Women and Work
• Social Reproduction

References for Theme: Social Reproduction

• Arruzza, Cinzia
• "Functionalist, Determinist, Reductionist: Social Reproduction Feminism and its Critics" (2016)

• Bakker, Isabella
• "Social Reproduction and the Constitution of a Gendered Political Economy" (2007)

• Benston, Margaret
• "The Political Economy of Women's Liberation" (1997)

• Beverinotti, ; Beverinotti
• "Beyond Work: Life, Death, and Reproduction and the Postwork Society" (2021)

• Bezanson, Kate; Luxton, Meg
• Social Reproduction: Feminist Political Economy Challenges Neo-Liberalism (2006)

  "Social reproduction, when valued by the market, is gendered, often racialized, and poorly remunerated. Where states no longer provided support and where purchasing services on the market was not feasible, the burden of providing additional care and work fell onto families, especially women. In Ontario under the Conservatives (1995-2003), this familializing and individualizing thrust was underlined by a rhetoric about family values and a nostalgic idealization of motherhood and community. As material supports for communities and families were cut, this family ideology blamed families--and mothers in particular--for failing to take responsibility for their members." p. 6

• Bhattacharya, Tithi
• Social Reproduction Theory: Remapping Class, Recentering Oppression (2017)

• Boulding, Elise
• "Familial Constraints on Women's Work Roles" (1976)

• Brewis, Joanna
• "Who do you think you are? Feminism, work, ethics and Foucault" (1998)

• Culpan, Oya; Marzotto, Toni
• "Changing Attitudes toward Work and Marriage: Turkey in Transition" (1982)

• Davis, Angela
• "The Approaching Obsolescence of Housework: A Working-class Perspective" (1981)

• Federici, Silvia
• Caliban and the Witch (2004)

• Revolution at Point Zero: Housework, Reproduction, and Feminist Struggle (2012)

• "Marx, Feminism, and the Construction of the Commons" (2013)

• Ferguson, S; LeBaron, G; Dimitrakaki, A; Farris, S R
• "Introduction: Special issue on social reproduction" (2016)

• Ferguson, Susan
• Women and Work (2020)

• Foster, John Bellamy; Clark, Brett
• "Monthly Review | Women, Nature, and Capital in the Industrial Revolution" (2018)

• Fox, Bonnie
• Hidden in the Household: Women's Domestic Labour Under Capitalism (1980)

• Fraser, Nancy
• "Feminism, Capitalism, and the Cunning of History" (2012)

• "Contradictions of Capital and Care" (2016)

• Fraser, Nancy; Jaeggi, Rahel
• Capitalism: A Conversation in Critical Theory (2018)

• Greer,
• "Wages for Face-Work: Black Mirror's “Nosedive” and Digital Reproductive Labor" (n.d.)

• Holmstrom, Nancy
• The Socialist Feminist Project: A Contemporary Reader in Theory and Politics (2002)

• Hunt, Vilma R
• "Reproduction and Work" (1975)

• Jaggar, Alison M
• Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1983)

  (p.155) The sexual division of labor in different societies has varied so widely that it is notoriously difficult to construct general economic categories for understanding women's work cross-culturally, but one might suppose that it would be easier to develop categories explaining the sexual division of labor within a given society. Even in the case of contemporary industrial society, however, it is far from obvious how to provide a general and illuminating characterization of women's work that goes beyond the tautology that it is done by women.

• Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1983)

  (p.74) The traditional Marxist categories were not designed to capture the essential features of the sexual division of labor, and it is doubtful whether they are capable of doing the job. Within the public economy, for instance, there is in fact a sharp separation between jobs that are considered appropriate for men and those that are considered suitable for women; men and women rarely work side by side at the same job. The gender-blind categories of Marxist theory, however, obscure rather than reveal this fact. Even more seriously, the central Marxist categories hardly apply at all to the household, which is...

• Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1983)

  (p.78) By obscuring women's oppression, Marxist theory provides a rationale for its perpetuation. The biologistic conception of procreation legitimates women's continuing responsibility for procreative labor. This responsibility, in turn, hinders women's full participation in nonprocreative labor and legitimates sexsegregation in that sphere. At the same time, the biologistic conception of procreation leads to the devaluation of procreative labor: women's work may be socially necessary, but it is not fully historical and hence not fully human work.

• Feminist Politics and Human Nature (1983)

• Kamerman, Sheila B
• "Work and Family in Industrialized Societies" (1979)

• Kaplan Daniels, Arlene
• "Invisible Work" (1987)

• Laslett, Barbara; Brenner, Johanna
• "Gender and Social Reproduction: Historical Perspectives" (1989)

• Markusen, Ann R
• "City Spatial Structure, Women's Household Work, and National Urban Policy" (1980)

• Mies, Maria
• Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale (1986)

  (p.47) It is thus necessary, with regard to the concept of productivity of labour, to reject its narrow definitionand to show that labour can only be productive in the sense of producing surplus value as long as it can tap,extract, exploit, and appropriate that labour which is spent in the production of life, or in subsistence productionwhich is non-wage labour mainly done by women. As this production of life is the perennial preconditionof all other historical forms of productive labour, including that under conditions of capital accumulation,it has to be defined as work and not as unconscious 'natural' activity. Human beings do not only live: they produce their...

• Mojab, Shahrzad
• Marxism and Feminism (2015)

• Papanek, Hanna
• "Family Status Production: The" Work" And" Non-work" Of Women" (1979)

• Vogel, Lise
• Marxism and the Oppression of Women: Toward a Unitary Theory (1983)