Pan y rosas: Pertenencia de género y antagonismo de clase en el capitalismo

by Andrea D'Atri

“¿Acaso el feminismo sólo puede proponernos una restringida emancipación, limitada a sectores minoritarios que gozan de algunos derechos democráticos, en determinados países, a expensas de la extensión de brutales agravios contra la inmensa mayoría de las mujeres a escala global? Si ésta es la perspectiva, profundizada en estos tiempos que nos toca vivir, ¿qué debería plantearse el feminismo, en tanto movimiento emancipador que denuncia la inequidad social, política y cultural de las mujeres bajo el dominio patriarcal? ¿Y qué tendría para decir el marxismo revolucionario? […] Esperamos que, en ese camino de la lucha de las masas femeninas por su emancipación y la crítica marxista enriquecida por los aportes de las corrientes feministas, surja un renovado feminismo socialista que aún espera ver la luz. […] Como lo dijimos en la primera edición de Pan y Rosas. Pertenencia de género y antagonismo de clase en el capitalismo, en este libro, muchos temas de interés fueron dejados de lado, otros merecerían una extensión y profundización mayor. No soy historiadora ni escritora profesional. Me guía el anhelo de colaborar, con este pequeño grano de arena, a la lucha de las mujeres por su emancipación. Mis expectativas estarán más que satisfechas si después de leer este trabajo, las autoras verdaderamente fundamentales del marxismo y el feminismo son releídas y sus elaboraciones son repensadas bajo el signo de estos tiempos, con el objetivo de combatir contra la opresión”.

Genres: Feminism, Nonfiction, Politics, History, Essays, Gender Studies, Gender

208 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2013

Reviews

[Feargal McGovern · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant intro to the marxist approach to feminism, with critics of various currents feminist currents (liberal, radical, idpol etc).

Its not going to blow your brains out like a lot of social reproduction theory stuff will - it is really written as kind of like an extended manifesto for the organisation 'bread and roses).
There are some great biographies of women revolutionaries that I think many communists will have not heard of.
That said, the real strength of the book was the last 3 chapters comparing and contrasting the different strands of feminism - recognizing their contributions to workers struggle, whilst also noting their short comings.

My only criticism is that given the book was written 15 years ago, some of the terminology is a bit dated. For example, she talks about 'difference feminism' which is now more commonly known as intersectionality and idpol.

Nonetheless, bloody good book. I wish I had read it 5 or 6 years ago when I first was confronted by idpol, liberal and radical feminism as a new militant. It would have made me much more confident in challenging ideas that are incredibly detrimental to building working class solidarity

[Jenia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great primer to socialist feminism for anyone looking for a brief historical overview. Dog eared several places where I'll look into it more later, which is what you hope for in an overview book like this. Wish there was more focus on countries outside the usual suspects (US, UK, France, Russia). The critique of Butler went over my head lol.

[ellen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ein guter Einstieg in den marxistischen Feminismus. Ich habe eine geschichtliche Übersicht der unterschiedlichen Strömungen erwartet und auch bekommen - und habe definitiv auch Dinge dazu gelernt. Es wird mit Sicherheit nicht das letzte Mal gewesen sein, dass ich dieses Buch in der Hand hatte.

[brisingr · Rating 3 out of 5]

this was a case of "it's exactly what the title says". recommended to anyone who wants an accessible read on class and feminism and the history of the two movements.

[Yumeko (blushes) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hiii it's been sooo long since I've finished a book. I started this one when I believed myself to be going through depression.
I'm happy with this book, probably because I was reminded that I enjoy reading when my brain could be convinced to read.

Like the bitch I am let me start with the main issue I remember having; a general lack of examples. A lot of this book is "this is what the people were thinking around this time" like ok bet?
I mean you can't just tell me that after the 1980s when neoliberal policies were enacted and democracy ka idea looked like consumerism, that all this was done with the help of "the Stalinist, social democratic, and bourgeois-nationalist political leader-ships, which diverted the processes of radicalization and betrayed the mass mobilizations, leading them to defeat. In the face of this imperialist attack on the masses and their conquests, the organizations created by the working class (from the social democratic and communist parties and unions to the bureaucratized workers’ states) acted as agents for implementing these measures that reconfigured the rule of capital."
Without giving me...proof yeah? the author does this alot.

I sincerely suspect that the author is likely not doing justice to alot of opinions mentioned, difference feminism for example.
Other than that, I would say I learned much. Here is the much that I learned:

Introduction

All women experience discrimination of various forms, however, their social class determines the extent and character of their oppression, which is defined as the social subjection of one class over another for reasons that could be sexual, cultural, or racial.

Unpaid domestic labour forms part of the capitalist's theft by not paying for the conditions of the reproduction of the labor force (stuff like food, clothing). When patriarchal culture is sustained, household chores and whatnot are continued to be considered the 'natural' jobs of women, making the 'theft' of the capitalist and it's burden on women invisible.

Grain Riots

Women have led many riots following the change of power from feudalism to the consolidation of the bourgeoisie in the 16th century. Such was the case for the french revolution as well, being started by poor Parisian women marching to Versailles.
However they were not guaranteed rights despite the banner of equality of all the french revolution is known for.
Around the 18th century, women mobilized for food shortages, and we began to see feminism as a political force.

Bourgois women and proletarian women

Women have worked since forever, but after the industrial revolution there was the specific category made of 'woman worker' as a subject of discussion in science politics and religion. A woman's labor was now political and there arose debates on if it was feminine to work for a wage (we still unfortunately are stuck in the same ideas).
Artisanal production opened up in the 18th 19th century and many women found themselves in the textile industry.

The woman's trade union was formed in 1874, but women had been doing much in way of protest long before the formation, like when in 1788 a group of hand weavers destroyed spinning machines.

Unfortunately women were mostly threats to male workers than allies, because they were given the same jobs for less wage (partly because of the use of machinery in industry that Marx talked about)

In the 1900s we saw many important strikes, and many emerging important figures like Mother Jones, Sojourner Truth (insane aura farmer), and basically every other woman involved in the Paris Commune, like Louise Michel, who was deported to a french colony. When she came back she held the black banner which became the symbol for the anarchists when she marched for the unemployed

Philanthropy and Revolution

When prol women fought for rights, they did it for everyone, when bourgois women did it was only for themselves. White bourgois women for example have argued before that a black man shouldn't have rights white women don't.
Bourgois women concerned their fights with civil rights, women's property, girls education, and other law reforming struggles. In the late 19th century was the word feminist first used, by Auclert in her newspaper.

Because of two currents in bourgois fem, we see a contradiction in the first fem movement. The currents were women's rights outside of the family (suffrage) and that inside the family (maternal rights).

Prol fem also had two currents, that of the reformist and of the revolutionary. The former consisted of utopian socialists and also reformists like Proudhon and Lasalle.

This is where we learn about Flora Tristan, the equivalent of the first revolutionary Marxist who was wayyyy too ahead of her fucking time.

Imperialism and Gender

There is an astounding amount of sexism in communist history, and communist women in the 18th century faced much of the brunt of it. However there were advancements, like August Bebel's Women and Socialism, where he believed that private property was linked to woman's oppression as a sexual being.
Clara Zetkin and other another socialist from Italy had the idea till 1889 that supporting legislation protecting motherhood would be used against working women by the working class to keep them out of production, so they opposed it, but they realized later on that this would not help their cause and eradicate initial inequality. This is how socialists began fighting for paid maternity leave, protection of women in certain branches of production (if it affects health), and prevention from working at night.

When the war started all the countries that were most active in war had women working in almost every mode of production to unprecedented scales. Women worked in extremely bad conditions which led to participation in riots.

Clara Zetkin appealed to socialist women and called for the Berne conference that was specifically anti war.

That said, when the war was over, feminist movements halted their works to prove respectability, with the Pankhurst family being in direct opposition to people like Zetkin and Rosa. The Pankhurst family cared for the right to vote and soon enough began working under government. Sylvia Pankhurst broke off with them, and even became the founding member of Britain's Communist Party.

Also, women were treated as placeholders for men when the war was over and were fired from jobs. This was when we see a lot of propaganda against emancipated women, which is how we got mother's day at all.

Women in the first socialist state

Too tired for this one sorry Kollontai it should be enough that I drew u and Zetkin.

From Vietnam to Paris

Second wave fem encouraged studying women's history and how gender is relevant to all of us, leading to entire fields on the subjects. Feminists questioned the ideology behind many sciences as well.

The 1970s perspective in the feminist movement was anti institutional. The most radical tendencies were shown by Marxist women who did not want the patriarchal system to be reproduced in their organizational efforts like there would be in leftist parties, guerilla armies, and organisations.
Whether by reformist or revolutionary means, every feminist agreed that the hierarchal differences between the sexes must be eliminated in order to reach equality. Difference feminism was gonna change allat.

Differences of women, differences between women

The second wave of feminism ended in the 1980s through neoliberal reforms. This was the time of Thatcher and Reagan. The working class was fragmented due to the imperial powers winning wars around the world, and mass movements were defensive. Here is when we had the idea of democracy as consumption at it's strongest, when imperialist powers were making use of what they had gained through conquest.

Feminism was now losing its revolutionary character in every capacity by becoming institutionalized. They were now only to reform some things trade union style within the system and would not dream of changing it.

The most important trends shaping the feminist movement was ngo ization, and incorporation of women into different levels of government and political regimes, which led to more fragmenting of the working class women and also assimilation into institutional ideas.

I personally don't think I got a proper understanding of what difference feminism is through this book at all. Wikipedia tells me something much more palatable, while the book says this: 'This new difference feminism would attempt to show that morphological sex differences are symbolically charged, with a hierarchical gaze that favors the male body to the detriment of the female body. From this perspective, every struggle for equality is an attempt at assimilation into an androcentric order that only considers that which concerns men to be valuable and respectable'

Difference feminists accuse equality feminists of wanting to assimilate in capitalism, which isn't even true equality it just lets a very small amount of women come under power, who have the access. Difference feminists themselves don't confront the capitalist system. The feminine values that are celebrated are specifically white middle class women values, so sooner critiques under the same trend were between races.

The analysis of women's oppression now included race and ethnicity alongside gender but elevated the importance of social class to that of class. This was multiculturalism, and it made the presence of capitalism invisible.

Postfeminism

After feminism was mostly institutionalized, we see the trend of postmodern takes. Judith Butler at the head of postfem believed that identity is made through repeated mutual exclusion enforced by institutions and discourses. She criticized the heterosexual assumptions feminism has by deconstructing the categories of sex, gender, and desire. The hetero homo binary can be dissolved in her apparent opinion by deconstruction, for which you would need to reveal the exclusionary ideas that are the basis of identity.
So she says that only parody can disrupt the categories of body, sex, gender, and sexuality.
When Butler says parody, she doesn't mean copying an original. The parodying is the entire expression of the fact that identity doesn't exist, the parody of the idea of an original identity.
According to the author, challenging gender norms is enough as a political practice. The critique of all this is obviously that that's not true, being weird doesn't get shit done, infact, just being weird will lead to assimilation and the creation of new niche markets because there is nothing more to do but to consume more consciously. Since she doesn't mention Capitalism, it is never really deconstructed.

Finally it's a bunch of talking about eliminating gender without actually doing anything about the reason we've organized our society based on gender.

...
Ok done, holy fuck have I taken my time with this book

[giovi · Rating 4 out of 5]

While one part of feminism individually and comfortably reclines on the couch, asking itself, "who am I?" and another part searches anxiously for the reference needed for a footnote that certifies its work as trustworthy, (...) out there the world is bursting with poverty: millions of infants, born as women, look out upon a model of society that reserves a cradle of thorns for them.

[julek]

niesamowicie nie interesuję się jakąkolwiek historią, jakimkolwiek okresem, jakąkolwiek postacią historyczną — zupełnie nie, i nie obchodzi mnie kto, gdzie, kiedy, i jak coś zrobił; więc jak najbardziej feministyczna historia była super wyborem na lekturę. nie mniej jednak, całkiem przyjemnie mi się to czytało, szczególnie rozdziały o rosji, i generalnie o historii feminizmu jako ruchu, w kontrze do rozdziałów o różnych aktywistach, bo mega mnie nie interesuje ich życiorys i nic nie wniósł do mojego życia

w ostatnim rozdziale przytoczona jest Butler, a ja utwierdziłem się w dwóch kwestiach: 1) jej teksty wydają się absolutnie fantastyczną lekturą, bardzo w moim guście, i nie mogę się ich doczekać; 2) zupełnie nie rozumiem języka w jakim pisze, więc pewnie zabije się 7 razy czytając, ale przynajmniej poznam tysiąc nowych słów, których nigdy nie użyję

[mila · Rating 4 out of 5]

“¿sexo contra sexo o clase contra clase?”

[bbbassel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nice introductory text to socialist feminism.

[Ted Richards · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was marvellous.

Regrettably, I'd never even heard of Andrea D'Atri until I saw this translation listed in a 'best of...' list last year. Nathaniel Flakin has translated her work from 2003 into English, including a contemporary preface and the 2020 international manifesto of D'Atri's organisation, Bread and Roses. The rest is all pretty much as it was written in 2003, as far as I understand things. It's startling, therefore, how well this work fits with contemporary sensibilities.

D'Atri is an unapologetic, fiercely intelligent Marxist feminist. My own political leanings have been softened and coddled in recent years, but this work immediately relit all of my 16 year old imaginings. D'Atri works chronologically, discussing the rich history of working uprisings across Northern Europe; the riots of Essex housewives in 179/10, the widespread French revolts of 1725, the tin miners of Cornwall in 1727, riots in 1766 across Britain and the 'Flour War' of 1774-5. She traces a wonderful history of nineteenth century agitation, highlighting heroes like Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Gurley-Flynn, and Louise Michel.

One of the most prominent heroines, Flora Tristán gets a fascinating mini-biography and it's impressive how much work must have gone into D'Atri translating original primary material into Spanish when she first composed this book. Classic figureheads of the twentieth century, like Zetkin, Pankhurst and Butler are also well accounted for and D'Atri's sweeping historical analysis never feels trite or potted. It's perfectly told and deeply insightful. And it's all in less than 240 pages.

This wouldn't be to say I fully agree with D'Atri's analysis. In places it becomes needlessly complicated with the kind of technical language Marxist theory never can seem to resist. There is also a deep rooted disdain for reform, which is entertaining to ride along with, but based more in ideology than evidence. Her analysis of the Soviet Union meanwhile, whilst never as misplaced, could generously be called Hobsbawm-ian. But these are minor issues, and on the whole D'Atri is simply one of the best thinkers I have ever read. In particular her final chapter is staggeringly pertinent to contemporary agitations.

It is brilliant. It reignited a lot of fond, old thinking and would be perfect for anyone wanting a divergent, compelling history of the modern, western world.

[Keegan · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Therefore, when a woman in her thirties, on an 'equal' footing with men, can 'exercise her right' to be an officer in a NATO joint task force bombing semi-colonial countries, or to die from AIDS, at the same age, in an African village, it is paradoxical, and even a bit cynical, to speak of advancement and progress for women in general. Shouldn't we be speaking about different kinds of women? Are the lives of businesswomen and women workers, women from imperialist countries and women from semi-colonies, white and Black women, immigrant and refugee women really all the same? To suppose that there is something that links the Queen of England with unemployed English women, or the President of Argentina with domestic servants, or international Latin pop stars and businesswomen with workers in Mexican maquilas, just because they are women, ultimately means succumbing to the biological reductionism of the dominant patriarchal ideology, which feminists have severely criticized. To speak of gender in this way, therefore, is to use an abstract category, devoid of meaning and powerless to affect the transformation we want to push forward."

"As in other historical processes, the great French Revolution, which united all classes and social sectors in the struggle against absolutism, began with a revolt led by the women of the poor neighborhoods of Paris."

"In France as well, there were men who joined the feminist struggle, such as Labenette, a member of the Cordeliers Club, who in 1791 founded the Journal of the Rights of Man. whose motto was: 'every time you attack them, I will defend them.' The newspaper included passages like this one: 'Women, who are more intelligent and knowledgeable than their husbands, instead of being cloistered in their homes, should devote themselves to the business of the community, and husbands should remain at home caring for children.'"

"Thus, as poor women were mobilizing against food shortages, feminism was emerging as a political and ideological phenomenon, demanding civil and political rights for women on an equal footing with men--independence from husbands' tutelage, access to education, the right to political participation, and so forth. And although the ideas advocated by the most liberal sectors of society were not shared by the majority of women workers, the patriarchal ideology of the ruling class had established a contradiction that has not been resolved to this day. Women from the working masses were considered primarily responsible for the daily nourishment of the family, pushing them to join--and often lead--protests for popular taxation and bread riots, mostly in France and England. The historically stereotyped role of nourishing mothers would create, without intending to, energetic opponents of the living conditions imposed by the capitalism system."

"One example of the early organization of women workers was in 1788, as the hand-spinners in Leicester, England, formed a clandestine sisterhood, which destroyed spinning machines as a form of protest. These women later affiliation to the Manchester Spinners Union, composed mostly of men. They joined together in a strike in 1818. The women were later expelled from the union because, according to documents from the time, some of them 'refused to abide by the rules.'"

"The guilds help workers in times of illness or unemployment, but she [Flora Tristan] warns: 'alleviating misery does not destroy it; mitigating the evil is not the same as eradicating it.'"

"Let us recall that until 1914, feminism still appeared to be an international movement that fought for the common demand of suffrage. The pacifism proclaimed by the various organizations of the feminist international disappeared at the very moment the world war broke out--a trial by fire for the movement. This was the moment when, in addition to suspending their demands, the feminists of the belligerent countries shattered their international alliances in favor of a national-feminism that called on women to serve the fatherland, thus imposing the discipline of the national bourgeoisies."

"Of course, while they were filling vacancies in factories and companies, these new women workers were the first to criticize the war, while the women of the bourgeoisie were subordinating the feminist movement, from head to toe, to the defense of the nation. The former provoked enormous disturbances with the theft of food from the shops or the countryside, illegal procurement on the black market, and other forms of sabotage. In some cases, they became the instigators of hunger riots, transforming their cities into scenes of a genuine civil war. In France, in 1917, women munitions workers and seamstresses made up the majority of the people on strike."

"Fascism was not just a Spanish phenomenon: it was the political expression of big monopoly capital, which in certain situations substitutes the bourgeois-democratic regime with dictatorial forms in order to guarantee its profits. Fascism considered that women's emancipation was a perverse, unpatriotic, anti-regime ideology."

"By January 1917, even the tsarist police were taking note of the desperate situation of Russian women, and a secret report warned that women were more open to revolution than the leaders of the party of the liberal bourgeoisie. Women workers posed a greater danger to tsarism than the democrats. They were 'the spark that could light the flame.'"

"Under the provisional government of Kerensky, which was formed as a result of the February revolution that overthrew the tsarist regime, Russian women gained the right to vote and to be elected--rights that the most advanced countries of the world, such as England and the USA, only granted in 1918 and 1920, respectively.
With the proletarian revolution in October 1917, Russian women won the right to divorce and abortion, the abolition of the husband's authority over the wife, equality between civil and common law marriage, etc.--before women in the capitalist countries did."

"The Bolshevik vision was rooted in a number of fundamental principles. The first was that the emancipation of women was a central task of the revolution and not some ad hoc question; the second was the women could only be emancipated through their incorporation into social production, and not through a legal recognition of the value of domestic work, which was underappreciated in capitalist society; and finally, that the abolition of domestic work was essential for women's incorporation into public life."

"The generation that had led the 1917 Revolution had an understanding of the problems of everyday life that was governed by the idea that 'the primary task, the one that is most acute and urgent, is to break the silence surrounding the problems relating to daily life.' The bureaucracy that took over the workers' state after Lenin's death held exactly the opposite view."

"The ban on abortion would be part of a broader campaign to discredit and erase the emancipatory ideals that had characterized the social policies of early years of the revolution. Trotsky would refer to the reinstatement of the ban on abortion as the 'philosophy of a priest endowed also with the powers of a gendarme.'"

"It is obvious that there is no continuity between the first jubilant decrees of the nascent workers' state in 1917--when laws were seen as something transitory and episodic, just like the state itself and the entire revolutionary society--and the solemn prescriptions of the order established by the bureaucracy for the advancement of the nation. Deportations, forced labor camps, thousands of tortured and imprisoned people, and thousands of executions were necessary. The revolution needed to be opposed with a counter-revolution."

"The bureaucracy that usurped the banner of the October Revolution eventually landed in the dustbin of history. In a process full of contradictions, it collapsed in the face of the corrosion caused by a deep economic crisis and mass mobilization at the end of the 1980s. Meanwhile, millions of human beings were born and grew up with the idea that the historical abomination of Stalinism was synonymous with socialism. The revolutionary banner was stained for more than half a century by the monstrous crimes of the Thermidorian bureaucracy."

[Gabrielle Bellemare · Rating 4 out of 5]

Agréablement surprise par la deuxième moitié du livre. J'avoue avoir eu de la difficulté à comprendre d'emblée où se dirigeait D'Atri, mais tout s'est remis dans l'ordre.

Un ouvrage ouvertement féministe marxiste (courant méconnu pour ma part) qui dose bien le militantisme et la rigueur scientifique. J'ai découvert dans ma lecture des points de vue et des critiques sur différents courants féministes formulés de façon originales et qui m'ont permis de continuer des réflexions déjà entamées.

Par contre, j'ai moins aimé les deux pans biographiques sur Flora Tristan et Alexandra Kollontai. Selon moi, ces deux passages créaient une distraction inutile du propos historique principal.

Aussi, j'ai trouvé que le vocabulaire était accessible pour mon niveau d'anglais (donc je l'image aussi accessible pour beaucoup de personnes).

[Nathaniel Flakin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Andrea D'Atri's introduction to socialist feminism is probably the most successful Trotskyist book of the last few decades. Several thousand comrades from different countries in Latin America and Europe found their way to Trotskyist militancy via the socialist feminist organization Bread and Roses. I translated this book to English back in 2020, and this is the first time I studied it as part of a reading group. I was expecting constant, painful self-doubt about my translation choices, but actually I think I did a pretty good job.

[LunaSanguine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nettes Buch, das aus marxistischer Perspektive und mit entsprechendem Fokus die Geschichte des Feminismus ausführt. Ich durfte daraus vieles lernen und viele mutige, aufrechte Vorkämpferinnen "kennenlernen".
Genervt hat mich ein wenig diese Art, alles, was nicht den eigenen Überzeugungen entspricht, "kleinbürgerlich" oder "utopitisch" zu nennen, aber das ist für mich an vielen marxistischen Schriften ein Problem.

[Maxi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bestes Buch zur feministischen Theorie!
Schreibe mir hier als Notiz mal ein par Sachen zum Buch rein.

Queere Befreiung statt Dekonstruktuion der Geschlechter:
Bewegungen haben im Kapitalismus nur die Perspektive ins System zu integriert zu werden
Heutige Geschlechter Normen und Sexuelle Identitäten sind im Kapitalismus entstanden, er braucht diese, gesellschaftliche und unterbezahlte Arbeit oft feminisiert. Konstruktion der Kernfamilie dient ebenso der Aufrechterhaltung des Kapitalismus
Buttler sagt es gibt kein biologisches Geschlecht, Geschlechter sind rein im Diskurs erzeugt, sie sind nicht natürlich sondern rein performativ
Buttler redet nicht über Produktion und Kapitalismus
„Der Aufruf alle binären Identitäten abzuschaffen, in einer Welt in der diese Differenzen grundlegendes Motiv für brutale Benachteiligung und Ungerechtigkeit sind wirkt letztlich mehr wie der selbstzufriedene Diskurs einer kleinen aufgeklärten progressiven Minderheit, als wie die Kritik einer machtvollen Bewegung die radikale Veränderungen erkämpft.
Queer Theorie bietet keine konkrete Strategie zur Befreiung an
Die meisten Menschen haben gar nicht die materielle Möglichkeit so zu performen wir sie wollen. Wir wollen das System nicht unterlaufen sondern stürzen. Die kapitsltischen Regierungen in die queere Menschen integriert werden sind Hauptverantwortliche für Krieg Krise Klimawandel etc.
Sichtbar machen, über Sprache die Welt verändern - eigentlich ganz nice aber eben nicht materialistisch wirksam
Wir brauchen eine queere Bewegung die die Arbeiter klasse als Subjekt anerkennt und revolutionär ist

[naty · Rating 5 out of 5]

Es un excelente libro para empezar a informarse y para acercarse por primera vez a un abordaje histórico del feminismo, no solo socialista, sino también con pequeños comentarios e introducciones a otras ramas y estudios. El uso de citas y la referencia bibliográfica completa y amplísima invitan definitivamente a seguir formándonos como feministas conocedoras de nuestra historia y de nuestras luchas. Disfruté muchísimo la lectura.

[Diego Esteban · Rating 4 out of 5]

Este libro es muy interesante en tanto que es un índice de la historia de los derechos de la mujer a la vez que una introducción al pensamiento de una serie de autoras relevantes en el feminismo marxista.

Quizá por ser un tema en el que estaba ligeramente familiarizado no me ha impactado tanto. Ahora bien, creo que en poco menos de 200 páginas consigue dar una visión bastante buena de conjunto. Y salgo con muchas ganas de meterme con Kollontai después de leer este libro :)

[Victoria Marañon Rodríguez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ideal para quienes se inician en el feminismo. Con una pluma amena pero contundente, la autora realiza un repaso del movimiento citando bibliografia para seguir incursionando en el tema, al igual que nos presenta a obreras revolucionarias como Flora Tristan, entre otras. El feminismo sin lucha de clases no sirve.

[Harriet Spivey · Rating 4 out of 5]

History of feminist socialist organising. Explored revolutions and social movements to look at where feminists organised against the bourgeoisie (eg France, Russia) and where feminism splintered into conformist and normative agendas promoting eg the rights of the individual. Loved the first half, end became quite dense.

[Don · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hate it when this happens... Wrote a few hundred words reviewing this book, hit 'post' and a screen comes up with a quote from Alice In Wonderland telling me that I'm not going to be taken where I wanted to go. My text appears to have vanished down a plughole.

Can't be bothered writing my review all again. Will just say that I found parts of this book - particularly the bits dealing with second wave and postmodern feminism very helpful.

[Charles FlowersTaker · Rating 5 out of 5]

La mejor introducción que pude haber tenido al feminismo socialista, es realmente rebelde, aunque la crítica a las otras corrientes de su movimiento [feminista] es algo suave a comparación de lo que tengo acostumbrado con otros libros marxistas.

[Sagavica · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amplio recorrido por la historia del feminismo, el papel de la mujer en la revolución y las divisiones del movimiento.

[James M · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good history of women and the socialist movement

[Lewis Isbell · Rating 4 out of 5]

But not for me

[Mélissa Dedieu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Très bon manifeste mais un peu répétitif et pas assez axée sur l'Amérique latine

[EspeciallySarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great primer on socialist feminism which I found especially helpful for the pre-20th century history.

[Katy · Rating 4 out of 5]

The section about Flora Tristán was particularly interesting.

[Saucequipique · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enfin finito, les termes ont été dits

[Niklas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book gives a great overview of the feminist labor movement from the beginning of class societies until today.

[Allie · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.25 stars

i thought this was very well researched and informative. very radical for its time (2003?)