What do you think?
Rate this book
Close to Home: A Materialist Analysis of Women's Oppression
Classic analysis of gender relations and patriarchy under capitalism
Close to Home is the classic study of family, patriarchal ideologies, and the politics and strategy of women’s liberation. On the table in this forceful and provocative debate are questions of whether men can be feminists, whether “bourgeois” and heterosexual women are retrogressive members of the women’s movement, and how best to struggle against the multiple oppressions women endure.
Rachel Hills’s foreword to this new edition explores how Christine Delphy’s analysis of marriage as the institution behind the exploitation of unpaid women’s labor is as radical and relevant today as it ever was.
Close to Home is the classic study of family, patriarchal ideologies, and the politics and strategy of women’s liberation. On the table in this forceful and provocative debate are questions of whether men can be feminists, whether “bourgeois” and heterosexual women are retrogressive members of the women’s movement, and how best to struggle against the multiple oppressions women endure.
Rachel Hills’s foreword to this new edition explores how Christine Delphy’s analysis of marriage as the institution behind the exploitation of unpaid women’s labor is as radical and relevant today as it ever was.
256 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 1, 1984
29 people are currently reading
1184 people want to read
About the author
Christine Delphy
22 books66 followersChristine Delphy is a French sociologist, feminist, writer and theorist. She was a co-founder of the review Nouvelles questions féministes (New Feminist Issues) with Simone de Beauvoir in 1977.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
August 22, 2012
If I were to name France's most exciting feminists after Simon de Beauvoir, I would name Delphy. When I read Engels's "Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State", I was amazed how Engels was very modern for his time. It gave me a whole new perspective on marriage, family and private property. However, I have always been very unsatisfied with Marx's simplified model of oppression. Marx turned Hegel on his head and argued that conflict between different material conditions motivates social change. However, Marx’s idea of two-class model always seemed gender neutral (*read androcentric*). Marx’s tendency to understand gender solely under biological term ignores many social conditions, which give rise to material oppressions unique to women. Delphy takes her cue from Marx but argues that within the structural analysis of class system, it is also important to recognize family as an economic unit. Gender relations needs to be analyzed in terms of the materiality of life (work, labour, production, consumption, exchange and family members’ material interests). Delphy's focus on family as the locus on women's oppression is a change in departure in understanding material conditions of women that varies significantly from men (irrespective of their class).
Understanding women's deprivation is a unique case compared to other disempowered subsets (such as the ethnic minorities, poor etc.) of the society since household and inter-familial relations are the central locus of women's disempowerment. Women's familial roles are so deeply engrained that the source of their deprivation is not visible. Family identities usually exert such strong influence that women may not find it easy to formulate any clear notion of their own individual welfare; the notion of well-being are often vicarious. The glorified gendered assumption of women as the “nurturing mother,” who is taken to specialize in the household domain and maintenance of family constrain women’s full participation in the economy- whether as a producer or consumer. Women’s objective illusion about their perceived position in the romanticized version of family, make it difficult to address gender disparities because gender inequalities within the family tend to survive by making allies out of the deprived. Among other things, articles in this book decorously identifies unpaid work in the household as women’s “main enemy”, which is crucial in understanding women’s oppression today. There are enormous studies done in present day that shows, men and women experience poverty differently, even if they live in the same household. Understanding family relationship is an important aspect of understanding women’s role in the economy as well as development. Delphy’s book is an illuminating addition to this, which provides an enlightening perspective on household and gender relationship that is still very relevant today.
Understanding women's deprivation is a unique case compared to other disempowered subsets (such as the ethnic minorities, poor etc.) of the society since household and inter-familial relations are the central locus of women's disempowerment. Women's familial roles are so deeply engrained that the source of their deprivation is not visible. Family identities usually exert such strong influence that women may not find it easy to formulate any clear notion of their own individual welfare; the notion of well-being are often vicarious. The glorified gendered assumption of women as the “nurturing mother,” who is taken to specialize in the household domain and maintenance of family constrain women’s full participation in the economy- whether as a producer or consumer. Women’s objective illusion about their perceived position in the romanticized version of family, make it difficult to address gender disparities because gender inequalities within the family tend to survive by making allies out of the deprived. Among other things, articles in this book decorously identifies unpaid work in the household as women’s “main enemy”, which is crucial in understanding women’s oppression today. There are enormous studies done in present day that shows, men and women experience poverty differently, even if they live in the same household. Understanding family relationship is an important aspect of understanding women’s role in the economy as well as development. Delphy’s book is an illuminating addition to this, which provides an enlightening perspective on household and gender relationship that is still very relevant today.
April 24, 2018
To me, material feminism is perfected Marxist feminism and this collection of essays manage to convince me that the onus of women's oppression did not lie on biological and cultural myths but deeply embedded division of labor in the family unit that will not go away easily without radical revolution (the elimination of class, to be frank). Aside from that, this book makes me hate the marriage institution even more lol.
Read
August 13, 2020offers a nuanced alternative to radical and marxist feminist analyses, great read, christine funny af too on the low
Read
September 24, 2025baskıyı sosyoekonomik faktörler bakımından yorumlayıp ele alan harika bir kitap, beauvoir yazmadıysa ancak delphy yazabilirdi bunu.
August 23, 2018
RuPaul voice: 5's across the board.
Christine Delphy is sharp and witty and biting beyond measure. Her analysis of housework, her deconstruction of how anti-feminism is packaged as feminism and even post-feminism, her pushback to the idea that men are necessary for women's liberation (my personal fave) and every other eloquent, astute thing she talks about. Loved (and passionately highlighted) almost every page.
Christine Delphy is sharp and witty and biting beyond measure. Her analysis of housework, her deconstruction of how anti-feminism is packaged as feminism and even post-feminism, her pushback to the idea that men are necessary for women's liberation (my personal fave) and every other eloquent, astute thing she talks about. Loved (and passionately highlighted) almost every page.
December 28, 2023
very rigorous and principled look at how materialism must be applied to women’s oppression.
honestly, i think every marxist or marxist feminist should read this. delphy is a very clear, thorough, and often witty writer
honestly, i think every marxist or marxist feminist should read this. delphy is a very clear, thorough, and often witty writer
August 19, 2020
Incredibly crucial book to read on feminism, but a very difficult and hefty one. It is quite outdated to modern feminist theory but I found it to be a very eye opening basis for what modern feminism is today.
November 13, 2025
É difícil fazer justiça a um clássico feminista que legou tantos conceitos importantes, sobretudo relacionados ao trabalho doméstico. Porém, o livro de Delphy é uma leitura árida para os padrões atuais, intercalando algumas críticas bem articuladas à psicanálise, ao marxismo ortodoxo e à discussão sobre ideologia com debates já datados sobre o trabalho feminino e as teorias do valor. Um dos pontos altos, a meu ver, é sua rejeição a teorias idealistas que tentam explicar a opressão das mulheres pela cultura ou "posturas retrógradas" da sociedade, enquanto negligenciam-se as suas bases materiais.
Delphy opera muitas analogias entre as classes sociais / modo de produção capitalista e as "classes sexuais" / "modo de produção doméstico". Insurge-se, assim, contra o feminismo diferencialista e demais formas de "naturalismo" que identificava na psicanálise, marxismo e antropologia. Enquanto essas teorias se apoiam nas diferenças naturais entre homens e mulheres como ponto de partida, ela projeta explicações exclusivamente no campo econômico.
Mas Delphy foi além: ela rejeitou todas as explanações para a opressão da mulher que aludissem ao corpo e à capacidade reprodutiva. Era como se incluir o fator reprodução na teoria sobre a opressão feminina fosse, em si mesmo, uma admissão de fracasso e uma condenação das mulheres. Talvez aquele momento histórico (décadas de 70 e 80) explique uma tomada de posição tão radical e contra-intuitiva como essa, mas o fato é que aqui ela confunde seu desejo com a realidade. Afinal, a sociologia das desigualdades de autores como Norbert Elias e Charles Tilly já mostrou que ao longo da história humana pequenas desvantagens de partida - ter um pouco mais de recursos, ter redes mais fortes, ser mais antigo numa localidade etc - se converteram em enormes e duradouras desigualdades. Não seria diferente com os homens e as mulheres.
Em vista dessa rejeição ao corpo, Delphy buscou explicar a opressão feminina como um sistema de exploração que "criava" relacionamente as próprias categorias homem e mulher - tal qual o sistema capitalista, que criaria burgueses e proletários. Daí a ideia de um "feminismo materialista", calcado na análise econômica da exploração e apropriação do trabalho feminino pelos pais e maridos. O casamento, aliás, desponta como instituição central do "modo de produção doméstico" por ela esboçado, subordinando a mulher e forçando-a a trabalhar sem remuneração, enquanto a expulsa do mercado de trabalho.
É difícil manter todo esse edifício de pé, especialmente após décadas de tantas mudanças nos padrões de conjugalidade e emprego feminino. O que fica, mais uma vez, é a contribuição importante de uma socióloga que jogou a luz sobre o trabalho na casa e os conflitos no interior das famílias.
E a pergunta que resta após a leitura é aquela que Delphy tenta, a todo custo, evitar: por que os homens puderam subordinar as mulheres? O que explica uma regularidade histórica tão forte como as hierarquias sexuais? Aqui eu discordo de Delphy e fico com a resposta elegante e simples da historiadora Gerda Lerner: os homens dominaram as mulheres porque puderam. E isso nos leva de volta aos fatos da força física diferencial e da vulnerabilidade na gravidez, quer gostemos deles ou não.
Delphy opera muitas analogias entre as classes sociais / modo de produção capitalista e as "classes sexuais" / "modo de produção doméstico". Insurge-se, assim, contra o feminismo diferencialista e demais formas de "naturalismo" que identificava na psicanálise, marxismo e antropologia. Enquanto essas teorias se apoiam nas diferenças naturais entre homens e mulheres como ponto de partida, ela projeta explicações exclusivamente no campo econômico.
Mas Delphy foi além: ela rejeitou todas as explanações para a opressão da mulher que aludissem ao corpo e à capacidade reprodutiva. Era como se incluir o fator reprodução na teoria sobre a opressão feminina fosse, em si mesmo, uma admissão de fracasso e uma condenação das mulheres. Talvez aquele momento histórico (décadas de 70 e 80) explique uma tomada de posição tão radical e contra-intuitiva como essa, mas o fato é que aqui ela confunde seu desejo com a realidade. Afinal, a sociologia das desigualdades de autores como Norbert Elias e Charles Tilly já mostrou que ao longo da história humana pequenas desvantagens de partida - ter um pouco mais de recursos, ter redes mais fortes, ser mais antigo numa localidade etc - se converteram em enormes e duradouras desigualdades. Não seria diferente com os homens e as mulheres.
Em vista dessa rejeição ao corpo, Delphy buscou explicar a opressão feminina como um sistema de exploração que "criava" relacionamente as próprias categorias homem e mulher - tal qual o sistema capitalista, que criaria burgueses e proletários. Daí a ideia de um "feminismo materialista", calcado na análise econômica da exploração e apropriação do trabalho feminino pelos pais e maridos. O casamento, aliás, desponta como instituição central do "modo de produção doméstico" por ela esboçado, subordinando a mulher e forçando-a a trabalhar sem remuneração, enquanto a expulsa do mercado de trabalho.
É difícil manter todo esse edifício de pé, especialmente após décadas de tantas mudanças nos padrões de conjugalidade e emprego feminino. O que fica, mais uma vez, é a contribuição importante de uma socióloga que jogou a luz sobre o trabalho na casa e os conflitos no interior das famílias.
E a pergunta que resta após a leitura é aquela que Delphy tenta, a todo custo, evitar: por que os homens puderam subordinar as mulheres? O que explica uma regularidade histórica tão forte como as hierarquias sexuais? Aqui eu discordo de Delphy e fico com a resposta elegante e simples da historiadora Gerda Lerner: os homens dominaram as mulheres porque puderam. E isso nos leva de volta aos fatos da força física diferencial e da vulnerabilidade na gravidez, quer gostemos deles ou não.
August 8, 2025
“In the same way, proletarian class consciousness is not the result of Marx’s theory of capital. On the contrary, Marx’s theory of capital was founded on the necessary premise of the oppression of proletarians. Oppression is one possible way of conceptualizing a given situation; and this particular conceptualization can originate only from one standpoint (that is, from one precise position in this situation): that of the oppressed. It is only from the point of view and life experience of women that their condition can be seen as oppression. This coming consciousness takes place neither before nor after the struggle. In other words, it is a question of two aspects of the same phenomenon, not of two different penomena.”
April 10, 2019
Women’s oppression is rooted on materialism, through economic and sexual exploitation. Here, Delphy focused on the economic exploitation of women embodied in domestic work, which is defined not by the tasks done but by the relations of production with men. She refutes the assertion that the labour division is natural, rather, the assignment of women to the domestic sphere emerged due to the hierarchy that dictates the subordinate status of women and women’s activities (which are mostly the same as their male counterparts, only their labour is appropriated.
August 13, 2025
“If it is not acknowledged, if knowledge pretends to be neutral, it denies the history that it pretends to explain. It is ideology and not knowledge. Thus all knowledge which does not recognize social oppression, which does not take it as its premise, denies it, and as a consequence objectively serves it. Knowledge that seeks to take the oppression of women as its point of departure constitutes an epistemological revolution”
May 8, 2025
I must admit that I wasn't convinced by her interpretation of the "domestic mode of production" but now I think I get it. Although I'm familiar with radical feminists' economic interpretations of patriarchy, I often find them too simplistic. But this book is definitely a must-read.
February 7, 2019
While there are some Reactionary moments it generally a brilliantly nuanced and direct piece
February 14, 2025
yes! obligatory read for everyone i say
June 10, 2024
Część esejów bardzo dobra, do części brakuje mi kontekstu, bo są napisane na odpowiedź coś innych tekstów, więc czasami się człowiek przez to gubi. Poza tym widać, że częściowo się to trochę zestarzało i niekoniecznie wszystkie argumenty przystają do współczesnych czasów. Nadal jednak uważam, że w sumie było warto przeczytać.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews