of economy in that MEN created a surplus that could be bartered or later sold. The two are one and the same????? but how? Socialist feminists spent decades trying to develop a dual systems approach that fell flat on it's face. Because the marriage wasn't an easy one, they divorced, rather than concentrating their efforts on names of theories they should have simply dispensed with the language and got back to examining the historical and the material for their answers. The whole thing is confusing......it is the one thing I have been thinking about a lot and my brain will probably go bang "The birth of patriarchy coincides with the birth of all/any form of economy in that MEN created a surplus that could be bartered or later sold." That's a statement that could be taken as being profoundly anti-feminist, in the way that it says that women aren't capable of recognizing their ability to create things of value, and recognizing their ability to trade those things for someone else's creation. So for instance if I left the village and went down to the river and managed to catch a few fish, and you went up to the woods and picked a sack of mushrooms, can't I barter some of my fish for some of your mushrooms? That's creating a trade economy, and it seems so simple that I have to believe that everyone's always done it. Why suggest that only MEN could do those things? If you consider apes,