Talk:Marxist feminism

criticism section

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)

The first paragraph implies that capitalism is the root of women's oppression, despite the fact that women have been oppressed before capitalism arose. Marxist DO recognise this, and the article is wrong. The oppression of women came out of the development of CLASS SOCIETY, not specifically capitalism. - user:mattkidd12 18 July 2005 21:23

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)

I agree with mattkidd12's comments: Engel's book on the origins of women's oppression makes the case clear. Unless there are any objections, I suggest we revise that.--Duncan 13:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

"Radical Women"

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)

updates made to Marist Feminism Page

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)

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)