4 Feminism and Marxism structure, desire its internal dynamic, gender and family its congealed extent their forms and behaviors resemble one another, could gender forms, sex roles its qualities generalized to social persona, reproduction be their c onmonaliry? Is there a relattionship between the wealth of t ronseu'ncC, andI control its issue wealthy men and the poverty of pHor women, is tiere a rlaritnis Marxism and teminism provide accounts of the way social arrange between the power of some classes over others and the power of all men ments of parterned and e disparity can be internally rational over all women? Is there a relationship between the face that the few and systematic yet unjust. Both are theories of power, its social deri ve ruled the many and the fact that those few have been met vations and its maldistribution. Both are theories of social inequality Instead of confronting these questions, marxists and feminists have In unequal societies, gender and with it sexual desire and kinship sually either dismissed or, in the more active form of the same thing property ownership, are considered presocial, part of the natural world subsumed each other. Marxists have criticized feminism as bourgeois in theory and in practice, meaning that feminism works in the interest of the ruling class. They argue that to analyze society in terms of sex creation, feminism exposes desire as socially relational, internally nec ignores the primacy of class and glosses over class divisions among essary to unequal social orders but historically contingent women,dividing the proletariat. Feminist demands, it is claimed The specificity of marxism and feminism is not incidental. To be could be fully satisfied within capitalism, so their pursuit undermines deprived of- centroL over work relations in marxism, over sexual and deflects the effort for basic change. Efforts to eliminate barriers to lations in feminism, defines each theory's conception of lack of power omens personhood-arguments for access to life chances without se. They do not mean to exist side by side, pluralistically, to er regard to sex-are seen as liberal and individualistic. Whatever women have in common is considered to be based in nature, not in terests of two discrete groups are not obscured, or the contributions of two sets of variables are not ignored. They exist to argue, respec not seem to support this analysis, womens conditions are seen as tively, that the relations in which many work and few gain, in which common or shared, and analyses that claim they are, are called some dominate and others are subordinated in which some fuck and totalizing and ahistorical. When cross-cultural analyses of womens others get fucked and everybody knows what those words mean, are ial conditions do support this analysis, women's status is seen as a e prime moment of politics universal, or analyses based on it are considered to lack cultural What if the claims of each theory are taken equally seriously, each The womens movement's focus upon attitudes, beliefs on its own terms? Can two social processes be basic at once? Can two and emotions as powerful components of social reality is criticized groups be subordinated in conflicting ways, or do they merely formally idealist; the composition of the womens movement, pur- crosscut? Can two theories, each of which purports to account for the portedly of middle-class educated women, is advanced as an explana same, thing-power as such-be reconciled? Confronted on eq terms, these theories at minimum pose fundamental questions for each Feminists charge that marxism is male defined in theory and in other. Is male dominance a creation of capitalism, or is capitalism one xpression of male dominance? What does it mean for class analysis if practice, meaning that it moves within the worldview and in the interest of men. Feminists argue that analyzing society exclusively in a social group is defined and exploited through means that seem class terms ignores the distinctive social experiences of the sexes largely independent of the organizati obscuring womens unity. Marxist demands, it is claimed, could be o it? What does it mean for a sex-based analysis if (and in part have been) satisfied without altering womens inequality capitalism might not be materially altered if it were fully sex to men. Feminists have often found that working-class movements and ntegrated or even controlled by women? Supposing that the structure d interests served by the socialist state and the capitalist state differ the left undervalue womens work and concerns, neglect the role of feelings and beliefs in a focus on institutional and material in class terms, are they equally predicated upon sex inequality? To the denigrate women in practice and in everyday life, and in general f