gender 1059 those areas of life that do not seem to be connected to it. Second, whether domination comes in the form of the male appropriation of the female reproductive labor or in the sexual objectification of women by men, the analy rests on physical difference. Any physical difference takes on a universal and Inchanging aspect, even if theorists of patriarchy take into account the existence of changing forms and systems of gender inequality. A theory that rests on the single variable of physical difference poses problems for historians: it assumes a consistent or inherent meaning for the human body--outside social or cultural construction-and thus the ahistoricity of gender itself. History becomes, in a sense, epiphenomenal, providing endless variations on the unchanging theme of a fixed gender inequality Marxist feminists have a more historical approach, guided as they are by a theory of history. But, whatever the variations and adaptations have been, the self imposed requirement that there be a"material"explanation for gendler has limited or at least slowed the development of new lines of analysis. Whether a so-called dual-systems solution is proffered (one that posits the separate but interacting realms of capitalism and patriarchy)or an analysis based more firmly in orthodo Marxist discussions of modes of production is developed, the explanation for the origins of and changes in gender systems is found outside the sexual division of labor. Families, households, and sexuality are all, finally, products of changing modes of production. That is how Engels concluded his explorations of the Origins of the Family: 1.s that is where economist Heidi Hartmann's analysis ultimately rests Hartmann insisted on the importance of taking into account patriarchy and capitalism as separate but interacting systems. Yet, as her argument unfolds, economic causality takes precedence, and patriarchy always develops and changes as a function of relations of production. When she suggested that"it is necessary eradicate the sexual division of labor itself to end male domination she meant ending job segregation by sex. s early discussions among Marxist feminists circled around the same set of problems: a rejection of the essentialism of those who would argue that the ' exigencies of biological reproduction"determine the sexual division of labor under capitalism; the futility of inserting"modes of reproduction"into discussions of modes of production(it remains an oppositional category and does not assume equal status with modes of production); the recognition that economic systems do not directly determine gender relationships, indeed, that the subordination of women pre-dates capitalism and continues under socialism; the search nonethele between historians Sheila Rowbotham, Sally Alexander, and Barbara Taylor in Raphael samuel, (m'G For an interesting discuss of the strengths and limits of the term"patriarchy, "see the exchan Frederick Engels. The Origins of the Family, Pri ate Property and the State(I88-1: reprint edn I Heidi Hartmann, "Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Job Segregation by Sex. Signs, I (Spring 1976): 168. See also"The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: 'I i More Progressive Union. " Capital and Class. 8(Summer 1979): 1-33: "The Family as the Locus of Gender, Class, and Polit ical Struggle: The Example of Housework. "Signs, 6i(Spring 1981):366-0-4