understandably repulsed and Marxism was seen as a dead end for understanding women’s oppression.
Again, this is useful but fails to actually look at the difference between real Marxism and feminism and in that way really downplays the difference.
The book explains different types of more radical/left wing feminism which is useful to know about. The problem is Arruzza’s analysis of these feminist movements is just confusing and not clarifying because she herself is trying to reconcile Marxism and feminism even though she keeps saying nobody has been able to do it so far.
All in all, the book just really fails to achieve what it sets out to do.
November 7, 2022
A superb primer to marxism and feminism, I thought the book did a great job in outlining a history of the relationship between the women's movement and the workers' movement, which has been littered with successful and failed alliances, open hostility, affection and disaffection
The point is not whether class comes before gender or gender before class, the point is rather how gender and class intertwine in capitalist production and power relations to give rise to a complex reality, and it makes little sense and is not useful to attempt to reduce these to a single formula
The book also references well and has a useful and informative further reading section
Particular highlights of the book included:
A working woman in most cases lived in a contradictory situation during the turn of the 19th/20th century, she worked in the system of production, but doing so did not allow her to be economically independent from men, women were paid about half the rate for the same work and thus did not have the means to live on their own, thus leaving only two paths open: marriage or prostitution
The blindness to this reality, the fact that bourgeois women's activism was often motivated by a demand for emanicpation mainly on an individual level, made it difficult for the former to come together wih the women who were beginning to ogranise, with many difficulties, inside the workers' movement
Marxism interpretation of the family as, for the most part, a place where oppression was perpetuated and conservative, reactionary values, prejudices and superstitions were inculcated, and seen as an obstacle to a fuller, richer social life outside the walls of domesticity. This was counterposed to a positive alternative framework in which people would seek more authenti relations based on reciprocal respect and not on hierarchical and dependent economic interests
Highlighting the work of the Black feminist Frances Beal who wrote that as long as Black women experience a double or triple oppression as women, as Black people, and as workers, it is not possible to establish a hierarchy between the different strugges, putting one in front and relegating the others to secondary concerns
The privatisation of the sphere of reprodiction, which is encouraged and used by capitalism, giving enormous power to family ties and making the socialisation of these reproductive functions difficult to imagine and even more difficult to get accepted
The fact that all this work, when not being carried out inside the family home, can be produced and exchanged as commodities, demonstrates that nothing can justify defining the work that women carry out inside the home as being non-productive labour; the only reason for it to be considered in this way is that it is not paid - the unpaid or apparent "free" aspect of it covers up its real character
However I did think the author failed to represent the "wages for housework" movement accurately as rather than simply literally demanding wages for housework, this was the first step in getting recognition for housework that would culminate in its abolition as represented in the "wages against housework" follow-up
Highlighting Heidi Hartmann's point that capirtalism creates hierarchies within the labour force, but its laws of development cannot determine who will be destined to occupy the different ranks within this hierarchy; thus the suborination of women created by the patriarchal system, whose origins are pre-capitalist and thus its cause cannot be found within the capitalist mode of production, is used by capitalism for its own purposes
Highlighting queer theory in seeking to deconstruct gender, as socialism seeks to deconstruct class: neither aim to maintain or affirm gender and class identity - although in political praxis the problem of identity is rased for both - but rather to finally surpass gender, as with class divisions
The point is not whether class comes before gender or gender before class, the point is rather how gender and class intertwine in capitalist production and power relations to give rise to a complex reality, and it makes little sense and is not useful to attempt to reduce these to a single formula
The book also references well and has a useful and informative further reading section
Particular highlights of the book included:
A working woman in most cases lived in a contradictory situation during the turn of the 19th/20th century, she worked in the system of production, but doing so did not allow her to be economically independent from men, women were paid about half the rate for the same work and thus did not have the means to live on their own, thus leaving only two paths open: marriage or prostitution
The blindness to this reality, the fact that bourgeois women's activism was often motivated by a demand for emanicpation mainly on an individual level, made it difficult for the former to come together wih the women who were beginning to ogranise, with many difficulties, inside the workers' movement
Marxism interpretation of the family as, for the most part, a place where oppression was perpetuated and conservative, reactionary values, prejudices and superstitions were inculcated, and seen as an obstacle to a fuller, richer social life outside the walls of domesticity. This was counterposed to a positive alternative framework in which people would seek more authenti relations based on reciprocal respect and not on hierarchical and dependent economic interests
Highlighting the work of the Black feminist Frances Beal who wrote that as long as Black women experience a double or triple oppression as women, as Black people, and as workers, it is not possible to establish a hierarchy between the different strugges, putting one in front and relegating the others to secondary concerns
The privatisation of the sphere of reprodiction, which is encouraged and used by capitalism, giving enormous power to family ties and making the socialisation of these reproductive functions difficult to imagine and even more difficult to get accepted
The fact that all this work, when not being carried out inside the family home, can be produced and exchanged as commodities, demonstrates that nothing can justify defining the work that women carry out inside the home as being non-productive labour; the only reason for it to be considered in this way is that it is not paid - the unpaid or apparent "free" aspect of it covers up its real character
However I did think the author failed to represent the "wages for housework" movement accurately as rather than simply literally demanding wages for housework, this was the first step in getting recognition for housework that would culminate in its abolition as represented in the "wages against housework" follow-up
Highlighting Heidi Hartmann's point that capirtalism creates hierarchies within the labour force, but its laws of development cannot determine who will be destined to occupy the different ranks within this hierarchy; thus the suborination of women created by the patriarchal system, whose origins are pre-capitalist and thus its cause cannot be found within the capitalist mode of production, is used by capitalism for its own purposes
Highlighting queer theory in seeking to deconstruct gender, as socialism seeks to deconstruct class: neither aim to maintain or affirm gender and class identity - although in political praxis the problem of identity is rased for both - but rather to finally surpass gender, as with class divisions
June 2, 2023
Overall a nice primer on the interconnected movements for women's liberation and the worker's movement, i.e. Marxism, mostly in Europe. Asking the always pertinent questions of how best to unite the cause of women's liberation (and the overthrow of what is surely the most ancient form of domination and oppression) with struggles against imperialism, racism, and capitalism.
For me, it is really fascinating to read about Flora Tristan and Aleksandra Kollontai especially, and also the women of the Chinese Revolution and -- always waiting in the wings to disappoint -- the limits of the New Left movements of the 1960s. Play it again, Sam!
I'll wear my heart (and my microwaved goldfish brain) on my sleeve and betray my own ideological defensiveness with my most predictable critique of this book: the Trots! In Trotskyist fashion, it decontextualizes "bureaucratization" and "Thermidor" of the Stalin era from world historical forces, and traffics in the implication of the Stalin regime as a "new tsardom." Excluded are the counter-revolutionary forces and genuine paranoia strengthened by the rise of fascism, the stark economic realities of industrialization and preservation of a state beset by economic embargo, sabotage, attack by Western powers, and the threat - and later genocidal reality - of Nazi invasion. Instead, any regression from the revolutionary height of the 1920s is invariably about "guaranteeing the conservation and reproduction of a new bureaucratic caste... to guarantee what the regime needed - the combination of obedience and productivity" (63), or repression for repression's sake. Elements of social conservatism, chauvinism, and regression to traditional patriarchal structures indeed appeared emboldened in the Stalin period of industrialization and militarization in the Soviet Union, and many backward characteristics of this period - in particular the persecution of homosexuals as a "counter-revolutionary" caste -- must be critiqued and condemned. But, per usual, I must disagree with the flattening of a very complex set of contradictions and power dynamics at play in the process of abolishing fuedal society and raising the educational, medical, and living standards of the millions of Soviet citizens into the ultimately Western-edifying left-wing anti-Communist critique of "Josef hungry for power."
Anyway, sorry!
Chapter three on the mutually embedded nature of economic and sexual oppression was a great read. Also, I never considered polygamy guaranteeing men access to more labour power and "subsequently accumulating a bigger surplus" (86). Sometimes we make the mistake of assuming men are interested in but one, maybe two, forms of domination at a time -- but those boys can really multitask!
Overall, it's disheartening and enlightening to see the ways that socialist movements have abandoned the cause of women's liberation -- sometimes mistaking progressive social movements as distractions from class struggle -- or vice versa, in the case of gender essentialist bourgeois feminists pursuing liberation without class analysis. To run with the marriage theme of the book, I thought this was a relatively brief and well-written history of the union of two movements that, however rocky their intertwined history, need to make it work for everybody's sake. To quote (maybe paraphrase?) Samuel Johnson, "Remarriage is the triumph of hope over experience," -- so let's get back together!
For me, it is really fascinating to read about Flora Tristan and Aleksandra Kollontai especially, and also the women of the Chinese Revolution and -- always waiting in the wings to disappoint -- the limits of the New Left movements of the 1960s. Play it again, Sam!
I'll wear my heart (and my microwaved goldfish brain) on my sleeve and betray my own ideological defensiveness with my most predictable critique of this book: the Trots! In Trotskyist fashion, it decontextualizes "bureaucratization" and "Thermidor" of the Stalin era from world historical forces, and traffics in the implication of the Stalin regime as a "new tsardom." Excluded are the counter-revolutionary forces and genuine paranoia strengthened by the rise of fascism, the stark economic realities of industrialization and preservation of a state beset by economic embargo, sabotage, attack by Western powers, and the threat - and later genocidal reality - of Nazi invasion. Instead, any regression from the revolutionary height of the 1920s is invariably about "guaranteeing the conservation and reproduction of a new bureaucratic caste... to guarantee what the regime needed - the combination of obedience and productivity" (63), or repression for repression's sake. Elements of social conservatism, chauvinism, and regression to traditional patriarchal structures indeed appeared emboldened in the Stalin period of industrialization and militarization in the Soviet Union, and many backward characteristics of this period - in particular the persecution of homosexuals as a "counter-revolutionary" caste -- must be critiqued and condemned. But, per usual, I must disagree with the flattening of a very complex set of contradictions and power dynamics at play in the process of abolishing fuedal society and raising the educational, medical, and living standards of the millions of Soviet citizens into the ultimately Western-edifying left-wing anti-Communist critique of "Josef hungry for power."
Anyway, sorry!
Chapter three on the mutually embedded nature of economic and sexual oppression was a great read. Also, I never considered polygamy guaranteeing men access to more labour power and "subsequently accumulating a bigger surplus" (86). Sometimes we make the mistake of assuming men are interested in but one, maybe two, forms of domination at a time -- but those boys can really multitask!
Overall, it's disheartening and enlightening to see the ways that socialist movements have abandoned the cause of women's liberation -- sometimes mistaking progressive social movements as distractions from class struggle -- or vice versa, in the case of gender essentialist bourgeois feminists pursuing liberation without class analysis. To run with the marriage theme of the book, I thought this was a relatively brief and well-written history of the union of two movements that, however rocky their intertwined history, need to make it work for everybody's sake. To quote (maybe paraphrase?) Samuel Johnson, "Remarriage is the triumph of hope over experience," -- so let's get back together!
May 10, 2022
Cinzia Arruza
“Las sin parte, Matrimonios y divorcios entre Feminismo y Marxismo”
- Editorial Ermitaño -
- La considero una buena lectura para adentrarse mucho más y comprender los procesos de la revolución obrera y campesina y como esta se relaciona con la lucha de la emancipación de las mujeres.
- Sin embargo no congenio mucho con las ideas del feminismo radical, pero soy capaz de reconocer que existen puntos de encuentro entre el femrad y el fem marxista, por esto mismo me gusta como el libro retrata ambas realidades y como están congenian en ciertos puntos y en cómo tienen otros completamente distintos. El capítulo que más me gustó o que le sirvió para entender y pensar otras ideas fue “el género como clase” que me ayudó a comprender de mejor forma como se percibe el excedente de las mujeres y como este excedente dentro de las paredes del hogar pasa desapercibido pero sin embargo es remunerado en otros ambientes.
- El último capítulo creo que fue el que más me interesó que fue “ Cap 4: ¿Una unión Queer entre marxismo y feminismo?” Porque te habré otras puertas que quizás no siempre consideramxs en general, que son las perspectivas de las disidencias sexuales en el feminismo y marxismo y cómo estás aportan mucho más al desarrollo de la lucha de clases con sus distintas perspectivas de vida y su propia lucha por la vida y el reconocimiento.
“Las sin parte, Matrimonios y divorcios entre Feminismo y Marxismo”
- Editorial Ermitaño -
- La considero una buena lectura para adentrarse mucho más y comprender los procesos de la revolución obrera y campesina y como esta se relaciona con la lucha de la emancipación de las mujeres.
- Sin embargo no congenio mucho con las ideas del feminismo radical, pero soy capaz de reconocer que existen puntos de encuentro entre el femrad y el fem marxista, por esto mismo me gusta como el libro retrata ambas realidades y como están congenian en ciertos puntos y en cómo tienen otros completamente distintos. El capítulo que más me gustó o que le sirvió para entender y pensar otras ideas fue “el género como clase” que me ayudó a comprender de mejor forma como se percibe el excedente de las mujeres y como este excedente dentro de las paredes del hogar pasa desapercibido pero sin embargo es remunerado en otros ambientes.
- El último capítulo creo que fue el que más me interesó que fue “ Cap 4: ¿Una unión Queer entre marxismo y feminismo?” Porque te habré otras puertas que quizás no siempre consideramxs en general, que son las perspectivas de las disidencias sexuales en el feminismo y marxismo y cómo estás aportan mucho más al desarrollo de la lucha de clases con sus distintas perspectivas de vida y su propia lucha por la vida y el reconocimiento.
July 3, 2025
This book provides a focused exploration of the historical and theoretical development of feminism. Its primary strength lies in its examination of the fraught relationship between Marxism and feminism. Arruzza highlights the traditional shortcomings of Marxism—namely, its tendency to overlook the division of labor along gender lines and the crucial role of social reproduction within capitalism.
Arruzza’s critique of certain feminist tendencies is particularly incisive. This is no mere 'Democratic Party-style' admonishment. Her argument is that by prioritizing a supra-class sisterhood or essentialist notions of womanhood, such feminism not only forecloses the possibility of a wider class-based alliance but also risks becoming inherently reactionary, thus undermining its own liberatory potential. In these politically reactionary feminisms, one can already see the seeds of today's culture wars.
My primary criticism, however, is that the book's very paradigm of treating Marxism and feminism as parallel issues ends up flattening the class problem into just another identity category. This move obscures its function as a concrete universal in the Hegelian sense.
Arruzza’s critique of certain feminist tendencies is particularly incisive. This is no mere 'Democratic Party-style' admonishment. Her argument is that by prioritizing a supra-class sisterhood or essentialist notions of womanhood, such feminism not only forecloses the possibility of a wider class-based alliance but also risks becoming inherently reactionary, thus undermining its own liberatory potential. In these politically reactionary feminisms, one can already see the seeds of today's culture wars.
My primary criticism, however, is that the book's very paradigm of treating Marxism and feminism as parallel issues ends up flattening the class problem into just another identity category. This move obscures its function as a concrete universal in the Hegelian sense.
July 17, 2026
Tiene grandes gemas y me parece una lectura importante para feministas marxistas, aunque es cierto que es una trotskada de manual y que si llego a leer una sola vez más que los retrocesos en los derechos de mujeres y minorías sexuales en la URSS de los 30 a los 50 se deben a la """burocratización""", como sustituto de un análisis materialista riguroso -que sí hace, pese a su brevedad, para otros conflictos históricos- le bajo dos estrellas y me tiro por la ventana.
La ruptura del movimiento feminista respecto al movimiento obrero y otros movimientos sociales desde los años setenta se ha dado de forma paralela a su ruptura con la crítica de las relaciones de producción a favor del énfasis en las relaciones de dominio y de poder. Se da, de esta manera, un desplazamiento de las relaciones materiales hacia el plano del discurso y del lenguaje como lugar de configuración de la jerarquía entre los sexos. Ello, junto con la explicación de las desigualdades entre hombres y mujeres como consecuencia de las diferencias biológicas entre unos y otras, desemboca en una deshistorización del patriarcado y su comprensión como algo estático e invariable. .
May 12, 2021
Bueno, ciertas reflexiones y críticas al feminismo radical, fem.de la diferencia y al concepto de la mujer como clase sexual/social en contraposición a la clase obrera (como si esta solo fueran los hombres trabajadores) son interesantes y las comparto, especialmente la crítica al salario doméstico que demandaban ciertos sectores feministas hace unas décadas.
Pero hay que tener en cuenta que algunas críticas nacen de su propia postura contradictoria hacia la prostitución y pornografía, ya que acusa a las feministas radicales de "conservadoras" por su campaña contra el porno.
Desgraciadamente en la actualidad no existen feministas marxistas capaces de conjugar el marxismo con los análisis feministas más actuales, como la prostitución, el porno, los vientres de alquiler y el género, sino que hay ciertas autodenominadas "feministas marxistas" incapaces de comprender análisis tan certeros como los de Kollontái, y que defienden posturas reaccionarias como el "trabajo sexual".
Necesitamos una Kollontái del s.XXI.
Pero hay que tener en cuenta que algunas críticas nacen de su propia postura contradictoria hacia la prostitución y pornografía, ya que acusa a las feministas radicales de "conservadoras" por su campaña contra el porno.
Desgraciadamente en la actualidad no existen feministas marxistas capaces de conjugar el marxismo con los análisis feministas más actuales, como la prostitución, el porno, los vientres de alquiler y el género, sino que hay ciertas autodenominadas "feministas marxistas" incapaces de comprender análisis tan certeros como los de Kollontái, y que defienden posturas reaccionarias como el "trabajo sexual".
Necesitamos una Kollontái del s.XXI.
March 27, 2022
Comecei a ler Ligações Perigosas por causa de um ciclo de leituras e estudos que participo e preciso dizer que não estava esperando por tamanha complexidade escrita de uma maneira fluida e com tanta base histórica.
Cinzia Arruzza começa o livro falando sobre o casamento entre o marxismo e o feminismo. Nos traz pessoas importantes para debates do direito da mulher na classe trabalhadora e também nos lembra que, certos debates que temos hoje e achamos normais, até mesmo banais, se iniciava muito antes do que possamos imaginar.
A segunda parte do livro ela aborda como as questões que eram bem debatidas e defendidas perdem força e como o feminismo se afasta do marxismo.
Na terceira parte vemos a junção, mas também a diferença de várias vertentes do feminismo e como elas se identificam e depois se divergem. Por último a teoria queer, o feminismo e o marxismo para fecharmos com chave de ouro.
Um livro muito complexo, muito bem escrito e fluido que nos proporciona um cenário histórico, ao mesmo tempo em que aluga um triplex em nossa mente.
Cinzia Arruzza começa o livro falando sobre o casamento entre o marxismo e o feminismo. Nos traz pessoas importantes para debates do direito da mulher na classe trabalhadora e também nos lembra que, certos debates que temos hoje e achamos normais, até mesmo banais, se iniciava muito antes do que possamos imaginar.
A segunda parte do livro ela aborda como as questões que eram bem debatidas e defendidas perdem força e como o feminismo se afasta do marxismo.
Na terceira parte vemos a junção, mas também a diferença de várias vertentes do feminismo e como elas se identificam e depois se divergem. Por último a teoria queer, o feminismo e o marxismo para fecharmos com chave de ouro.
Um livro muito complexo, muito bem escrito e fluido que nos proporciona um cenário histórico, ao mesmo tempo em que aluga um triplex em nossa mente.
March 28, 2024
Muy buen repaso histórico de las confluencias y desencuentros entre las experiencias marxistas y las feministas, con su genealogía de las distintas corrientes feministas y sus distintas formas de entender las relaciones entre género y clase social.
Para los comunistas, un cubo de agua fría el repaso a las diversas cagadas que se han hecho respecto a la liberación de la mujer. Importante para entender el rechazo que algunos sectores del feminismo sienten hacia el marxismo.
Para los comunistas, un cubo de agua fría el repaso a las diversas cagadas que se han hecho respecto a la liberación de la mujer. Importante para entender el rechazo que algunos sectores del feminismo sienten hacia el marxismo.
June 16, 2023
3.5/5
En la primera parte la autora hace una cronología histórica y en la segunda entra ya más a la teoría, todo de una manera accesible y bastante bien explicada. Se me han quedado algo cortas las conclusiones, ya que cae un poco en el discurso de la interseccionalidad sin problematizar este último o remarcar algunas de las críticas que ha recibido.
En la primera parte la autora hace una cronología histórica y en la segunda entra ya más a la teoría, todo de una manera accesible y bastante bien explicada. Se me han quedado algo cortas las conclusiones, ya que cae un poco en el discurso de la interseccionalidad sin problematizar este último o remarcar algunas de las críticas que ha recibido.
May 6, 2020
Si queréis saber sobre la historia del feminismo y los lazos y desvinculaciones que ha tenido con la lucha obrera os recomiendo este libro.
Abarca temas como sistema económico, clase, género, identidad, estructura familiar, división sexual del trabajo...
Abarca temas como sistema económico, clase, género, identidad, estructura familiar, división sexual del trabajo...
Read
March 12, 2025Muy bien muy chulo muy corto mucha explicación en dos paginas de libros y corrientes enteras que lo hacen más una herramienta de introducción a leer más profundamente otras cosas. Igualmente, gravemente recomendado.
February 5, 2019
Eurocentric, interesting nonetheless
February 21, 2021
It was ok. It repeated itself a lot but otherwise it had excellent historic information. It's not as one sided as i thought it was gonna be and i appreciated that.
September 16, 2021
Llibre essencial feminista des d'una perspectiva marxista. M'esperava més sobre el capítol de gènere, classe i teoria queer. M'esperava una opinió més personal i no tant objectiva.
March 16, 2022
⭐️ 3,5
the whole ideia in general is very good - i agree with the author but it's a little too much eurocentric and brings some contrary ideas that made me zzz
the whole ideia in general is very good - i agree with the author but it's a little too much eurocentric and brings some contrary ideas that made me zzz
April 10, 2022
Muy buena exposición de Arruzza sobre los conflictos entre marxismo y feminismo. No vi "matrimonios" realmente entre ambos movimientos, pero sí me fue útil el resumen histórico.
Read
December 22, 2022usefully put, especially starting at page 108
July 22, 2023
De los mejores ensayos que he leído en mi vida
April 8, 2024
Un libro fundamental para entender la historia del feminismo y del movimiento obrero en los últimos dos siglos, y un papirotazo en la cara de quienes dicen que el feminismo divide a la clase obrera.
October 13, 2024
Interesantísimo para ter unha panorámica da historia do feminismo e dos desencontros entre feminismo e marxismo
May 3, 2026
me costó entender creo que por eso no es un 5
December 7, 2013
This book should really be divided into two parts, as the blurb suggests – the first two chapters provide a concise history of various workers' struggles (and revolutions) and their relationships to women's movements; the latter two (which are much shorter) provide an equally concise overview of various schools of feminist theory and Arruzza's opinions on the merits of each. I was mostly in agreement with those opinions – I found her takedown of Luce bloody Irigaray's "difference theory" particularly satisfying – and so I would certainly recommend this.
I did have a couple of points of scepticism, mostly in that Arruzza seems to feel that "patriarchal structures" or "male structures" have a more solid existence than I would argue. It's hard to say this for sure because given the nature of the book, she tended to describe trains of thought that weren't her own and wasn't always that hard on them, so perhaps this exaggerated the impression I got. Nonetheless… I felt she gave too much credence to the idea that there are these parallel structures of capitalism and patriarchy, when "patriarchy" is really more of an ideology that justifies the oppression of women that's been going on since the rise of class society. "Patriarchy" in that sense is not a structure in and of itself, but an ideology borne of structures that is used to reinforce those (and other) structures. They're not "dual systems" but different things – different types of thing – that interact with one another.
One thing that Arruzza said again and again was that she didn't feel it was "useful" to argue for a hierarchy of oppressions, although class is not an oppression. I still agree that trying to subsume class into gender or gender into class is undesirable and unhelpful, but there were these kinds of theoretical statements I disagreed with, I guess.
Even so… this was an excellent overview of history and theory surrounding the question of how these two movements intersect, regardless of how Arruzza's theory ever so subtly differed from my own. It's very readable, concise and well-structured too, so no impenetrable academic language to struggle through and give you a headache. I knocked it off in an afternoon! Good stuff.
I did have a couple of points of scepticism, mostly in that Arruzza seems to feel that "patriarchal structures" or "male structures" have a more solid existence than I would argue. It's hard to say this for sure because given the nature of the book, she tended to describe trains of thought that weren't her own and wasn't always that hard on them, so perhaps this exaggerated the impression I got. Nonetheless… I felt she gave too much credence to the idea that there are these parallel structures of capitalism and patriarchy, when "patriarchy" is really more of an ideology that justifies the oppression of women that's been going on since the rise of class society. "Patriarchy" in that sense is not a structure in and of itself, but an ideology borne of structures that is used to reinforce those (and other) structures. They're not "dual systems" but different things – different types of thing – that interact with one another.
One thing that Arruzza said again and again was that she didn't feel it was "useful" to argue for a hierarchy of oppressions, although class is not an oppression. I still agree that trying to subsume class into gender or gender into class is undesirable and unhelpful, but there were these kinds of theoretical statements I disagreed with, I guess.
Even so… this was an excellent overview of history and theory surrounding the question of how these two movements intersect, regardless of how Arruzza's theory ever so subtly differed from my own. It's very readable, concise and well-structured too, so no impenetrable academic language to struggle through and give you a headache. I knocked it off in an afternoon! Good stuff.
November 16, 2023
Segunda-tercera lectura.
Breve libro sobre la relación histórica que han tenido el feminismo y el marxismo. El libro consta de dos partes: una histórica y otra más teórica-filosófica.
En la primera parte se hace un bosquejo detallado que transita desde el siglo XIX hasta finales de los 90 en el siglo XX. Sorprende que Arruzza sea capaz de escribir 90 páginas de historia del feminismo y del movimiento obrero sin mencionar ni una sola referencia bibliográfica que sustente lo que dice.
La segunda parte, más interesante, revisa desde el punto de vista teórico-filosófico la relación histórica entre género y clase y comenta algunas de las teorías elaboradas por diferentes autoras, reconociendo Arruzza que es «un problema irresuelto».
Vaya por delante que no es el peor libro que uno puede leer sobre el asunto pero la autora parte de premisas que son falsas, como por ejemplo el hecho de que el marxismo necesite «ser completado» por el feminismo.
El marxismo, como método científico de análisis de la realidad, no necesita de nada que lo complete puesto que es en sí mismo una cosmovisión, -una manera concreta de ver e interpretar el mundo-. Tal «matrimonio mal avenido» entre marxismo y feminismo es precisamente un matrimonio mal avenido porque el marxismo nunca ha necesitado apoyarse en teorías parciales -en muchas ocasiones muy influidas por la ideología burguesa- para construir línea política por mucho que les escueza a mujeres comunistas que no quieren abandonar el feminismo.
Lo que se necesitan son mujeres marxistas, comprometidas con la causa de la clase obrera y que luchen por la emancipación suya, de sus compañeros varones heteros o gays, de sus compañeras lesbianas o trans, elaborando análisis teóricos de la realidad y de las distintas cuestiones que surgen desde el propio marxismo y desde la óptica de la lucha de clases, pues no hay nada que escape a ella. No necesitamos psicoanálisis ni deconstrucción, necesitamos poder obrero femenino, gay, lésbico, bisexual, trans, masculino.
En resumen: interesante para conocer distintos puntos de vista de la cuestión, estéril en el intento de aportar el punto de vista de la autora (que parece no quiere mojarse en el debate).
Breve libro sobre la relación histórica que han tenido el feminismo y el marxismo. El libro consta de dos partes: una histórica y otra más teórica-filosófica.
En la primera parte se hace un bosquejo detallado que transita desde el siglo XIX hasta finales de los 90 en el siglo XX. Sorprende que Arruzza sea capaz de escribir 90 páginas de historia del feminismo y del movimiento obrero sin mencionar ni una sola referencia bibliográfica que sustente lo que dice.
La segunda parte, más interesante, revisa desde el punto de vista teórico-filosófico la relación histórica entre género y clase y comenta algunas de las teorías elaboradas por diferentes autoras, reconociendo Arruzza que es «un problema irresuelto».
Vaya por delante que no es el peor libro que uno puede leer sobre el asunto pero la autora parte de premisas que son falsas, como por ejemplo el hecho de que el marxismo necesite «ser completado» por el feminismo.
El marxismo, como método científico de análisis de la realidad, no necesita de nada que lo complete puesto que es en sí mismo una cosmovisión, -una manera concreta de ver e interpretar el mundo-. Tal «matrimonio mal avenido» entre marxismo y feminismo es precisamente un matrimonio mal avenido porque el marxismo nunca ha necesitado apoyarse en teorías parciales -en muchas ocasiones muy influidas por la ideología burguesa- para construir línea política por mucho que les escueza a mujeres comunistas que no quieren abandonar el feminismo.
Lo que se necesitan son mujeres marxistas, comprometidas con la causa de la clase obrera y que luchen por la emancipación suya, de sus compañeros varones heteros o gays, de sus compañeras lesbianas o trans, elaborando análisis teóricos de la realidad y de las distintas cuestiones que surgen desde el propio marxismo y desde la óptica de la lucha de clases, pues no hay nada que escape a ella. No necesitamos psicoanálisis ni deconstrucción, necesitamos poder obrero femenino, gay, lésbico, bisexual, trans, masculino.
En resumen: interesante para conocer distintos puntos de vista de la cuestión, estéril en el intento de aportar el punto de vista de la autora (que parece no quiere mojarse en el debate).
March 21, 2021
A pretty good overview of the relationship between Marxist and feminist movements. Her two chapters on the history of the movements is enlightening and she's especially stinging in her discussion of Stalinism, which I thought was theoretically solid and historically insightful.
The subsequent conceptual chapters provide much more of an assessment of feminist theories than an explanation of Marxism: Arruzza's Marxism is only disclosed through her critiques of feminists. These critiques tend imo toward accommodation and softness (eg on the psychoanalytic influences, which seem to me quite incorrigibly idealist), though she does an impressive job of condensing a range of theorists' key ideas (and her own key critiques) in a short and relatively accessible book. That said, from the standpoint of 2021 there are some major omissions. The traditions of anticolonial and Black feminism are almost totally absent, and when intersectionality - now the dominant mode of feminist theory - makes an appearance, Arruzza spends almost no time explaining or criticising it.
In fact, her conclusion seems to totally incorporate intersectionality: she argues effectively for a flattening of gender and class politics. Arruzza rejects the primary role of the working class (typically understood due to its economic strength, concentrated population, collective life) in creating socialism. This is not so much a 'renewal' of Marxism as a renovation of it, and for me it's not especially convincing.
The subsequent conceptual chapters provide much more of an assessment of feminist theories than an explanation of Marxism: Arruzza's Marxism is only disclosed through her critiques of feminists. These critiques tend imo toward accommodation and softness (eg on the psychoanalytic influences, which seem to me quite incorrigibly idealist), though she does an impressive job of condensing a range of theorists' key ideas (and her own key critiques) in a short and relatively accessible book. That said, from the standpoint of 2021 there are some major omissions. The traditions of anticolonial and Black feminism are almost totally absent, and when intersectionality - now the dominant mode of feminist theory - makes an appearance, Arruzza spends almost no time explaining or criticising it.
In fact, her conclusion seems to totally incorporate intersectionality: she argues effectively for a flattening of gender and class politics. Arruzza rejects the primary role of the working class (typically understood due to its economic strength, concentrated population, collective life) in creating socialism. This is not so much a 'renewal' of Marxism as a renovation of it, and for me it's not especially convincing.
August 8, 2019
Todavía no entiendo cómo se puede estar tan en desacuerdo con una persona en algunas cosas y tan de acuerdo en otras. Creo que difiero con la autora en más cosas de las que compartimos (de lo tratado en el libro), pero me ha resultado interesante leer otros puntos de vista. (Aunque no soporto ciertas cosas que ya tenía muy vistas, he aprendido que es raro no encontrárselas en textos recientes)
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews