What do you think?
Rate this book
Kadınlar ve Sosyalizm
Amerikalı sosyalist yazar Sharon Smith, Kadınlar ve Sosyalizm kitabında kadın sorununun sınıf, ideoloji ve dinle ilişkisini sade ve akıcı bir dille ele alıyor. Kürtaj hakkı, kadın ve erkeklere eşit ücret, ev içinde iş bölümü gibi kadın hareketlerinin ilk filizlendiği dönemlerden bu yana kadın hareketinin temel gündemini oluşturan konuları Marksist bir yaklaşımla inceliyor. Yanı sıra, kürtaj, türban, din ve kadın gibi konulara da eğiliyor. Kadın hareketinin gündemleri kadar kendisini de eleştirel bir şekilde ele alan yazar, feminizmin 1960’lardan itibaren nasıl sağa kaymaya başladığını, hem kuramsal üretimlerinden hem de kadın haklarıyla ilgili konularda sergiledikleri tutumlarından yola çıkarak ortaya koyuyor. ABD’nin kadın hakları konusundaki kirli siciline geniş bir yer ayıran kitap, bu kirli sicilin izlerini yalnızca ülke sınırlarında değil, demokrasi götürmek bahanesiyle işgal ettiği topraklarda da sürüyor. Yanı sıra, kürtaj, türban, İslamiyet ve kadın gibi konulara da eğiliyor. Kadınlar ve Sosyalizm, kadınların kurtuluşunun sosyalizmde olduğunu tarihsel bir yaklaşımla ve güncel olgulardan yola çıkarak savunuyor.
192 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2005
13 people are currently reading
648 people want to read
About the author
Sharon Smith
92 books16 followersSharon Smith is an American socialist writer and activist. She is the author of Subterranean Fire: A History of Working-Class Radicalism in the United States and Women and Socialism: Essays on Women's Liberation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
October 28, 2017
Despite the fact that nowadays nearly 99 per cent of dudes on OK Cupid are selfstylized 'intersectional feminists' (give me a f break, guys!), it is still critical to actually understand the tricky relationship between sex, race and class in late capitalism (way beyond secondary front debates). If you remove these linkages you end up precisely with the conceptually bankrupt white middle class/ UN/ Hillary Clinton notion of 'women's empowerment' and a shallow, repetitive critique of 'gender norms' that have become the mainstream understanding of quote unquote feminism and identity politics more broadly. Ew.
The book 'Women and Socialism' (2015) is kind of a follow-up read to an exhibition I saw earlier this year on Black Radical Women 1965-1985 at the Brooklyn Museum (exhibition closed in September) which made me acutely aware of how little I know about black feminism which has so much to offer to understand the multiple forms of exploitation and oppression, including in the contexts of global trade and imperialism (the kind of stuff Clinton supporting women reliably fail to grasp).
The book covers both the theory of women's oppression and the history and politics of women's liberation movements. It focuses primarily on the various contributions from and tendencies within socialist and Marxist feminists and advances a Marxist analysis of women's oppression to counter liberal feminist organizations' continued move to the right.
It's kind of a 'radical feminism primer' which is great because it's very accessible but of course it doesn't allow for too much depth (but includes useful cues for further reading).
Only puzzling part: the chapters are organized somewhat chronologically, starting with the early 19th century women's movement, pre and inter-war movements, 2nd wave, 3rd wave/ postmodern/neoliberal stuff and the (hopeful) re-discovering of class and 'red feminism' post Global Financial Crisis aka now to then add a chapter on gender and national oppression in revolutionarty Russia - I mean, nothing wrong, I could read stuff on revolutionary Russia all day, every day but this really upset the book's conceptional harmony. Or maybe I am just a stickler. Or both. Then again, ends with a Kollontai quote on love between comrades in the socialist society:
"The striving to express love not only in kisses and embraces, but in togetherness in action, in unity of will, in joint creation, will grow.
The book 'Women and Socialism' (2015) is kind of a follow-up read to an exhibition I saw earlier this year on Black Radical Women 1965-1985 at the Brooklyn Museum (exhibition closed in September) which made me acutely aware of how little I know about black feminism which has so much to offer to understand the multiple forms of exploitation and oppression, including in the contexts of global trade and imperialism (the kind of stuff Clinton supporting women reliably fail to grasp).
The book covers both the theory of women's oppression and the history and politics of women's liberation movements. It focuses primarily on the various contributions from and tendencies within socialist and Marxist feminists and advances a Marxist analysis of women's oppression to counter liberal feminist organizations' continued move to the right.
It's kind of a 'radical feminism primer' which is great because it's very accessible but of course it doesn't allow for too much depth (but includes useful cues for further reading).
Only puzzling part: the chapters are organized somewhat chronologically, starting with the early 19th century women's movement, pre and inter-war movements, 2nd wave, 3rd wave/ postmodern/neoliberal stuff and the (hopeful) re-discovering of class and 'red feminism' post Global Financial Crisis aka now to then add a chapter on gender and national oppression in revolutionarty Russia - I mean, nothing wrong, I could read stuff on revolutionary Russia all day, every day but this really upset the book's conceptional harmony. Or maybe I am just a stickler. Or both. Then again, ends with a Kollontai quote on love between comrades in the socialist society:
"The striving to express love not only in kisses and embraces, but in togetherness in action, in unity of will, in joint creation, will grow.
February 13, 2012
The best essays are 'What happened to feminism?" which traces mainstream (white, middle-class) feminism's increasingly reactionary politics since the 1970s, and 'Women and Islam' which explores the racist imperialist motivations behind France's banning of the veil, and explores the historical oppression of women in Islam and Christianity. This would be a good introductory text. I think some of her arguments are too simplistic. For example, I don't agree with her characterization of McKinnon as a virulent anti-Marxist, since her analysis of patriarchy is clearly informed by Marxist discourse on alienation, reification, and the division of labour. I don't agree with Smith's assessment of socialist-feminism as a failed endeavor--isn't she herself evidence of its continuation? In 'Women and Socialism', I think Smith relies too heavily on quoting the same old passages from the Communist Manifesto and Engel's Origin of the Family to prove that Marxism has women's liberation at heart. I feel she could have better proved her point by discussing the many theorists and activists who have incorporated Marxism into their work for feminist purposes, for example Himani Bannerji, bell hooks, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, Dorothy Smith etc. It seems like she's trying too hard to appeal to some kind of orthodox authority, when obvious Marxism as a discourse has expanded far beyond the writing of Marx and Engels. But she does make a compelling case for the Russian revolution's attempts at women's liberation, balanced by the acknowledgment of difficult circumstances (civil war, dispersed and impoverished rural population, entrenched beliefs and habits), and the way Stalinist bureaucracy eroded most emancipatory gains such as government paid childcare, access to divorce and abortion, and socialised domestic work. So Lenin good, Stalin bad.
July 27, 2020
i've always had sharon smith on my list to read, so this short book was a good intro into her work.
a good historical foray, and ultimately argument, into how the liberation of women is very much tied to the liberation of this class society that we live in today. i appreciated the theoretical frameworks that analyzed how the marxist tradition very much hones in the fact that not everyone is free until the most oppressed are free.
loved the last chapter that went into the russian revolution, october revolution and the role that women played in demanding a truly liberatory way of achieving change. what we can ultimately learn from that.
it was a good, analytical collection of essays that goes into the history of women and socialism, esp in weaving in the ideas of lenin, trostky, luxemberg, and marx.
a good historical foray, and ultimately argument, into how the liberation of women is very much tied to the liberation of this class society that we live in today. i appreciated the theoretical frameworks that analyzed how the marxist tradition very much hones in the fact that not everyone is free until the most oppressed are free.
loved the last chapter that went into the russian revolution, october revolution and the role that women played in demanding a truly liberatory way of achieving change. what we can ultimately learn from that.
it was a good, analytical collection of essays that goes into the history of women and socialism, esp in weaving in the ideas of lenin, trostky, luxemberg, and marx.
March 28, 2015
Rus Devrimi içinde kadının konumu, kadın haklarının kazanımı (ancak Stalin'le beraber tekrar kaybedilmesi), Marx'ın kadın sorununu ele alışında feministlere eksik gelen noktalar gibi konuları irdelediği son bölümde Smith, özellikle Lev Troçki'den yaptığı alıntılarla kadına verilen önemin altını sıklıkla çiziyor ve bir yerde de Marksist feminizme yöneltilen eleştirilere cevap veriyor.
Kitap hakkındaki yazımın tamamını blog'umda bulabilirsiniz.
Kitap hakkındaki yazımın tamamını blog'umda bulabilirsiniz.
March 10, 2025
Kitabın ilk bölümünde Ailenin, Özel Mülkiyetin ve Devletin Kökeni’nden referansla feminizm ve marksizm arasında bir bağlantı kuruyor yazar. Bunu yaparken Engels’in hatalı tespitlerini ve bu tespitlerin o dönem içerisinde nasıl böyle şekillendiğini, neden ortaya atıldığını ifade etmesi de gayet besleyici eleştiriler. Bununla beraber bu kısmı okumadan önce Engels’i okumak ya da en azından kitap hakkında fikir sahibi olmak iyi olabilir. Bu kısımda yazarın, kadın erkek eşitsizliği ile ilgili Engels’in teorisinde attığı temelleri geçerliliğini koruyan ve eksik ya da hatalı kısımlarıyla beraber sunması doyum almanızı sağlıyor.
Fakat kitabın sıkıntılı yanları artılarından biraz fazla. Örneğin “Feminizmin Başına Neler Geldi?” kısmında Clinton ve Jones arasındaki cinsel taciz davası ile ilgili feministlerin ses çıkarmamasını ve buradan feministlere yönelik bir eleştiri üretmesini gereksiz buldum. En nihayetinde iki burjuva üzerinden ortaya çıkan bir meselede, feministler buradaki durumu onaylamasalar da feministlerin doğrudan politik bir söylem üretmek gibi bir borçları var mı emin değilim.
Bir diğer sıkıntılı kısım ise kitabı almadan önce de namını duyduğum “Kadın ve İslamiyet” kısmı. Burada yazarın Fransa’daki türban yasası mevzusunu islamofobi üzerinden eleştirmesi ve feministlerin de buna ortak olmasına serzenişte bulunması talihsizlikten biraz daha fazlası olmuş. Bu noktada kadın bedeni üzerinde tahakküm kurulması üzerinden vurgu yapılması belki daha yerinde ve feminist bir yaklaşım olabilirdi.
Ayrıca, ‘“soyunma özgürlüğü” cinsiyetçiliği üretir’ şeklinde bir çıkışı var yazarın. Burada liberal feminizmin hiçbir eleştirisini yapmaksızın doğrudan bunu söylemesi ahlakçı bir yaklaşımdan öteye gidememiş. Tüm bunları söyledikten sonra ise “Türban, insanların benimle sohbet etmesi için vücudumu görmeleri gerekmiyor diye önemli bir mesaj aktarıyor.” şeklindeki alıntıya destekleyerek yer vermesi, buradaki ahlakçı bakışa tuz biber oluyor. Soyunma özgürlüğü dediği kavramı liberalizm eleştirisi ile vermeden ortaya koyması yazarın, kadın bedeninin belli bir ölçüde açılması, o ölçü geçildiğinde ise kadın bedeninin kendisinin antifeminist bir hal aldığı gibi çiğ bir yere götürüyor okuyanları.
Fakat kitabın sıkıntılı yanları artılarından biraz fazla. Örneğin “Feminizmin Başına Neler Geldi?” kısmında Clinton ve Jones arasındaki cinsel taciz davası ile ilgili feministlerin ses çıkarmamasını ve buradan feministlere yönelik bir eleştiri üretmesini gereksiz buldum. En nihayetinde iki burjuva üzerinden ortaya çıkan bir meselede, feministler buradaki durumu onaylamasalar da feministlerin doğrudan politik bir söylem üretmek gibi bir borçları var mı emin değilim.
Bir diğer sıkıntılı kısım ise kitabı almadan önce de namını duyduğum “Kadın ve İslamiyet” kısmı. Burada yazarın Fransa’daki türban yasası mevzusunu islamofobi üzerinden eleştirmesi ve feministlerin de buna ortak olmasına serzenişte bulunması talihsizlikten biraz daha fazlası olmuş. Bu noktada kadın bedeni üzerinde tahakküm kurulması üzerinden vurgu yapılması belki daha yerinde ve feminist bir yaklaşım olabilirdi.
Ayrıca, ‘“soyunma özgürlüğü” cinsiyetçiliği üretir’ şeklinde bir çıkışı var yazarın. Burada liberal feminizmin hiçbir eleştirisini yapmaksızın doğrudan bunu söylemesi ahlakçı bir yaklaşımdan öteye gidememiş. Tüm bunları söyledikten sonra ise “Türban, insanların benimle sohbet etmesi için vücudumu görmeleri gerekmiyor diye önemli bir mesaj aktarıyor.” şeklindeki alıntıya destekleyerek yer vermesi, buradaki ahlakçı bakışa tuz biber oluyor. Soyunma özgürlüğü dediği kavramı liberalizm eleştirisi ile vermeden ortaya koyması yazarın, kadın bedeninin belli bir ölçüde açılması, o ölçü geçildiğinde ise kadın bedeninin kendisinin antifeminist bir hal aldığı gibi çiğ bir yere götürüyor okuyanları.
June 22, 2024
Smith's Women and Sociaism manages to be rigorous, historical, and informative while also being a light and uncomplicated read. Her text is successful in critiquing liberal feminism in its support of the Iraq War, rejection of paid maternity leave, and hypocrisy towards sex work. She successfully uncovers the true basis for women's oppression in the modern day: class. She uses Marx and Engel's texts to help modern readers understand the necessarily economic basis of women's oppression and, therefore, avoid the pitfalls of Bourgeois feminists. She also points out the women of Islam and the repressive laws enacted by Western governments like France and Canada. This critique, though made in 2005, is relevant as we observed the banning or heavy-handed shakedowns of Muslims and repression of their rights.
Also, her analysis of women's abortion rights was spot on and much more compelling than bourgeous feminists. From the opportunistic democrats to the blatant repression of abortion rights by the Clinton administration, she provides a good background for a legitimate, working-class pro-choice movement.
These contributions to modern feminism make her text all the while worth a read.
While successful in explaining international and working class feminism, she is a bit reductive when it comes to history and seems to adhere to a great man analysis. Particularly in her references to the Bolshevik revolution, she is good at recognizing progressive gains women made and how they were made. By class struggle and socialist policies, of course. And yet she ends up blaming the losses (such as the dissolution of the women's movement in the 1930s) on "Stalinism" or the "Stalinist era." She has valid criticisms but does seem to be a little simplistic in her analysis of these historical developments. Regardless, critique and understanding of historical attempts at women's emancipation are much-needed and appreciated. Despite being an older text, Smith's commentary and analysis are very relevant for anybody who wants a background in truly emancipatory feminism and its history. I look forward to either re-reading the text or reading her newer work. Good writing, solid arguments.
Also, her analysis of women's abortion rights was spot on and much more compelling than bourgeous feminists. From the opportunistic democrats to the blatant repression of abortion rights by the Clinton administration, she provides a good background for a legitimate, working-class pro-choice movement.
These contributions to modern feminism make her text all the while worth a read.
While successful in explaining international and working class feminism, she is a bit reductive when it comes to history and seems to adhere to a great man analysis. Particularly in her references to the Bolshevik revolution, she is good at recognizing progressive gains women made and how they were made. By class struggle and socialist policies, of course. And yet she ends up blaming the losses (such as the dissolution of the women's movement in the 1930s) on "Stalinism" or the "Stalinist era." She has valid criticisms but does seem to be a little simplistic in her analysis of these historical developments. Regardless, critique and understanding of historical attempts at women's emancipation are much-needed and appreciated. Despite being an older text, Smith's commentary and analysis are very relevant for anybody who wants a background in truly emancipatory feminism and its history. I look forward to either re-reading the text or reading her newer work. Good writing, solid arguments.
November 24, 2018
The book I read was titled "Women and Socialism: Class, Race and Capital" but I believe they are actually the same book, as they have the same author and seem to have the same introduction.
This book gives a broad overview of feminist movements in the United States and how leftist politics and particularly Marxism interacted with feminist politics through the decades. It is helpful to see how various movements interacted and how their politics changed through the years, from the suffragettes of the 1920s to the Combahee River Collective of the 1970s.
One of the most interesting topics, to me, is the cause of women's oppression in the first place. It seems that people have theories about pre-class societies and the role of women, and it does seem like such societies of hunter-gatherers are actually more equal, but no one knows for sure when this oppression started. It seems odd that half the world is subjugated to the other half in varying degrees but nobody knows how this first started.
It was also helpful to read about feminism turning mainstream and abandoning working class women's issues such as child care and abortion to focus on the 'glass ceiling' which affects career women, as this is often what rubs women the wrong way when they think of 'feminism.'
The book also goes into depth about Marx and Engels' ideas on feminism and how leftists have traditionally interpreted and expanded their ideas to have a more material idea of women's oppression and women's labor. One thing I have always appreciated about Marxism is the focus on domestic labor as unpaid labor done for social reproduction and the idea that this is another way capitalism is subsidized - on the backs of women.
While this book is key for a Marxist perspective on feminism, it is very broad and mostly gave only very brief overviews of large periods of time and it is a little dry and hard to relate to at times. A book I would suggest that was more modern and a little more engaging and in-depth is "We Were Feminists Once," by Andi Zeisler.
This book gives a broad overview of feminist movements in the United States and how leftist politics and particularly Marxism interacted with feminist politics through the decades. It is helpful to see how various movements interacted and how their politics changed through the years, from the suffragettes of the 1920s to the Combahee River Collective of the 1970s.
One of the most interesting topics, to me, is the cause of women's oppression in the first place. It seems that people have theories about pre-class societies and the role of women, and it does seem like such societies of hunter-gatherers are actually more equal, but no one knows for sure when this oppression started. It seems odd that half the world is subjugated to the other half in varying degrees but nobody knows how this first started.
It was also helpful to read about feminism turning mainstream and abandoning working class women's issues such as child care and abortion to focus on the 'glass ceiling' which affects career women, as this is often what rubs women the wrong way when they think of 'feminism.'
The book also goes into depth about Marx and Engels' ideas on feminism and how leftists have traditionally interpreted and expanded their ideas to have a more material idea of women's oppression and women's labor. One thing I have always appreciated about Marxism is the focus on domestic labor as unpaid labor done for social reproduction and the idea that this is another way capitalism is subsidized - on the backs of women.
While this book is key for a Marxist perspective on feminism, it is very broad and mostly gave only very brief overviews of large periods of time and it is a little dry and hard to relate to at times. A book I would suggest that was more modern and a little more engaging and in-depth is "We Were Feminists Once," by Andi Zeisler.
December 25, 2020
"Eğer katı bir tek eşlilik erdemlerin en yücesi ise, elli ila iki yüz arasındaki her bir kesit ya da bölümünde tam bir dişi ve erkek cinsel organına sahip olan ve bütün hayatını bu kesitlerin her birinde kendi içinde çiftleşerek geçiren tenyaya ödül vermek gerekir."
"Engels tek eşlilikle ilgili şöyle bir sonuca varıyor:
Hiçbir şekilde alakasının bile olmadığı sevgiden doğan cinselliğin meyvesi değildi; evlilikler önceden olduğu gibi çıkar evlilikleri olmaya devam etti. Doğal değil ekonomik koşullara, özel mülkiyetin ilkel, doğal olan komünal mülkiyet üzerinde kazandığı zafere dayanan ilk aile biçimiydi."
"Kadınlara uygulanan baskının kökenlerinin, kadınların aile içindeki yeniden üretici rolünde ve ailenin toplumda ekonomik bir birim olmasında yattığını ileri sürüyor:
İlkel komünist toplumlarda pek çok çiftten ve onların çocuklarından oluşan hane halkı, kadınlara bırakılan ev işleri tıpkı erkeklere bırakılan gıda tedarik işi gibi bir o kadar kamusal, sosyal açıdan gerekli bir endüstriydi. Ataerkil aileyle ve daha çok da tek başına yaşayan tek eşli aileyle işler değişti. Evin çekip çevrilmesi kamusal niteliğini kaybetti. Toplumun meselesi olmaktan çıktı. Özel bir hizmete dönüştü; kadın baş hizmetçi olarak toplumsal üretime her türlü katılımdan uzak tutuldu. Modern büyük ölçekli endüstriye kadar toplumsal üretimin kapıları kadına açılmadı. O zaman da bu durum bir tek işçinin karısı için geçerli oldu. Ancak bu kapı öyle bir şekilde açıldı ki, kadın ailesi özelinde görevlerini yerine getirdiğinde kamusal üretimin dışında tutuluyor ve para kazanamıyor; kamusal üretimin parçası olmak isteyip bağımsızca para kazandığında ise ailevi görevlerini yerine getiremiyor… Modern bireysel aile kadının açıktan ya da örtülü bir şekilde köleleştirilmesine dayanmaktadır ve modern toplum, bu bireysel ailelerin birer molekül olduğu bir kütledir."
"Engels tek eşlilikle ilgili şöyle bir sonuca varıyor:
Hiçbir şekilde alakasının bile olmadığı sevgiden doğan cinselliğin meyvesi değildi; evlilikler önceden olduğu gibi çıkar evlilikleri olmaya devam etti. Doğal değil ekonomik koşullara, özel mülkiyetin ilkel, doğal olan komünal mülkiyet üzerinde kazandığı zafere dayanan ilk aile biçimiydi."
"Kadınlara uygulanan baskının kökenlerinin, kadınların aile içindeki yeniden üretici rolünde ve ailenin toplumda ekonomik bir birim olmasında yattığını ileri sürüyor:
İlkel komünist toplumlarda pek çok çiftten ve onların çocuklarından oluşan hane halkı, kadınlara bırakılan ev işleri tıpkı erkeklere bırakılan gıda tedarik işi gibi bir o kadar kamusal, sosyal açıdan gerekli bir endüstriydi. Ataerkil aileyle ve daha çok da tek başına yaşayan tek eşli aileyle işler değişti. Evin çekip çevrilmesi kamusal niteliğini kaybetti. Toplumun meselesi olmaktan çıktı. Özel bir hizmete dönüştü; kadın baş hizmetçi olarak toplumsal üretime her türlü katılımdan uzak tutuldu. Modern büyük ölçekli endüstriye kadar toplumsal üretimin kapıları kadına açılmadı. O zaman da bu durum bir tek işçinin karısı için geçerli oldu. Ancak bu kapı öyle bir şekilde açıldı ki, kadın ailesi özelinde görevlerini yerine getirdiğinde kamusal üretimin dışında tutuluyor ve para kazanamıyor; kamusal üretimin parçası olmak isteyip bağımsızca para kazandığında ise ailevi görevlerini yerine getiremiyor… Modern bireysel aile kadının açıktan ya da örtülü bir şekilde köleleştirilmesine dayanmaktadır ve modern toplum, bu bireysel ailelerin birer molekül olduğu bir kütledir."
June 1, 2019
The writer is not just a rape apologist (look it up, she covered for a rapist in her socialist organization) but she is also an Islam fan like many western leftists. Muslim Brotherhood was “brutally suppressed” by Nasser? Islamic outfit enables people to see women as people? Nudity always leads to objectification? The writer has no clue what she’s saying. Also, she seems to be obsessive about Stalin to the point of calling Soviet union after 1920 a “Stalinist dictatorship.” What a lie and a clear example of anti communist propaganda working out in the USA.
However, I enjoyed the first part, which explains the origins of women’s oppression and the last part was also worth reading, of course excluding the nonsense she wrote about so called “Stalinism.”
However, I enjoyed the first part, which explains the origins of women’s oppression and the last part was also worth reading, of course excluding the nonsense she wrote about so called “Stalinism.”
January 29, 2013
I think this is an excellent book. Every essay was interesting and informative. Smith gives well reasoned arguments for her positions, is quick to denounce the non-action of groups like NOW when it comes to losing the PR war in the abortion debate, and even got me rethinking my position on the hijab.
Smith is a Marxist through and through, and while I am not quite ready to drink that particular Kool-Aid, I find many of the arguments compelling. Perhaps my biggest stumbling block is that Marxism strives towards post-Capitalist ideas, which i agree with, but doesn't go so far as to advocate for post-economic ideas, which I am very much in favor of.
This book was mentioned recently in an interview with Inna Shevchenko of FEMEN as being one of the two main sources of inspiration for the group. FEMEN, well known in Europe for staging topless and nude protests against capitalist, religious and totalitarian oppression, maintains that their use of nudity is an attempt to reclaim the power of their bodies.
I wonder how Sharon Smith feels about FEMEN, given her sentences on page 129 in which she states, " ... the 'freedom to uncover' can bring women no closer to genuine equality in a sexist society. In societies the world over, 'uncovering' merely leads to greater sexual objectification."
My journey into the world of Marxism, feminism and economics is still at its beginning, but I was very impressed by this book.
Smith is a Marxist through and through, and while I am not quite ready to drink that particular Kool-Aid, I find many of the arguments compelling. Perhaps my biggest stumbling block is that Marxism strives towards post-Capitalist ideas, which i agree with, but doesn't go so far as to advocate for post-economic ideas, which I am very much in favor of.
This book was mentioned recently in an interview with Inna Shevchenko of FEMEN as being one of the two main sources of inspiration for the group. FEMEN, well known in Europe for staging topless and nude protests against capitalist, religious and totalitarian oppression, maintains that their use of nudity is an attempt to reclaim the power of their bodies.
I wonder how Sharon Smith feels about FEMEN, given her sentences on page 129 in which she states, " ... the 'freedom to uncover' can bring women no closer to genuine equality in a sexist society. In societies the world over, 'uncovering' merely leads to greater sexual objectification."
My journey into the world of Marxism, feminism and economics is still at its beginning, but I was very impressed by this book.
January 29, 2010
Disclaimer: I only read about half of this book. But I did appreciate what I read, particularly the opening chapter with its elucidation of Engel's "The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State" and the theory that gender oppression arose from class society and not some ill-defined will to violence ingrained in men. My only complaint was that, even in the bit I read, there was some significant overlap, with quotes and passages being repeated. A fairly common problem with collections of essays, and more blame should be assigned to the editor than author.
November 9, 2011
a marxist explanation of women's struggles past present a future and how we can win a society based on equality. it is a little dated and could use some updating in light of the recent activity around rape and abortion rights. everything in this book is still super relevant and by updating i do not mean editing what is there but expanding the book with additional chapters/essays.
May 21, 2007
Sharon Smith's book is a great exposition of the essentials of Marxist feminism. Very useful for socialists and all activists in the struggle for women's liberation.
November 4, 2007
Makes a good reference point for understanding why the world works the way it does.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews