Talk:Marxist feminism

message: Erm...should the criticism section really be longer than the main body of the article? Just a question. - Anon
:If it takes more words to explain the criticism than the theory, then yes it should. - Corvus 2 July 2005 00:47 (UTC)
I agree with the concern of Anon above.  Like many theories, Feminist Marxism can be explained quickly or in detail, so can the criticisms of it.  Wouldn't it be possible to write a short description of evolution and then a book about the criticisms of it?  Having a critique section longer than the article looks like a bias against it to me. - Another Anon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.179.125 (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was explained to me that Marxist Feminism is a subset of socialist feminism which specifically targets oppression of women arising from capitalism, not all forms of oppression. If the article implies all forms of oppression arise from capitalism then it is wrong, but that is not the impression I got. -- Corvus 18:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree absolutely. My interpretation of this is that Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State by Engels should be considered the maiden voyage of Marxist feminism, and he is unequivocal that the historical domination of women began not with capitalism, but some millennia earlier with the overthrow of mother right. I suggest we find some citations for this and amend the article. --causa sui talk 23:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: criticism section

message: Why does the article say "Radical Women, a major Marxist-feminist organization, bases its theory on Marx' and Engels' analysis".... Why not just "Marx' and Engels' analysis was"... It just looks like an unncessary name-check. --Duncan (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Radical Women" 

message: The changes that have been done to the Marxist Feminist page; were done as a part of a project for an Introduction to Feminist Theory class, it was found that the information given on the original page was incomplete and needed to be added to. This was the goal of the project. To gain as much knowledge as possible and condense it, in order to give correct and complete information on the different subjects found in Feminist Theory. This is an attempt to expand the knowledge and history of Marxist Feminism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skylier Autumn (talk • contribs) Dec 9, 2008
: Thanks for you contribution, it looks like it's the result of a fair amount of work and research. However, I think it's a mistake to completely rewrite the article, as you did, without discussing it first. The point of Wikipedia, after all, is that it is a collaborative encyclopedia, where we all correct and expand on each other's work. Although your rewrite added valuable new information, it also lost useful information from the existing article. So, I changed the article back to the version before your rewrite, but I don't want all your work to be wasted; please consider going through your version and adding information from it to the current article. I've stored your rewrite at User:Skylier Autumn/Marxist feminism, so you can use it to make additions to the current article. VoluntarySlave (talk) 19:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that the 'The Three Waves of Marxist Feminism' and organisation of the key points section would be valuable to integrate into the current article.184.60.31.237 (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: updates made to Marist Feminism Page

message: Feminism itself is communism--it's  Cultural Marxism using Critical Theory.  I think this matter might be mentioned in the article.  The emergence of feminism via the Frankfurt School (q.v.) should also be mentioned, to give more completeness to the article.  --Just some suggestions.  A good book to start with is "Red Feminism" by Kate Weigand.  50.202.81.2 (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Marxist Feminism 

message: The article could definitely use some revision. I think my brief critique can be best identified in the "Productive and Reproductive Labour" section. The first issue in the section is with the link two types of labor exist. The article is defining it as "productive and reproductive", but the link is sending it to "productive and unproductive". If these are different subjects the link should likely not exist. If it's the same subject, they difference should likely be reconciled between pages, or at least addressed in this particular article here. Secondly, this article is representing philosophical and/or economic theory. As such, to avoid being opinion and adhere as strictly commentary of opinion. Using statements like "according to..." and "as defined by..." tends to be preferable. The theoretical background on Marxism seems to do this appropriately, but you can tell it gets lost in the "productive and reproductive labour" section. I'm not even sure if this is a writing style issue or if the author of how it currently stands is actually just inserting opinion as fact (hopefully the former). Hobbeswood (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Issues In Writing Style etc. 

message: A important trend to day in Marxist feminism seems to be social reproduction theory. (Since Lise Vogel, 1983?) I became aware of that trend trough https://monthlyreview.org/2018/01/01/women-nature-and-capital-in-the-industrial-revolution/. There is much about reproductive labour in the page, but no mention of social reproduction theory. There is a Wikipedia page about social reproduction, but in the sense of cultural heritage of social positions à la Bourdieu. I see therefore the following program: (1) mention social reproduction theory in this page; (2) a Social reproduction theory page; (3) a disambiguation page mentioning the new Social reproduction theory page and the existing Social reproduction page. I am in the comfortable situation of leaving this program to others because (i) I am not a social scientist; (ii) my English is not good enough. --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social reproduction theory 

message: While sex work is a worthy section for this topic, the current content could be deleted entirely. I've kept it for now until there's either something to replace it or more discussion in favor of removing earlier. 
# Unsure of the relevance/importance of Sobel's work. If there's something compelling about his analysis then that should be added. In the meantime I've removed the "brings forth a challenging perspective" language since the claim is not, on its face, new or challenging.  
# Similar quibble with Phillips and Taylor. What's the relevance to Marxist feminism/Marxism?   
# Is SWOP a Marxist feminist organization? I can't find any reference to them as such, and "normalizing sex work" isn't a Marxist project. Not sure why they're here.   
# Plenty to be added, but that's surely not surprising for a two-paragraph section that starts in 1980. Engels, Kollontai, and Lenin are the first who come to mind.  
# Could use a brief intro or definition but not yet sure of scope.  
Deltacubes (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex work 

message: Hi,
Recently initiated a new Draft:Sexual politics and looking for proactive help in updating and expanding the article. Please do see if contributing to Draft:Sexual politics  would interest you.
Thanks and regards
Bookku (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Requesting some help

message: — Assignment last updated by WGST320 (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

message: — Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01